Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#4,676
#4,676
BartW said:
Huh? You even pointed out why Pielke was targeted in this instance: his congressional testimony. The letter even specifically cites Jon Holdren’s beef:

Drought and Global Climate Change: An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr

Pielke has a history, too, but if all you can see is persecution I can’t change that.

Can you specifically give me an example of environmental groups funding climate change research? I don’t mean funding alternative energy technologies, public policy efforts, adaptation, etc. Give me a publication purely about the science. Give me something that is widely used by alarmists to exaggerate the threat of global warming. What activist-funded climate research, if fraudulent (a la Willie Soon), would undermine the consensus on AGW?
Click to expand...

I don't know why you continue with the exaggerated statements like "if all you can see is".

My larger point is that people with findings that challenge even the less established relationships (link between AGW and disaster severity - a link which both you and Mtntrout acknowledge has not received any conclusiveness) they are subject to extra scrutiny AND in some cases personal attacks, intimidation, etc.

Just as there are "Merchants of Doom" there are "Merchants of Doubt".

As for E-funding of science that would take some considerable research - to my knowledge those who were on the "Dark Money" trail never turned their attention to funding from environmental groups or lobbies.

On your last statement you have a bit of a red herring. I'm not discussing undermining the consensus. I never have been.

As I understand the consensus it surrounds the link between increasing introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere (as a result of man's activity) and warming. There is not consensus on many of the other "outcomes" of the warming (ie. what Pielke commented on) but these outcomes are often lumped into the consensus pile.
 
Last edited:
#4,677
#4,677
volinbham said:
Simply not true (last statement). There is a difference between criticism on the merits of the argument and what is happening to Pielke for example.
Click to expand...

BartW said:
Huh? You even pointed out why Pielke was targeted in this instance: his congressional testimony. The letter even specifically cites Jon Holdren’s beef:

Drought and Global Climate Change: An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr
Click to expand...

I'm trying to see what you objecting to here.

From what I can tell there is a dispute in research findings and interpretation between the WH representative and Pielke.

That's fine, no problem with that. The WH defending it's position on why they think it's correct. Again, no problem.

Where they take it too far is the Congressional Inquiry seeking ALL information of any testimony ever given by him, his speeches and ANY money he got from ANY source outside the university for ANY thing. It is clear this is an attempt to discredit him.

Many in the scientific community (even those who disagree with his conclusions or research) have come to his defense saying this is simply wrong.

I would also say that the WH response is not vetted by the scientific community - it is the equivalent of a blog. They are certainly entitled to express their opinion but they certainly have an agenda which Pielke's work/testimony is counter to.
 
#4,679
#4,679
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,684
#4,684
Mtntrout said:
Pretty damn elaborate and clever hoax. Even the flowers are in on it.

Earliest Blooms Recorded in U.S. Due to Global Warming
Click to expand...

That article is from Jan 2013. I'm sure the people of Wisconsin and Massachusetts would kill to see some flowers but that's not possible with 100+ inches of snow and the coldest February on record

Oh there are lots of articles like this

Cold weather forces county farmers to delay planting of crops - News - lancasteronline.com

Cold Causes Farmers To Delay Seeding | WNEP.com

Crop planting in South Jersey delayed by harsh winter, farmers say | NJ.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,686
#4,686
VolsNSkinsFan said:
That article is from Jan 2013. I'm sure the people of Wisconsin and Massachusetts would kill to see some flowers but that's not possible with 100+ inches of snow and the coldest February on record

Oh there are lots of articles like this

Cold weather forces county farmers to delay planting of crops - News - lancasteronline.com

Cold Causes Farmers To Delay Seeding | WNEP.com

Crop planting in South Jersey delayed by harsh winter, farmers say | NJ.com
Click to expand...

What exactly do they grow in South Jersey?
 
#4,688
#4,688
VolsNSkinsFan said:
That article is from Jan 2013. I'm sure the people of Wisconsin and Massachusetts would kill to see some flowers but that's not possible with 100+ inches of snow and the coldest February on record

Oh there are lots of articles like this

Cold weather forces county farmers to delay planting of crops - News - lancasteronline.com

Cold Causes Farmers To Delay Seeding | WNEP.com

Crop planting in South Jersey delayed by harsh winter, farmers say | NJ.com
Click to expand...

Simple question: are you unable to distinguish between weather events and long-term trends? If you say no, I'll stop bothering you on this topic and just skip on by. I'm starting to sense there is a fundamental communication problem occurring between what this thread is about and what you think it is about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4,689
#4,689
volinbham said:
What's your opinion of PLoS One as a research outlet?

(I'm not questioning the study in the article you linked - just curious what your view on the PLoS One publication process)
Click to expand...

It isn't ideal, but research outlets in general are a problem right now (as you probably know, I am thinking you must work in academia to even be asking that sort of question).

If I want to share a paper that someone can actually read without spending hundreds to thousands on a subscription, I have to find or publish articles in journals that may not be selective or rigorous in their evaluations. If I want to share a paper with someone which is thoroughly vetted, it is going to be behind a paywall. There's not a winning situation here.

In this particular case, I have read many papers on phenology relating to flowering and hatch times in temperate and polar latitudes to know this is a well-substantiated phenomena, so I didn't hesitate to share that link.

I'm actually hoping to look into such research myself on some high altitude frog populations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,690
#4,690
Mtntrout said:
Simple question: are you unable to distinguish between weather events and long-term trends? If you say no, I'll stop bothering you on this topic and just skip on by. I'm starting to sense there is a fundamental communication problem occurring between what this thread is about and what you think it is about.
Click to expand...

Yes I am. Which is why I posted how Global Cyclonic Activity for the past 40 years hasn't increased and is actually trending down. If the earth was heating up from all the CO2 we have pumped since the 70s, why hasn't cyclonic activity picked up too? You seemed to have ignored the question a few pages ago. Meanwhile the majority of US crops will have to be delayed again
 
#4,691
#4,691
Mtntrout said:
It isn't ideal, but research outlets in general are a problem right now (as you probably know, I am thinking you must work in academia to even be asking that sort of question).

If I want to share a paper that someone can actually read without spending hundreds to thousands on a subscription, I have to find or publish articles in journals that may not be selective or rigorous in their evaluations. If I want to share a paper with someone which is thoroughly vetted, it is going to be behind a paywall. There's not a winning situation here.

In this particular case, I have read many papers on phenology relating to flowering and hatch times in temperate and polar latitudes to know this is a well-substantiated phenomena, so I didn't hesitate to share that link.

I'm actually hoping to look into such research myself on some high altitude frog populations.
Click to expand...

I do work in academia and do publish. Of the 2 options you present I think we have to stick with the latter since the whole notion of rigor and blind review is what fields are built upon. The limited review, pay to publish route is fine for exploratory research but I think the latter is necessary for validation.

Speaking validation I say the most glaring problem with our publishing system is that replication and validation is de facto discouraged. There's an interesting article about it in the Economist that challenges the notion that science is self-correcting (at least via peer review and publication).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,692
#4,692
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Yes I am. Which is why I posted how Global Cyclonic Activity for the past 40 years hasn't increased and is actually trending down. If the earth was heating up from all the CO2 we have pumped since the 70s, why hasn't cyclonic activity picked up too? You seemed to have ignored the question a few pages ago. Meanwhile the majority of US crops will have to be delayed again
Click to expand...
Oh, good. So how was it intellectually honest of you to post links about planting crops in February of 2015 in the eastern US, when referencing global trends over several decades? If you understand the difference, you can see why I feel you are being intentionally deceptive.


Why look to global cyclonic activity to tell you about global temperature, rather than looking at.. I don't know... global temperature, for example?

I didn't ignore the question, it is just a non sequitur. Could you share a link to Global Cyclonic Activity theory?

As far as I know, and I know pretty far on this, it was always just an idea or hypothesis that as of yet has never actually produced any supporting evidence. I remember at the University of Tennessee when two scientists in the mid 2000's were looking for evidence of increased hurricane activity in the Caribbean using oxygen isotopes. They didn't find any. I remember reading more than a few papers doing similar things. As of right now, there doesn't seem to be any link or change. Perhaps that will change now that the ocean is absorbing more of the heat. Perhaps it won't.

None of that changes the empirical facts about global temperature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#4,693
#4,693
volinbham said:
I do work in academia and do publish. Of the 2 options you present I think we have to stick with the latter since the whole notion of rigor and blind review is what fields are built upon. The limited review, pay to publish route is fine for exploratory research but I think the latter is necessary for validation.

Speaking validation I say the most glaring problem with our publishing system is that replication and validation is de facto discouraged. There's an interesting article about it in the Economist that challenges the notion that science is self-correcting (at least via peer review and publication).
Click to expand...

Well, I would say having for-profit publishing entities is a large part of the problem. Somehow I doubt you will agree.

The other part of the problem is an over-emphasis on the number of pubs and "impact factor" when filling academic positions.
 
#4,694
#4,694
It's not a theory, it's an index

Accumulated cyclone energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you tell us we need to act b/c storms will increase in strength & frequency and that's not happening, how are we supposed to take you seriously?

How are we supposed to take NOAA temperature data seriously when they adjust their raw temp data readings? A tempature is a tempature. Why are they being adjusted?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,695
#4,695
Mtntrout said:
Well, I would say having for-profit publishing entities is a large part of the problem. Somehow I doubt you will agree.

The other part of the problem is an over-emphasis on the number of pubs and "impact factor" when filling academic positions.
Click to expand...

For profit or not-for-profit they still have to pay to run the publication and print the journals that libraries buy.

Let's say the profit margin for a for-profit publishing company is 10% (a high PM by the way). If you could theoretically remove all margin (not-for-profits need some margin too) would you say that reducing the subscription rate by 10% would make much difference in access?

Costs are costs. Changing from profit to not-for-profit doesn't change that.
 
#4,696
#4,696
Mtntrout said:
Simple question: are you unable to distinguish between weather events and long-term trends?
Click to expand...

I will say this in his defense. The paper you cited was about 2 specific years in two narrowly defined geographic areas. I'm sure you would agree that the localized weather in those areas in those 2 years was the primary factor in bloom time.

I would imagine I could find a couple examples of extremely late blooming in a few localized areas during our period of warming but that would not invalidate AGW as whole.
 
#4,697
#4,697
volinbham said:
I don't know why you continue with the exaggerated statements like "if all you can see is".
Click to expand...
It was just a jab at your statement “if you don’t see it I can’t change that”
volinbham said:
My larger point is that people with findings that challenge even the less established relationships (link between AGW and disaster severity - a link which both you and Mtntrout acknowledge has not received any conclusiveness) they are subject to extra scrutiny AND in some cases personal attacks, intimidation, etc.
Click to expand...
Yes I know this is the point you want to make. You are just failing to do so.
volinbham said:
Just as there are "Merchants of Doom" there are "Merchants of Doubt".

As for E-funding of science that would take some considerable research - to my knowledge those who were on the "Dark Money" trail never turned their attention to funding from environmental groups or lobbies.

On your last statement you have a bit of a red herring. I'm not discussing undermining the consensus. I never have been.
Click to expand...
I’m just trying to get you to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. You like to play this game of “yeah the skeptics suck, but proponents suck equally”. You’re setting up false equivalencies. For example, the false equivalency earlier between Willie Soon’s shenanigans and a science writer conflating climate change and ocean acidification. To you, they’re both (equally) “peddlers of disinformation”.

Now you’re trying to compare “funding from green energy lobbies” to the denial-for-hire cashflow. To make a fair and relevant comparison we need to look at funding from green energy lobbies to climate science, preferably with the quid pro quo in writing. You admit you have zero examples, so your comparison fails.
volinbham said:
As I understand the consensus it surrounds the link between increasing introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere (as a result of man's activity) and warming. There is not consensus on many of the other "outcomes" of the warming (ie. what Pielke commented on) but these outcomes are often lumped into the consensus pile.
Click to expand...
John Holdren’s analysis shows otherwise.
volinbham said:
I'm trying to see what you objecting to here.

From what I can tell there is a dispute in research findings and interpretation between the WH representative and Pielke.

That's fine, no problem with that. The WH defending it's position on why they think it's correct. Again, no problem.

Where they take it too far is the Congressional Inquiry seeking ALL information of any testimony ever given by him, his speeches and ANY money he got from ANY source outside the university for ANY thing. It is clear this is an attempt to discredit him.

Many in the scientific community (even those who disagree with his conclusions or research) have come to his defense saying this is simply wrong.

I would also say that the WH response is not vetted by the scientific community - it is the equivalent of a blog. They are certainly entitled to express their opinion but they certainly have an agenda which Pielke's work/testimony is counter to.
Click to expand...
I agree that the dems’ letter goes too far.

I think you vastly underestimate Holdren’s scientific expertise and authority. His response liberally cites scientific publications including the IPCC reports, so your assumption that it is not vetted by the scientific community is a pretty assy assumption.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,699
#4,699
BartW said:
It was just a jab at your statement “if you don’t see it I can’t change that”

Yes I know this is the point you want to make. You are just failing to do so.

I’m just trying to get you to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. You like to play this game of “yeah the skeptics suck, but proponents suck equally”. You’re setting up false equivalencies. For example, the false equivalency earlier between Willie Soon’s shenanigans and a science writer conflating climate change and ocean acidification. To you, they’re both (equally) “peddlers of disinformation”.
Click to expand...

I have never stated or claimed equality. That is you reading far too much into my comments.

More importantly, I'm focusing almost entirely on how people are using the science incorrectly rather suggesting the science is bad.

BartW said:
Now you’re trying to compare “funding from green energy lobbies” to the denial-for-hire cashflow. To make a fair and relevant comparison we need to look at funding from green energy lobbies to climate science, preferably with the quid pro quo in writing. You admit you have zero examples, so your comparison fails.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to compare them. We know it has happened on one side. I'm suggesting that it could be happening on the other side since there are financial incentives on all sides of the issue.

Let's make this simpler - here's what I'm not saying:

1. I'm not saying it is happening
2. Even if it does happen I'm not suggesting it is widespread or changes the consensus on the link between CO2 and warming.

I am suggesting that because there are parties that stand to profit from policy there is an incentive to fund research that supports the policy one seeks.

That is human nature I'm afraid. It is naive to believe that only one side of an issue would stoop to biased methods to support their potential gravy train.

So, I'm raising the possibility that given the financial incentives or pure passion for the issue that it may occur in cases other than the fossil fuel folks.

I would like to see those who traced the Dark Money trail take a look. Would be an interesting story if there's any thing to it.

BartW said:
John Holdren’s analysis shows otherwise.
Click to expand...

No doubt. Why is his analysis the superior one? Isn't it more common in such matters to have competing conclusions, analyses?

As I said I have no beef with defending one's position.[/QUOTE]

BartW said:
I agree that the dems’ letter goes too far.
Click to expand...

Good to hear. We agree on something :)

BartW said:
I think you vastly underestimate Holdren’s scientific expertise and authority. His response liberally cites scientific publications including the IPCC reports, so your assumption that it is not vetted by the scientific community is a pretty assy assumption.
Click to expand...

Again I think you are missing my point. I'm not questioning his scientific bonafides. You've pointed out many times in this thread that blogs, opinion pieces are distinct in scientific merit from peer-reviewed pubs. I agree and was just pointing out that his objection was the equivalent of a blog post. He may be 100% correct but his analysis hasn't past peer-review muster. You believe him but Pielke's work also cites many scientific publications.

So I'm not being assy about Holdren - I'm applying the standard you've applied many times.

It seems to me that these exchanges are more based on assumptions about each other's intent rather than the content of the post.

I'm taking a contrary position to you for contrast. It doesn't mean I doubt the science, or that I think the bad behavior among scientists is equally distributed. I'm just pointing out the counter side.

I do think that there are plenty of examples of bad behavior in the policy advocacy and general public statement realm beyond scientists. I've pointed out many in this thread. :hi:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement













Back
Top