Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Trakar]

see the post above. The Virginia Supreme Court heard this issue and SCOTUS will most likely hear the ATI case next year. My mistake.

It is currently in virginia circuit court, it won't be eligible for movement to virginia supreme court until well after a ruling is made at the circuit level. There are no guarantees the Va supreme court will ever hear the case, much less the SCOTUS.

 

[Trakar]

Of fraud, I already said this. :confused

You have to have some evidence that there is likely to be what you claim (ie., evidence of fraud) in the emails before you get to search them - "fishing trips" violate the 4rth amendment as they are without probable cause.

confused:

The emails haven't been made public. This is equivalent to asking if there's any indication a planet that hasn't been discovered yet has life on it. The emails were to be part of what is known legally as "discovery".

Fishing trip

 

[Trakar]

I don't believe anything. I said I would reserve judgement until all of the facts are known.

You have to evidence probable cause in order to seek evidence of a crime you suspect may have been committed. What leads you to suspect a crime, what is the probable cause?

 

[Furcifer]

What the result mean to you if he gets convicted as you hope? After all, the hockey stick has been confirmed by numerous other research projects so the science is not shaken. Will you then try to prove that all climate researchers fudge their results?

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

Mann being convicted of fraud would be one of the worst things to happen to science in a long time. It's not something anyone wishes for.
If he was found to have manipulated the data it would call into question the state of the science whereby "peer review" and other research projects could confirm such manipulations.
The implications are pretty obvious, I don't think they're necessarily as nefarious as you may believe.

 

[Furcifer]

Then this shows that total ignorance or denier bias of these lawyers.
If they knew anything about climate science then they would know that Mann's results have been confirmed by other researchers.
What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

This is a non sequitur.

These lawyers should believe that not only did Mann fudge his data but that Wahl & Ammann must have done this also. Where are the requests for Wahl & Ammann correspondence about their tax payer-funded research, Furcifer?
Can you smell harrasment of Mann ?

This is as well. Literally.

The Who's behind the 'information attacks' on climate scientists? link is about the evidence that the ATI is funded by a bunch of climate change deniers. They have a right to try to get the information. The UVA has the right to follow the correct procedure in disclosing the information which includes determining what is exempted.

One controversy has been that UVA did not follow this procedure, i.e. "prepare an indexed summary of potentially exempt documents and the specific exemption that applies" and if there is any dispute then a judge decides in camera. Instead they agreed that "ATI lawyers, including the very individuals who filed the open records request, to review all documents in the university’s possession, including material which will ultimately be exempt from disclosure.". The ATI lawyers would be under a gag order though.

Their motivation is evidence that they are harassing Mann (also see Timeline: Legal Harassment of Climate Scientist Michael Mann) because of the political beliefs of their backers, not because they have any evidence that the correspondence will show that Mann fudged his results.

If they're harassing the poor fellow then he should sue.

 

[Furcifer]

I am looking for the best evidence that global warming did recently come to a halt.

Even if it did, and it started in 1997, we've got at the very least another 15 years of "statistically insignificant" warming to see before we could begin to consider it's come to a halt.
There's very little to be made from the recenct lull. At least from a climate science standpoint. I have to agree with Capeldodgers point that this could very well be the golden age of denialism. It's perfect in the sense that if trending had continued like it was in the 90's it would be a couple tenths of a degree warmer today than it is.

I can't say much more about it than that because I don't think the warming has stopped. It probably is, it's just masked by the natural variations. The next 25 years or so will be key in determining by just how much and where it's headed in the next 50 and 100 years.

 

[Trakar]

Phil Jones (yes, that Phil Jones) also agreed in 2009 that there had been no statistically significant warming since 1995, which was seized on by the deniers with great glee. You'll find the full story, including the graph you're looking for, here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jones-says-no-global-warming-since-1995.htm

It is also important to realize that the temperature dataset in that graph is the more limited HAD/CRU set which lacks the more detailed polar and high latitude coverage, this accounts for the exageration of the "1998" temp and the minimalization of the 2005 and 2010 temps. I've always found it rather funny that Phil Jones is attacked and ridiculed by this crowd so much and yet they seize upon the HAD/CRU datasets with prejudice in trying to counter the NOAA/NASA global datasets.

 

[lomiller]

Nonsense. There's little debate that most of the observed warming over the last 150 years is due to anthropogenic sources.

I don’t understand your response. I asked what putting “some” in italics meant when you wrote that there were ” some scientific studies showing causation as a direct result of anthropogenic emissions”.

Are you trying to say the italics were there to tell us your post was “nonsense”?

There's little debate that most of the observed warming over the last 150 years is due to anthropogenic sources.

Incorrect on several points. The earth has been warming since ~1900, not the 150 years you incorrect claim. Your second error is that warming in the period 1900 to ~1950 is about an even mix of natural and anthropogenic effects.

There is however strong consensus that the statistically significant warming trend of ~0.17 deg per decade the earth has experienced since 1970 is almost entirely anthropogenic in nature.

 

[lomiller]

I have a real problem with how they calculate these temperatures though. Stated in the article i read (which gave the exact same years as the warmest) They use an avg. of temperatures from 1951-1980 as a baseline to measure all these temperatures.

There is no mention of any of the 1951-1980 temperatures as being listable individually.

That would skew any results towards the now by the nature of the measurement technique eh?

No.

It does not matter what baseline is used, it will not impact the final result. The only impact the choice of baseline has is where “0” shows up on your scale when you plot temperature anomaly. This is a consideration when comparing temperature records generated by different teams using different baselines. In these cases you need to compensate for the differing scales otherwise as long as the baseline choice is consistent it doesn’t really matter.

 

[lomiller]

When I discussed the Foster and Rahmstorf article I hoped to make it clear that I had read it. Their five raw unadjusted series show a strong upward trend; the mean temperature on each calendar decade is greater than the previous one. So the latest decade is the hottest decade on record. In the GISS series shows 2010 is the hottest year on record. The hottest year1998 on others is is an outlier, probably due to El Nino activity. I saw nothing there to support the view that the global warming trend had recently came to a halt.

I am looking for the best evidence that global warming did recently come to a halt. The ablest skeptic I have managed to find is Richard Madzen, who is certainly a real scientist and who did make that claim in 2009 in the Wall Street Journal. He cannot possibly have been using the F and R data, so I want to see the data he did use, preferably in graphic form. I am not looking for people who agree with me on this, I am looking for people who disagree.

There is no data in any serious peer reviewed source supporting that claim, nor could such data reasonably pass proper peer review. There are 5 main global temperature data sets. 3 that measure surface temperature (GISS, HadCRU, NCDC) and 2 Satellite sets (RSS and UAH) that measure lower troposphere temperatures.
All 5 of these fail tests for statistical significance in the period in question. The paper you were directed to attempts to remove some of the known variation in order to obtain a statistically significant result, but their conclusion is that the warming trend continues.

I suspect the stuff about modelling falure is just handwaving. Perhaps what Lindzen should have written is:" there has been global warming over the last few years but it has not been statistically significant". Statistical significance of course need not imply practical significance. A random sample of ten thousand Ruritanians might show that they are a millimetre taller than the European average. That result would be statistically significant. A random sample of nine Dutchmen might show they were three inches taller than the average American. That would be evidence for a significant difference, but it might not be statistically significant, especially if there was wide variation within the tiny group. Perhaps I have it wrong, but I am assuming that Madzen’s null hypothesis here is that there has been no increase or decrease of underlying warming over this fourteen year period. At some level of significance the visible evidence that there was such warming is not strong enough for him to reject that null hypothesis. But that null hypothesis it seems to me would only be of interest if the world began 14 years ago. However I am ready to be corrected by Westwall or Furcifer or any other defender of Madzen

More outright deception than hand waving. Reducing the period being evaluated decreases the statistical significant of the trend. It’s always possible to choose a period short enough that no statistically significant trend exists. As you suggest the correct way to interpret this is that the period in question is too short to establish that the existing trend has changed.

 

[BenBurch]

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

Mann being convicted of fraud would be one of the worst things to happen to science in a long time. It's not something anyone wishes for.

...

I wish that were true, the part about nobody wishing for it. I agree it would have a chilling effect on science. That case in Italy over the earthquake also is a terrible, terrible thing.

 

[CapelDodger]

Well "guilty" isn't the right word. If the court forces UVA to disclose the emails it could lead to him being charged with defrauding the tax payers. The case against him was dismissed due to some poor wording by the GA and SCOTUS saying commonwealth institutions aren't "people" and therefore not subject to the same FOI requests.

The case won't continue because it is a fishing-expedition - there is no prima facie evidence that any crime has been committed. It is a purely political action, as unconstitutional as Nixon setting the IRS on reporters he regarded as enemies. Resisting it is an action of principle. Give in to these people once and there'll be no stopping their harassment.

The hypothesised fraud is, of course, based on the religiously held conviction of many deniers that the Mann et al Hockey-Stick is a deliberate fabrication. Which it isn't, any more than all the subsequent reconstructions are.

 

[CapelDodger]

Fraud. The ATI case and the one in BC may make the emails public. If the emails show he set out to manipulate data in order to secure funding he may face fraud charges.

Do you have the slightest reason (other than desperate hope) to think that he did?

I don't understand why this wasn't mediated? I can understand not wanting your personal emails made public, but at the same time if you don't have anything to hide why not just show your hand? Release the emails to a third party with no interest in the case and let them decide.

Because then the next case will have to be mediated, and the next, and the next. That's what vexatious litigation is for - to make ordinary life impossible.

Let's not forget that the third party would be next if it determined that there is, in fact, no evidence to warm the cockles of your heart. They would, after all, have to be paid for all that work out of taxpayer funds, making them government agents and hence arguably subject to FoI on any documentation and communications related to the matter. The ATI's not going to run short of money or inclination, and there are plenty of other astroturf organisations ready to join in.

 

[CapelDodger]

I don't believe anything. I said I would reserve judgement until all of the facts are known.

But you'll keep bringing it up, won't you? Not that you're saying he's guilty, heaven forfend, you're just reminding everybody that's he's having to hire lawyers. Not that you're saying "no smoke without fire" either, of course, but, well, there it is.

Then again, you've always suspected that Mann's a bit dodgy, haven't you? Even before SlimeItGate.

 

[CapelDodger]

And you believe that he did this because of what evidences? What leads you to believe that incriminating evidences of this presumed behavior exist within the private communications you desire to have made public?

But ... the ATI and Cuccinelli (he's astate attorney-general, you know) must have some reason to demand them. What else could it be than well-founded suspicions?

There's no limit to the gullibility of some people when presented with something they really want to believe. The saddest thing is that deniers really believe that if they can just bring down Mann they win the game, and the world snaps back to normal. They're still living in 1999, emotionally.

Meanwhile in the big world :

Another well-deserved honor: Oeschger medal awarded to Michael Mann
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...honor-oeschger-medal-awarded-to-michael-mann/

 

[CapelDodger]

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

Mann being convicted of fraud would be one of the worst things to happen to science in a long time. It's not something anyone wishes for.
If he was found to have manipulated the data it would call into question the state of the science whereby "peer review" and other research projects could confirm such manipulations.

Thus completing the denier project - which has long been about denigrating peer-review (it works against them) and the modern world of science (which also works against them; they're not terribly happy with the laws of physics either). If they'd been successful in that effort outside their shrinking club it would have been a very bad thing for science, but they've had only a moderate impact in the US and barely any elsewhere. In the big world people still rate scientists well ahead of lobbyists and lawyers.

The implications are pretty obvious, I don't think they're necessarily as nefarious as you may believe.

The assault on science that was inaugurated by the tobacco lobby back in the 60's is just as nefarious as it seems.

 

[CapelDodger]

More recently Mazen has made the similar claim:

'The IPCC claim that most of the recent warming (since the 1950s) is due to man assumed that current models adequately accounted for natural internal variability. The failure of these models to anticipate the fact that there has been no statistically significant warming for the past 14 years or so contradicts this assumption. This has been acknowledged by major modeling groups in England and Germany”'

I suspect the stuff about modelling falure is just handwaving.

Actually he's just lying. In an infamously misrepresented paper, Mojib Latif showed that models could generate a decade or even two of no significant warming and modellers did not kick up any sort of fuss.

Lindzen may be twisting the sense to "no model run 14 years ago predicted exactly what's actually happened", but of course no model is expected to predict the year-by-year evolution of the climate and even so long ago they were running ensembles.

It's all bollocks, but Lindzen, the WSJ, the blogosphere, waddya gonna do?

Perhaps what Lindzen should have written is:" there has been global warming over the last few years but it has not been statistically significant".

What he should have written depends on his objective, and that isn't to inform in this case. Lindzen is first and foremost a polemicist, and for his purposes he wrote just what he should have done. In Lindzen we see a marriage of intelligence with complete absence of integrity.

Perhaps I have it wrong, but I am assuming that Madzen’s null hypothesis here is that there has been no increase or decrease of underlying warming over this fourteen year period.

I'm assuming his hypotheses are entirely concerned with the gullibility of his audience, and the best ways to exploit it.

Were he speaking as a scientist, his null hypothesis would be that there was no underlying trend in global temperature over the period, which warming would have to be tested statistically against.

It's worth noting that 95% as "statistically significant" is quite arbitrary. Deniers naturally seek out the longest period that sneaks under that. When Phil Jones was ambushed the significance was 93% in 15 years (1995-2009). 2010 pushed it to 95% so now it's back to 14 years from '97. In a few years they'll be down to 12 or less, mark my words .

At some level of significance the visible evidence that there was such warming is not strong enough for him to reject that null hypothesis. But that null hypothesis it seems to me would only be of interest if the world began 14 years ago. However I am ready to be corrected by Westwall or Furcifer or any other defender of Madzen

I'm never going to defend a scientist who keeps his emails secret just because he's working for the private sector. Damn' suspicious, that sort of behaviour .

 

[Furcifer]

I don’t understand your response. I asked what putting “some” in italics meant when you wrote that there were ” some scientific studies showing causation as a direct result of anthropogenic emissions”.

Are you trying to say the italics were there to tell us your post was “nonsense”?

No.

Incorrect on several points. The earth has been warming since ~1900, not the 150 years you incorrect claim. Your second error is that warming in the period 1900 to ~1950 is about an even mix of natural and anthropogenic effects.

There is however strong consensus that the statistically significant warming trend of ~0.17 deg per decade the earth has experienced since 1970 is almost entirely anthropogenic in nature.

Nonsense. You're confusing global warming with anthropogenic emissions and AGW. Deliberately.

 

[CapelDodger]

It is also important to realize that the temperature dataset in that graph is the more limited HAD/CRU set which lacks the more detailed polar and high latitude coverage, this accounts for the exageration of the "1998" temp and the minimalization of the 2005 and 2010 temps. I've always found it rather funny that Phil Jones is attacked and ridiculed by this crowd so much and yet they seize upon the HAD/CRU datasets with prejudice in trying to counter the NOAA/NASA global datasets.

It's called "flexible thinking", and who wouldn't want to be a flexible thinker?

The deniers can't seem to work out where the Prime Nexus lies. Is it at UEA or Mauna Loa or Penn State or Tibet? Somewhere else entirely? How can we know while the bulk of the SlimeItGate emails are kept from us by the whistleblower (whose motivation eludes me)? We might still not know if we could read them all, but the whistleblower must be hiding something.

Perhaps Mann et al did fake a reconstruction that happened to coincide with almost all later ones. And perhaps Phil Jones and Hansen did coordinate matching distortions of HADR/CRU and GISS just as Arctic sea-ice and glacial retreat happened to take place. Perhaps all the national science institutes of the world acknowledge the reality and danger of AGW due to a failure of peer-review. But only in a Lewis Carroll world.

 

[Furcifer]

The case won't continue because it is a fishing-expedition - there is no prima facie evidence that any crime has been committed. It is a purely political action, as unconstitutional as Nixon setting the IRS on reporters he regarded as enemies. Resisting it is an action of principle. Give in to these people once and there'll be no stopping their harassment.

The hypothesised fraud is, of course, based on the religiously held conviction of many deniers that the Mann et al Hockey-Stick is a deliberate fabrication. Which it isn't, any more than all the subsequent reconstructions are.

It doesn't matter if it's a fishing expedition or not, the FIOA doesn't make that distinction.
It's my right as a taxpayer to know what the mayor of Toronto makes every year, so long as it's over 100K. It doesn't matter if I want to use it to paint him as a rich snob out of touch with the common people.
If the emails fall under the FOIA then they're fair game. If they don't then they not. It's unclear right now if they do so it will probably go to the higher court.
I understand not wanting to make your emails public. At the same time it seems a little strange that he's not sharing them. He's been a part of the investigation into the hacked emails where the end result was a call for more transparency. If there's nothing to hide in the emails you have to admit given what's happened it's in his best interest to comply with these suggestions and be more transparent.