Climategate 2, more emails released "Basic problem is that all models are wrong"

The blogosphere is alive this morning with the news that many more emails regarding the inner workings of the IPCC and associated anthropogenic global warming proponents have been released by a still unknown agent.

See blog articles at Air Vent, and Watts up with that for samples.

Following are some examples of email excerpts posted on the Air Vent site.  Keep in mind that these excerpts are without context. These excerpts purport to show that a small group is trying to manipulate the data and the public perception:

4443> Jones:

Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low  level clouds.

<1939> Thorne/MetO:

 Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical  troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a  wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the  uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these  further if necessary […]

 <3066> Thorne:

 I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it  which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

Presumably this one refers to Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph:

2884> Wigley:

 Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive […] there have been a number of  dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC […]

1611> Carter:

 It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much  talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by  a select core group.

0714> Jones:

 Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about  the tornadoes group.

 1790> Lorenzoni:

 I agree with the importance of extreme events as foci for public and  governmental opinion […] ‘climate change’ needs to be present in people’s  daily lives. They should be reminded that it is a continuously occurring and  evolving phenomenon

1485> Mann:

 the important thing is to make sure they’re losing the PR battle. That’s what  the site [Real Climate] is about.

2428> Ashton/co2.org:

 Having established scale and urgency, the political challenge is then to turn  this from an argument about the cost of cutting emissions – bad politics – to  one about the value of a stable climate – much better politics. […] the most  valuable thing to do is to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as  possible

1577> Jones:

[FOI, temperature data]

Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we  get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US  Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.

The British newspaper, The Guardian, has more on the story.  Initially there had been a question about the authenticity of the purported emails, but the Guardian story quotes Michael Mann as saying they look genuine.

This new release of additional emails comes just a week before the big United Nations climate change conference in Durban, South Africa.

Searchable database of Climategate 2 emails: http://foia2011.org/

See my post on the original Climategate of two years ago here.

Advertisements

124 comments

  1. I think Jon’s proviso is the most important part of the article. Context. It’s interesting to imagine how a “small group” overwhelms the Input of thousands of scientists for thirty years. I guess nothing is unreasonable for the conspiracy theory crowd. JP

    1. That’s right, just some good ol scientists, talking amonst themselves, taken out of context.  Besides, stolen emails, inspired by some crackpot conspiracy theorist.  Just a diversion form the “truth”.
      Need a drink, JP?

      1. Hi Rich, Thanks, but I don’t drink. Rich, let me have access to your emails and let me edit them any way I want. Would that be OK with you? Would the assumptions people made from my editing of your email be a rational basis for conclusions about you and your work? This is nothing more than propaganda. I can’t imagine that you would base an opinion on this kind of twaddle under any circumstance. JP

      2. Whoops on the typos—my wife was dragging me out the door to go to dinner. On the gaffes:   At their face,  the open arrogance, naivety and foolish admissions expressed in some of these emails is breathtaking.    Apparent  cherry-picking and massaging of data for publication and/or PR  to fit the thesis  is verboten,  worse to  me even than plagiarism.  Please don’t spin this;   let’s get to the bottom of it.   For now, I have to feel embarrassed for those involved, and for all of science.    

      3. Rich, “Please don’t spin this?” Are you kidding? You honestly don’t believe that Jon and the Guardian are spinning these emails? You didn’t answer my question Rich. Can I have your emails to edit the way I wish? JP

      4. In response to your rhetorical question, no, I do not condone the unscrupulous snoop who released those remarkable emails.  Not anymore than I or you should be made to endure  the offensive GW alarmist fear blitz of  politicians, the media,   in our schools, TV, movies, etc.   The spin is wearing thin, JP, and a growing cloud of distrust imperils your cause.   

      5. Rich, If the place is on fire, somebody’s got to sound the alarm. I’m sorry if the noise of the alarm going off disturbs your slumber.JP

      6. Just what is the “truth and the whole truth”, JP?
        Have you ever questioned your own belief in AGW? 

      7. Rich, I question AGW all the time. There are some very important unanswered questions. For example, our knowledge of how clouds will act as we dump more and more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is something that is not well understood. Additionally, aerosols play a huge part in a dynamic atmospheric system and their effects need to be better understood. There is also the matter of narrowing the range of expected climate sensitivity to perturbations. There was a paper released just yesterday that suggested that climate sensitivity may not be as high as has been previously proposed. These are some of the issues that should be discussed. Not phony cabals. JP

      8. By the way Rich, the truth is “that which is in accordance with the facts”. One might assume you would have known that. JP

    2. Here’s what the Wall Street Journal says: ” …a tired, warmed-over non-story of no significance whatsoever.” The denialsts have gone from desperate to pathetic. JP

      1. Well Dr. John,
        In a previous comment you are the context police but here you go taking something out of context yourself. The quote was from an article by James Delingpole:

        Climategate 2.0. Is it (a) the gift that goes on giving? Or (b) an act of “sabotage” whose seriousness merits investigation by “the full force of the world’s intelligence community” so that the perpetrators can be brought to justice?

        The correct answer depends on who you are, of course. If you’re a climate skeptic it’s going to be (a). If you’re U.S. Congressman Ed Markey (or any his fellow-travelers on the great Man Made Global Warming gravy train) it’s inevitably going to be (b). Unless, perhaps it’s (c) a tired, warmed-over non-story of no significance whatsoever.

      2. John, I’m glad you’re paying attention. That’s exactly the point I was making. I can make it sound like the WSJ article says just the opposite of it’s intended meaning just by editing the quote. Have I made my point about editing? JP

      3. Jon, By the way, You can count on me remaining the context police around here. God knows it needs some. JP

      4. Dr. John, if you can establish the same level of credibility with TC.com readers that Jon has, then your words will carry weight.  If not…
        Personally, I’m betting on Jon. 
        I look forward to you making the case that ClimateGate is much ado about nothing.

      5. Of course, Dr. Parsons, if you REALLY want to make your case, you can start your own TC.com blog, just as Jon has.  You can post as little—or as much—as you wish.

      6. Don, I comment here to correct the record when false or misleading statements are made, or when only part of the story is told. I believe that when people have the truth, and the whole truth, they make the best decisions. I’m not interested in setting up another echo chamber where folks go to have their biases confirmed. JP

      7. Don, So-called Climategate has been thoroughly investigated by three different panels, including the UK Parliament and the US Congress. You don’t need to take my word for it, you can read them for yourself. Do you take issue with their findings? JP

      8. Those three “investigations” were whitewashes as has been thoroughly documented, for instance on Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit.

      9. Jon, Your readers can decide for themselves if they believe these reviews: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
        Science Assessment Panel
        Pennsylvania State University
        Independent Climate Change Email Review
        United States Environmental Protection Agency report
        National Science Foundation
        Or, Steve McIntyre. JP

      10. No need – Investigation has already shown “ClimateGate” to be nothing.
        Jon doesn’t have credibility, we just ignore him because few of us have the background to take him on.
        Personally I am pleased that someone who IS qualified has been willing to sacrifice his time doing so.

        Thank you Dr. Parsons.

        As far as “credibility” on subjects as complicated as climate research, if you want “credibility” you publish your papers in peer reviewed journals where qualified scientists can determine your credibility.

        Not political paranoia in local blogs.

         

      11. Dr. Parsons, before you wrap your arms around Tip O’Neil, you might want to remember the old saying about lying down with dogs. 
        http://tucsoncitizen.com/fortbuckley/2010/01/01/is-it-important-for-america-to-be-liked-if-so-why/#comment-654.  
        Make sure you read down to tip’s comment at 11:01 AM, where he calls American troops and the contractors who support them murderers of women and children.  If you read his comment on January 1st, my reply on the same day and Tip’s rejoinder on January 3rd—Tip’s intent is unmistakable.  IMO, of course.
        Your new friend was a little more direct in his reminiscences of 9/11 and its meaning to him:
        http://tucsoncitizen.com/view-from-baja-arizona/2010/09/11/lessons-from-911/#comment-4513
        Personally, to me 9/11 was really not that big a deal except that it was a psychological slap to the American ego and sense of self righteousness and entitlement.
        Of course we reacted in the traditional American manner – they killed 3,000 of our civilians, so we killed 100,000 of theirs. Perhaps our aim was a bit off, but that isn’t the point really.
        Personally, as someone who places lots of stock in what Jon DuHamel says, I wholeheartedly urge you to link arms with tiponeil and Leftfield.
        I also encourage you to keep citing all those “respected sources”—most of whom have a WHOLE lot to lose if Climategate continues to do the damage it’s doing.

         

      12. Another believer heard from.  If you don’t understand the process, then on what do you base your belief?  On some “authority”,  what you are being told in the news, on the weather channel, or by some local politician? Dissent is a practice common to science, a concept not totally familiar to laymen;  perhaps you should try to understand that.   I admire Johathan’s open tolerance for adversity.  The fact that he has allowed the abusive and boorish behavior of certain commenters herein is testimony to that. 

      13. Rich, I, too, admire Jon’s tolerance of dissenting opinions. What is boorish to one might be provocative to another. Your claim of “abuse” is more than a stretch. JP

      14. The “qualified scientists” look to have manipulated their data.  Wonder why…  Oh, I know why!  It gave them power, prestige and lots of grant money.

      15. Don, IPCC scientists do not receive remuneration for their work there. Your didn’t provide any evidence for your allegations. That is scurrilous. JP

      16. Don just repeats the Repub party line – just like Perry et. al.
        He probably would do the same thing if one questioned evolution – “science” is politics to Repubs. 

      17. You’re being disingenuous.  Scientists who achieve prominence get professorships, grant money and other benefits.
         
        It appears that many scientists and academics used the cause of AGW to achieve prominence.
         
        If you’re unhappy with my blog comments, take it up with the blog’s owner.

    3. When that small group skews the input of thousands of scientists for thirty years, editing it to support their predetermined conclusions and a political agenda, it is not unreasonable to suspect that this is not science.  It is, however, a conspiracy on its face. 

      1. “When that small group skews the input of thousands of scientists for thirty years, editing it to support their predetermined conclusions and a political agenda…”

        This is probably inevitable in a society in which politicians, businessmen and reality stars are deemed of more significance and importance than climate scientists.

      2. So you’re saying that climate scientists are cherrypicking facts to support their conclusions because they want to be famous too?  Could be…envy is, after all, a prime motivator of malfeasance.

      3. The lead author of one of the reports, Jonathan Overpeck, wrote, ‘The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out.’ Source

      4. Tunk, If a climate scientist wanted to become famous, he/she would find evidence that disproved AGW, not agreed with it. JP

      5. Tough job when those with contrary evidence to AGW are shut out of the debate in peer-reviewed publications and shouted down in the media.  Try again, doc.

      6. Tunk, Lindzen is not shut out, Spencer is not shut out, Christy is not shut out, Braswelll is not shut out. I can give you two dozen more if you like. But that’s about all there are. Three climatologists out of a hundred are skeptical of AGW. You wouldn’t buy a tube of toothpaste if 3 dentists out of a hundred recommended it. Why would buy the denialist drivel? JP

      7. Your “strength in numbers” argument is meaningless-here’s why: In 1928, in the USSR, there was a scientist named Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, a favorite of Stalin. His prize theory, which suited Stalin’s political needs at the time, was that plants and animals could inherit traits acquired from the environment in a single generation.  That is, if you used cooling to trick winter wheat seeds to germinate and grow in the spring (a technique already used in the US at the time) the seeds from the chilled plants would go on germinating in the spring in perpetuity. There was very little science in Lysenko’s science, but this “revolution” suited Stalin’s desire to outdo the accomplishments in genetics which had occurred under Lenin.  Honor upon honor was heaped upon this man (much like Al Gore today) and real scientists who questioned his theories were shunned, vilified and removed from their positions (not unlike the experiences of those who question AGW today).  The state media proclaimed the virtues of the Lysenko method beyond all doubt and question, just as most current media and adherents proclaim the “science is settled” regarding AGW.  But Lysenko had no more real science training than Mr. Gore, and his theory that the environment could permanently alter the genetic structure of crops in a single generation was utterly wrong. However, for political reasons, the USSR mandated that all farmers had to use the Lysenko method (just as our govt. intends to force us all into “Cap and Trade” methods) and the result was widespread famine. This bit of history illustrates the problems which can result when govt. thinks it understands science and attempts to subordinate it to a political agenda.  Seems everything old is new again.        

      8. Tunk, You apparently don’t know how the process works. The IPCC does no original research. The idea that there is a grand conspiracy is preposterous on it’s face. Do you seriously believe that every major corporation on the planet and every Professional Organization (including the Chamber of Commerce), and every National Academy of Science (over one hundred countries) are all in on this conspiracy? Stick with the ‘illuminati’ and the Rothschilds, Tunk, you’re embarrassing yourself.

      9. Who said it was a “grand conspiracy”?  From what any thinking person can read for themselves from the emails released, it’s a small clique’ of pseudo-scientists colluding amongst themselves to control the conversation, no Illuminati or Rothschilds necessary.  Merely the love of government funding.
         
        Stick with the facts and not strawman arguments, “doc”.  When you cast aspersions you’re the only one embarrassed here.  A hundred years ago, the vast majority of scientists concurred that no rocks could ever fall from the sky, mankind achieving space flight was impossible and he would never break the four-minute mile mark.  All mathematically-proved for the skeptical.  History shows that resting one’s faith in majority support is a fool’s proposition

      10. Climategate scientists DID collude with government officials to hide research that didn’t fit their apocalyptic global warming. Source

      11. >”From what any thinking person can read for themselves from the emails released, it’s a small clique’ of pseudo-scientists colluding amongst themselves to control the conversation,

        See that’s the problem with “thinking people” who don’t have the technical knowledge to judge such things.

        That claim was certainly made, investigated, and found to be false.
         

      12. Forgive me if I don’t accept an organization that investigates itself and announces that everything is hunky-dory and there’s nothing to be seen here.  You wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) accept such behavior from a government, nor should you accept it from scientific institutions. 

      13. I don’t, and there was never any evidence of wrongdoing in “Climategate” and it was investigated by outside governmental groups.

        The anti-global warming crowd is no different from the anti-evolution crowd or holocaust deniers. All of the science is against them and there is a pretty good consensus, so they need to rely upon conspiracy theories to explain away the evidence. 

      14. To insist that there was never any evidence of wrongdoing is to ignore the evidence of the emails presented in the perpetrators’ own words.  Your “outside governmental groups” that investigated were either packed with the very insiders and players who were being investigated or with people who stood to benefit from a whitewash.  This is not a theory, it is demonstrable fact to anyone who cares to investigate.  One needn’t be a technical expert in climate science to discern sophistry and collusion, Tip.

      15. > One needn’t be a technical expert in climate science to discern sophistry and collusion, Tip.

        Well it appears that you do if you see “evidence of wrongdoing” in the emails, and technical experts don’t.

        And even if you threw out all of the evidence of this group the scientific consensus is clear, across multiple disciplines.

        You really have to buy into conspiracy thinking. 

      16. As regards the “technical experts”, in the words of Upton Sinclair, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it”.  You needn’t buy into conspiratorial thinking to see the problem with Climategate, merely have a basic grasp of the written English language and the ability to read the emails, which clearly show collusion among peers to manipulate the results of their studies.  You and the alleged technical experts may not consider this to be wrongdoing, but intellectually honest people disagree. 
        Let’s put the shoe on the other foot for a moment: Imagine if it were discovered that free-market think tanks were caught vetting scripts of Fox news programs, intervening to prevent free market skeptics from receiving air time and consulting with the network about how it should alter its programming in a free market direction (hardly a stretch, I know, but bear with me).  The howls of outrage from other news networks, newspapers, wire services and no doubt yourself would be unrelenting.  So why is this behavior acceptable for scientists?  Why the double standard?  When a BBC reporter, Roger Harrabin, is shown to have accepted fifteen thousand pounds from the university at the heart of the scandal and is proven to have materially altered an article under pressure from an AGW activist (Jo Abbess, British Campaign for Climate Change, 2008), you can’t claim impartiality.  Legality is another issue, but I digress…
        Finally, as I mentioned to Dr. Parsons in another post, scientific consensus is not always the sturdiest foundation to base one’s conclusions on, as history has shown.

      17. Tunk, No one was allowed to “investigate itself”. At least six independent panels investigated these claims. You can read the results yourself. The results of the investigations did find that those involved should have been more forthcoming and had other suggestions. They also unanimously found that the media manufactured ‘cabal’ was a fiction. JP

      18. Tunk, Neither of the folks you mentioned are climatologists, and neither has anything to do with the IPCC. JP

      19. Dr. Parsons, it appears that “climatologists” are watching their gravitas shrink away. 
         
        Don’t believe me?  Ask the  British Prime Minister’s staff:
         
        Steve Hilton, the Prime Minister’s director of strategy and ‘green guru’, is the latest person to admit to doubts about climate change.
        ‘I’m not sure I believe in it,’ he announced at a meeting of the Energy Department, prompting one aide to blurt out: ‘Did I just hear that correctly?’

        Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066720/David-Camerons-green-guru-Steve-Hilton-reveals-doubts-global-warming.html#ixzz1f0lqp7FH

      20. Tunk, The problem with your argument is that no “small group” has control of climatology or the other earth sciences. The multiple lines of evidence for AGW come from thousands of articles as reported in hundreds of scientific journals. All of them available for you to see. Your second point is known as the “Galileo Argument”. It’s not how modern science works. Like it or not, it works by consensus. The fact that it works this way protects it from being “controlled by a small group”. There is no conspiracy and no one is out to get you. JP

      21. Never said anyone was out to get me, doc-that’s your projection and problem, not mine.  And if everything is “available for you to see”, then why did Prof. Phil Jones write, “Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of research grants we get-and has to be well hidden”?  That doesn’t sound like an open, verifiable process to me.  It’s certainly not scientific.  
         
        As far as consensus is concerned, you merely underscore the point I made in my post above-the consensus of 100 years ago about meteors, space flight and man’s physical limits was wrong, despite numerous scholars agreeing with each other.  Doesn’t sound as if much has changed over the past century in terms of the way things are done, so “modern” science seems to be working just like it always has, notwithstanding your protests to the contrary.
         
        Finally, when discussing conspiracies, you rely on one of the silliest assertions to support your argument that they don’t exist-the required size makes it impossible.  Nonsense!  Compartmentalization is the method and the Climategate emails demonstrate that clearly.  Despite the supposed protections of consensus, one of their much-vaunted scientists wrote, “I think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it”.  Not an unreasonable conclusion when one realizes that these scientists have been given millions of dollars to provide skewed, fancy-looking hockey stick graphs that politicians used to scare people into agreeing to carbon taxes.  Officials in the US, UK and the IPCC as well as financial players from firms like Goldman Sachs intended to reap substantial rewards off of literal hot air as a result of this research, all of which was filtered through the IPCC and the University of East Anglia for dissemination to the media and the general public.  Still want to tell everyone here how open and free the process is?  Please…climate scientists are to real environmentalists what televangelists are to faith.

        Regardless of how you personally feel about whether the planet is getting warmer or colder, and whether it is the sun or grocery bags causing it, these emails prove that scientists prostituted themselves to a political agenda to institute a worldwide taxation system through fraud and deception.  The sheer scale of Climategate proves that conspiracies  not only do happen but are the normal course of events.  Once again, no “Illuminati” or Rothschilds necessary, only lust for filthy lucre.
         
         

      22. Tunk, Just so I’m clear. You believe that what you have read about eight scientists, who have had their emails edited by a thief, persuades you that the consensus opinions of 3,500 IPCC scientists have been corrupted? You honestly don’t see how crazy that sounds? JP

      23. Not quite as insane as the idea of a thief who would edit something digitally, leaving clear evidence for computer gurus to trace.  Where is your evidence that these emails have been edited?  If it exists,I haven’t seen it-please provide it for everyone’s edification.
         
        And just to be clear, when a small group (Jones, Briffa, et al) edits the consensus by excluding dissenting data sets, it’s quite clear the process has been corrupted.  Quod Erat Demonstratum.

      24. I believe lots of scientists stood to gain professionally—and monetarily—from climate change paranoia. 
        IMO the Climategate investigators are making a very strong case and convincing a lot of people.  You are more than welcome to make your arguments and try to convince people yourself.
        Or, you can continue to roll your eyes and sneer in the comments section of a blog.  If you think we’re impressed* by your “title” of Dr.—well, then you’re as shallow as the OWS crowd. 
        (Well, you HAVE impressed tiponeill)

      25. “I believe lots of scientists stood to gain professionally—and monetarily—from climate change paranoia.”

        Don, the progress of scientific investigation is slow, tedious and filled with seeming contradictions along the way and in the end (consider the apparent contradictions between Newtonian physics and quantum mechanics).  It is also the one and only way available to approach an objective understanding of how the universe functions.  If you are genuinely concerned that the purity of scientific investigation has been tainted by base and venal self-interest, you are in the wrong political party.     

      26. Left, your kind kills the scientists who come up with the wrong conclusions or exiles them (e.g., Andrei Sakharov).  So, I find your support of science for science’s sake to be a little suspect.
         
        And, as for “objective understanding of how the universe functions,”  the Climategate e-mails show that many of the scientists manipulated the data and suppressed disagreement.  How does that lead to “objectivity?” 
         
        Of course, if you’re a communist, “objectivity” is what the state says it is, nicht wahr?

      27. “…the Climategate e-mails show that many of the scientists manipulated the data and suppressed disagreement.” 

        Don, I can’t say it any better than this, so I’ll repeat Dr. Parsons earlier comment:

        “You believe that what you have read about eight scientists, who have had their emails edited by a thief, persuades you that the consensus opinions of 3,500 IPCC scientists have been corrupted? You honestly don’t see how crazy that sounds? JP”

      28. “Left, your kind kills the scientists who come up with the wrong conclusions or exiles them…”

        Well, I guess nobody is above attacking someone who is trying to tell them something they don’t want to hear…not even conservatives.

      29. >I believe lots of scientists stood to gain professionally—and monetarily—from climate change paranoia. 

        We all have a tendency to view others by our own ethical standards.

        Sure, there are some of us who will lie and cheat for money – and they will assume that others act the same.

        That hasn’t been my experience of scientists however – although they may be ambitious they value their integrity much more than money – or funding.
         

      30. Your experience of scientists, then, excludes interactions with workers for Big Pharma (take your Celebrex and Phen-Phen; our studies show they work!) , agribusiness (gotta love that tasty high-fructose corn syrup) and climate scientists (“hide the decline”, anyone?).  If this is any example of your much-vaunted scientific integrity, it’s not very impressive.

    1. TheBThing, Be sure to tell your Doctor the next time you see him, not to use any science on you. JP

      1. TheBThing, be sure to also tell your doctor to not fudge your test results, like the Climategate crew apparently did.

    2. “Can anyone trust Science again?”

      You’ve got to put your faith and hope somewhere.  If the alternative is Rush Limbaugh, I’ll go with science.

      1. Lefty, Your’s is an excellent point. The manner in which scientific knowledge proceeds is far from perfect. But it’s gotten us some pretty spectacular results. JP

      2. But, when people do a poor job of collecting critical datas distort their data they do collect—or outright lie about it—-science can produce some pretty disastrous results.  Especially if the scientists are con artists.

      3. Don, the work that climate scientists do is simply beyond your comprehension and beyond the comprehension of anyone working in the Capitol building.  Speaking of which – on the one hand we have scientists who are sending a new Rover 354 million miles through space to Mars, and on the other hand we have the folks whose most recent accomplishment is deciding that pizza is a vegetable.  

        Some advice:  it is unwise for Republicans to introduce the subject of con artistry into a conversation.  You could be hoist by your own petard.
         

      4. Left, I choose to ignore your advice.  I also choose to cut off the cash flow that funds the Climategate crowd.

      5. “I also choose to cut off the cash flow that funds the Climategate crowd.”

        I guess you must be referring to all the donations you weren’t going to make anyway.  As it is, we both have reasons to be thankful – you can’t cut off funding for research when you don’t like the conslusions anymore than I can cut off the noses of conservatives to mark them with their own Scarlet Letter.

      6. Oh yes, nobody without a PHD in meteorology or physics could possibly ever comprehend the assertion that the planet is warming due to Co2 emissions from heavy industry and that sea levels will rise catastrophically if we don’t curb them.  Therefore, it must certainly follow that if the stated predictions from 15-20 years ago haven’t yet come to pass, the great unwashed are just too uneducated to comprehend the complexity of the non-events and we must press forward in the face of lack of evidence. 
         
        This sort of arrogance and hubris you wallow in is precisely the bath you accuse others of taking; pot, meet kettle. 

      7. “Oh yes, nobody without a PHD in meteorology or physics could possibly ever comprehend the assertion that the planet is warming due to Co2 emissions from heavy industry and that sea levels will rise catastrophically if we don’t curb them.”

        If you are referring to my comment, I believe you have misunderstood my intent.  I guess I was unclear in my words.  I think most of us can understand the assertions about the consequences of GW and the causes of GW.  But, as to the understanding the basic research behind the conclusions to extent that you can attempt to refute the methodology – no, I do not believe that the average non-scientist citizen, nor the average Congressional representative or even the average POTUS can understand this.  So, you must put your faith somewhere.  Will you put your faith in the vast majority of Climatologists; or in Glenn Beck, Rick Perry, and the Republican Party?  

      8. I will put my faith in that which can readily be observed and verified.  I put no faith in political parties, politicians, networks, talk show hacks or alleged experts who stand to materially benefit from skewing the results of their research, whether affiliated with Big Oil or environmentalists.  In short, I trust my own critical thinking faculties. 
         
        The bottom line is I have a memory and recall clearly the dire warnings of climate scientists and the media about rising sea levels and winter snow becoming a thing of the past.  This, as evidenced by lack of water and weather events around the world, is obviously not the case.  I also recall the mid-70’s, when scientists were warning that the world was preparing to plunge into the next ice age, a claim that made the cover of Time Magazine in 1975.  Fast-forward 20 years and the same publication trumpets the warming of the planet from the same sources with no apparent irony.  Is it any wonder that so many skeptics abound? 
         
        Climate scientists are little different from theologians predicting the return of Christ-when He doesn’t materialize on the given day and time, the message wasn’t wrong, they just have to recalculate.  Meanwhile, in the real world, people shake their heads, file the claim in the bovine excrement file and go about their day.

      9. Tunk, You’ve made several errors in your comment. Climate scientists did say sea levels would rise and they have (see NASA). Those sea levels are already ‘dire’ for low lying nations like the Maldives and will impact much of the world by the end of the century. Secondly, climate scientists did not predict less snow. They predicted lessening of the world’s ice sheets and glaciers. This has happened and has done so faster than was projected. Time magazine is not a scientific journal. The consensus of climate science at the time was that the world was warming, not cooling. Lastly, the scientists who proposed that idea are not “the same sources” that the IPCC is relying on today. You may wish to rely on your “memory”. I hope others do not. JP

      10. All right, so explain this study that refutes your assertion about rising worldwide sea levels: 
        http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
        It states: “Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less than the +0.07 to +0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required to reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted, Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010). Bindoff et al. (2007) note an increase in worldwide temperature from 1906 to 2005 of 0.74uC.” 
         
        I needn’t rely on my memory when the facts will suffice. 

      11. “I will put my faith in that which can readily be observed and verified.”

        Solipsism is a lonely, bitter and ignorant existence.

        Believing only what you yourself can verify independently really limits the scope of your philosophy and existence.  Aside from this, it is prone to an enormous amount of bias and error.  Most observers at one time felt they “observed” the sun rotating around the earth.  In fact, it was so obvious as to be beyond the need for questioning.  The universe in all its manifestations is much, much (much!) bigger than your brief and very limited experience can possibly comprehend alone.  

  2. Jon, I went to your “source” which turns out to be a British tabloid that indeed has a headline that says what you claim. The problem is the article is next to this, “Oh No! Another Mayan Prediction of Apocalypse in 2012 is Found”. If this is how you get your information, no wonder you come to the conclusions you do.JP

      1. Jon, If you would use reputable scientific journals for your information, I wouldn’t “attack” your sources. Maybe reading too many tabloids is why we get headlines from you like “Marijuana Causes Global Warming” or (my favorite) “Lemmings cause Global Warming”. JP

      2. If “reputable scientific journals” weren’t being bullied into not publishing data contrary to AGW by status-quo defenders, your argument might have a leg to stand on.  As things stand, people have to resort to blogs to find information that the rest of the media refuses to touch.  Which might well explain the decline of newspapers, TV, magazines, etc. 

      3. Tunk, We can’t base policies that effect the World’s Climate on blog sites. Science, as it is practiced, Is not perfect; but it has done wonderful things for humanity. Blogs don’t provide a framework for answering extremely complex or recondite questions, and they don’t provide a method to implement large changes. You can find an Internet site that will tell you anything you want to hear. JP

      4. So let me see if I have this straight-“blogs don’t provide a framework for answering extremely large..questions, and they don’t provide a method to implement large changes”, yes?  Quite possibly one of the most desperately ignorant statements you’ve made yet, doc! 
         
        Your hubris in claiming that blogs can’t help answer complex questions ignores that, by your own definition, magazines, TV and newspapers are guilty of the same sin by pandering to short attention spans through condensing down complex issues.  Since the latter forms of media have delivered the bulk of the general public’s information on this matter, this negates their trustworthiness according to your own non-logic and renders your argument moot as it cancels out all media. 
         
        Your second assertion, that blogs “don’t provide a method to implement large changes”, ignores the massive role blogs and the internet have played in organizing and publicizing the Arab Spring, several U.S. presidential elections to date and the Occupy movement.  If that isn’t a blueprint, much less a method, for implementing large societal changes, then I must be sorely misinformed.  One of us is, certainly…

  3. As on of the prior comments stated..”Why doesnt Dr. Parsons get a blogsite?” I agree. This blogsite used to fun. Great articles about science. I learned a lot, it was always enjoyable and informative. Look geek go get your own blogsite. I am tired of you. If you havent noticed there is only one person commenting….you. Get a life or write a book, or a blogsite.

    1. Jon should be complimented for allowing dissenting opinions here. He has taken some heat and he has dished some out, but he has never suggested that someone go away because they have a different opinion. JP

    2. Fraser, You are wrong. Nine people have commented on this thread alone. Additionally, if you wish to cite another person’s comment, and you use quotation marks, you might want to quote them correctly. JP

      1. “Doctor” Parsons, if you want to be just a rock-thrower, an anonymous commenter that digitally follows Jon around, that’s fine.  If that fulfils you…
         
        Fraser and I have told you how you can have a bigger impact—if you dare.  Apparently, you don’t. 

      2. Don, I told you that I’m not interested in creating another echo chamber for those who wish to have their biases confirmed. I appreciate your repeated suggestion that I go away, but I’m not going to do that unless Jon says I must. JP

      3. Why Dr, Parsons, I’m surprised that a PhD has trouble with reading comprehension.  I’ve not suggested that you go away—I’ve challenged you to state your criticisms of Jon on your own blog. 
         
        To assert that, instead,  I’ve suggested that you “go away” is false.  I’d expect to see that kind of tactic from a propagandist, not a PhD.

  4. Jon, In what context was that statement made? Oh, that’s right, we don’t know the context; because someone with an agenda edited them. Just like I edited the WSJ article. You quickly recognized that as unfair. Why can’t you admit that that is not the way we do science? JP

  5. NOTICE TO COMMENTERS HERE: John Parsons has approached Mark Evans, the editor of the Tucson Citizen, requesting that he be allowed his own post as a guest column.  That’s fine with me.  I still await seeing all that “overwhelming”  physical evidence of the AGW position.  If John Parsons proceeds with with the article, he will have to reveal who he really is and his credentials because at TC has a rule of no anonymous bloggers.  Should be interesting.

    1. Interesting in the most base sense. A rehash of existing “overwhelming”  doctored evidence no doubt…with no context of previous naturally occurring global climatic temperature swings through the ages.
      You keep doing what you do Jonathan, it’s refreshing to hear your perspective on subjects of interest in your blogs. There is precious little of that on this site or anywhere else for that matter…  

      1. Jon, so far Dr. Parsons has attracted as adherents…tiponeil and Leftfield.  Not surprising, and ’nuff said.

      2. Don, You haven’t said anything about AGW. Do you have something to offer to the discussion beside your opinion of me or the scientists you vilify. You haven’t offered any evidence to support your assertions. JP

      3. I defer to Jon on the subject of AGW. 
         
        And, if you think that a commenter has the authority to determine what is and isn’t said in the comments of someone else’s  blog—is your PhD in Applied Arrogance?
         
        If Jon’s unhappy with what I’m saying, he’ll say so.  If you’re unhappy…who cares?  I don’t.

      4. Don, You seem like a very bitter, angry man. If you want to discuss AGW, I will be happy to do that. If you simply want to vent, I’ll watch. JP

      5. Oh, I’m only bitter and angry when Rex Grossman is throwing interceptions.  He threw that second one yesterday into triple coverage, and Santana Moss wasn’t even looking for the ball…
         
        As for AGW, I eagerly await your article on TC.com.  We’ll see how well your credentials stack up to Jon’s.

      6. Don, I am willing to accept and consider the slim possibility that the vast majority of climate scientists in the world are wrong and Mr. DuHamel, et. al. are right.  At the same time, if the world’s scientists are wrong, we will find out because they will tell us they were wrong.   Unlike District Attorneys, politicians and policemen, scientists are searching for the truth.  

      7. When scientists manipulate their data and suppress disagreement within their ranks, they’re not searching for truth.  They’re searching for grant money.

      8. “When scientists manipulate their data and suppress disagreement within their ranks, they’re not searching for truth.  They’re searching for grant money.”

        I think you are confusing scientists involved in basic research with defense contractors looking for the next no-bid contract with unlimited cost overruns.

      9. No, Leftfield-they’re cut from the same cloth.  The pity is that you’re unable to recognize that fact.

      10. “No, Leftfield-they’re cut from the same cloth.  The pity is that you’re unable to recognize that fact.”

        Sounds to me like they’re all out to get you.  Anyone left you can trust?

      11. Prescience equals paranoia in your worldview, it seems.  I reference obvious greed and you somehow manage to mutate that into personal fear through political alchemy in your cortices.  Sounds like your problem, not mine.

      12. Prescience?  I may be misunderstanding your intent, but my take on your comment is “because I can see into the future and also determine the motivations of people unmet, I rely on this to formulate my opinions with confidence.  If you weren’t so dense, you could do the same and then you would have come to the same conclusions as I.  It’s a pity.”

        My take is that you don’t trust anyone but yourself, about whom you are absolutely convinced of his/her integrity.

      13. After looking at many of the world’s major institutions: religion, government, business, philosophy, I have come to the personal conclusion that, of all these paths, science is the one that leads us to the real truths about the big and small questions we have.  Individual scientists, yes, can be motivated by less than honorable ambitions, but Science itself is far less personality-driven and venal than any other pursuit I have experience with.  It is far from errorless, but it is self-correcting and self-governed by demonstrable fact.   It is also sometimes quite vexing when the facts conflict with our closely-held beliefs.  Unfortunately, when confronted with this situation, most of us get busy figuring out a reason we don’t have to adjust our beliefs.  Those people don’t make good scientists.

  6. JP,
    “Abusive” is what I would call insulting and ad hominem comments, which I have seen on this thread, not so recentlybut at times in the recent past. Don’t want to go through the archives, you’ll just have to take my word for it.   “Boorish” to me is rude arrogance, a” turnoff” which I sense in some of your glib comments, esp to those who you seem to dismiss as below you.  If your intent is to persuade, remember, you catch a fly with honey, not vinegar.  Take it or leave it, JP.

    1. Rich, I think you’re being a little thin-skinned. If you can point out an “abusive” comment I’ve made, I’m not to proud to apologize. As far as being insulted, that’s pretty much in the eye of the beholder. Muslim’s are extremely insulted by a cartoon depicting Mohammed. That wouldn’t insult me. Many of my comments are intended to be provocative, but that’s not the same as ‘abusive’. Geez, Rich, this ain’t a dating site. JP

      1. John, I believe you misunderstood my comment, for which I do apologize.   “Abusive” was in reference to ad hominems directed at Jon, comments which by any standard should have been removed, but  in no way attributable to you. 
        I hope you will  keep in mind this is a public forum, not academia;  a mixed bag of well- informed and less- informed opinions are found here, and what you perceive  as ” provocative” might be interpreted as arrogant and abrasive to others.  JP, you impress me as bright and sincere in your beliefs, but for your own good, try to lighten up a bit, eat some humble pie,  especially if you plan on having your own blog.  Good luck

      2. Thanks Rich, I know I can seem pedantic at times. It’s not an affectation. It’s actually the way I think and speak. I couldn’t change that if I tried. I’m not that talented of a writer. As I mentioned above, I don’t think it’s useful for folks to go to blogs that simply reinforce their preconceived notions. We should be challenged and be able to present a factual basis for our beliefs. As Jon said of the subject of climate science, “It’s complicated.” He was right. And there is no way to make it simple and still be correct. But almost anyone can, if they take the time and do the work, understand the principles. Those who choose to publish their beliefs without doing that work should expect to be challenged. I did get your message Rich. JP

  7. >:As regards the “technical experts”, in the words of Upton Sinclair, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it”.

    Ok Ok – scientists make millions if they fake results which support climate change. I understand now. It’s Piltdown Man all over again.

    I always just ignored the global warming conspiracy thread, knowing that people believe what they believe and no one’s minds would be changed, and I’m going back to that policy.

    I am happy to see someone with qualifications actually post here as a counterbalance to the Republican propaganda. 

    I don’t expect Dr. Parsons to change anyone’s opinions, but it is nice to see someone make the effort.

     

    1. Tip, Sorry to see you go, but I certainly understand why you would. This really is ‘crazy town’ most of the time. The absolute mindlessness of some of the comments directed at you are more than a rational person should have to endure. Nice to know you’re out there. JP

      1. So, Dr. Parsons, is it mindless to point out that tiponeill (a) took some cheer from 9/11 and(b)  thinks that American troops and the contractors who support them are murderers of innocent women and children?
         
        Is it “crazytown” to think otherwise? 

      2. No, it just has nothing to do with AGW.  Try staying on subject rather than muddying the waters with non-sequiturs.

  8. I would suggest to Jonathon Du Hamel that he do blog stories on geology or the moon, or earthquakes or anything else for a while. It would be refreshing. If Parsons was so busy doing his job he would not have time for this. Maybe you should find out who employes him and copy the comments and times posted and send them to his supervisor. Maybe he would be interested how he is spending his time on his dime. Ohhh he is probably on a grant of some kind.
    I am going to go to the sports blogsites for a while until this crap blows over.

    1. Fraser, that’s the whole idea: get Jon to write about something else besides Climategate.
       
      Stick to your guns, Jon!

Comments are closed.