Catholic Climate Movement

[Ender]

These have all been investigated by reputable outside science institutes and they found nothing wrong with them – nothing that would in some way disprove GW.

That so many are will to deny the obvious shows just how deep the rot goes.

You have to understand that Mann and his few associates who wrote those emails were under severe attack by denialist industry and other nefarious actors who even gave death threats to Mann’s small child. Also they have been plagued with superfluous FOI requests that hamper their work – and some of that info they cannot give because it was purchased, so the requester should also get it by purchasing it the way the Met did (not that those requestors would have the smarts or skills to analyze it).

The opposition to FOI requests was to deny skeptics the ability to analyze what had actually been done. Given what the FOI requests from Stephen McIntyre eventually led to (the devastation of Mann’s graph) it is understandable why these requests were so hated.

So if Mann and others wrote something in those emails against those evil-doers, like how to cope with, respond to, or evade them, then that would be quite understandable.

And this is how the indefensible is defended.

And this whole fiasco is ridiculous from the get-go since GW was already well established BEFORE Mann came on the climate science scene and did his work.

This discussion was about Mann and his invented hockey stick. Even now, a decade after the event, the alarmists still can’t admit what can no longer be denied, but while they won’t deny what happened, they are very willing to defend the actions of the people involved.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Given the names of the scientists involved, they cannot be considered merely irrelevant “outliers”. These are some of the biggest names in the global warming controversy, just as the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia is one of the leading research centers in the world for climate research. No one feels that the majority of researchers are corrupt, but given the number of scientists involved it is hard to deny that corruption and collusion don’t run deep withing that community. But even this is not the point. What was being discussed was Mann’s Hockey Stick graph, and how it ought to be dismissed as utterly worthless.

Ender

Scientists are not the followers you paint them to be. They are all skeptical by nature. There are no “big names” in the sense that everyone accepts whatever they say. If you want to discredit global warming you can’t do it by smearing one or two “top men” (as in Indiana Jones). You have to somehow discredit them all. And they are in agreement about the essentials of Mann’s graph. It is worthless in the sense that it can be discarded without doing any damage to the theory since that graph has been corroborated.

 

[Ender]

This is an example of taking a private communication about technical matters and putting a devious spin on it. For a more competent explanation of what this e-mail means, there is this article, which states…

Actually, the email was fairly straightforward. For an example of spin you could hardly do better than the explanation presented by Skeptical Science. The “problem” that different proxy data sets didn’t support one another or the “consensus” view was well known before hand. That email simply explained how the discrepancies were dealt with.

The problem was described in another email from Michael Mann two months earlier:We demonstrate…that the major discrepancies between Phil’s and our line can be explained in terms of (statistical excuses). But that explanation certainly can’t rectify why Keith’s data, which has similar properties to Phil’s data, differs in large part in exactly the opposite direction that Phil’s does from ours. This is the problem we all picked up on — everyone in the* room at** the IPCC was in agreement that this was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably consensus viewpoint we’d like to show…
*So, they knew what the right answer was, now all they had to do was figure a way to make it look as if the data sets supported that conclusion. The solution they came up with was to delete the data that didn’t agree with the “consensus” position. And can we agree that something being done at the IPCC should not be dismissed as a fringe matter?

Ender

 

[lynnvinc]

Getting beyond Mann’s 1998 paper, here is the most recent study by Mann and others, which confirms what several other climate scientists have been concluding for several years now. A topic which I’ve been particularly interested in – as it could bring more killing freezes to our area in the lower Rio Grande Valley (a subtropical area). The Mann, et al. study gives stronger evidence of these longer, deeper Rossby waves (that cause greater heatwaves, droughts, and flooding in various areas already prone to these) being linked to the enhanced greenhouse effect.

Influence of Anthropogenic Climate Change on Planetary Wave Resonance and Extreme Weather Events
Michael E. Mann, Stefan Rahmstorf, Kai Kornhuber, Byron A. Steinman, Sonya K. Miller, and Dim Coumou. Scientific Reports, 2017; 7: 45242, at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5366916/

ABSTRACT: Persistent episodes of extreme weather in the Northern Hemisphere summer have been shown to be associated with the presence of high-amplitude quasi-stationary atmospheric Rossby waves within a particular wavelength range (zonal wavenumber 6–8). The underlying mechanistic relationship involves the phenomenon of quasi-resonant amplification (QRA) of synoptic-scale waves with that wavenumber range becoming trapped within an effective mid-latitude atmospheric waveguide. Recent work suggests an increase in recent decades in the occurrence of QRA-favorable conditions and associated extreme weather, possibly linked to amplified Arctic warming and thus a climate change influence. Here, we isolate a specific fingerprint in the zonal mean surface temperature profile that is associated with QRA-favorable conditions. State-of-the-art (“CMIP5”) historical climate model simulations subject to anthropogenic forcing display an increase in the projection of this fingerprint that is mirrored in multiple observational surface temperature datasets. Both the models and observations suggest this signal has only recently emerged from the background noise of natural variability.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Getting beyond Mann’s 1998 paper, here is the most recent study by Mann and others, which confirms what several other climate scientists have been concluding for several years now. A topic which I’ve been particularly interested in – as it could bring more killing freezes to our area in the lower Rio Grande Valley (a subtropical area). The Mann, et al. study gives stronger evidence of these longer, deeper Rossby waves (that cause greater heatwaves, droughts, and flooding in various areas already prone to these) being linked to the enhanced greenhouse effect.

Influence of Anthropogenic Climate Change on Planetary Wave Resonance and Extreme Weather Events
Michael E. Mann, Stefan Rahmstorf, Kai Kornhuber, Byron A. Steinman, Sonya K. Miller, and Dim Coumou. Scientific Reports, 2017; 7: 45242, at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5366916/

ABSTRACT: Persistent episodes of extreme weather in the Northern Hemisphere summer have been shown to be associated with the presence of high-amplitude quasi-stationary atmospheric Rossby waves within a particular wavelength range (zonal wavenumber 6–8). The underlying mechanistic relationship involves the phenomenon of quasi-resonant amplification (QRA) of synoptic-scale waves with that wavenumber range becoming trapped within an effective mid-latitude atmospheric waveguide. Recent work suggests an increase in recent decades in the occurrence of QRA-favorable conditions and associated extreme weather, possibly linked to amplified Arctic warming and thus a climate change influence. Here, we isolate a specific fingerprint in the zonal mean surface temperature profile that is associated with QRA-favorable conditions. State-of-the-art (“CMIP5”) historical climate model simulations subject to anthropogenic forcing display an increase in the projection of this fingerprint that is mirrored in multiple observational surface temperature datasets. Both the models and observations suggest this signal has only recently emerged from the background noise of natural variability.

I have seen papers in which the abstract was politically correct … and on that basis was published. However, when I read the detailed data tables, the data was opposite to the abstract.

[Had to do with the chemical analysis of volcanic emissions.]

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I have seen papers in which the abstract was politically correct … and on that basis was published. However, when I read the detailed data tables, the data was opposite to the abstract.

[Had to do with the chemical analysis of volcanic emissions.]

I seriously doubt that.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Actually, the email was fairly straightforward.

It may be straightforward to someone very familiar with the context, such as the intended professional recipient. But if you are not that person, not so much.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I seriously doubt that.

As a peer reviewer… I don’t.

You’ve heard the old DA saying " I could indite a ham sandwich"?

It’s kinda the same principle.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

As a peer reviewer… I don’t.

You mean as a peer reviewer, you gave your approval to papers where the abstract was totally contradicted by the content? I doubt that too.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I have seen papers in which the abstract was politically correct … and on that basis was published. However, when I read the detailed data tables, the data was opposite to the abstract.

[Had to do with the chemical analysis of volcanic emissions.]

The accepted science was that there were/are NO natural sources of organohalogens.

NONE.

All organohalogens are man-made.

But then, a chemist named Gordon Gribble found a naturally occurring organohalogen.

But the establishment fought him.

 

[lynnvinc]

I have seen papers in which the abstract was politically correct … and on that basis was published. However, when I read the detailed data tables, the data was opposite to the abstract.

[Had to do with the chemical analysis of volcanic emissions.]

I suppose that could happen now and then. However, editors tend to be sticklers on getting the abstract right, to jive with the conclusions based on the contents, data, theory, and methods employed.

I’ve been through peer reviews myself and it is a gauntlet.

But one thing I can say about peer-reviewed articles, they tend to be quite conservative in their claims, the authors knowing there will be others in the field ready to jump down their throats if they make a claim that cannot be backed up solidly with evidence and good analytical methods. Hence, there tends to be a lot of caveats in the conclusion that may not get into the abstract, making it seem the abstract is making stronger claims than the body of the paper. So that can happen.

However, it is also a bit deceiving that the conclusion comes across far more reticent in its claims than the evidence, theory, and methods would allow.

Scientists strive to avoid the FALSE POSITIVE of making claims that pan out not to be true. They usually need 95% or higher confidence in order to make a claim.

However, we as people who could be harmed by something and policy makers looking out for our welfare would strive to avoid the FALSE NEGATIVE, of assuming there is no problem when actually there is a serious problem. We would be appalled if a doctor told us there was only 93% confidence that lump in our body was cancerous and therefore he couldn’t operate until it reached 95% confidence, maybe in a few years.

Likewise, we would not require 95% confidence that GW is happening and dangerous, posing serious risks of harm to our progeny, in order to start mitigating it, esp when there are so many things we can do to mitigate GW that actually save us money, are good for our health, or don’t cost, or don’t cost much.

Most of us spend a good amount for insurance on our car and home, and life insurance to take care of our loved ones, etc. We would be pleased to ensure our children have a good and viable future in a life-hospitable climate AND save money to boot doing so. Mitigating GW is sort of like the insurance company paying rather than charging us money (savings from various mitigation measures) to insure our children’s and grandchildren’s future.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I suppose that could happen now and then. However, editors tend to be sticklers on getting the abstract right, to jive with the conclusions based on the contents, data, theory, and methods employed.

I’ve been through peer reviews myself and it is a gauntlet.

But one thing I can say about peer-reviewed articles, they tend to be quite conservative in their claims, the authors knowing there will be others in the field ready to jump down their throats if they make a claim that cannot be backed up solidly with evidence and good analytical methods. Hence, there tends to be a lot of caveats in the conclusion that may not get into the abstract, making it seem the abstract is making stronger claims than the body of the paper. So that can happen.

However, it is also a bit deceiving that the conclusion comes across far more reticent in its claims than the evidence, theory, and methods would allow.

Scientists strive to avoid the FALSE POSITIVE of making claims that pan out not to be true. They usually need 95% or higher confidence in order to make a claim.

However, we as people who could be harmed by something and policy makers looking out for our welfare would strive to avoid the FALSE NEGATIVE, of assuming there is no problem when actually there is a serious problem. We would be appalled if a doctor told us there was only 93% confidence that lump in our body was cancerous and therefore he couldn’t operate until it reached 95% confidence, maybe in a few years.

Likewise, we would not require 95% confidence that GW is happening and dangerous, posing serious risks of harm to our progeny, in order to start mitigating it, esp when there are so many things we can do to mitigate GW that actually save us money, are good for our health, or don’t cost, or don’t cost much.

Most of us spend a good amount for insurance on our car and home, and life insurance to take care of our loved ones, etc. We would be pleased to ensure our children have a good and viable future in a life-hospitable climate AND save money to boot doing so. Mitigating GW is sort of like the insurance company paying rather than charging us money (savings from various mitigation measures) to insure our children’s and grandchildren’s future.

Very wise words, indeed.

The problem is that some people insist that man-made global warming is real, when in fact global warming is naturally- occurring.

Remember how I posted that a chemist named Gordon Gribble had found ONE naturally occurring organohalogen?

The actual number is now more than 5,000 naturally occurring organohalogens.

books.google.com/books?id=4R7KDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=organohalogen+compounds+5000&source=bl&ots=wtNqrvB4pP&sig=sI9POCQVv7Vv0hsNyID704RCau4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjl7Om_tYPUAhVGQiYKHZqSCHcQ6AEIOzAE#v=onepage&q=organohalogen%20compounds%205000&f=false

This … after the establishment insisted there were NO naturally occurring organohalogens.

The reason why this is important is that the volcano near the South Pole … Mount Erebus … spews thousands of tons of naturally occurring organohalogens directly into the so-called Ozone Hole.

books.google.com/books?id=j4-eBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=volcanic+sources+organohalogens&source=bl&ots=lICtTxaCsa&sig=X-HZX45j_yAPzXRkwQEMaOvNyQ8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5iLCyuYPUAhXLRCYKHYQ-AVsQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=volcanic%20sources%20organohalogens&f=false

Politically correct science says that the “Ozone Hole” is man-made and not natural.

But the fact is that the Ozone Hole is not a hole, it is a seasonal thinning [the Ozone “layer” is actually thinner at the equator] and organohalogens do occur in nature … in large numbers including at Mount Erebus which pumps them directly into the so-called Ozone Hole.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Very wise words, indeed.

The problem is that some people insist that man-made global warming is real, when in fact global warming is naturally- occurring.

Remember how I posted that a chemist named Gordon Gribble had found ONE naturally occurring organohalogen?

The actual number is now more than 5,000 naturally occurring organohalogens.

books.google.com/books?id=4R7KDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=organohalogen+compounds+5000&source=bl&ots=wtNqrvB4pP&sig=sI9POCQVv7Vv0hsNyID704RCau4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjl7Om_tYPUAhVGQiYKHZqSCHcQ6AEIOzAE#v=onepage&q=organohalogen%20compounds%205000&f=false

This … after the establishment insisted there were NO naturally occurring organohalogens.

The reason why this is important is that the volcano near the South Pole … Mount Erebus … spews thousands of tons of naturally occurring organohalogens directly into the so-called Ozone Hole.

books.google.com/books?id=j4-eBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=volcanic+sources+organohalogens&source=bl&ots=lICtTxaCsa&sig=X-HZX45j_yAPzXRkwQEMaOvNyQ8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5iLCyuYPUAhXLRCYKHYQ-AVsQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=volcanic%20sources%20organohalogens&f=false

Politically correct science says that the “Ozone Hole” is man-made and not natural.

But the fact is that the Ozone Hole is not a hole, it is a seasonal thinning [the Ozone “layer” is actually thinner at the equator] and organohalogens do occur in nature … in large numbers including at Mount Erebus which pumps them directly into the so-called Ozone Hole.

Some background on chemist Gordon Gribble:

Gordon Gribble on 48 years at Dartmouth.

dartreview.com/gordon-gribble-on-48-years-at-dartmouth/

GG: My research has focused on a range of topics in organic chemistry: natural product synthesis, reaction mechanisms. I have a strong interest in naturally occurring organohalogen compounds. I’ve written two books on those covering over 5,000 compounds—many of which Greenpeace at one point said nature would never make. In terms of teaching I’ve taught pre-med organic chemistry and the honors organic chemistry sequence. More recently, I’ve taught one half of our summer course on environmental chemistry, in which I talk about carcinogens, chemical warfare, pesticides, and other pollutants that are found in the environment.

GG: I’ve published four books, two by myself and two with a co-author. A fifth book is going to come out this August dealing with indole ring synthesis, and this a book for which I signed a contract in 2006 but wasn’t able to really get started on until 2013. That is now finished—just today I finished the page proofs. There are eighty-nine chapters and it it’ll be about 700 pages. It’s the first book to really document all the ways that make an indole ring. An indole ring is an organic compound; it’s in heterocyclen, it’s in seratonin, it’s in all of our protein and many pharmaceuticals.

**I’ve also published about 370 papers over the years. **

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

You mean as a peer reviewer, you gave your approval to papers where the abstract was totally contradicted by the content? I doubt that too.

You have obviously never submitted a paper for peer review as a science student…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You have obviously never submitted a paper for peer review as a science student…

I don’t understand how that is an answer. Could you please address directly the question of whether or not it is common for published peer-reviewed papers to have abstracts that contradict the content? A simple yes or no at the start would be helpful.

(As a matter of fact I have submitted a paper to the Publications de l’Institut Mathématique and it was reviewed, accepted, and published in 1972.)

 

[Ridgerunner]

There might be a silver lining to all of this, indirectly. When “political MMGW” plays itself out, it’s possible that bits and pieces of real scientific discovery will remain and be useful. It’s unfortunate that some real research has been expended in such a terrible cause, but sometimes information is gathered that can prove useful in some other way at some later time.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

You mean as a peer reviewer, you gave your approval to papers where the abstract was totally contradicted by the content? I doubt that too.

I don’t understand how that is an answer. Could you please address directly the question of whether or not it is common for published peer-reviewed papers to have abstracts that contradict the content? A simple yes or no at the start would be helpful.

(As a matter of fact I have submitted a paper to the Publications de l’Institut Mathématique and it was reviewed, accepted, and published in 1972.)

I’ll give you an example.
Names have been changed.

Monsanto has a symbiotic relationship with Ohio state. osu is given access to monsanto’s money and resources and vice Versa. Osu becomes the minor league team for growing talent in that area for Monsanto. Osu likes this because thier graduates get jobs and thier department is given access to cutting edge field research. Monsanto likes this because they are given a trained work force and access to free ideas and research as well. Osu students submit papers for peer review to Monsanto employees…
Well, you follow the lines from there.

Peer review is not sacred.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I’ll give you an example.
Names have been changed.

Monsanto has a symbiotic relationship with Ohio state. osu is given access to monsanto’s money and resources and vice Versa. Osu becomes the minor league team for growing talent in that area for Monsanto. Osu likes this because thier graduates get jobs and thier department is given access to cutting edge field research. Monsanto likes this because they are given a trained work force and access to free ideas and research as well. Osu students submit papers for peer review to Monsanto employees…
Well, you follow the lines from there.

Peer review is not sacred.

Are you saying that the students submitting papers get to decide who reviews their papers? That is usually the decision of the publication. But if the publication is an in-house “Monsanto” journal, then such corruption is to be expected. But if the publication is a journal with a reputation for independence and integrity, we expect more from the peer review process. And while isolated examples may be found of papers that slipped through the process that shouldn’t have, I don’t think they amount to so much that we should statistically distrust all papers that are published in professional journals. Despite all their flaws, they are still the best bet we have.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Here is another WAY less sinister scenario.
Osu student submits a paper that outlines a different way to modify a process.
Monsanto already knows why it doesn’t work, or even what could be changed to make it work but cannot/willnot shoot the paper down because of trade secrets.

Or another scenario. Monsanto owns the patents on the Process for making strawberries taste like chocolate. They decide the market for the product is not at a place where they want to devote resources to the project. But “podunk enterprises” submits a paper outlining a way to isolate the gene markers in strawberry.
Monsanto rubber stamps the paper to then keep an eye on podunk. If podunk, successfully creates a product, Monsanto either takes over because of patent violation, or most likely, notifies podunk of the violation and sells them the patent.

Podunk is not innocent. They, are fully aware of the patent violation.

The peer review papers are a way to communicate within the legal system here. Monsanto did not objectively review it, their scientists reviewed it with a motive. Same for the way a paper is written. There is a motive to not tip too much of your hand.

I’m sure this exists in other fields…

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Are you saying that the students submitting papers get to decide who reviews their papers? That is usually the decision of the publication. But if the publication is an in-house “Monsanto” journal, then such corruption is to be expected. But if the publication is a journal with a reputation for independence and integrity, we expect more from the peer review process. And while isolated examples may be found of papers that slipped through the process that shouldn’t have, I don’t think they amount to so much that we should statistically distrust all papers that are published in professional journals. Despite all their flaws, they are still the best bet we have.

just staying in my wheelhouse here…
In a field that is extremely specific. Students or departments submitting a paper know darn well someone from Monsanto or the “big 5” is reviewing thier paper.
If you are writing a paper about genetic modification of strawberry, there are only a handful of scientist worldwide reading that paper. And guess what… they are corporate employees!
And they all shook hands at some convention last year…