Global Warming Debates

[DrRyanScarsella]

Lately, I have heard two arguments on global warming. One states that the ozone is depleting and that The polar caps are melting raising the level of the ocean. This in turn is effecting the el nino causing weather changes resulting in an increase in overall temperature. Then, I also was exposed to an argument that state it is a cycle of climate change which is normal throughout the millenia.
Does anyone out there know more about this, possibly a scientist in this area who can give me some explanation as to what they believe is going on with some links or studies which can prove or disprove these conflicting thoughts.
I just want a professional opinion.
Thanks

[Amapola]

Do a search through the forum titles with the words "global warming". This is what I came up with: http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=88741 This topic has been discussed very vehemently on both sides.......

[kevin]

I just want a professional opinion.
Thanks

I like the Real Climate blog. It's a group of climatologists that post info about climate change aimed towards explaining the science (and mostly avoiding the politics) of global climate change.

http://www.realclimate.org/

I especially liked their comments on Michael Crichton's book.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

[Ziggurat]

Lately, I have heard two arguments on global warming. One states that the ozone is depleting and that The polar caps are melting raising the level of the ocean.

Ozone depletion is a rather different problem than global warming, .

Ozone is three oxygen atoms bound together in an unstable molecule (O3), and it decays over time back into O2. Ozone forms when high energy ultraviolet light hitting the upper atmosphere breaks apart O2 molecules, and the free oxygen atoms bind onto O2 molecules. So ozone is naturally being created and destroyed constantly, regardless of human activity. There have pretty much always been, and always will be, "holes" in the ozone at the poles because the amount of sunlight hitting the poles is very low.

Ultraviolet radiation is often broken down into three categories, UVa, UVb, and UVc (with the later being higher energy and more damaging). UVc is absorbed completely by ordinary oxygen in the atmosphere, and that absorption is responsible for the creation of ozone. Ozone is largely responsible for absorbing most (but not all) UVb.

There are a number of chemicals, such as man-made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which increase the rate at which O3 decays and hence can decrease the amount of ozone in the atmosphere at any given time. But there are non-human sources for ozone-depleting gases in the atmosphere as well, such as volcanic eruptions. Because ozone is constantly being generated, we have never actually been at risk of running out of ozone. The main risk from ozone depletion was an increase in UV exposure and hence skin cancer from a thinning of the ozone layer, not global warming. Since the use of CFC's has been greatly curtailed, the ozone "hole" risk is decreasing, and was never as dramatic as some feared to begin with.

[Mojo]

I keep reading the title of this thread as "Global Warming Diabetes" and thinking that Kumar's back with another crackpot idea.

[a_unique_person]

Lately, I have heard two arguments on global warming. One states that the ozone is depleting and that The polar caps are melting raising the level of the ocean. This in turn is effecting the el nino causing weather changes resulting in an increase in overall temperature. Then, I also was exposed to an argument that state it is a cycle of climate change which is normal throughout the millenia.
Does anyone out there know more about this, possibly a scientist in this area who can give me some explanation as to what they believe is going on with some links or studies which can prove or disprove these conflicting thoughts.
I just want a professional opinion.
Thanks

For an excellent book on the topic, which includes the influence of the Ozone layer, (it is a part of the climate system), read "The Weather Makers" http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0871139359/qid=1136506320/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2712188-9016709?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

[lenny]

Lately, I have heard two arguments on global warming. One states that the ozone is depleting and that The polar caps are melting raising the level of the ocean. This in turn is effecting the el nino causing weather changes resulting in an increase in overall temperature. ...I just want a professional opinion.
The phenomena you mention are all part of the earth-system mix, but are not mixed in quite the way you suggest. in short:

a) the observations demonstrate significant warming-on-average, but the duration of observations makes it hard to establish exactly how to quantify "significant".

b) our models almost all show continued warming, due to greenhouse gases.

c) the uncertainties in future changes, even assuming the models are realistic, are very very large. and we know that even state-of-the-art models are not realistic in the sort of details that policy makers would like for decision support issues.

it is often difficult for climate scientists to be blunt about the current level of uncertainty,when carefully worded statements "yield" banner headlines.

[Diamond]

I like the Real Climate blog. It's a group of climatologists that post info about climate change aimed towards explaining the science (and mostly avoiding the politics) of global climate change.

http://www.realclimate.org/

I especially liked their comments on Michael Crichton's book.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

And if you want to know how those scientists faked their results see http://www.climateaudit.org

Like much of realclimate's arguments, their comment on Michael Crichton's books is weak and contrived.

Realclimate regularly censors opposing views even when those views come from experts in statistics. On the other hand it lets through comments in favor of their alarmist beliefs that can only be described as disgraceful.

[Schneibster]

Too bad M&M don't actually address the fact that they screwed up and mixed radian and degree measurements without converting. That is a screwup of monumental proportions, and until it is addressed, I have absolutely no interest in anything else M&M might have to say. To claim that a paper that makes such a mistake is "peer reviewed" is a joke.

[Geckko]

Too bad M&M don't actually address the fact that they screwed up and mixed radian and degree measurements without converting. That is a screwup of monumental proportions, and until it is addressed, I have absolutely no interest in anything else M&M might have to say. To claim that a paper that makes such a mistake is "peer reviewed" is a joke.

That is interesting.

Do you know what exacty were the circumstances of this error? Did they fail to understand the difference between radians and degrees?

Also, in which paper by McIntyre and McKitrick did this error appear and what was their reaction to its discovery?

[lenny]

To claim that a paper that makes such a mistake is "peer reviewed" is a joke. a paper is peer reviewed if it has made it through the process.

the fact that papers with such errors make it though is not surprising really; but it happens more and more often, and if it eventually happens too often it will make peer review a sad joke.

[uruk]

I still say that global warming in going to kick in right when the next ice age is due. That means were going to have really awesome weather for the next few thousand years.

[Rolfe]

There was a new report being touted on the BBC today, the proceedings of a Met office conference last year. This allegedly draws all the climate change science together. I'd like to hear what the global warming sceptics have to say is wrong with this. From a safe position in row Z, for preference!

Article is here. Stark warning over climate change (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4660938.stm).

Rolfe.

[a_unique_person]

I still say that global warming in going to kick in right when the next ice age is due. That means were going to have really awesome weather for the next few thousand years.

Wishful thinking.

[a_unique_person]

There was a new report being touted on the BBC today, the proceedings of a Met office conference last year. This allegedly draws all the climate change science together. I'd like to hear what the global warming sceptics have to say is wrong with this. From a safe position in row Z, for preference!

Article is here. Stark warning over climate change (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4660938.stm).

Rolfe.
Yes,

I heard that on the news. It is worrying. Specifically, the probability of the ice sheets melting is quite high.

[lenny]

Specifically, the probability of the ice sheets melting is quite high.
i would be very interested to learn who said this? did they quantify the probability?

thanks

[a_unique_person]

Rolfe has the link.

[Geckko]

There was a new report being touted on the BBC today, the proceedings of a Met office conference last year. This allegedly draws all the climate change science together. I'd like to hear what the global warming sceptics have to say is wrong with this. From a safe position in row Z, for preference!

Article is here. Stark warning over climate change (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4660938.stm).

Rolfe.

I believe that climate change poses a real challenge to the world. However, that link is a perfect example of some of the ludicrous reportage and comment that only damages the credibility of the scientific foundation of anthropogenic climate change. My example here is this quote:

[quote]
But Myles Allen, a lecturer on atmospheric physics at Oxford University, said assessing a "safe level" of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was "a bit like asking a doctor what's a safe number of cigarettes to smoke per day".
"There isn't one, but at the same time people do smoke and live until they're 90," he told Today.[\quote]

If you don't understand how stupid that statement is just change "carbon dioxide" to "oxygen" and it might hit home.

With friends like Myles Allen, who needs enemies.

[Melendwyr]

Since the use of CFC's has been greatly curtailed, the ozone "hole" risk is decreasing, and was never as dramatic as some feared to begin with. As it takes decades for released CFCs to reach the upper atmosphere and degrade the ozone, the risk is still increasing, and will continue to increase for quite some time.

Methinks you've been listening to some neo-cons.

[a_unique_person]

I believe that climate change poses a real challenge to the world. However, that link is a perfect example of some of the ludicrous reportage and comment that only damages the credibility of the scientific foundation of anthropogenic climate change. My example here is this quote:

[quote]
But Myles Allen, a lecturer on atmospheric physics at Oxford University, said assessing a "safe level" of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was "a bit like asking a doctor what's a safe number of cigarettes to smoke per day".
"There isn't one, but at the same time people do smoke and live until they're 90," he told Today.[\quote]

If you don't understand how stupid that statement is just change "carbon dioxide" to "oxygen" and it might hit home.

With friends like Myles Allen, who needs enemies.

I winced when I read that. There is of course a safe level for CO2, which is necessarily greater than 0. Without it, we would have no plants and the planet would be about 30C cooler.

[lenny]

I believe that climate change poses a real challenge to the world. However, that link is a perfect example of some of the ludicrous reportage and comment that only damages the credibility of the scientific foundation of anthropogenic climate change. My example here is this quote:
But Myles Allen, a lecturer on atmospheric physics at Oxford University, said assessing a "safe level" of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was "a bit like asking a doctor what's a safe number of cigarettes to smoke per day".
"There isn't one, but at the same time people do smoke and live until they're 90," he told Today.
If you don't understand how stupid that statement is just change "carbon dioxide" to "oxygen" and it might hit home.

so i'd first aknowledge that i have a personal bias here.

but then i'd ask you to explain your "oxygen" statement; myles' analogy makes good sense to me...

[lenny]

Rolfe has the link.
i see the link. did they quantify the probabiltiy or not? what does "quite high" mean to you?

[lenny]

I winced when I read that. There is of course a safe level for CO2, which is necessarily greater than 0. Without it, we would have no plants and the planet would be about 30C cooler.
so, what is the safe level? exactly?

and what would fixing the atmospheric concentration at this level do for us? how would that be "safe"? exactly.

why did you wince?

[Schneibster]

Appears "60 Minutes" has joined the fray. Here's a quote from Scott Pelley, a conservative reporter, in response to various complaints about the piece: There is virtually no disagreement in the scientific community any longer about global warming. The science that has been done in the last three to five years has been conclusive. We talked to the chairman of the National Academy of Scientists, Ralph Cicerone. Jim Hansen at NASA, who's considered the world's leading expert in climate change. The people in the story, who are well respected in the field. There's just no longer any credible evidence that suggests that, a, the earth is not warming or, b, that greenhouse gasses are not the cause. What you do see in the data again and again and again is this almost lockstep increase between the levels of CO2 and the rise of temperature in the atmosphere. And the climate models that predicted these things happening 15 years ago have proven to be accurate.

It would be irresponsible of us to go find some scientist somewhere who is not thought of as being eminent in the field and put him on television with these other guys to cast doubt on what they're saying. It would be difficult to find a scientist worth his salt in this subject who would suggest this wasn't happening. It would probably be someone whose grant has been funded by someone who finds reducing fossil fuel emissions detrimental to their own interests.Strong stuff; he's confident in his sources. The "debate," which was funded in the first place by fossil-fuel producers, is over. Time to admit it, and start trying to figure out what to do (which we should have been doing fifteen years ago, and would have been had the fossil-fuel producers not spent a lot of money trying to interfere in the processes of scientific research). I also think some serious questions regarding the appropriateness of interested parties interfering in the progress of scientific research needs to be asked. I asked those questions here, on a skeptics' web site, and got harrassed off the site; I have only one question for Diamond: would you like some salt with that crow, or do you prefer to eat your crow raw?

[dogjones]

so, what is the safe level? exactly?

and what would fixing the atmospheric concentration at this level do for us? how would that be "safe"? exactly.

why did you wince?

I think they winced at the cigarette analogy. CO2 is necessary for life on this planet. Cigarette smoke isn't.

However, I would also like to know what the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere would be - what is the level between too much and too little?

[Rolfe]

Appears "60 Minutes" has joined the fray. Here's a quote from Scott Pelley, a conservative reporter, in response to various complaints about the piece:

Strong stuff; he's confident in his sources. The "debate," which was funded in the first place by fossil-fuel producers, is over. Time to admit it, and start trying to figure out what to do (which we should have been doing fifteen years ago, and would have been had the fossil-fuel producers not spent a lot of money trying to interfere in the processes of scientific research). I also think some serious questions regarding the appropriateness of interested parties interfering in the progress of scientific research needs to be asked. I asked those questions here, on a skeptics' web site, and got harrassed off the site; I have only one question for Diamond: would you like some salt with that crow, or do you prefer to eat your crow raw?I'm not getting particularly at Diamond, whom I've met and like very much. However, I had a similar experience. I'm no expert on climatology, but the serious media pieces which present anthropogenic global warming as both real and a serious threat, while relegating the deniers to the comparative outer darkness, struck me as well-presented. They also (to my mind) contrast wildly with the same media when getting over-enthusiastic about quack medical claims, when the mainstream medical opinion that this is hogwash is usually there to be seen amid the gushing hype.

I therefore dared to enter a global warming thread in this forum (I wouldn't go near one in Politics!) to ask those who denied the existence of global warming what their grounds were for disagreeing with so many people who seemed to be quite genuine authorities in the subject. I got screamed at, I got yelled at, I got accused of ad-homineming people, and again and again I was asked to provide peer-reviewed evidence that global warming was real, otherwise I should accept the screamers' and yellers' assertion that it wasn't. Finally someone threatened to report me to the mods for deliberately lying about what he'd said, when all that happened was that a glitch in the old forum regarding nested quotes had screwed up the VB code.

This didn't really strike me as good form for JREF posters. If someone were to ask me to explain in layman's terms why I believe homoeopathy is bunkum when so many medically qualified homoeopaths believe that it's heap powerful medicine, I wouldn't start demanding that the questioner provide me with peer-reviewed evidence that homoeopathy works. Even though I've done it many times before, I'd start again to explain patiently about the dilutions and the like-cures-like fallacy and how quantum mechanics has nothing to do with the matter and no water doesn't have a memory and so on.

The inability of the global warming deniers to take this approach with an interested non-expert disturbed me. And in the months since then the serious media presentation of the situation has moved even further in the direction of global warming being a real and serious matter. Many respected commentators are declaring that the issue is settled. And looking quickly at the situation in Politics, it seems to me that the regular forum members who were putting the mainstream point of view are still there plugging away at it, but their opponents now aren't other regular posters who see themselves as "real sceptics" on the subject, they're card-carrying, 24-carat nutjobs.

There's no shame in admitting that you've changed your mind. Indeed, it's an admirable thing to do this if the evidence has piled up against you. So, I'd be interested in hearing sensibly from the posters who were vocally putting forward the "global warming is all hype" POV last year. Are they silent now because they've just got fed up repeating themselves? Or because they're re-evaluating their position? Or has anyone who was in that group actually changed their mind? I'd be geniunely interested to hear from any of these people.

Rolfe.

[jj]

And if you want to know how those scientists faked their results see http://www.climateaudit.org



Could you please be a bit more specific, that's rather a lot of pages.

[Geckko]

Could you please be a bit more specific, that's rather a lot of pages.

I have been looking at this site lately after picking up a reference to it from another thread. I find it quite interesting.
It seems to have been originally a single issue blog (concerned with "auditing" one particular paper), but has broadened its scope.

There is an FAQ on it that I found fairly accessible.

[a_unique_person]

I'm waiting for these sites to 'audit' the 'skeptics'.

[varwoche]

And if you want to know how those scientists faked their results see http://www.climateaudit.org. Are you aware that you are holding up the analysis of an oil industry businessman (McIntyre) and an economics professor (McKitrick)-- non scientists possessing no training whatsoever in the field of climatology -- against expert scientists?

In one report, McKitrick produced garbage data by confusing degrees with radians (http://timlambert.org/2004/08/mckitrick6/) (Lambert). On another report, errors discovered in McKitrick's calculations cause his analysis to no longer illustrate the intended point (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/errata.html).

Whereas Realclimate.org consists of expert scientists...

Dr. Gavin Schmidt, climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, PhD in Applied Mathematics

Dr. Michael E. Mann, Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University, positions in the Departments of Meteorology and Geosciences, and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute (ESSI), director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC).

Dr. Caspar Ammann, climate scientist at National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Ph.D. from the Department of Geosciences at the University of Mass.

Dr. Rasmus E. Benestad,D.Phil in physics from Atmospheric, Oceanic & Planetary Physics at Oxford, wrote the book 'Solar Activity and Earth's Climate' (2002), published by Praxis-Springer

Dr. Raymond S. Bradley, Director of the Climate System Research Center (www.paleoclimate.org) at the University of Mass, Doctor of Science (D.Sc) Southampton University (U.K.) for contributions to field of paleoclimatology.

etc, etc.

[varwoche]

Also, in which paper by McIntyre and McKitrick did this error appear and what was their reaction to its discovery? Sorry, no brownie points for admitting to blatant errors -- there was no choice.

[Oleron]

It should be remembered just how mind-bogglingly complex climate patterns are and how difficult they are to model.
To give an example, increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere might well lead to the earth warming up but some have suggested this could lead ultimately to global cooling in the longer run. Why? Because warmer temperatures means more evaporation of water which means more cloud cover which means cooler summers which means less glacial melting in the summer which means.... you get the picture?

Also there is the possible effect of snow reflecting heat away from the earth which might have been a factor in the last ice age. If the gulfstream were to slow or stop because of polar ice melting, Europe would actually get much cooler and ice up, leading to the reflecting snow effect (if it exists), leading then to more cooling etc.

Then there are the astronomical climate factors - orbit wobble, earth tilt, sun spots etc. More stuff to factor in and I've only scratched the surface of climate study.

Increasing CO2 is only one change in the equation but, given the difficulty of climate prediction and the relative youth of climate science as a discipline, it is like performing an experiment on a world-wide scale that we can only guess at the outcome of. For this reason alone we should strive to try and keep levels of CO2 steady. Global cooling is as bad as global warming and the science suggests that one or the other will happen if CO2 levels continue to rise.

[Diamond]

Oh dear, where o where to begin :oldroll:

Are you aware that you are holding up the analysis of an oil industry businessman (McIntyre) and an economics professor (McKitrick)-- non scientists possessing no training whatsoever in the field of climatology -- against expert scientists?

I think you'll find that Steve McIntyre is not an oil industry businessman, but a consultant in mining prospectuses for small companies wishing to raise money in the stock market ("microcaps"). He is also an expert mathematician and statistician. The charge that he is or was involved in the oil industry (except very tangentially) is a flat out lie. No two ways about it.

You'll also find that Ross McKitrick is a Professor in Economics with specialist ability in econometrics (ie advanced statistics applied to economic theory and models)

Since the questions regarding MBH98 (the "Mann Hockey Stick") and related multiproxy studies are almost entirely statistical in nature, you'll find that the pair of them are unquestionably experts in their fields.

In one report, McKitrick produced garbage data by confusing degrees with radians (http://timlambert.org/2004/08/mckitrick6/) (Lambert). On another report, errors discovered in McKitrick's calculations cause his analysis to no longer illustrate the intended point (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/errata.html)

Ah yes, Tim Lambert. This is Lambert's claim to fame and you'll find the same charge repeated over and over again ad nauseam on Deltoid. Here are the facts:

1. A paper by Ross McKitrick and Patrick Michaels (who by the way, is an expert in climatology with reams of scientific articles on the subject, as well as being a Professor at University of Virginia and the Virginia State Climatologist) published a paper called "A Test of Corrections for Extraneous Signals in Gridded Surface Temperature Data (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/gdptemp.html)".

2. In the course of calculations done with a software package called Shazam an error was made entering latitudes in degrees rather than radians. The error was probably on Patrick Michael's side.

3. Tim Lambert spotted the error primarily because he is a computer science lecturer and because McKitrick and Michaels put all of their calculations and data online for public inspection.

4. Tim Lambert then broke out the megaphone and announced that "M&M" and especially Ross McKitrick "didn't know the difference between degrees and radians". This was spread far and wide across the Internet.

5. McKitrick and Michaels, confirmed this error and produced a Corrigendum and a full Impact Assessment of the error. They then published a corrected paper to Climate Research the very next issue. The error was found to have a very small effect on their conclusions.

6. Tim Lambert then repeats the error that Ross McKitrick doesn't know the difference between degrees and radians. It's Lambert's claim to fame. He never mentions the subsequent properly done calculations and claims that M&M have been "debunked".

7. Compare and contrast this with the approach done by Michael Mann when serious defects were found in the data and methodology. He posts a minimal corrigendum on the data, provides no impact assessment and maintains that McIntyre and McKitrick had done the calculations wrong and removed data. He provides no evidence of this.

8. The House Committee on Energy writes to Mann, Bradley and Hughes requesting full and open disclosure of data and methods including source code.

9. Mann, Bradley and Hughes pony up some of the source code (and Mann claims it to be his personal property even though his contract at UMass states that all materials belong to the University), but when asked to produce their calculations for R2 for their statistical calculations, all three pointedly refuse to answer the question.

10 Steve McIntyre analyzes the code released and find that MBH did calculate the R2 statistic but failed to report it. McIntyre calculates the R2 and reports that before 1820, the R2 is approximately zero. This test demonstrates that MBH's result, which formed the centrepiece of the IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Review (TA), was statistically insignificant. Other statistical measures used also demonstrate insignificance.

11 The House Science Committee asks the National Academy of Sciences to investigate the methodologies and statistical techniques used in Multiproxy studies. A Panel of Inquiry is setup under Gerald North and both McIntyre and McKitrick are invited to present to the Panel.

Whereas Realclimate.org consists of expert scientists...

Dr. Gavin Schmidt, climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, PhD in Applied Mathematics

Dr. Michael E. Mann, Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University, positions in the Departments of Meteorology and Geosciences, and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute (ESSI), director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC).

Dr. Caspar Ammann, climate scientist at National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Ph.D. from the Department of Geosciences at the University of Mass.

Dr. Rasmus E. Benestad,D.Phil in physics from Atmospheric, Oceanic & Planetary Physics at Oxford, wrote the book 'Solar Activity and Earth's Climate' (2002), published by Praxis-Springer

Dr. Raymond S. Bradley, Director of the Climate System Research Center (www.paleoclimate.org) at the University of Mass, Doctor of Science (D.Sc) Southampton University (U.K.) for contributions to field of paleoclimatology.

etc, etc.

And so was Dr Hwang Woo Suk.

I've no doubt that Rolfe can point to the expertise qualifications of people in her profession who promote all kinds of quackery and falsehood. Come to think of it, Randi could give you a long list, including Nobel Laureates in this category.

Advanced degrees are no defence against being flat-out wrong or against fakery.

Einstein made a math mistake in his original Special Relativity paper. James Clerk Maxwell was famous for making simple arithmetic mistakes which had to be corrected by co-workers. Does this mean that they're debunked?

Think about it.

[Geckko]

I have enjoyed reading the CLimate Audit blog and found a lot of interesting stuff there.

But what is immediately apparent is that the work being conducted by MacIntyre is purely statistical in nature and not climatology at all.

Although I find the stuff interesting it has not changed my opinion on climate change, but it has made me think that climatoligists know a lot about atmospheric physics, but not a lot about statistics.

For Michael Mann the implications are that the Hockey Stick indeed seems to be a case of garbage in and garbage out. His reaction to being rumbled just turns a statistical mole hill into a climatological mountain - unecessarily!!!. At some point this saga transitioned from being an innocent and correctable mistake in a scientific paper (in an area where the author was overstretching his knowledge from his specialisation) to obsfucation or even (possibly) scientific misrepresentation and malpractice.

For the debate about climate change it matters not a jot, because that is about the atmospheric physics, not the statistics. But it sure as hell makes Mann look like one of the less admirable scientists about.

[Geckko]

Sorry, no brownie points for admitting to blatant errors -- there was no choice.

Brownie points?

I was commenting on the events as I understand them with regard to what I believe is sound scientific practice.

Some of the most admirable scientists I have read of seem to have relished the idea that someone might find something wrong with their work. Who wants to be Ptolemny when you can be Galileo?

[varwoche]

I think you'll find that Steve McIntyre is not an oil industry businessman, but a consultant in mining prospectuses for small companies wishing to raise money in the stock market ("microcaps"). And that doesn't describe a businesman? Is this a comedy attempt?

He is also an expert mathematician and statistician. The charge that he is or was involved in the oil industry (except very tangentially) is a flat out lie. No two ways about it. A lie? Oh really?

Here is the 2003 annual report for CGX Energy, an oil exploration company. And guess who works there? (see page 13)
http://cgxenergy.ca/investors/CGX_AR03_part2.pdf

[varwoche]

Diamond, perhaps you missed this and would like to correct your patently false statement...?

varwoche:
Are you aware that you are holding up the analysis of an oil industry businessman (McIntyre)
Diamond:
The charge that he is or was involved in the oil industry (except very tangentially) is a flat out lie. No two ways about it.
varwoche:
Here is the 2003 annual report for CGX Energy, an oil exploration company. And guess who works there? (see page 13)
http://cgxenergy.ca/investors/CGX_AR03_part2.pdf The annual report reveals not only that McIntyre works for CGC, but that he was president of Northwest Exploration Company which -- you guessed it -- was in the oil exploration business.

Once you retract then we can examine your other unsupported statements.

[3point14]

I hate to be confrontational, and I'm only going on what I read here, but we seem to have a winner.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Warwoche is completely aware of what you have posted. It has been discussed with him in another thread in politics. He won't even touch any point you raise, tought
Oh dear, where o where to begin :oldroll:



I think you'll find that Steve McIntyre is not an oil industry businessman, but a consultant in mining prospectuses for small companies wishing to raise money in the stock market ("microcaps"). He is also an expert mathematician and statistician. The charge that he is or was involved in the oil industry (except very tangentially) is a flat out lie. No two ways about it.

You'll also find that Ross McKitrick is a Professor in Economics with specialist ability in econometrics (ie advanced statistics applied to economic theory and models)

Since the questions regarding MBH98 (the "Mann Hockey Stick") and related multiproxy studies are almost entirely statistical in nature, you'll find that the pair of them are unquestionably experts in their fields.



Ah yes, Tim Lambert. This is Lambert's claim to fame and you'll find the same charge repeated over and over again ad nauseam on Deltoid. Here are the facts:

1. A paper by Ross McKitrick and Patrick Michaels (who by the way, is an expert in climatology with reams of scientific articles on the subject, as well as being a Professor at University of Virginia and the Virginia State Climatologist) published a paper called "A Test of Corrections for Extraneous Signals in Gridded Surface Temperature Data (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/gdptemp.html)".

2. In the course of calculations done with a software package called Shazam an error was made entering latitudes in degrees rather than radians. The error was probably on Patrick Michael's side.

3. Tim Lambert spotted the error primarily because he is a computer science lecturer and because McKitrick and Michaels put all of their calculations and data online for public inspection.

4. Tim Lambert then broke out the megaphone and announced that "M&M" and especially Ross McKitrick "didn't know the difference between degrees and radians". This was spread far and wide across the Internet.

5. McKitrick and Michaels, confirmed this error and produced a Corrigendum and a full Impact Assessment of the error. They then published a corrected paper to Climate Research the very next issue. The error was found to have a very small effect on their conclusions.

6. Tim Lambert then repeats the error that Ross McKitrick doesn't know the difference between degrees and radians. It's Lambert's claim to fame. He never mentions the subsequent properly done calculations and claims that M&M have been "debunked".

7. Compare and contrast this with the approach done by Michael Mann when serious defects were found in the data and methodology. He posts a minimal corrigendum on the data, provides no impact assessment and maintains that McIntyre and McKitrick had done the calculations wrong and removed data. He provides no evidence of this.

8. The House Committee on Energy writes to Mann, Bradley and Hughes requesting full and open disclosure of data and methods including source code.

9. Mann, Bradley and Hughes pony up some of the source code (and Mann claims it to be his personal property even though his contract at UMass states that all materials belong to the University), but when asked to produce their calculations for R2 for their statistical calculations, all three pointedly refuse to answer the question.

10 Steve McIntyre analyzes the code released and find that MBH did calculate the R2 statistic but failed to report it. McIntyre calculates the R2 and reports that before 1820, the R2 is approximately zero. This test demonstrates that MBH's result, which formed the centrepiece of the IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Review (TA), was statistically insignificant. Other statistical measures used also demonstrate insignificance.

11 The House Science Committee asks the National Academy of Sciences to investigate the methodologies and statistical techniques used in Multiproxy studies. A Panel of Inquiry is setup under Gerald North and both McIntyre and McKitrick are invited to present to the Panel.



And so was Dr Hwang Woo Suk.

I've no doubt that Rolfe can point to the expertise qualifications of people in her profession who promote all kinds of quackery and falsehood. Come to think of it, Randi could give you a long list, including Nobel Laureates in this category.

Advanced degrees are no defence against being flat-out wrong or against fakery.

Einstein made a math mistake in his original Special Relativity paper. James Clerk Maxwell was famous for making simple arithmetic mistakes which had to be corrected by co-workers. Does this mean that they're debunked?

Think about it.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

NPR had an interesting interview on this topic during this week. They were talking to a biologist who specializes in plants. He was studying an apparent link between increased levels of CO2 in the air and plant aspiration. Apparently, since there are higher levels of CO2, the plants don't need to breath as much, therefore losing less H20 to evaporation and subsequently using less ground water.

Here's the link if anyone is interested in listening:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5218107

[Rolfe]

I've no doubt that Rolfe can point to the expertise qualifications of people in her profession who promote all kinds of quackery and falsehood.Easily. However, I don't see the parallel.

Within medical professions the quacks are in general well recognised as such by mainstream, rational practitioners. You don't get the President of the Royal Society of Physicians gravely lecturing on homoeopathy and acupuncture as if they were respectable, accepted medical approaches.

Rolfe.

[varwoche]

Warwoche is completely aware of what you have posted. It has been discussed with him in another thread in politics. He won't even touch any point you raise, tought Gee whiz LR, if you're going to drag other threads into this one at least tell the full story -- that we became acquainted in your thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=52192) that cites pulp fiction author Michael Crichton as a source. You seem to have an affinity for non-experts versus experts.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

That's not the thread. The correct thread is http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=52260. You are not being completely honest here .....

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

I think the point is about what is causing GW instead of if there is a GW. What Mann's paper tried to show is that the current wariming was caused by human activity, due to its exponential raise since 1920. The falls discovered by MM shows that there was an even higher GW in medioeval times, making Mann's point useless.

I have enjoyed reading the CLimate Audit blog and found a lot of interesting stuff there.

But what is immediately apparent is that the work being conducted by MacIntyre is purely statistical in nature and not climatology at all.

Although I find the stuff interesting it has not changed my opinion on climate change, but it has made me think that climatoligists know a lot about atmospheric physics, but not a lot about statistics.

For Michael Mann the implications are that the Hockey Stick indeed seems to be a case of garbage in and garbage out. His reaction to being rumbled just turns a statistical mole hill into a climatological mountain - unecessarily!!!. At some point this saga transitioned from being an innocent and correctable mistake in a scientific paper (in an area where the author was overstretching his knowledge from his specialisation) to obsfucation or even (possibly) scientific misrepresentation and malpractice.

For the debate about climate change it matters not a jot, because that is about the atmospheric physics, not the statistics. But it sure as hell makes Mann look like one of the less admirable scientists about.

[jj]

Diamond, you used to point out with great glee the air-temperature issue. Now that that's been cleared up and shown to be years of bad data due to a change in paint on radiosondes, how do you feel about work that's based on that air-temperature data, anyhow?

[varwoche]

Diamond, perhaps you missed this and would like to correct your patently false statement...?

The annual report reveals not only that McIntyre works for CGX, but that he was president of Northwest Exploration Company which -- you guessed it -- was in the oil exploration business.

Once you retract then we can examine your other unsupported statements. Bump, because when someone frivously and falsely bandies about the word "lie" they should have the integrity to correct the record.

[Diamond]

Bump, because when someone frivously and falsely bandies about the word "lie" they should have the integrity to correct the record.

Thanks for bumping the thread, I'd nearly forgotten :D

Here are the facts:

Steve McIntyre had his own company called Northwest Exploration which assist small mining companies (mainly gold and precious metals, but not fossil fuels) raising money from the stock market via public or private offerings. This was where McIntyre made his principle business in dealing with issues of full disclosure and legal issues involved in prospectuses as part of securities regulations for the Canadian stock market in Toronto.

[Note: there is an oil company in Nevada by the same name, but the two are not related]

Sometime in the late 1990s, McIntyre's company is bought by a larger group of people in the same arena of providing consultancy for small and medium companies involved in exploration work in mining. The company is renamed to CGX Energy and the new company acquires licenses to explore for oil and gas in places like Guyana.

Steve does not remain on the board of CGX, but retains a small share holding in the combined company as a special advisor dealing with securities issues. He rents a small part of the office space at CGX and retains his own consultancy business as well as helping CGX from time to time.

CGX Energy has acquired licences for exploration but has no assets of oil or gas. As you can see from the page you posted all but a very few people listed are financial specialists in securities issues and stock market offerings. One or two of the people brought on board have experience with oil and gas concerns (being right next to oil-rich Alberta, it would be unusual not to) and as far as I can gather the oil exploration licenses are dealt with in a subsidiary company.

Since 1993, Steve has semi-retired to concentrate on his audit of multiproxy studies including most famously the "Mann Hockey Stick"

Why is this issue so important? Because in the weird world of climate change alarmism, anyone with any slight links to the oil industry (and I mean slight) is supposedly a secret participant in a grand conspiracy by evil capitalists to suppress the evidence that the Earth's climate is going to hell in a handbasket unless we embrace global poverty and a neo-Stalinist control of the world's economy through artificial rationing of energy.

See exxonsecrets.org for an example of this. It's like the six degrees of Kevin Bacon for the oil industry. If you've ever touched a petrol pump or put oil on your bicycle chain and doubted the veracity of climate models or the wisdom of the Kyoto Protocol, then you're implicated and damned.

It's called "Poisoning The Well" and its a fallacy. Except when it comes to climate science in which case to hell with skepticism, you're simply a Denier.

So those are the facts. The claim that Steve McIntyre is or was an "oil industry businessman" is a flat out lie and I know wait for you to apologize for that statement or provide proof that he is or was working in an oil company except tangentially as part of a business which bought him out which helps deal with exploration licenses.

I predict that this will be a long wait.

[varwoche]

Here are the facts...a flat out lie I take it you aren't aware there is an ethic on this forum to backup statements with evidence, as I have and you have not.

Further, even if you were to produce evidence that is more compelling than the evidence that I posted, I have little respect for those who leap to the L word and not give benefit of the doubt that someone might simply be wrong, and even less so here given the evidence already posted.

[Diamond]

I take it you aren't aware there is an ethic on this forum to backup statements with evidence, as I have and you have not.

Further, even if you were to produce evidence that is more compelling than the evidence that I posted, I have little respect for those who leap to the L word and not give benefit of the doubt that someone might simply be wrong, and even less so here given the evidence already posted.

What evidence? It is FOR YOU TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT THE COMPANY HEADED BY STEVE MCINTYRE CALLED NORTHWEST EXPLORATION WAS INVOLVED IN THE OIL BUSINESS. I don't have to produce evidence of a negative.

Let's see your evidence of this. Put up or shut up.

As I pointed out, there is an unrelated Northwest Exploration in Nevada which is an oil company but it wasn't headed by or associated with Steve McIntyre.

Come on. Surprise us all with some actual evidence and stop the trolling.

[Diamond]

I wrote:

Since 1993, Steve has semi-retired to concentrate on his audit of multiproxy studies including most famously the "Mann Hockey Stick"

I meant 2003. Doh!

[Diamond]

:bump1

[varwoche]

Huh?

Diamond, first (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1464607#post1464607) you say it's a lie that McIntyre is a businessman in the oil industry. Then you acknowlegde (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1471146#post1471146) that he was president of a company in the oil exploration business. (Still without a citation though. You have not posted so much as one citation supporting any claim you have made on this topic.)

Once the two sides of your mouth work it out please get back ... with evidence for a change. I assign zero weight to unsupported statements by anonymous personnas on the internet, and especially when they are gibbering incomprehensibly.

[Diamond]

Huh?

Diamond, first (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1464607#post1464607) you say it's a lie that McIntyre is a businessman in the oil industry. Then you acknowlegde (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1471146#post1471146) that he was president of a company in the oil exploration business. (Still without a citation though. You have not posted so much as one citation supporting any claim you have made on this topic.)

Once the two sides of your mouth work it out please get back ... with evidence for a change. I assign zero weight to unsupported statements by anonymous personnas on the internet, and especially when they are gibbering incomprehensibly.

You're the one one claiming that McIntyre is or was an "oil industry businessman". I have made no such claim that he was a president of a company in the oil exploration business. Quite the reverse, as his speciality was in consulting for microcap mining companies.

Are you going to present evidence of this statement about McIntyre's business or shall I start a clock?

I think you know you're wrong but you're scared to admit it. We all screw up from time to time, and I'd rather focus on more constructive debates than this one. So just admit that you screwed up and we'll say no more about it.