Expert climate scientists say....

[brenthutch 444]

GISS data tortured to the point of breaking. Apparently the "correction" of global temperatures were more than the computers could take.

"2013-01-14: Due to technical problems with the GISS webserver, all interactive features, such as making maps of the surface temperature anomaly and line plots of station data, are currently disabled. Additionally, binary data files which had been available via ftp are not available. "

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

But Hansen finds time to get arrested

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/13/top-nasa-climate-scientist-arrested-again-in-white-house-protest/

[rushmc 23]

I see we are at that "fork in the road"







again

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Dave’s point has merit. I’ve mentioned Thomas Kuhn before but I’ll reiterate Kuhn’s explanation of scientific paradigm shifts.

Dave's point has no merit whatsoever. He criticized the statistics of a survey. No paradigm shift in statistical sampling or analysis has occurred. None. Nada. Zilch.

No. Dave criticized the potential for bias in the underlying selection and characterization. It's like a statistic that shows that "98 percent of the highest ranking and most experienced bureaucrats in federal government believe that government is not too intrusive." Or "98 percent of the most experienced and successful plaintiffs' lawyers think that tort reform is bad policy."

The statistical methods used may be flawless. But right away something smells fishy.

This is why I don't respond to Kallend's taunts, insults, and emotional snipes. There is an obvious red flag in the sample group. Had he said, 'that's the best we have' or something of the sort, I would have respected him more. As it is, he claims anything published by this group is beyond reproach (that alone raises my eyebrow) and insults anyone that recognizes there is a problem. It's kind of a case of 'methinks he doth protest too much'. It just makes it hard to take his evidence at face value when is so argumentative and insulting.

The sample group is 'those most published'. The conclusion is that the sample group represents the larger group. That is inductive reasoning. It isn't to be thrown out entirely. But it begs the question whether there is a better way to sample. What publications were included in the sample group here? That, alone, could greatly influence the outcome of the research.

Are there generally recognized professional organizations for climate professionals that could be surveyed? That would seem to be a much better way to get at the group we are trying to evaluate.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[rushmc 23]

Your post reminded me of something I read a while back about published and peer reviewed published papers, and the boards of those that publish said paperes.

The author was complaining that the organizations (magazines or whatever) were not allowing those critical of AGW to get their papers published

I will see if I can find it again

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Dave’s point has merit. I’ve mentioned Thomas Kuhn before but I’ll reiterate Kuhn’s explanation of scientific paradigm shifts.

Dave's point has no merit whatsoever. He criticized the statistics of a survey. No paradigm shift in statistical sampling or analysis has occurred. None. Nada. Zilch.

No. Dave criticized the potential for bias in the underlying selection and characterization. It's like a statistic that shows that "98 percent of the highest ranking and most experienced bureaucrats in federal government believe that government is not too intrusive." Or "98 percent of the most experienced and successful plaintiffs' lawyers think that tort reform is bad policy."

The statistical methods used may be flawless. But right away something smells fishy.

This is why I don't respond to Kallend's taunts, insults, and emotional snipes. There is an obvious red flag in the sample group. Had he said, 'that's the best we have' or something of the sort, I would have respected him more. As it is, he claims anything published by this group is beyond reproach (that alone raises my eyebrow) and insults anyone that recognizes there is a problem. It's kind of a case of 'methinks he doth protest too much'. It just makes it hard to take his evidence at face value when is so argumentative and insulting.

The sample group is 'those most published'. The conclusion is that the sample group represents the larger group. That is inductive reasoning. It isn't to be thrown out entirely. But it begs the question whether there is a better way to sample. What publications were included in the sample group here? That, alone, could greatly influence the outcome of the research.

Are there generally recognized professional organizations for climate professionals that could be surveyed? That would seem to be a much better way to get at the group we are trying to evaluate.

So how would you define a "climate scientist"?

Who do you think is most likely to be well informed on climate science? A climate scientist, a lawyer, a shill for the oil or coal industry, or a soldier?

YOU asked where the 98% figure came from, and I told you. It came from the MOST PRESTIGIOUS science organization in the USA.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Perhaps if you took a course on statistics you'd know that what you are talking about is PART of statistical analysis.

I don’t have training in statistics. My training is in logic and foundation. Fundamental of what I do (and what Andy and Dave do) is to get to the trustworthiness of evidence. We perform forensic analyses, performing analyses of conclusions and evidence to find out what is trustworthy and not trustworthy until we get to the point of where an assumption comes in. Then we ask whether the assumption is valid.

For example, a statistician may conclude, “lawrocket is an asshole.” My training is on getting to the basis for that conclusion by seeking her knowledge of facts that would lead to or support that conclusion. The statistician then would tell me, “I’ve performed a survey of 100 people who know you and on the basis of what they said this is the conclusion.”

My job is then to go find these people and figure out the basis of their statements. If 99 of them say, “We all read this page on Facebook that says you’re an asshole” then I can challenge the basis for that opinion by showing that all 99 adopted the beliefs of one person, thereby making the statistical analysis untrustworthy.

Note that I don’t challenge the conclusion that I’m an asshole on a substantive basis. Merely the underlying facts used to generate the conclusion. Of course, the conclusion is valid (I AM an asshole) but the underlying statistical analysis that reached the conclusion is of highly questionable viability.

Note: since this is a climate thread, here’s what Lord Oxburgh;s CRU hack report stated:
“With very noisy data sets a great deal of judgement has to be used. Decisions have to be made on whether to omit pieces of data that appear to be aberrant. These are all matters of experience and judgement. The potential for misleading results arising from selection bias is very great in this area. It is regrettable that so few professional statisticians have been involved in this work because it is fundamentally statistical. Under such circumstances there must be an obligation on researchers to document the judgemental decisions they have made so that the work can in principle be replicated by others”
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP

I wholeheartedly support this statement. I don't know statistics. But I know biased samples and loaded questions and false causality, etc. It's my job to identify these things and make sure I'm the only one who is using them effectively.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

There is an obvious red flag in the sample group… Are there generally recognized professional organizations for climate professionals that could be surveyed? That would seem to be a much better way to get at the group we are trying to evaluate.

The problem with any organization is groupthink. Whether it is the Army, the IPCC or the USPA, groupthink is a big problem. You don’t find atheists in church groups and you don’t find climate skeptics in esteemed levels of climate groups. There’s the paradigm right now. Look at Judith Curry.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

There is an obvious red flag in the sample group… Are there generally recognized professional organizations for climate professionals that could be surveyed? That would seem to be a much better way to get at the group we are trying to evaluate.

The problem with any organization is groupthink. Whether it is the Army, the IPCC or the USPA, groupthink is a big problem. You don’t find atheists in church groups and you don’t find climate skeptics in esteemed levels of climate groups. There’s the paradigm right now. Look at Judith Curry.

Whenever a scientific paradigm is overthrown, the person doing it becomes famous, wins a Nobel, makes a lot of money and is immortalized. What exactly makes you think that climate scientists are exempt from this? There's no fame or fortune to be gained by going along with the prevailing thought, and much fame and fortune to be made by PROVING that it is wrong.

FACT IS that climate PROFESSIONALS overwhelmingly agree that the data prove that AGW is real. Lawyers, soldiers and oil industry shills may disagree, but that carries no weight except with the ignorant.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There is an obvious red flag in the sample group… Are there generally recognized professional organizations for climate professionals that could be surveyed? That would seem to be a much better way to get at the group we are trying to evaluate.

The problem with any organization is groupthink. Whether it is the Army, the IPCC or the USPA, groupthink is a big problem. You don’t find atheists in church groups and you don’t find climate skeptics in esteemed levels of climate groups. There’s the paradigm right now. Look at Judith Curry.

Whenever a scientific paradigm is overthrown, the person doing it becomes famous, wins a Nobel, makes a lot of money and is immortalized. What exactly makes you think that climate scientists are exempt from this? There's no fame or fortune to be gained by going along with the prevailing thought, and much fame and fortune to be made by PROVING that it is wrong.

FACT IS that climate PROFESSIONALS overwhelmingly agree that the data prove that AGW is real. Lawyers, soldiers and oil industry shills may disagree, but that carries no weight except with the ignorant.

Keep saying it all you want

Anyone who can thinks know this is bs

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Whenever a scientific paradigm is overthrown, the person doing it becomes famous, wins a Nobel, makes a lot of money and is immortalized.

Because that just happened, what, 5 years ago? The IPCC and Al Gore won the Nobel Prize, are making a lot of money and are immortalized. They are at the top of the hill right now and for the time being have the most control over it.

It's why challenges to climate science aren't coming from the climate science community - which was criticized for its subculture of secrecy. As Oxburgh reported,

Quote

Indeed there would be mutual benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of temperature specialists.

Part of the problem is that there is a "relatively small international circle of temperature specialists." They sort of control access to the group. When you've just gotten a Nobel Prize and all the glory that comes with it, it can inflate an ego. Heck, even our President is such a peaceable guy that he can conduct assassination operations but he's a Peace Prize winner.

The Peace Prize confirmed the paradigm. 5 years ago. Note: the Nobel Peace Prize is political in nature and not scientific. Which itself was a confirmation that "climate science" and "climate politics" are inseparable.

Quote

FACT IS that climate PROFESSIONALS overwhelmingly agree that the data prove that AGW is real. Lawyers, soldiers and oil industry shills may disagree, but that carries no weight except with the ignorant.

I agree that AGW is real. I've reiterated it many times. My issue is not with the presence of AGW, it's with the bullshit "snow is a thing of the past, unless it snows. Either way - it's disaster." I have a BIG problem with subjective attribution of every lightning strike to be "global warming." Every forest fire is "global warming." Every tornado - "global warming." Every hurricane - "global warming" - except for the lack of those making landfall on the US since Ike (that's actually global warming, too).

That's my problem - the politics and spin. It got them a Nobel Prize, though.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

The claim arises from this June 2010 PNAS study. Read it if you have the time and stomach, but the bottom line is that about 97% to 98% of climate researchers (if not more) are paid by the government and climate interest groups to support and to advance the global warming hypothesis and, guess what, they do.

This doesn’t make these researchers correct or credible, just employed.

http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/pnas-2010-anderegg-1003187107-1.pdf

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Hmmmm


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/

Quote

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.


Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

Again
Tell me what you wnat the numbers to say and I can make them say it

Tell someone you want to learn the truth and the numbers take on a whole new light

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

We examined a subsample of the 50 most-published (highestexpertise) researchers from each group. Such subsampling facilitates comparison of relative expertise between groups (normalizing differences between absolute numbers). This method reveals large differences in relative expertise between CE and UE groups (Fig. 2). Though the top-published researchers in the CE group have an average of 408 climate publications (median = 344), the top UE researchers average only 89 publications (median = 68; Mann– Whitney U test: W = 2,455; P < 10−15). Thus, this suggests that not all experts are equal, and top CE researchers have much stronger expertise in climate science than those in the top UE group

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

The ghosts of Dr. Ioannidis strike again. Corollaries 5 and 6 are particularly prescient.

Kallend has himself pointed out that Nature is probably the most prestigious journal out there. I agree. How many hundreds of papers submitted to Nature for publication get rejected for every paper accepted? This provides the nature presumption that Nature or Science only publish the “best” research.

But is that really happening? Or is it due to the presence of so few crème-de-la-crème journals that the studies that are published are the one yielding the most spectacular findings? That is, are the journals forcing scientists to overplay their cards to be published?

I note, of course, the irony that because of Dr. Ioaniddis’ research that his findings have a high possibility of being wrong.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

The claim arises from this June 2010 PNAS study. Read it if you have the time and stomach, but the bottom line is that about 97% to 98% of climate researchers (if not more) are paid by the government and climate interest groups to support and to advance the global warming hypothesis and, guess what, they do.

This doesn’t make these researchers correct or credible, just employed.

http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/pnas-2010-anderegg-1003187107-1.pdf

junkscience

Your source, not mine.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The claim arises from this June 2010 PNAS study. Read it if you have the time and stomach, but the bottom line is that about 97% to 98% of climate researchers (if not more) are paid by the government and climate interest groups to support and to advance the global warming hypothesis and, guess what, they do.

This doesn’t make these researchers correct or credible, just employed.

http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/pnas-2010-anderegg-1003187107-1.pdf

junkscience

Your source, not mine.

You might want to look at what is linked befor bloviating again

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Whenever a scientific paradigm is overthrown, the person doing it becomes famous, wins a Nobel, makes a lot of money and is immortalized.

Because that just happened, what, 5 years ago? The IPCC and Al Gore won the Nobel Prize, are making a lot of money and are immortalized. They are at the top of the hill right now and for the time being have the most control over it.

It's why challenges to climate science aren't coming from the climate science community - which was criticized for its subculture of secrecy. As Oxburgh reported,

Quote

Indeed there would be mutual benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of temperature specialists.

Part of the problem is that there is a "relatively small international circle of temperature specialists." They sort of control access to the group. When you've just gotten a Nobel Prize and all the glory that comes with it, it can inflate an ego. Heck, even our President is such a peaceable guy that he can conduct assassination operations but he's a Peace Prize winner.

The Peace Prize confirmed the paradigm. 5 years ago. Note: the Nobel Peace Prize is political in nature and not scientific. Which itself was a confirmation that "climate science" and "climate politics" are inseparable.

Quote

FACT IS that climate PROFESSIONALS overwhelmingly agree that the data prove that AGW is real. Lawyers, soldiers and oil industry shills may disagree, but that carries no weight except with the ignorant.

I agree that AGW is real. I've reiterated it many times. My issue is not with the presence of AGW, it's with the bullshit "snow is a thing of the past, unless it snows. Either way - it's disaster." I have a BIG problem with subjective attribution of every lightning strike to be "global warming." Every forest fire is "global warming." Every tornado - "global warming." Every hurricane - "global warming" - except for the lack of those making landfall on the US since Ike (that's actually global warming, too).

That's my problem - the politics and spin. It got them a Nobel Prize, though.

Ummm NO. if you read the words of bona fide SCIENTISTS they say without exception that no single weather event can be attributed to climate change. Only in the aggregate can weather extremes be linked.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

The Peace Prize confirmed the paradigm. 5 years ago. Note: the Nobel Peace Prize is political in nature and not scientific. Which itself was a confirmation that "climate science" and "climate politics" are inseparable.
.

As you point out, the Peace Prize is not for science, and the winners aren't (in general) scientists. Good try but no cigar (aka FAIL).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

if you read the words of bona fide SCIENTISTS they say without exception that no single weather event can be attributed to climate change. Only in the aggregate can weather extremes be linked.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/climate-change-is-here--and-worse-than-we-thought/2012/08/03/6ae604c2-dd90-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_story.html

From it:

Quote

The deadly European heat wave of 2003, the fiery Russian heat wave of 2010 and catastrophic droughts in Texas and Oklahoma last year can each be attributed to climate change. And once the data are gathered in a few weeks’ time, it’s likely that the same will be true for the extremely hot summer the United States is suffering through right now.

These weather events are not simply an example of what climate change could bring. They are caused by climate change. The odds that natural variability created these extremes are minuscule, vanishingly small. To count on those odds would be like quitting your job and playing the lottery every morning to pay the bills.

(emphasis added)

Is James Hansen a bona fide scientist?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

if you read the words of bona fide SCIENTISTS they say without exception that no single weather event can be attributed to climate change. Only in the aggregate can weather extremes be linked.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/climate-change-is-here--and-worse-than-we-thought/2012/08/03/6ae604c2-dd90-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_story.html

From it:

Quote

The deadly European heat wave of 2003, the fiery Russian heat wave of 2010 and catastrophic droughts in Texas and Oklahoma last year can each be attributed to climate change. And once the data are gathered in a few weeks’ time, it’s likely that the same will be true for the extremely hot summer the United States is suffering through right now.

These weather events are not simply an example of what climate change could bring. They are caused by climate change. The odds that natural variability created these extremes are minuscule, vanishingly small. To count on those odds would be like quitting your job and playing the lottery every morning to pay the bills.

(emphasis added)

Is James Hansen a bona fide scientist?

A prolonged drought or heat wave is not an isolated weather event. Not even a good attempt to confound the issue.

Next.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

A prolonged drought or heat wave is not an isolated weather event. Not even a good attempt to confound the issue.

Hmmm.

Quote

What Weather Means
Weather is basically the way the atmosphere is behaving, mainly with respect to its effects upon life and human activities. The difference between weather and climate is that weather consists of the short-term (minutes to months) changes in the atmosphere. Most people think of weather in terms of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, brightness, visibility, wind, and atmospheric pressure, as in high and low pressure.

In most places, weather can change from minute-to-minute, hour-to-hour, day-to-day, and season-to-season. Climate, however, is the average of weather over time and space. An easy way to remember the difference is that climate is what you expect, like a very hot summer, and weather is what you get, like a hot day with pop-up thunderstorms.

Things That Make Up Our Weather
There are really a lot of components to weather. Weather includes sunshine, rain, cloud cover, winds, hail, snow, sleet, freezing rain, flooding, blizzards, ice storms, thunderstorms, steady rains from a cold front or warm front, excessive heat, heat waves and more.

Then this:

Quote

In short, climate is the description of the long-term pattern of weather in a particular area.

Some scientists define climate as the average weather for a particular region and time period, usually taken over 30-years. It's really an average pattern of weather for a particular region.

When scientists talk about climate, they're looking at averages of precipitation, temperature, humidity, sunshine, wind velocity, phenomena such as fog, frost, and hail storms, and other measures of the weather that occur over a long period in a particular place.

For example, after looking at rain gauge data, lake and reservoir levels, and satellite data, scientists can tell if during a summer, an area was drier than average. If it continues to be drier than normal over the course of many summers, than it would likely indicate a change in the climate.

Source: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

Source for the url: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4040140#4040140


Thus, applying your citation, the Russian Heat Wave of 2010 (3 weeks, which is .00192 of “30 years”) is weather (the definition says a heat wave is weather). The Texas drought of 2010-2011 was just that – drought of 2010-2011 (the first 6 months of 2012 showed average rainfall and drought abated) and therefore “weather.” The 2003 French Heat Wave – weather.

Look – Hansen IS NASA climate. Don’t tell me that a heat wave isn’t “weather” when your own citation that you have used says it’s weather. Or are you seeking a new category of “clither?” which I’ll define as, “longer than weather, shorter than climate, but definitely AGW.”


This is explainable if you say that, "NASA was wrong and I was wrong. NASA had the wrong definition then but the correct definition now."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 444]

This is explainable if you say that, "NASA was wrong and I was wrong. NASA had the wrong definition then but the correct definition now."

[lawrocket 3]

I don't think that's a fair assessment. I disagree a lot with kallend, but I like him a lot and respect him immensely.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

This is explainable if you say that, "NASA was wrong and I was wrong. NASA had the wrong definition then but the correct definition now."

____________________________________________

Kallend lacks the self esteem to admit that he was wrong.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

There is an obvious red flag in the sample group… Are there generally recognized professional organizations for climate professionals that could be surveyed? That would seem to be a much better way to get at the group we are trying to evaluate.

The problem with any organization is groupthink. Whether it is the Army, the IPCC or the USPA, groupthink is a big problem. You don’t find atheists in church groups and you don’t find climate skeptics in esteemed levels of climate groups. There’s the paradigm right now. Look at Judith Curry.

Agreed. Selecting the sample group is always a huge problem. At least the statistic of 98% could be more accurate. Right now, it's '98% of all the articles we read'. I assure you 98% of all the stuff my father reads says the same thing. That doesn't make it a representative sample of anything but my father's readings.

Along the lines of your 'groupthink' argument; I always liked a quote from George S. Patton - "If we're all thinking alike...we're not all thinking."

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[rushmc 23]

And I don't consider the opinion of a shill for the oil industry to be relevant to the discussion or much else.