Catholicism and Climate Change: The Sequel

[JasonSB]

Hmmmm often quoted…rarely investigated.

Can you document **ANY ** Peer review?

The report was the result of a review of the science by a team of glaciologists, climate scientists, meteorologists, hydrologists, physicists, chemists, mountaineers, and lawyers organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences at the Vatican to contemplate the observed retreat of the mountain glaciers, its causes and consequences.

It is a peer review of the science by Ajai, L. Bengtsson, D. Breashears, P.J. Crutzen, S. Fuzzi, W. Haeberli, W.W. Immerzeel, G. Kaser, C. Kennel, A. Kulkarni, R. Pachauri, T. Painter, J. Rabassa, V. Ramanathan, A. Robock, C. Rubbia, L. Russell, M. Sánchez Sorondo, H.J. Schellnhuber, S. Sorooshian, T. F. Stocker, L.G. Thompson, O.B. Toon, and D. Zaelke — more peer review than most papers get.

The Vatican, you see, took this unusual position of deciding to find out what the science says by assembling a team of scientists from a wide range of backgrounds and asking them.

For some reason the Vatican thinks this is a better way to find out the truth than by asking PR firms and right-wing think-tanks funded by Exxon Mobil and the Koch brothers. Perhaps because the Vatican noticed that those same people and organisations were telling everyone for years that tobacco was harmless when they were funded by the tobacco industry and so therefore they may not be the best source of unbiased and impartial information? I don’t know.

Can you document ANY sources used ?

The point of the workshop was to solicit the opinion of those scientists who participated. Those scientists assessed the science and were willing to sign their names to the report that they produced that outlined their opinion. Do you think they made a mistake and that you are in a better position to form an opinion on the science than they are?

Can you document ANY claims made?

You mean the quote? It’s in the report.

Are you really a “Scientist”?

Calling me a liar again, Kimmie? Why? I merely quoted what the report said. It makes no difference whether I’m a scientist or not.

Do you do give ALL your “evidences” offered, the same amount of research as you did this , above?

The evidence for the quote is the link to the PDF that I previously gave. What more do you want?

Or do you just throw objectivity out the window and throw garbage to promote your causes?

I’ll be looking forward to your apology. Not that I expect one.

Hmmmm often quoted…rarely investigated.

ASK me REALLY REALLY NICE and I’ll tell you why you can’t investigate it now.

HINT: Here was the URL for it vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2011/PAS_Glacier_050511_final.pdf

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1281&pictureid=9398

You won’t find it with :Glacier_050511_final.pdf

Or 050511_final.pdf

Or 050511.pdf

Hmmmm often quoted…rarely investigated.
.
I wonder why The Holy See pulled it???

Because the word ‘expansion’ in the 2nd sentence in the 1st paragraph of p. 6 was supposed to be ‘exploitation’.

Is this evidence of the amount of research that you do before leaping to conclusions?

Do you throw objectivity out the window and throw garbage to promote your causes?

In the post where I mentioned it I gave the URL to both the page announcing the report and the report itself. If you had bothered to follow the first link you would have seen the explanation for the update to the report I quoted above and you would have seen the new version of the report itself. If you’d followed the second you would obviously have had the report.

But of course you’d rather manufacture conspiracy theories about the report being “pulled” and accuse me of throwing “garbage”.

Situation normal, I suppose.

Actually, if I go by your documentation such as above ]…I don’t consider it very useful - I understand that you seem to put a lot of value on such

Oh, I know — if pretty much every scientific organisation in the world agrees that “most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities” (I think the American Association for Petroleum Geologists is still undecided!) then why should you believe the Vatican? Once you’ve decided that the Merchants of Doubt are more credible than any scientist or scientific organisation that supports the mainstream view then I guess it really doesn’t matter who else adds their weight to the consensus, even if they are warning of 2 million premature deaths worldwide every year.

You obviously know better than all those experts to be able to dismiss figures like that so cavalierly.

 

[JasonSB]

Jason,

As a scientist you have an OBLIGATION to prove your sea level rise/fall measurements are true and accurate.

AND that includes looking at all places where the measurements are being taken AND at all places where the claims of sea level rise are being made … and prove that the land is not subsiding.

I provided links to the papers which, in turn, provided links to the data which, in turn, showed the rates of subsidence (or lifting) for each location.

There’s no need to prove it’s not subsiding if you can simply calculate the rate for each location and use it to correct the raw readings. You know, exactly what The Heartland Institute thought was a “scientifically unjustified” correction according to the link you gave before?

You can’t have it both ways.

BTW, you do realise that you can’t have everywhere subsiding at once, don’t you? Some are going up, some are going down. Each is measured and the corrections applied. If you have any information that the corrections are wrong then by all means share it with us. I’ve already provided links to the hourly data, the monthly data, the list of stations used, and the subsidence rate used for each location in the global mean sea level reconstruction. There is no substitute for forming an opinion by looking at the evidence (as opposed to forming an opinion and then asking others to prove that there is no evidence to support that opinion).

 

[JasonSB]

Your inabilities to follow debate seems boundless

Quite ironic, given the content of your post:

Why is NASA - GISS holding UNCERTIFIED copies - in the first place?

OK, firstly, it’s NOAA, not GISS, that hold the RAW data, as I clearly said. Please try to pay attention. As I said, Hansen has nothing to do with the collection of the raw data — he simply downloads it from the same public website that everybody else can.

Secondly, the old sheets are in paper form. NOAA scans them in and makes them available in electronic form for anyone to use. Now, if you want the original paper records they obviously aren’t going to give them to you because they’re the originals and they’re responsible for archiving them. The normal procedure to create copies that have the same legal standing as the originals is to have someone with a particular qualification — a Justice of the Peace, or a Commissioner for Declarations, say — certify the copy by stamping it with a stamp that says the copy is a true and accurate representation of the original and their signature. That way they are making themselves personally legally responsible for the claim that the copy is accurate, and saying it is accurate when it is not is a serious crime.

Soooo…just what does GISS NASA need to “certify”?

If you mean NOAA, the certification is purely for your benefit. If you are going to use copies of their paper records and you want someone from their organisation to be legally responsible if it turns out that something is wrong with your copy, then you ask (and pay for) certification.

If it’s electronic to begin with then a simple digital signature would provide the same legal protection.

If you are happy that their copy-making process isn’t going to corrupt the data then they’re happy to give it to you for free because that doesn’t cost them anything. Paying someone to certify copies does.

I do expect that ALL GISS - NASA - GHCN - USHCN - SCAR etc data has some form of IDENTIFIERS on them stating where they originated from?

Of course they do. That’s a completely separate issue.

Soooo…If they stamp their name / organization on it - it’s not enough.

It’s plenty for me, but for real conspiracy wingnuts I suppose the option to have the paper copies certified gives them some extra satisfaction.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Actual observers have actually observed that the land is actually sinking. Along with their instruments.

And actual observers have actually noted that the measurements are being taken at an angle instead of vertically. Which is like “duh”.

No calculations needed.

No substitute for visiting the field. and spending some quality time.

Let me get back to you on the rest … some people can type faster than I can read.
“wingnuts” … got it!

[Tells you everything you need to know.]

Personal invective is the last refuge of … [whatever]*

 

[vz71]

Ah, yes, the funding. All those government scientists driving Ferraris. Who would want to work for Big Oil when you can be a public servant!

You speak as though a government postion is a poor position to be in.
Perhaps you should research a little more.
I know a few individuals that worked hard to get a civil service position for exactly those reasons. They performed well enough that they could have earned more in the private sector, but the retirement benefits as well as the actual work and stress levels were to much to be ignored.

BTW, you do know that when a researcher at a university or government department wins funding for a research project, they don’t actually get to keep the money themselves, right?

They just get to keep their jobs, with an increase in pay, position, clout, and of course, a pension.

You also know that the sure-fire death blow to a career in science is proof that you published fraudulent information, right?

Not as long as there are poeple willing to defend their work.

And, finally, you realise that everything Church has published can be investigated and checked for manipulation by anybody, right?

Who said anything about Church?
I am not going after any one in particular. Please do not attempt to place artificial constraints upon what I am saying.
As said earlier, I am simply asking questions.

 

[vz71]

If by “any accuracy” you mean “at all” then the answer is “Of course”. Have you noticed what happens when you try to pile up the water at one end of a bathtub or fish tank? As soon as you give up, it automatically tries to become level again and, given enough time, will do so.

Do you believe sea level to be the same across the entire globe?

 

[vz71]

The fact that the high-resolution satellite measurements were able to show the same thing as the tide gauges had been showing for years is proof that the technique is valid.

That is simply not possible.
The satellite data does not contain nearly the error level of the historic data and therefore cannot be the same.

The best anyone can say is that the satellite data trend can be backed within the margin of error of the historic data.

Of course, if we are looking at a trend indicating a 10 cm rise in sea level but your margin of error is 5 cm, what exactly are you saying?

 

[vz71]

Sure. In some cases (e.g. the Port Arthur record from 1840-1842) “details of the tide gauge have not survived” and even the precise location is not known, which means it would be very difficult to use this data, especially since the time period is so short.

What a foolish bet! I even told you how to obtain the exact list of stations they actually used and yet you were still willing to make a bet that you should have known you couldn’t possibly win!

Furthermore, that record would have failed the QA checks outlined in Church et al 2004, which were the same QA checks Church used in his later publications, as he clearly stated.

I’m sorry.
I am uncertain which of you to believe.

The one that is citing data from tide gauges and claiming they took exact time, location, and barometric pressure as well as accounted for tectonic movement.
Or the one that claims otherwise.

And please…also include for me the tectonic movement measurements that were taken in the 1800’s.

 

[vz71]

And yet the paper clearly describes how they did.

So how exactly did they come up with tectonic data for the decades that no measurements were taken?

 

[vz71]

Actual observers have actually observed that the land is actually sinking. Along with their instruments.

And actual observers have actually noted that the measurements are being taken at an angle instead of vertically. Which is like “duh”.

No calculations needed.

No substitute for visiting the field. and spending some quality time.

My favorite is looking at the weather gauge to measure temperature that is located beside the heat pump.
Common sense tells us that the heat being pumped onto the weather station from inside the building is going to make the data invalid.

Yet they continue using it.

In my city, the local weatherman regularly tells us the temperature ‘on the tarmac’ because the weather station is in a parking lot at the airport.

No doubt the data was useful at some time. But once the parking lot was made, the data skewed.
And the temperature is regularly several degrees warmer then what it is everywhere else in town.

 

[Ender]

Do you believe sea level to be the same across the entire globe?

I think the real issue with sea level rise is not whether or not it is happening but whether the rate is changing - and even that concern may not be meaningful. This question goes to the effects of global warming, not to its causes. The world surely seems warmer now than in 1850 and one would expect the seas to rise as a result (if only by expansion). It is the projections of sea level rise that seem extreme, not the fact that the sea level is (and has been for 150 years) rising. I doubt the predictions of how great and how fast the sea will rise but even if the levels behave as predicted, again, that relates to an effect of warming. It wouldn’t seem to say much about its cause, and it is the cause, not the effects, that are the true concern.

Ender

 

[vz71]

It wouldn’t seem to say much about its cause, and it is the cause, not the effects, that are the true concern.

Ender

Very true.

Given just the historic record, one can determine a warming trend.
Of course, the same record I speak of would also indicate there is some other cause then man.

 

[vz71]

Sure. In some cases (e.g. the Port Arthur record from 1840-1842) “details of the tide gauge have not survived” and even the precise location is not known, which means it would be very difficult to use this data, especially since the time period is so short.

What a foolish bet! I even told you how to obtain the exact list of stations they actually used and yet you were still willing to make a bet that you should have known you couldn’t possibly win!

Furthermore, that record would have failed the QA checks outlined in Church et al 2004, which were the same QA checks Church used in his later publications, as he clearly stated.

Actually I should revisit this.

The records I was betting were included were ones that location data was lost.
And the specific example is data from 1840 to 1842 as you cited.

Yet you refute this with a paper that does not include at all records from previous to 1950. So, of course they would have left out the data…they were not looking at anything previous to 1950.

This seems a little disingenuous.

 

[kimmielittle]

Calling me a liar again, Kimmie? Why? I merely quoted what the report said. It makes no difference whether I’m a scientist or not.

Actually it does.

You provided this report as “evidence” . I asked

Do you do give ALL your “evidences” offered, the same amount of research as you did this , above?

AND

Or do you just throw objectivity out the window and throw garbage to promote your causes?

Did you or did you not - research the content / process of these papers, remains the question?

I;m questioning not your title as a “scientist” - I’m questioning the integrity of your objectivity in examining evidence before presenting it to bolster your agenda / debate points. This is not unreasonable to ask, as you - yourself, presented yourself, as a “scientist”. Using the Authoritarian argument.

Thank you for the updated link - I admit, I didn’t click on your original post - as I knew the original PDF was pulled. I did have the original PDF AND indeed, as far as I can tell, only one word has been changed from the original.

So nothing about the second paper has changed my mind about the process / or content of either paper.

I’ll be looking forward to your apology. Not that I expect one.

I’ll be waiting for your “objective scientific” answers about this report / contents and process

 

[kimmielittle]

The Vatican, you see, took this unusual position of deciding to find out what the science says by assembling a team of scientists from a wide range of backgrounds and asking them.

Not true.

Many of the authors are repeat authors on each others papers.
They assembled friendly views only.

If you did your research you’d have known this.

For some reason the Vatican thinks this is a better way to find out the truth than by asking PR firms and right-wing think-tanks funded by Exxon Mobil and the Koch brothers. Perhaps because the Vatican noticed that those same people and organisations were telling everyone for years that tobacco was harmless when they were funded by the tobacco industry and so therefore they may not be the best source of unbiased and impartial information? I don’t know.

You deserve a cigar for your efforts on this claim. AND Falsely misleading!

The problem is you know…it is falsely misleading - BUT continue throwing this garbage out as if it were some sort of “Objective scientific fact”

Leaving me to question again, are you a scientist? Or just a person with a “Scientist” position tacked to your name?

From: “Mick Kelly” m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Shell
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:31:00 +0100
Reply-to: m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: t.oriordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.o’riordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Mike
Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the
agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic
partner and will contribute to a studentship fund though under certain
conditions. I now have to wait for the top-level soundings at their end
after the meeting to result in a response. We, however, have to discuss
asap what a strategic partnership means, what a studentship fund is, etc,
etc. By email? In person?
I hear that Shell’s name came up at the TC meeting. I’m ccing this to Tim
who I think was involved in that discussion so all concerned know not to
make an independent approach at this stage without consulting me!
I’m talking to Shell International’s climate change team but this approach
will do equally for the new foundation as it’s only one step or so off
Shell’s equivalent of a board level. I do know a little about the Fdn and
what kind of projects they are looking for. It could be relevant for the
new building, incidentally, though opinions are mixed as to whether it’s
within the remit.
Regards
Mick

---

Mick Kelly Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
Tel: 44-1603-592091 Fax: 44-1603-507784
Email: m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Web: cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/

---

From: Mike Hulme m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: Simon.Shackley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: industrial and commercial contacts
Date: Mon Jan 10 17:01:32 2000

Simon,

I have talked with Tim O’Riordan and others here today and Tim has a wealth of contacts he is prepared to help with. Four specific ones from Tim are:

• Charlotte Grezo, BP Fuel Options (possibly on the Assessment Panel. She is also on the ESRC Research Priorities Board), but someone Tim can easily talk with. There are others in BP Tim knows too.
• Richard Sykes, Head of Environment Division at Shell International
• Chris Laing, Managing Director, Laing Construction (also maybe someone at Bovis)
• ??, someone high-up in Unilever whose name escapes me.

And then Simon Gerrard here in our Risk Unit suggested the following personal contacts:

• ??, someone senior at AMEC Engineering in Yarmouth (involved with North Sea industry and wind energy)
• Richard Powell, Director of the East of England Development Board

You can add these to your list and I can ensure that Tim and Simon feed the right material through once finalised.

I will phone tomorrow re. the texts.

Cheers,

Mike

At 20:30 07/01/00 BST, you wrote:

dear colleagues

re: List of Industrial and Commercial Contacts to Elicit Support
from for the Tyndall Centre

This is the list so far. Our contact person is given in brackets
afterwards. There is some discussion on whether we
should restict ourselves to board level contacts - hence Dlugolecki
is not board level but highly knowledgeable about climate change.
I think people such as that, who are well known for their climate
change interests, are worth writing to for support. There may be
less value in writing to lesser known personnel at a non-board level.

SPRU has offered to elicit support from their energy programme
sponsors which will help beef things up. (Frans: is the Alsthom
contact the same as Nick Jenkin’s below? Also, do you have a BP
Amoco contact? The name I’ve come up with is Paul Rutter, chief
engineer, but he is not a personal contact]

We could probably do with some more names from the financial sector.
Does anyone know any investment bankers?

Please send additional names as quickly as possible so we can
finalise the list.

I am sending a draft of the generic version of the letter eliciting
support and the 2 page summary to Mike to look over. Then this can be
used as a basis for letter writing by the Tyndall contact (the person
in brackets).

Mr Alan Wood CEO Siemens plc [Nick Jenkins]
Mr Mike Hughes CE Midlands Electricity (Visiting Prof at UMIST) [Nick
Jenkins]
Mr Keith Taylor, Chairman and CEO of **Esso UK **John
Shepherd]

newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/12/05/climategate-research-unit-sought-funds-shell-oil

continued

 

[kimmielittle]

Continued
FROM CRU

cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

British Council, British Petroleum, Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greenpeace International, International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED), Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany, Leverhulme Trust, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), National Power, National Rivers Authority, Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), Norwich Union, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Royal Society, Scientific Consultants, Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Shell, Stockholm Environment Agency, Sultanate of Oman, Tate and Lyle, UK Met. Office, UK Nirex Ltd., United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I’m sorry.
I am uncertain which of you to believe.

The one that is citing data from tide gauges and claiming they took exact time, location, and barometric pressure as well as accounted for tectonic movement.
Or the one that claims otherwise.

And please…also include for me the tectonic movement measurements that were taken in the 1800’s.

The very existence of tectonic plates was not acknowledged until relatively recently.

The subsidence of land masses was also not acknowledged until relatively recently.

[Was on a project a while back in which survey elevations were “nuts”. Everyone went crazy until the most “out there” theory was tested. Yup: the benchmark was sinking.]

 

[vz71]

The very existence of tectonic plates was not acknowledged until relatively recently.

The subsidence of land masses was also not acknowledged until relatively recently.

[Was on a project a while back in which survey elevations were “nuts”. Everyone went crazy until the most “out there” theory was tested. Yup: the benchmark was sinking.]

I know.
I wonder if JasonSB knows?

 

[kimmielittle]

AN investigation into the Pontifical Academy of Science Report. PAS_Glacier_110511_final.pdf
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2011/PAS_Glacier_110511_final.pdf

Things we know.

We know this working group was called by M. Sánchez Sorondo.
We know the “workshop” lasted 2 whole days.
This suggest preconceived ideas / ideals.

Report authors met at the Vatican from April 2 to April 4, 2011 under the invitation of Chancellor Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo of the pontifical academy. The report was issued by the Vatican and will be presented to Pope Benedict XVI.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110506093116.htm

We know:
It is a religious paper NOT a scientific paper

We can tell this by no citations to claims made within the paper. NONE

As a religious paper for guiding Catholic / Christians.

Contact was made to one of the Pontifical Academy of Science Members to present a Catholic / Christian response.

That person is P.J. Crutzen.

We know Mr Crutzen is the Lead author by his use of verbiage throughout. Such as the word “Anthropocene”. A word he has been trying to coin. economist.com/node/18741749

By Mr Crutzen’s definition “Anthropocene” equals “A Man Made World” Remember this ]

Being a “religious” response not a scientific paper ] one has to question:
Is it wise to sign your name to a religious response paper, as did Chancellor Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo - when the lead Author is Atheist?

In fact Mr Crutzen seems to have radical associations with anti- Catholic / Christian beliefs.

He is a signer according to American Humanist Association, of Their Manifestos
americanhumanist.org/system/storage/63/238/HumanismandItsAspirations.pdf

The American Humanist Association has radical views of Catholicism / Christians.

examiner.com/atheism-in-national/atheist-idaho-billboard-vandalized-again

skepdic.com/atheistbus.html

Granted Mr Crutzen’s associations would not be cause to dismiss his Science - BUT this is NOT a Scientific Paper - It lacks any Citations for claims - and peer review in science isn’t done in a vacuum, as one here tries to insinuate.

Mr Crutzen, because of his chosen associations, AND this being a “Religious Call to Conscience” paper - FOR Catholics / Christians need not be my spiritual guide.

We know it was closed meetings with invited signatures of vested interests.
R. Pachauri ,For one, of India and IPCC fame. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayas

We are also told hikers took part / signed.

We can also see that Mr. Crutzen chose co writers of other papers in agreement with his views. by doing a little research ]…V. Ramanathan - Another co-lead comes to mind, but there are others.

This was indeed carried out / conceived in a Vacuum.

IMO The Pontifical Academy of Science gave an open door to Mr Crutzen and his mates. Allowing a misleading piece of propaganda to emerge.

Is this the first time the Pontifical Academy of Science failed Catholics?
On Genetic Modified Foods. catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004910.htm

Most of the 40 participants were longtime supporters of using modified crops for boosting food production and creating new sources of energy from nonfood crops.

A number of participants have invented genetically modified foodstuffs or work for companies that sell genetically modified seeds.

There also were at least four speakers who have ties to the U.S. agribusiness giant Monsanto, which created a synthetic bovine growth hormone to boost cow milk production as well as insect- and herbicide-resistant seeds.

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

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.”.

 

[JasonSB]

You speak as though a government postion is a poor position to be in.
Perhaps you should research a little more.

I speak as someone who has intimite knowledge of both, but even if I didn’t know from personal experience, the knowledge is widespread.

I know a few individuals that worked hard to get a civil service position for exactly those reasons. They performed well enough that they could have earned more in the private sector, but the retirement benefits as well as the actual work and stress levels were to much to be ignored.

Precisely. Now, on the one hand, you are suggesting that government and academic scientists are willing to make potentially career-destroying bogus claims for financial reward, and on the other you are pointing out that the people who take up those kinds of positions are those who value lower work and stress levels over higher pay!

I should also point out that “retirement benefits” are not a factor in many places outside the US. Church, for example, is Australian, where (a) government pensions depend solely on the ability to provide for yourself after retirement and not on what job you had or who you worked for beforehand, and (b) superannuation is compulsory for all full-time employees (so that, ideally, everyone will become self-funded retirees anyway) regardless of what job they have.

They just get to keep their jobs, with an increase in pay, position, clout, and of course, a pension.

Riiight. So it’s not for a cushy job with low stress levels, they work hard at fabricating results that agree with everyone else for the power and the money.

But why, then, do they not simply write papers refuting AGW? According to your theory, the benefits would be:

1. No risk of being “found out”, because they’re simply telling the truth, right?
2. Instant fame and prestige because they proved there’s no need to worry anyway. What scientist would knock back the chance to be the next Galileo or Einstein rather than one of thousands of scientists reporting yet another “me, too”?
3. $10,000 in cold, hard cash from the ExxonMobile-funded American Enterprise Institute for each paper!

Why go along with the “scam”? It takes a lot of time and effort to win a grant application (success rate only 5%-20%) and even more to do the actual research. Pat Michaels, on the other hand, simply has to ask power companies for money so he can advocate their position and they hand over $150,000 in one hit!

Furthermore, as I demonstrated in the previous thread, so-called “skeptical” scientists themselves have publicly stated that they have no problems accessing research funding (therefore funding is not tied to whether you are pro- or anti-AGW) so why do you think that there is any benefit in supporting the consensus? It’s almost impossible to watch TV these days without one of the “skeptical” scientists being given their 10 minutes of fame (although it’s stretching well beyond 10 minutes by now!).

Here’s the reality of scientific funding:

profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/taking-the-money-for-granted-%E2%80%93-part-i/

profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/taking-the-money-for-granted-%E2%80%93-part-ii/

Academics cannot earn more than their actual salary no matter how many grants they get. The best case is that they get promoted to a higher pay grade, but here at least, even full-blown professors earn rates comparable to junior scientists or engineers in the mining industry.

Not as long as there are poeple willing to defend their work.

The data is public. The methods they used are public. Anybody can replicate their work. Anybody can show they did something wrong if they did do so. Scientific results don’t live or die based on the willingness of people to defend it, they live or die based on whether they are correct.

Who said anything about Church?
I am not going after any one in particular. Please do not attempt to place artificial constraints upon what I am saying.

All the graphs and figures I’ve been quoting during the discussion with you came from Church’s papers. If you are calling them bogus, then you are calling his work bogus. If you are claiming that “little details” were likely left out in a rush to print out whatever dire predictions would support their funding, then you are saying he left out little detials in a rush to print out whatever dire predictions would support his funding. You can’t accuse someone of incompetence or fraud and ignore the fact that you are accusing someone of incompetence or fraud!

As said earlier, I am simply asking questions.

“It is a fallacy that you can decrease error by averaging it.
All you get is an average error.”

That is not a question, it is a statement. A statement that happens to be provably false thanks to the Central Limit Theorem.

“any attempt to claim mm levels of accuracy are bogus.”

That is also a statement.

In response to my observation of the fact that the science predicted global warming because of CO2 emissions long before the warming was actually detected:

“Then the science is wrong.”

Another statement.

Asking questions that demonstrate you know nothing about the field after making all sorts of proclamations about how “bogus” the results are is a poor substitute for simply asking questions to learn more about the field and then making judgements.