Catholicism and Climate Change

[lynnvinc]

Models only are as HONEST as the person feeding them.

EACH of the Temperature Models, under investigation in a scientific review, have been shown to have been manipulated / adjusted to show warming.

So they must be honest, since they jive well with the actual evidence, current and paleo.

 

[kimmielittle]

“6 Global Warming Skeptics who Changed Their Mind” (incl Lomberg, who, yes, is a statistician & economist, but WAS a darling of the denialist camp):

Just WHO’s Darling was he? I doubt any Real Scientist has ever taken him - OR his Book seriously.

**Michael Shermer Lombergs buddy Who by the way has been a Warmist since 2006 - Your news source is repeating old information. as if new

**Gregg Easterbrook, American journalist and author - Also has been a Warmist since 2006
**
Politicians

****** Stu Ostro**, Weather Channel senior meteorologist - tv caster** - Has never really been a skeptic…since 2000. Now lets expose Mr Ostros AND THE WEEK’s ellusional tatics.

**A recent survey found that many meteorologists and TV weathercasters are skeptical (or even “cynical”) about anthropogenic global warming (AGW), **

This is TRUE - BUT not IN FAVOR of AGW as The Week and Mr. Ostro tries to insinuate.

The Truth and poll

Such skepticism appears to be widespread among TV forecasters, about half of whom have a degree in meteorology. A study released on Monday by researchers at George Mason University and the University of Texas at Austin found that only about half of the 571 television weathercasters surveyed believed that global warming was occurring and fewer than a third believed that climate change was “caused mostly by human activities.”

The skills of Critical Reading, and Resourcing Materials - can not be overestimated

 

[kimmielittle]

Not

Read the reports ALL say statistical
practices were lacking - This is shoddy scientific practices.

Yeah, from denialists using the FOI Act to harass the socks off them…plus they just didn’t have the manpower to answer the flood of requests.

This is the lamest excuse they ever came up with. Are you they ] saying This information couldn’t be put on a Secured Socket Layerd SSL ] Such as used for credit card transactions? AND even A required nominal fee be charged for that Information?

C’mon

Best just to trust the experts…esp when the message has got to be true, since it is such a terrible message no one would want to put out there fallaciously.

Total jibberish, IMHO

Ridiculous and big fat sins to harass and threaten to kill the messengers.

Albeit I don’t agrree with threats…I wonder how many come from suppressed Opposing Scientists who have lost jobs - were maligned etc etc ??? You know Karma does come back on ya.

 

[kimmielittle]

So they must be honest, since they jive well with the actual evidence, current and paleo.

Nice Try

Prove that they do

 

[kimmielittle]

So they must be honest, since they jive well with the actual evidence, current and paleo.

We have waited for almost 30 years, spent Trillions of dollars, for this ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

Where did you say this Actual Evidence is?

Don’t you think if it really existed - The AGW’ers would hold this Actual Evidence and its Raw Data up for the world?

After All, That IS what they are being WELL PAID to do.

 

[Ender]

Yeah as I understand it I think it was mainly trees in northern latitudes as well. But really they didn;t mean to be deceptive better labeling would have been nice though.

They didn’t meant to be deceptive??? Really, what other explanation could there possibly be for their decision to “hide the decline”? We know they tried to hide it and we know why they felt it necessary to do so, because the truth would have damaged their claims. When did hiding the truth become something other than an attempt to deceive?

But really when you have an insturmental record that says one thing and most proxies that say the same thing. Well it kinda makes sense that when one very specific proxy in a pretty specific location doesn;t fit that maybe something is wrong with that proxy maybe something is going on with trees in more recent decades that cause those readings.

If it was that simple there would have been no need to “hide the decline”. In fact they had relied rather heavily on that particular proxy data to form their temperature history for the past thousand years - the one that didn’t include the MWP or the LIA - so admitting that their proxy didn’t line up very well with actual temperature data would have been a major problem. You are right in pointing out that actual temperature records say something very different from their tree ring proxy data. Unfortunately for them they had already placed a very large bet on tree rings which didn’t pan out very well.

Also it should be noted once again several I think about FOUR investigations have gone into this email hack and the CRU and not one found any evidence what so ever of fraud and deception.

Right. Apparently those investigations didn’t feel that “hiding the decline” was deception. What a surprise. Move along people; nothing to see here.

Ender

 

[lynnvinc]

Did you read the article?

Do you know who Bjorn Lomberg is? Hint economist ]

And Bjorn has never really been a denialist – his main claim was that money would be better spend on serious problems of today, like malaria eradication (those Europeans! So unlike us Americans, who think we should NOT care about other people, esp the poor and ill, that it’s THEIR problem).

Anyway, my contention from my own experience (well before I even got onto alt energy), was that esp the rich nations could save a lot of money by mitigating AGW (& a host of other problems that would also be mitigated in the process), by becoming energy/resource efficient/conservative, which some figure is possible down to 75% reduction in energy consumption in America, without lowering productivity. See natcap.org

RE economics, I have lots of problems with the field and with the way people make it out to be the mother that feeds us, when in fact it is God’s good creation that feeds us. We practice “economy worship,” making the false god “Mammon” a much more serious problem in our society than “Gaia” worship (if anyone really does worship Gaia); but Christians are so much up in arms about Gaia worship (pretty much a non-problem), but think nothing of Mammon worship (a really big problem).

Worship of Mammon:


Another way to look at it is, only humans have economies; animals do not, and yet they survive and thrive, or as Jesus put it:

Behold the birds of the air: they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them … Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin.

Now having said that, the economy does help facilitate our material well-being. That is, it helps decide who the “resources” (only those things from the environment we consider valuable) belong to, who works in producing them into products (division of labor), and how resources and products get exchanged. The market economy is the new boy on the block; for over 99% of human history/prehistory, it’s mainly been generalized reciprocity (AKA “primitive communism,” as we have in our families), balanced reciprocity, and much later, redistribution, and at the very tail end, the market economy.

As environmental anthropologist Roy Rapport puts it, the economy is contingent and instrumental, while the ecological-biological system (environment) is fundamental. He considers today’s subordination of the fundamental (environment) to the contingent and instrumental (the economy), to be a deep disorder of our time. See jstor.org/pss/679842

In other words, we should be at least as concerned about the environment as we are about the economy (which is contingent upon the environment), if not more so. That is, if we value human life.

 

[lynnvinc]

CO2 IS THE ONLY DRIVER OF CLIMATE
CO2 ALWAYS CREATES GLOBAL WARMING

You really do need to study climate science more carefully. No climate scientist is saying “CO2 is the only forcing of climate.”

It’s just that they’ve ruled out all other known forcings or have controlled for them (such as aerosols and solar minium, which have a cooling effect) – including wobble, orbit, and solar irradiation.

They’ve even politely considered the cosmic ray hypothesis of warming, but have pointed out there has not been an increase in cosmic rays, so that while there might be something to the hypothesis…perhaps…there hasn’t yet been any evidence to support it.

As for sun spots correlating with warming, they point out that for a short timeframe one could find all sorts of things that correlate with warming, but you need to have a theory to go along with it to be good science.

Science is based on theories AND evidence.

 

[kimmielittle]

You really do need to study climate science more carefully.

Nice subtle try at Ad Hominem

No climate scientist is saying “CO2 is the only forcing of climate.”

Everything done - including their “Solutions” are aimed at ONE - SOLELY ONE - DRIVER …CO2

Why? because you can’t tax the rest AND** if you admit to the other drivers…WELL…lll…you Can’t tax CO2 **

 

[lynnvinc]

Nice subtle try at Ad Hominem

Sorry. Maybe I should have simply asked, “Which climate scientist is saying CO2 is the only climate forcing?” The ones I know all mention the many other forcings. And sometimes it is the other forcings that initiate GW, with release CO2 from frozen permafrost and clathrates, etc, being a positive feedback.

Everything done - including their “Solutions” are aimed at ONE - SOLELY ONE - DRIVER …CO2

Why? because you can’t tax the rest AND** if you admit to the other drivers…WELL…lll…you Can’t tax CO2 **

They also mention methane, CFCs, NOx, and other industrial GHG emissions (there’s one from certain TV manufacturing thats 1000s times more potent than CO2).

And taxing CO2 is no solution, if people just go on emitting it as usual, paying the taxes – which is sort of the American way of doing things, not caring about other people or future generations (why do we have such a high abortion rate – hint: we hate kids, or at least don’t really care for them much).

So I don’t see taxing CO2 as much of a solution. People need to become good and do the right thing, which will never happen. So pretty much we’re doomed. Might as well be the sun or some other forcing beyond our control, bec people just can’t control themselves either.

All I have left in my arsenal are prayers. People know they can save money by doing the right thing in reducing their GHGs; they know it would please God to do so; they know it would help increase life-chances for their kids and others. But they JUST DON’T CARE!

And there is no such thing as a rational, maximizing, economic man. So the whole field of economics rests on a total falsehood.

Prayers and tears. That’s all I have left.

 

[kimmielittle]

Sorry. Maybe I should have simply asked, “Which climate scientist is saying CO2 is the only climate forcing?”

ALL that try to sell AGW

The ones I know all mention the many other forcings. And sometimes it is the other forcings that initiate GW, with release CO2 from frozen permafrost and clathrates, etc, being a positive feedback.

The forcible factors are to AGW’ers:
CO2 is the driver of climate -
CO2 causes warming…
THIS is very simple
IT is the WHOLE of their Original Predictive Hypothesis.

They also mention methane, CFCs, NOx, and other industrial GHG emissions (there’s one from certain TV manufacturing thats 1000s times more potent than CO2).

ABSOLUTELY!!! However since you can’t very well “Tax” Methane etc without buying one of my cool Cow Poot Catcher Tanks

You will need one of my cool cow poot catcher tanks

These can be bought for hmmmmmmm…$99.99 …From the newly formed Company Of Anselm33-kimmie LLC

The Telegraph US - Breaking news, opinion & analysis

They only come in pink - as we do not suggest you try fitting these on Bulls

And taxing CO2 is no solution,

ABSOLUTELY!!!

if people just go on emitting it as usual, paying the taxes – which is sort of the American way of doing things,

Actually, this was a British invention See link I gave to AGW History here in this thread ]

not caring about other people or future generations

So . by your logic - anyone who says the evidence for AGW is lacking - is amoral compared to you?

(why do we have such a high abortion rate – hint: we hate kids, or at least don’t really care for them much).

Nonsense…Abortion is permitted because it’s CONVENIENT Just as Population Control schemes embraced by IPCC is ]. Abortion …Eugenics…Assisted Suicide - NOW for the Convenience of SAVING The EARTH.

People need to become good and do the right thing, which will never happen. So pretty much we’re doomed. Might as well be the sun or some other forcing beyond our control, bec people just can’t control themselves either.

Mr Peter Singer - Marie Stoples - Margret Sanger - James Lee also feel / felt this way…I don’t think you meant this - Or maybe, you just didn’t think about this statement?

People know they can save money by doing the right thing in reducing their GHGs;

Wrong assumptions are again being made IMHO. The LEAD People who SUPPORT in AGW - Contribute the most.

they know it would please God to do so; they know it would help increase life-chances for their kids and others. But they JUST DON’T CARE!

The people who have PROVED they DON’T Care - ARE The Lead Supporters

And there is no such thing as a rational, maximizing, economic man. So the whole field of economics rests on a total falsehood.

You’ve just nailed The fields of Social Engineers - Social Scientists. Care to rethink this?

 

[Calliso]

So they must be honest, since they jive well with the actual evidence, current and paleo.

I am curious to where these so called investigations are. On blogs? lol.

 

[Calliso]

Climatesight has a nice overview of the climategate thing and the results. climatesight.org/2010/07/11/so-what-happened-with-climategate/

And yes there was criticisms of not being as open with the data as they should have been. However that is a far cry from blocking other scientists from being published and fraud and other such accusations. Also handling FOI requests isnt as simple as one might think. rabett.blogspot.com/2010/02/experience.html and I am not saying all would require that much work but the idea that they can just go into a drawer for instance and pull out some data isn;t always true.

Also there was some foi spammage rabett.blogspot.com/2010/02/amoeba-gets-underfoot.html

It is also important to note that the CRU doesn;t even really own some of that data and would have to have permission from the original owners to distrubute it.

And nothing nothing excuses death threats and threats of violence. Not even if these scientists were surpressing contrarian scientists. Which by the way no evidence of that was found. I mean even if they had wanted to surpress all contrarian views which wasn;t shown btw they weren;t even in a position that would make it possible to do so.

 

[lynnvinc]

You’ve just nailed The fields of Social Engineers - Social Scientists. Care to rethink this?

The Freudians would disagree.

 

[kimmielittle]

:bowdown2:

I am curious to where these so called investigations are. On blogs? lol.

This from a person who cites / links to the nothingness of RealClimate croonies??? Or Wiki propaganda?

On global warming we get consensus, Gore-style: a consensus forged by censorship, intimidation, and deceit. I first noticed this when I entered a correction to a Wikipedia page on the work of Naomi Oreskes, author of the now-infamous paper, published in the prestigious journal Science, claiming to have exhaustively reviewed the scientific literature and found not one single article dissenting from the alarmist version of global warming.
Of course Oreskes’s conclusions were absurd, and have been widely ridiculed. I myself have profiled dozens of truly world-eminent scientists whose work casts doubt on the Gore-U.N. version of global warming. Following the references in my book The Deniers, one can find hundreds of refereed papers that cast doubt on some aspect of the Gore/U.N. case, and that only scratches the surface.
Naturally I was surprised to read on Wikipedia that Oreskes’s work had been vindicated and that, for instance, one of her most thorough critics, British scientist and publisher Bennie Peiser, not only had been discredited but had grudgingly conceded Oreskes was right.
I checked with Peiser, who said he had done no such thing. I then corrected the Wikipedia entry, and advised Peiser that I had done so.
Peiser wrote back saying he couldn’t see my corrections on the Wikipedia page. I made the changes again, and this time confirmed that the changes had been saved. But then, in a twinkle, they were gone again. I made other changes. And others. They all disappeared shortly after they were made.
Turns out that on Wikipedia some folks are more equal than others. Kim Dabelstein Petersen is a Wikipedia “editor” who seems to devote a large part of his life to editing reams and reams of Wikipedia pages to pump the assertions of global-warming alarmists and deprecate or make disappear the arguments of skeptics.
I soon found others who had the same experience: They would try to squeeze in any dissent, or even correct an obvious slander against a dissenter, and Petersen or some other censor would immediately snuff them out.
Now Petersen is merely a Wikipedia “editor.” Holding the far more prestigious and powerful position of “administrator” is William Connolley. Connolley is a software engineer and sometime climatologist (he used to hold a job in the British Antarctic Survey), as well as a serial (but so far unsuccessful) office seeker for England’s Green party.
And yet by virtue of his power at Wikipedia, Connolley, a ruthless enforcer of the doomsday consensus, may be the world’s most influential person in the global warming debate after Al Gore. Connolley routinely uses his editorial clout to tear down scientists of great accomplishment such as Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service and a scientist with dazzling achievements. Under Connolley’s supervision, Wikipedia relentlessly smears Singer as a kook who believes in Martians and a hack in the pay of the oil industry.
Wikipedia is full of rules that editors are supposed to follow, and it has a code of civility. Those rules and codes don’t apply to Connolley, or to those he favors.
“Peisers **** shouldn’t be in here,” Connolley wrote several weeks ago, in berating a Wikipedian colleague during an “edit war,” as they’re called. Trumping Wikipedia’s stated rules, Connelly used his authority to ensure Wikipedia readers saw only what he wanted them to see. Any reference, anywhere among Wikipedia’s 2.5 million English-language pages, that casts doubt on the consequences of climate change will be bent to Connolley’s bidding.

nationalreview.com/articles/224785/wikipropaganda/lawrence-solomon

Try Google Investigation Climategate PDF - I believe you will get over 1 Million pages - read the words from the Investigators themselves

 

[kimmielittle]

Let’s look at this investigation:
From the US Congress hearing (Energy and Commerce Subcommittee, July 2006) in which NORTH, WEGMAN, MCINTYRE and others testified:

But at the July 19 hearing, Barton asked North very precisely whether he disagreed with any Wegman’s findings and North (under oath) said no as follows:

                 CHAIRMAN BARTON. *I understand that. It                        looks like my time is expired, so I want to ask one more                        question. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the                        methodology of Dr. Wegman's report?

•                DR. NORTH. ***No, we don't. We don't                        disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the                        same thing is said in our report.*** But again, just                        because the claims are made, doesn't mean they are false.

                 CHAIRMAN BARTON. *I understand that you                        can have the right conclusion and that it not be–

•                DR. NORTH. *It happens all the time in                        science.

•                CHAIRMAN BARTON. *Yes, and not be substantiated                        by what you purport to be the facts but have we established–we                        know that **Dr. Wegman has said that Dr. Mann's methodology                        is incorrect. Do you agree with that?*** I mean, it doesn't                        mean Dr. Mann's conclusions are wrong, but we can stipulate                        now that we have–**and if you want to ask your statistician                        expert from North Carolina that Dr. Mann's methodology cannot                        be documented and cannot be verified by independent review.**

                 DR. NORTH. *Do you mind if he speaks?

•                CHAIRMAN BARTON. *Yes, if he would like                        to come to the microphone*.

                 MR. BLOOMFIELD. *Thank you. Yes, Peter                        Bloomfield. Our committee reviewed the methodology used                        by Dr. Mann and his coworkers and** we felt that some of the                        choices they made were inappropriate***. **We had much                        the same misgivings about his work that was documented at                        much greater length by Dr. Wegman. **

 

[kimmielittle]

Although inappropriate statistical tools with the potential for producing
misleading results have been used by some other groups, presumably by
accident rather than design, in the CRU papers that we examined we did not
come across any inappropriate usage although the methods they used may not
have been the best for the purpose. It is not clear, however, that better methods
would have produced significantly different results. The published work also
contains many cautions about the limitations of the data and their
interpretation.

The potential for
misleading results arising from selection bias is very great in this area. It is
regrettable that so few professional statisticians have been involved in this
work because it is fundamentally statistical. Under such circumstances there
must be an obligation on researchers to document the judgemental decisions
they have made so that the work can in principle be replicated by others.

CRU accepts with hindsight that they should have devoted more attention in
the past to archiving data and algorithms and recording exactly what they did.
At the time the work was done, they had no idea that these data would assume
the importance they have today and that the Unit would have to answer
detailed inquiries on earlier work. CRU and, we are told, the tree ring
community generally, are now adopting a much more rigorous approach to the
archiving of chronologies and computer code. The difficulty in releasing
program code is that to be understood by anyone else it needs time-consuming
work on documentation, and this has not been a top priority.

uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP

= Shoddy scientific practices

 

[kimmielittle]

Data management and archiving. We found that there were no formal processesin place within CRU with respect to the systematic retention and archiving of datasets, or more particularly of metadata (data that allows the data set to be correctly
interpreted). Individual researchers took whatever actions they deemed
appropriate

Making source code publicly available. We believe that, at the point of
publication, enough information should be available to reconstruct the process of
analysis. This may be a full description of algorithms and/or software programs
where appropriate.

There was no master index of resources, be these data,
algorithms or software. No systematic approach to the creation of metadata
existed.

As a final comment we find that a fundamental lack of engagement by the CRU
team with their obligations under FoIA/EIR, both prior to 2005 and subsequently,
led to an overly defensive approach that set the stage for the subsequent mass of
FoIA/EIR requests in July and August 2009. We recognise that there was deep
suspicion within CRU, as to the motives of those making detailed requests.
Nonetheless, the requirements of the legislation for release of information are
clear and early action would likely have prevented much subsequent grief.

The Review found an ethos of minimal compliance (and at times non-compliance)
by the CRU with both the letter and the spirit of the FoIA and EIR. We believe
that this must change and that leadership is required from the University‘s most
senior staff in driving through a positive transformation of attitudes. Public trust
in science depends on an inherent culture of honesty, rigour and transparency.

continue

=Shoddy scientific practice

cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf

 

[kimmielittle]

Continued

Lack of constructive challenge. Whilst we found that efficient basic control,
logging and progress chasing processes for FoIA/EIR requests were in place, we
found a lack of independent working-level challenge in these systems. We found
that the appeals mechanisms in place lacked the resources for effective challenge
to basic assumptions. Similarly, the escalation processes failed to react sufficiently
quickly to the dramatic change in the volume and character of requests and to
provide timely high-level review and resources.

Jones to Santer sent on 3rd December
2008 (1228330629.txt): When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person
said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions - one
at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about.
Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone
at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school - the head of
school and a few others) became very supportive.” However at interview the
IPCM explicitly denied that he behaved in the way suggested in this e-mail.

A lie by Mr Jones?

1. Deliberate actions to avoid release. There seems clear incitement to delete emails,
   although we have seen no evidence of any attempt to delete information in
   respect of a request already made. Two e-mails from Jones to Mann on 2nd
   February 2005 (1107454306.txt) and 29th May 2008 (in 1212063122.txt) relate to
   deletion:
   2nd February 2005: ―The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for
   years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I
   think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone”.
   29th May 2008: ―Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re
   AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
   Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new
   email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise”.
   CHAPTER 10: COMPLIANCE WITH FoIA/ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REGULATIONS
   93
   There is a clear statement that e-mails had been deleted – for example, an e-mail
   from Jones to Santer sent on 3rd December 2008 (1228330629.txt ): ―About 2
   months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little - if anything at all.‖
   It seems likely that many of these ‗deleted‘ e-mails subsequently became public
   following the unauthorised release from the backup server. There is evidence that
   the IPCM did try to warn Prof. Jones about deliberate deletion of information; for
   example, an email from Jones to Santer (1228922050.txt) 10th December 2008
   states: ―I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I
   shouldn’t be deleting emails - unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails
   manageable!”.

 

[kimmielittle]

Continued

Unhelpful responses. We found a tendency to answer the wrong question or to
give a partial answer. For example the very first formal FoIA request (UEA Log
07-04) asked for the list of stations used in the preparation of HadCRUT3 and the
raw data for these stations. The initial response refers simply to the availability of
the raw data from other sources and not to the station list. The requester then
enters into an extended correspondence trying to extract the station identifiers.

Foresight lacking. We found a lack of recognition by both CRU, and the
University‘s senior management of the extent to which earlier action to release
information or give full guidance to locate primary sources and to provide station
identifiers might have minimized the problems. There are many references in the
e-mails now in the public domain to ―hiding information‖, ―finding ways around
releasing‖, or finding excuses not to release information. There was a fairly swift
shift towards a lack of sympathy with the requesters, as seen in an e-mail from
Jones sent on 7th May 2005 (1083962092.txt): ―Mike and I are not sending
anything, partly because we don’t have some of the series he wants, also partly as
we’ve got the data through contacts like you, but mostly because he’ll distort and
misuse them.

Conspiracy??

we found prima facie evidence to suggest that the UEA found ways to support the culture at CRU

climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HC387-IUEAFinalEmbargoedv21.pdf