P
Poptech
Guest
It irrefutably shows that Wikipedia is unreliable and discredits all of your claims otherwise.
Thanks for playing.
A third of the world now faces deadly heatwaves as result of climate change
- Status
Thanks for playing.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Unreliability is not a one-bit concept. It has a spectrum. The idea that the discovery, or creation of a persistent error proves Wikipedia “unreliable” is not compatible with serious critical thinking.
T
Theo520
Guest
Here’s an MIT article that will walk you through some of the intentional misrepresentation fostered by Mann. It could only be intentional, not accidental.
technologyreview.com/s/403256/global-warming-bombshell/
P
Poptech
Guest
Wikipedia is broken by design and that experiment irrefutably proves it. You are of course free to stay in denial of the unreliability of Wikipedia while the rest of us will use reliable sources.
P
Poptech
Guest
D
dvdjs
Guest
Thanks for the Harvard guide.
However, it is not especially profound.
First, in academic research it is the rule to exercise caution and skepticism about all sources, including one’s own. One would be expecially cautious about literature that is from outside of quality scientific publications. That includes Wiki, MSM, blogs etc. At best one might use them to illustrate “considerable interest”.
Second, in the realm of popular interest - which is what we have been talking about here - Wiki has something to offer. These include bibliographies which are lacking in most similar sources, and that advantage mutli-authorship that brings in diverse viewpoints.
It is trivial to say one would not use Wiki as an authoritative reference in a scientific publication. And to recommend caution for most any use. But is has merit as compared to much of the blogosphere.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Thanks for this. This hockey stick story is such a long story. If you are interested in the science you might like to watch this:
youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w
I read a few of the M&M papers. They are quick to point out that their result should be viewed with more nuance than Mueller has it in this essay that you linked. But there are two take aways: 1) There is not case here for intentional misrepresentation. There is lack of rigor by Mann et al.; they could have tested their PCA routine the same way that M&M did, and arguably should have. But I am not altogether surprised that they didn’t. 2) It seems that the analysis, not withstanding the methodological flaws pointed out by M&M, which could have corrupted the analysis, didn’t: the gist of the analysis has been replicated with other analyses. And again, if you are interested in the science, It seems that the fundamental scientific result still holds.
T
Theo520
Guest
Why do you imagine I don’t believe in climate change?
One can believe Mann was a manipulative lying SOS and still believe in the basic physics on CO2 as a GHG.
There is a strong case that Mann misrepresented his work, it wasn’t an oversite on his ‘rigour’. It was either intentional or GROSS incompetence on research he knew was important and needed to be triple checked. His intention becomes even more clear by how he responded to valid criticisms of his work.
One can believe Mann was a manipulative lying SOS and still believe in the basic physics on CO2 as a GHG.
There is a strong case that Mann misrepresented his work, it wasn’t an oversite on his ‘rigour’. It was either intentional or GROSS incompetence on research he knew was important and needed to be triple checked. His intention becomes even more clear by how he responded to valid criticisms of his work.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It is telling that the only way to support the climate skeptic (and I am being charitable with the use of that term) position is to discredit every not-right wing source, even when those sources are being used (as they are in this thread) not as an authoritative source, but only to draw attention to facts that are easily verifiable elsewhere, such as the list of organizations that have cleared climategate. Functional illiterates corrupting Wikipedia have no relevance here because they could not arrange all the corroborating support in other sources to support their “corruption.” So that accusation is is red herring in this thread.
D
dvdjs
Guest
It is possible. It is often the case that people who are good at critical thinking in the sciences blow it off when attending to other things.
T
Theo520
Guest
I’ve found it’s a projection by climate change alarmists that anyone who doesn’t agree with them is rejecting science. The projection is convenient for pushing a narrative, not resolving a scientific issue.
When I was initially educating myself on climate change, i reviewed the material on both sides of the debate. I discovered that all the scientific skeptics were in agreement on the basic facts and science. They just questioned the unverified feedback assumption in the models. Skeptics agree that:
- We are warming
- CO2 is a GHG
- Man is increasing the level of CO2,
- ergo man is contributing to the level of global warming
P
Poptech
Guest
Strawman argument, Harvard University is not talking about just “scientific publication” but general academic research done by students and if you need a basic reference they recommend to check your library for specialized encyclopedias.
It is not possible for a source that can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection at any time to have “merit.”
“Information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation.” - Harvard University
L
lao_tzu
Guest
Hello Ender,
That’s close enough, I think. For a quick look at these processes, readers may wish to watch a short video and read the descriptions in: What are El Niño and La Niña?
Good question.
Fast answer: None that we’re sure of.
Better answers always involve forcings.
Though the El Niño and La Niña phases have, respectively, positive and negative forcings associated with them, averaged over time the full cycle represents no forcing at all. Conceivably, CO2 forcing may contribute to the magnitude of the forcings associated with the ENSO cycle.
Our climate’s energy budget, the overall balance between energy flowing into and out of our climate system, includes the full spectrum of climate processes and mechanisms. To quantify and examine the energy budget, these processes and mechanisms are expressed as “forcings.” If we know all the forcings, we know by how much and how quickly climate change is occurring.
This is what we mean by forcing, with attention to its measure:
“Forcing” is the amount of energy delivered across a unit area (or more precisely the amount of power, energy delivered per second). Climate forcings are measured in watts per square meter (given as W•M^-2 in charts and the literature).
When The Physical Science Basis 2013 was released, total anthropogenic forcing was estimated at 2.29 watts per square meter, of which 1.68 watts per square meter was attributed to increases in CO2. The difference is primarily due to CH4 emissions, with a forcing of .97 watts per square meter, offset by negative forcings from short-lived gases and aerosols.
While these are best available estimates, readers should not assume they are accurate to the given number of decimal places. These are statistical averages, with statistical confidence intervals. CO2 forcing, for instance, is reported with very high confidence to lie between 1.33 and 2.03 watts per square meter.
Forcings from ENSO are high enough to swamp the more stable anthropogenic signal, causing temporary spikes and troughs in GMST. El Niño and La Niña occur every three to five years. Averaging over longer periods can remove the ENSO signal. PDO cycles are much longer. Only two full PDO cycles were recorded in the last century.
To be clear, there aren’t a lot of other places where the excess heat could have gone. Ideally, we’d have a firm subsurface temperature record to work with, but we don’t. Without it we can’t specify how much heat has been taken up below the surface, but we can still point out the most likely suspect, if you will.
CO2 increases the heat in the climate system by reflecting energy back toward the surface. The heat being reflected by atmospheric CO2 doesn’t originate in the atmosphere, however. Most of the heat being reflected originates on the surface, due both to its warmer temperatures and higher heat capacity. Most of that surface is ocean.
If warmed waters are piled up by tradewinds, or cycled deeper by ocean currents, cooler waters take their place, resulting in an increase in the amount of heat being taken up by the surface, because heat flow increases with lower temperatures. At the same time, those cooler waters create lower atmospheric temperatures due to the standard triad of conduction, convection, and radiation.
As ever, Jesse
P
Poptech
Guest
Those “replications” used the same flawed proxy records and do not validate the results in any way. The following will give a good overview of this debate.
What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About? (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics, April 4, 2005)
Auditing Temperature Reconstructions of the Past 1000 Years (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, August 20, 2008)
Climategate: A Battlefield Perspective (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, May 16, 2010)
P
Poptech
Guest
I have extensively documented and clearly demonstrating that either the organization was politically biased or the “investigation” was whitewashed. This is why you should not use unreliable sources like Wikipedia when researching Climategate.
Slanted inquiries (Financial Post, Canada, September 17, 2010) - Archive]
The Climategate Inquiries (PDF) (55 pgs) (The Global Warming Policy Foundation)
Understanding the Climategate Inquiries (PDF) (50 pgs) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)
D
dvdjs
Guest
Nice. But I was wondering about applying scientific critical thinking to the hypothesis that Mann intentionally misrepresented.
D
dvdjs
Guest
I suppose that this comment is meaningful in one way. Harvard does not recommend blogs and other ad libitum webpages.
And I am reminded of a remark by a Harvard Nobel laureate - slightly paraphrased: Harvard is not working with science students, it is working with future scientists
D
dvdjs
Guest
As I mentioned earlier there is quite a literature on the hockey stick. But this is mainly about where or not Mann et al screwed up and 'fessed up, rather than about the actual scientific hypothesis. And that is the problem with the approach of the the denialists: the mistakes of misdeeds of this person or that many be trumped up to sow doubt among the uniformed, but it doesn’t change in the least the actual truth of the matter. I hold in higher esteem those who are working to build up knowledge, even if they make mistakes along the way, versus those who do little more than sit on the sidelines and heckle.
Sam Rayburn one noted that it takes a carpenter to build a barn, but it only takes a jackass to knock one done.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Forget Wikipedia. I don’t need it for my argument. I have statements from the various organizations cited.
One might be tempted to believe that one or two of these organizations are biased to the point of delivering a whitewashed verdict. But when you claim that every single scientific or technical organization that has cleared climategate of scientific misconduct is so corrupt that its verdict must be thrown out, that surpasses believability.
Your “proofs” of misconduct are all in the political right wing echo chamber. But if that is all one looks at one can develop a sense that the “whole world” has found the East Anglia connected scientist guilty.
P
Poptech
Guest
Not understanding Climategate is not an argument.
Which part of the whitewashed “investigations” do you wish to discuss?
The Climategate Inquiries (PDF) (55 pgs) (The Global Warming Policy Foundation)
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (U.K.)
- Finding: Comments made by Phil Willis suggest that he was not a neutral chairman.
- Finding: With the general election looming, the scope of the Select Committee’s work was extremely limited.
- Finding: The Select Committee appears to have accepted that scientists can leave out important information about the reliability of their results when presenting findings to policymakers.
- Finding: The Select Committee appear to have been confused about the nature of the divergence problem and the Scientific Appraisal Panel failed to investigate the issue.
- Finding: The Select Committee did not consider the important issue of ad-hoc bodging of data by CRU scientists.
- Finding: The Committee did not consider the issue of cherrypicking of data despite having several examples put to them.
- Finding: The Committee appears to have exonerated Jones of the charge of fabrication without any evidence to justify such a conclusion.
- Finding: The Committee dismissed allegations of threats to journals on the basis of explanations provided by Jones. No attempt was made to obtain evidence from the journal editors themselves.
- Finding: The Committee failed to consider or publish a submission of evidence containing allegations of fraud.
- Finding: The Committee misunderstood Peiser’s evidence and failed to investigate Keenan’s fraud allegation made against Jones.
- Finding: The Select Committee does not appear to have investigated a serious allegation of a breach of scientific standards.
- Finding: Although the Committee are clear that the law of freedom of information was flouted, no attempt seems to have been made to identify the individuals responsible.
- Finding: Despite concerns that some of the appointed CCE Panel members were unsuitable, the Committee accepted Russell’s vague expressions of hope that they would act in an objective fashion.
- Finding: The Committee chairman refused to reveal how decisions had been reached.
- Finding: The Panel appears to have been deliberately selected to have a majority who would not address the review objectively and to exclude sceptical views entirely.
- Finding: UEA appointed Oxburgh as chairman of the Panel in the full knowledge that he had conflicts of interest.
- Finding: Kerry Emanuel appeared to have prejudged the inquiry findings.
- Finding: UEA restricted the scope of the Oxburgh inquiry to published papers only, avoiding the serious allegations related to the IPCC activities of CRU staff.
- Finding: The scope was further restricted to the conduct of the scientists. UEA had led the Science and Technology Committee members to believe that the quality of CRU’s scientific work would be re-assessed. The Committee’s chairman, Phil Willis, felt that UEA had misled them.
- Finding: The papers examined by the Panel were selected by UEA and appear to have been cleared with Jones himself.
- Finding: Lord Oxburgh’s report misled the public by stating that the papers were chosen ‘on the advice of the Royal Society’.
- Finding: Lord Rees said that he had consulted with experts about the papers. In fact he had only discussed them with Sir Brian Hoskins, who had said he did not know CRU’s work.
- Finding: Many of the papers examined were obscure and had not been questioned by critics. Many of the papers that had been criticised were not examined.
- Finding: Contrary to the strong recommendation from the Science and Technology Committee, the inquiry did not carry out its interviews in public, nor did it make notes, recordings or transcripts of interviews.
- Finding: The Oxburgh Panel commended CRU for continuously updating their chronologies, but failed to report on CRU’s failure to update the Polar Urals chronology, an issue that had long concerned critics.
- Finding: The Panel’s conclusions that criticisms of CRU were ‘selective’ and ‘uncharitable’ appear to be baseless since there is no record of these criticisms having been examined.
- Finding: The Panel do not appear to have examined Keenan’s serious allegation.
- Finding: The Panel upheld one of the chief complaints of the IPCC’s critics, noting that the IPCC report overlooked caveats and statements of uncertainty in the scientific literature. It is important to note however, that the panel failed to note the role CRU scientists had in downplaying uncertainty in the IPCC reports.
- Finding: At least one panellist had serious concerns over CRU science and how it was used in the IPCC reports. There was no word of these concerns in the Oxburgh Panel report.
- Status