Arctic scientist under investigation

[kimmielittle]

And by the way, Kimmie is not the Pope -

ABSOLUTELY…neither are you

Can you give us evidence that The Holy Father even read this paper?

I know the Holy See Spokesperson has…AND Here is THE OFFICIAL Ruling"

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, issued a similar communique, adding that the PAS_Glacier_110511_final.pdf “cannot be considered an official position of the Holy See.”.

Please don’t try to sell this paper as having Catholic Worthiness - UNTIL you have proof.

 

[kimmielittle]

That is a pretty glowing endorsement from a disinterested source - unless you believe the whole thing is some kind of Catholic conspiracy perpetuated by the Vatican and the authors of the Wikipedia article.

So now I have refuted several of Kimmie’s arguments and “caught” her in a bit of sloppy scholarship despite the fact that I have no expertise in the field whatsoever. Can you imagine what a real climate scientist would do? Like I said, Kimmie seems smart enough, but she is presently way out of her league.

Actually no…you have not refuted anything nor caught me in sloppy research.

You have done nothing but try to add to your subjective speculations.

IMO not knowing / acknowledging this… is sloppy research

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, issued a similar communique, adding that the PAS_Glacier_110511_final.pdf “cannot be considered an official position of the Holy See.”.

AND passing it off as anything other than that…

 

[kimmielittle]

Clearly, the current snow-albedo-altering impact of BC wafting over the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau vastly overshadows its direct radiative warming impact, which suggests that the most logical way to strive to avert the melting of Himalayan glaciers would be to reduce Asian BC emissions

I can think of no clearer statement supporting this statement of mine

An honest approach would have been demand Catholics to call on India especially ] to clean up it’s air quality and protect the Himalayas. In this report, they do not do. Nor do the call on Indians to help provide cook stoves - TWO simple but almost immediate ways to “protect” the Himalayas.

 

[bellasbane]

Actually CORRECT…BUT Did you read it - it cites your buddy Veerabhadran Ramanathan.

I did notice the reference. I read the introduction, the conclusion and skimmed the rest - looking for the context of your quote. Didn’t find it. However, the paper is fairly technical. It is this not something most people would consider “light reading”.

The Pontifical Study asked for the World… for a reduction of 50% to save the Himalayas.

The report actually lists three recommendations:

• Reduce worldwide carbon dioxide emissions without delay, using all means possible to meet ambitious international global warming targets and ensure the long-term stability of the climate system.
• Reduce the concentrations of warming air pollutants (dark soot, methane, lower atmosphere ozone, and hydrofluorocarbons) by as much as 50%, to slow down climate change during this century while preventing millions of premature deaths from respiratory disease and millions of tons of crop damages every year.
• Prepare to adapt to the climatic changes, both chronic and abrupt, that society will be unable to mitigate. In particular, we call for a global capacitybuilding initiative to assess the natural and social impacts of climate change in mountain systems and related watersheds.

Note that there is no promise that the 50% reduction will reverse AGW - the hope is to simply slow it down. AGW is a reality we will all have to learn how to live with. The last recommendation from the report addresses this reality.

We are talking of SAVING the Himalayas - IT is well known AND IPCC knows it…the Himalayas are threatened NOT By AGW or CO2 But Black Carbon from the **REGION… **

Actually, according to the report, the situation if far more complex than that and is apparently not limited to the Himalayas:

The recent changes observed in glacial behaviour are due to a complex mix of causal factors that include greenhouse gas forcing together with large scale emissions of
dark soot particles and dust in “brown clouds”, and the associated changes in regional
atmospheric energy and moisture content, all of which result in significant warming at
higher altitudes, not least in the Himalayas.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2011/PAS_Glacier_110511_final.pdf

The lead at IPCC A Co writer of this Pontifical Paper R.K. Pachauri from India - And IPCC Head ] doesn’t want you to know this because the Himalayas serve as a poster child. Mr.R.K. Pachauri has a fondness for trying to get the world to Reduce CO2 - BUT INDIA will not aggressively reduce Black Carbon.

This is an opinion. However, if you could provide a source…

An honest approach would have been demand Catholics to call on India especially ] to clean up it’s air quality and protect the Himalayas. In this report, they do not do. Nor do the call on Indians to help provide cook stoves - TWO simple but almost immediate ways to “protect” the Himalayas. I’ll stand by this statement.

I don’t think there is any problem with the report, but I’m OK with people getting new cook stoves.

 

[kimmielittle]

Note that in the very first sentence the authors state as a fact that BC emissions contribute to global warming

Can you give us evidence that ANYTHING doesn’t contribute to Global Warming as per the unproven hypothesis of AGW?

Sooooo…you have a lame based statement.

The question that has NOT been answered - how much to attribute contributions.

This comes under “values” assigned to “sensitivities”… Feedbacks and Forcings ] Which was inserted INTO the Basic hypothesis.

Something even IPCC can’t agree on. They issue values of from…,3-5 all the way to 5.7 and some like Mr Hansen wants them issued at 7.0 +.

If we have no observational evidence to place such “Values”…

The values issued by AGW’ers IPCC…is to get the Models to show their 1 - 1.5 C warming needed.

Any lower values…the models show little or no warming.

 

[rlg94086]

I did notice the reference. I read the introduction, the conclusion and skimmed the rest - looking for the context of your quote. Didn’t find it. However, the paper is fairly technical. It is this not something most people would consider “light reading”.

Um…didn’t you just accuse kimmielittle of “sloppy scholarship?” If all you are doing is “light reading” while she reads the technical stuff, then who is guilty of sloppy scholarship?

Ironic…

 

[bellasbane]

ABSOLUTELY…neither are you

Can you give us evidence that The Holy Father even read this paper?

I know the Holy See Spokesperson has…AND Here is THE OFFICIAL Ruling"

Please don’t try to sell this paper as having Catholic Worthiness - UNTIL you have proof.

The Pope’s message to for the Celebration of World Peace Day, 2010 is all that I require for Catholic worthiness regarding the official position of the Holy See regarding the REALITY of climate change.

Since this message was delivered prior to the publication of the report in 2011 - it hardly matters whether the Pope read the report or not. In any event, the Declaration that begins the report clearly echoes the same themes of social justice and human dignity found in his World Peace Day message. Perhaps the Pope influenced the scientists in this regard:

Here are the words of the declaration:
“We are committed to ensuring that all inhabitants of this planet receive their daily bread, fresh air to breathe and clean water to drink as we are aware that, if we want justice and peace, we must protect the habitat that sustains us. The believers among us ask God to grant us this wish.”

Of course the Vatican has not made an “official” ruling on the report - it’s function is to serve as a reliable scientific resource for them. The information in the report, the recommendations, and the suggested responses, must all be evaluated in relation to Catholic social teachings.

 

[bellasbane]

Um…didn’t you just accuse kimmielittle of “sloppy scholarship?” If all you are doing is “light reading” while she reads the technical stuff, then who is guilty of sloppy scholarship?

Ironic…

Apparently, you can’t read at all.

 

[kimmielittle]

Note that there is no promise that the 50% reduction will reverse AGW - the hope is to simply slow it down. AGW is a reality we will all have to learn how to live with. The last recommendation from the report addresses this reality.

AN IMPORTANT FACT OF REALITY

CO2 is a gas…we can reduce the Gas…but never touch climate change. We have NO observational evidence WHATSOEVER that we can change climate -

AGW is an unproven hypothesis LIVING in models…Models are NOT reality.

Climate Changes - Cooler OR Warmer… IS reality

 

[kimmielittle]

The Pope’s message to for the Celebration of World Peace Day, 2010 is all that I require for Catholic worthiness regarding the official position of the Holy See regarding the REALITY of climate change.

You are consitantly confusiong Climate Change - A Natural Reality - WITH AGW…Why do you think the people at IPCC changed the name from AGW to Climate Change?

Hint: AGW … no evidential observational support.

Climate Change - Constantly Changes.

We As good Stewards need to address Climate Changes THE Cool or Warm…AGW doesn’t recognize the Cooling Problems…

That is why The Holy Father has never signed on to AGW or it’s schemes.

 

[bellasbane]

Actually no…you have not refuted anything nor caught me in sloppy research.

You have done nothing but try to add to your subjective speculations.

IMO not knowing / acknowledging this… is sloppy research

AND passing it off as anything other than that…

When someone quotes a source they do not cite, and cites a source they do not quote, the charitable evaluation is that it is sloppy research. You didn’t read the article you cited and didn’t link back to it - I found both the actual article AND the secondary source that was all that you read and quoted. - Let’s just leave it at that.

You seem to be getting a bit giddy Kimmie with all the emoticons. I have stated from the start that I don’t buy your arguments, because they are not very convincing. Apparently, you are having a real hard time accepting that. What do you want me to do?

 

[kimmielittle]

When someone quotes a source they do not cite, and cites a source they do not quote, the charitable evaluation is that it is sloppy research. You didn’t read the article you cited and didn’t link back to it - I found both the actual article AND the secondary source that was all that you read and quoted. - Let’s just leave it at that.

Actually wrong… I gave the references to the my quote. AND the referenced papers.
So it was cited by me.

CAF’s link didn’t go through…the charitable thing to do is ask me for the link But a link missing isn’t the same as not citing.

Kopacz, M., Mauzerall, D.L., Wang, J., Leibensperger, E.M., Henze, D.K. and Singh, K. 2011. Origin and radiative forcing of black carbon transported to the Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11: 2837-2852.

Note it lists the authors AND the research paper - Including the numbers.

I’m sorry you had to do a little search…BUT hey! That’s what is required huh?

You seem to be getting a bit giddy Kimmie with all the emoticons.

Ohh ohhh…Is that it?

I have stated from the start that I don’t buy your arguments, because they are not very convincing. Apparently, you are having a real hard time accepting that. What do you want me to do?

Actually no…I’m having problems with unsupported statements of yours, offered as reason.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

That is naive. Scientists are perfectly capable of being bought and it is easy to “lie with statistics” - Note my comparison to the tobacco industry.

If you understood my post, you would realize that you are accusing the Holy See of being political. You claiming that the arguments of the Pope are politically inspired and are not truly based on his understanding of the research and his interpretation of Catholic Social Doctrine. The only other alternative is that he has been duped by the climate change extremists. I find any suggestion that either alternative might be the case to be highly offensive - that’s my Catholic bias, and I will not apologize for it.

My references to contraception was made to illustrate a point about the tactic of denying the reality of a problem by attacking a “liberal” response to the problem. The validity of the response is irrelevant to the reality of the problem. I used the example of PP in order to highlight the absurdity and irresponsibility of such a tactic in the context of a “problem” we all understand quite well; i.e., teen pregnancy. It is called analogical reasoning. Go back and read my post and maybe you will better understand the point I am trying to make.

Peace

Ballasbane, top authentic Scientists can not be “Bought” anymore than Real Clergy, Judges can. They would be “Listed” as unprofessional, and subject to Censure in serious cases, as has been done. Similarly, it would be Totally Unethical for scientists to have “An Agenda” to prove or unprove anything for Financial or any such reason, as another post also suggested. Am speaking of Professional and world Class Scientists.

                                                                                                                       Lying with   Statistics is  quite  impossible, because  they  and their  'statistics'   would   be caught and     challenged    (corrected)   by peer review, other Scientists publishing corrections,  as has always been done.  Rigged  or Slanted statitics,  'findings'   are the greatest Wrong in Science, or     any major Profession.

 

[kimmielittle]

Similarly, it would  be   Totally  Unethical   for scientists to  have  "An Agenda"  to prove or unprove   anything   for Financial or   any such reason.   Am  speaking of Professional world Class Scientists.

 

[rlg94086]

Apparently, you can’t read at all.

Based on…?

 

[bellasbane]

Actually wrong… I gave the references to the my quote. AND the referenced papers. CAF’s link didn’t go through…the charitable thing to do is ask me for the link

Note it lists the authors AND the research paper - Including the numbers.

I’m sorry you had to do a little search…BUT hey! That’s what is required huh?

Did you actually read the paper you cited?

Ohh ohhh…Is that it?

Actually no…I’m having problems with unsupported statements of yours, offered as reason.

My arguments have been the same throughout this discussion. I am sorry you are having problem with them. Which statements in particular are you referring to?

 

[bellasbane]

Based on…?

Lack of reading comprehension?

 

[rlg94086]

Lack of reading comprehension?

And, what have I posted that led you to that conclusion?

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Ballasbane, top authentic Scientists can not be “Bought” anymore than Real Clergy, Judges can. They would be “Listed” as unprofessional, and subject to Censure in serious cases, as has been done. Similarly, it would be Totally Unethical for scientists to have “An Agenda” to prove or unprove anything for Financial or any such reason, as another post also suggested. Am speaking of Professional and world Class Scientists.

                                                                                                                       Lying with   Statistics is  quite  impossible, because  they  and their  'statistics'   would   be caught and     challenged    (corrected)   by peer review, other Scientists publishing corrections,  as has always been done.  Rigged  or Slanted statitics,  'findings'   are the greatest Wrong in Science, or     any major Profession.

As you so well cite, Ballasbane, ‘scientists’ and ‘data’ are sought and bought by ‘the bad boys’ to mislead the public and try to justify their ‘business interests’. I only tried to make some technical corrections, which in fact supported what you posted. I ‘corrected’ before reading , being in a rush. Sorry! You’re Right On!

 

[bellasbane]

Ballasbane, top authentic Scientists can not be “Bought” anymore than Real Clergy, Judges can. They would be “Listed” as unprofessional, and subject to Censure in serious cases, as has been done. Similarly, it would be Totally Unethical for scientists to have “An Agenda” to prove or unprove anything for Financial or any such reason, as another post also suggested. Am speaking of Professional and world Class Scientists.

                                                                                                                       Lying with   Statistics is  quite  impossible, because  they  and their  'statistics'   would   be caught and     challenged    (corrected)   by peer review, other Scientists publishing corrections,  as has always been done.  Rigged  or Slanted statitics,  'findings'   are the greatest Wrong in Science, or     any major Profession.

I’m not sure whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with me, but by your own admission unethical scientists do exist and have been censured as a result. The OP that starts this thread states that:

Charles Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into “integrity issues.” But he has not yet been informed by the inspector general’s office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

The implication is that Charles Monnett is being investigated because the “integrity” of his scientific work is being questioned. The complaint filed on his behalf suggests that he is being targeted for political reasons - which might very well be true.

The article also states that:

Whatever the outcome, the investigation comes at a time when climate change activists and those who are skeptical about global warming are battling over the credibility of scientists’ work.

Clearly, this is not a “typical” situation - but is occurring within the context of a “battle” between two sides with opposing agendas.

It is not very difficult to “lie” with statistics, but it is always unethical. It is probably easier to do in the social sciences, but I’ve seen it happen with medical research as well. I can only suppose that it is possible in any field.