• Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

Greek Chapters Enter the Cloud

February 22, 2011, 7:27 pm

Like Greek deities returning to their home atop Mount Olympus, campus Greek organizations are entering the clouds. Cloud computing, that is.

Fraternities and sororities are increasingly moving their chapter information and communication into the cloud using software developed by several online services catering to the Greek life community.

WebGreek, founded in 2009, offers individual organizations their own “chapter cloud,” through which they can create a shared calendar, send e-mail and text messages, and sync music collections.

The site was designed for Greeks, by Greeks, says Spenser Tang-Smith, chief of operations. Company founders Patrick Allen and Jordan Pease were both members of the Phi Gamma Delta fraternity while students at the University of California at Berkeley.

Mr. Tang-Smith says the service, which has more than 200 campus chapters and two national organizations on board, was created to solve the inefficiencies of running a sorority or fraternity. For instance, it offers an online polling service to be used in meetings, and allows messages and calendar items to be targeted for special groups, cutting down on the number of extraneous messages filling up the wrong in-boxes. “One of the biggest headaches being in a fraternity is all the spam you get,” he says.

The cost for the service ranges from $20 to $60 a month for a campus chapter, depending on its size.

A competitor, Group Interactive Networks, charges a similar price. It was founded in 2005 and has more than 1,200 member chapters and eight or nine national organizations on board.

Ethan Fieldman, president of Group Interactive Networks, referred to by many as GIN, says switching to his company’s service can be cost-effective for campus Greek groups. A large sorority at the University of Alabama actually saved money, he said, because it had been producing laminated phone lists every semester for each of its nearly 200 members, which was no longer necessary after the group started using the company’s services.

Mr. Fieldman says the company’s servers send more than 30,000 text messages and 40,000 e-mails each day. His service also matches study partners at a sorority or fraternity by analyzing the registered courses each member enters.

The company can create Facebook fan pages or offer templates for external Web sites, but the focus of the company’s service is creating secure pages accessible only to chapter members.

Security is a big issue for Greek organizations, and the specialized cloud services take that into account. “Fraternities are still secretive societies,” says WebGreek’s Mr. Tang-Smith.

WebGreek allows chapters to set privacy settings for different members, so the chapter president can make some information available only to officers or to upperclassmen.

Group Interactive Network’s Mr. Fieldman, who was a member of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity when he attended the University of Florida at Gainesville, says that officer transition is one of the biggest problems Greek chapters face. GIN’s file-sharing services help with that, he says, because they let current officers share materials with their successors.

“With our system, everybody puts in what they have at the end of the semester,” he says.

While Greek organizations may have more documents moving into the cloud, some material they are notorious for sharing is perhaps too difficult to digitize. More often than not, test banks and class notes remain tucked in a drawer in the chapter house rather than online, Mr. Fieldman says. “Scanning things would be a lot of work,” he says.

This entry was posted in Social Networking, Student Life, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • not4nothin

    Ah, what’s the big deal?  Just another example of “do as I say, not as I do,”  kids. 

  • R117532

    Even though the topic of this blog has little to do with the science of global warming, it has devolved to that. From this perspective, your observations are among the most refreshingly broadening that I have seen in this dialog.

    I’m curious, if the explanation is not too complex for this forum, what is the nature of the most significant negative feedbacks that are being observed and/or speculated upon? Does this mean that the empirical temperature curve is less than logarithmic in relation to CO2 increase?

    Separately, what is the most defensible estimate of the proportion of variance in CO2 change attributable to human factors?

  • chriscolose

    The problem in this ¨debate¨ is that climate scientists are frequently held to standards not typical of any scientific discipline.  Moreover they have been persecuted far more than any other current scientific discipline, so broad comparisons between how ¨climate scientists¨ should act and how the ideal scientist acts are taken from a lack of sampling.  What if ¨climateaudit¨ were instead ¨geologyaudit¨ or ¨astrophysics-audit¨; what if disinformation blogs like WUWT were instead dedicated to distorting the fields of biology or ecology? What if a nuclear physicist were suddenly accused of fraud and had hundreds of e-mail messages accusing him of this, as well as blog posting every week reminding him of how his analyses were fraudulent, even after no legitimate scientific evidence could be brought forth to show it.  In this case I fully expect that people in those fields would rapidly get annoyed with the nonsense.

    There is very little of this in other academic disciplines, at least at the scale that has plagued climatology.  The reason is because astrophysics actually does not threaten large industries and personal lifestyles.  The only thing close is the theory of evolution, which has a very large anti-science campaign going against it out of fear that it threatens certain religious ideals.  It is very similar to climate change denial, and in fact the argument style overlaps to a considerable degree.  In both cases, the argument style is geared toward being a lawyer and creating reasonable doubt, rather than proposing and defending a new theory or advancing the understanding of what is there.  In both cases, the ¨skeptics¨ have laundry lists of arguments, and when one is shot down, they simply jump to the next one; like in a climate version of Groundhog´s day, the same arguments are then repeated to different audiences a few weeks later.

    It should be apparent that climatologists as a collective whole are not engaged in any huge conspiracy or suppression.  That people still bother with the likes of Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen is proof of this.  Rather, they are frustrated with the amount of distortion of the field by amateurs who think that reading a blog makes them an instant-expert, and those who actually do know better, yet spew disinformation nonetheless.

  • JonasN

    Scott AM
     
    Smoking/lungcancer is a red herring and the analogy with the CO2-driven AGW-hypothesis is a very poor one (can you figure out why?). I doubt that this analogy is made by someone doing real rsearch about what controls and regulates earth’s climate. (But hey, I know that lots of your ilk gladly stoop to such Oresquian levels ;-)

    I looked upp your link-collection and it was littered with red flags: Exxon Mobile (appeared many times), Big Tobacco, Union of concerned Scientists, ExxonSecrets, SourceWatch, even some Bush bashing. And a long list of activist blogs, all of wich censor heavliy and are afraid of open debate and opposing views. Seriously? Joe Romm,DeSmog blog and Deep Climate? Is this how you have formed your belief? Well, that makes some sense at least.

    But please, don’t come here lecturing me and others what we need to read. Are you aware that you didn’t address  any of the points i mentioned.

    Yes, you restated that (some people believe that) AGW supposedly is a known fact. Correctly stated, that would have been the AGW-hypothesis I already mentioned above. But belief does not constitute science.

    Further, you are wrong about the mirroring part. The global temperature has been changing well before humans started increase CO2-levels. For about the two preceding centuries. Well, there is one part of your ‘unknown something’ causing warming.

    And as I already pointed out, from mid 40ies to mid 70ies there is a temperature decline, in spite of CO2-levels rising. In fact, the only period of reasonable agreement with your hypothesis are the 23 years between 1975 and 1998. Definitely not before, and neither thererafter.

    These 23 years are what the AGW-hypothesis (IPCC-version) hinges on. And it is wearing thinner by the every year. In fact, you are wrong (or right) about both of you unknowns:

    2) We know that something unknown makes temperatures go up (and down), even in the absence of varying CO2. The temperature record tells us that. Even the IPCC only claims ~half of the observed changes are due to human GHG:s.

    1) And yes, for more than a decade, temperatures have refused to increase further even though CO2-levels have risen steadily.

    As I already mentioned, the alarmist side has recently tried to do-away with that fact by blaming the discrepancy on chinese sulphur emissions: The chinese coal burning counteracts the temperature increase which the chinese coal burning supposedly is causing through its GHG emissions. That is rather funny … dont’ you think?

    ‘We cant’s see what we claimed, because that what causes what we claim also conceals what we claim it must show’

    (Well, there are finer points to this hilarity, but proably lost here)

    One more note. It is true that:
    “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”

    But the extraordinary claim is that CO2-controls the cliamte. And 23 years of roughly coinciding trend (and much more where it doesn’t) just doesn’t cut it as I already said.

    Finally, please refrain from making prophecies for the future. Both wrt the climate, the forthcoming disasterous global problems, and how good taxes, carbon offsets and stimulus is for the economy. Focus on the issues here:

    That is understanding what the AGW-hypothesis actually states, on what empirical observations it is based on, and most of all all the problems that this hypothesis has hade from the outset, and which are piling up continuously as we speak, as new data and reserach comes in, and as the discrepancie between prophecy (projection) and reality increases with every passing year ..

  • JonasN

    Scott (and James Haughton)

    None of the many academies that purpotedly support the AGW-orthodoxy have asked their members about their position. In fact, I know of several cases where some member protested vehemently. And those questionaires sent out to researchers in the field were asked to answer quite vage and not very discriminating questions, hardly cutting to the core of the matter. That is true for many of the opinion polls among the scientists and so called experts. Also the IPCC’s 2500+ experts claimed to be behind the summary and its findings were neither asked if they were, and their expertise regarding the core issues was negligible for most of them. Many were just politically appointed bureaucrats.

    I agree with James H (if this is what he menat): Opinion polls poll opinions (suprise!). They do not settle sicentific queries …

  • marka

    Yikes!  Here’s my problem with the advocate/defenders of Global Warming/Anthropomorphic Climate Change:

    “calculations unequivocally show that adding CO2 reduces outgoing energy, leading to warming. There is no scientific question on that point.”

    From where I sit, I am skeptical of absolute assertions about ‘unequivocal’ and ‘no scientific question’ – and those who state that are presumptively trying to shove something down my throat and silence all dissent – precisely the point being made in the article.  Science is all about questioning, and is constantly evolving – commenters have already noted the overwhelming opposition to Einstein’s insights in the 20th century, and all we should need to add are Galileo & Copernicus, and all the other pioneers of various scientific pursuits who were considered heretics of the comtemporary ‘science’ of the time.  Those heretics – may – actually turn out to be correct.  Only time will tell – not theories & projections.

    For such advocates/defenders – this is why you are undercutting yourselves and whatever science backs you up – you are simply insulting my intelligence, and the intelligence of other readers – when you resort to absolutes.  How, indeed, can I attribute any credibility to someone who villifies all opposition, and pretends that they now have all the answers, especially when they are trying to convince us about projections based on limited data on a ‘science’ that has numerous assumptions built into computer modeling.

    And when someone points that out, you then attack him?!?!

    You’ve got a lot to learn about successful sustainable advocacy & the limits of knowledge.

  • chriscolose

     marka,

    You have a strong point, but the fact that science is an evolving process does not give freedom for everyone and their grandma to simply make things up, and pretend they are just as good as existing theories.

    When Einstein challenged current understanding of physics, he did not create a list of 100 potential arguments that he thought of on a whim, throw one out there and wait for it to be rebutted, throw the next one out there, wait for it to be rebutted, and then hope that on idea #67 he would actually have a point.  Moreover, he did not go out and repeat flawed arguments #1-66 a month later to a new non-technical audience, and hope that the newspapers picked it up.  That is precisely what is done today with those who try to ¨disprove¨ anthropogenic climate change, or other central conclusions outlined by the IPCC 2007 and other reports. 

    Einstein also did not advance his new theory of relativity by hacking into other physicists e-mails, and proclaiming that they were all suppressing his 100 crank ideas.  When classical physicists could only show that the intensity of radiation by an object blew up in the low wavelength limit, Planck and others did not accuse them of beings frauds or blog about the failure of science; instead, they actually tried to do better, and instead of acting like lawyers, proposed a *new* theory hat took quantum considerations into account.

    On another point: The fact is that some theories have stood enough time and have high explanatory and predictive power, and are not discussed in the same way that you imply.  For example, you probably do not think people are shoving things down your throat when they teach you about gravity, or that if someone calls a person who says the Earth is flat ¨stupid,¨ that this somehow weakens the spherical-Earth ¨theory.¨ 

    The danger of your thinking is that people fall victim to the Galileo fallacy, and believe that the consensus is necessarily wrong, and that any new information that goes against that must be right.  In fact, this is rarely true.  This is because, rather than consensus dictating the truth of something, consensus is what follows after the work has been done…consensus is what goes into textbooks after scientists have debated, and argued, and re-examined, and argued more.  In fact, the history of accepting CO2´s central role in climate shows that it took at least a century to appreciate.

    AGW is not an intrinsic theory.  It emerges from other theories, including blackbody radiation and thermodynamics, some of which pioneers like Einstein were a key part of.  The same physics explains the radiant spectra observed on Mars or Venus, and allows us to make sense of past climate events.  The greenhouse effect itself is very well understood, see a simple explanation:
    http://blog.timesunion.com/weather/understanding-global-warming-how-to-build-a-greenhouse-effect/1196/

    No one has proposed anything nearly as good; attacking other scientists and engaging in logical fallacies that first-year undergrads could pick up on does not count toward the progression of science.

  • cocotartufo

    Marka,

    I don’t think Galileo would have a problem with that statement since its basis is experimental — and Galileo was revolutionary precisely for his reliance on empirical/experimental approach to developing knowledge.  Climate scientists are employing the very lessons that Galileo passed down to scientists from generation to generation.

    Moreover, I think you are implictly using a bit of a double standard.  You seem to accept Galileo’s findings as gospel though they have gone unchallenged for centuries, while questioning the ”absolutism” of CO2′s effect on climate even though the empirical evidence for that effect is also extremely strong.  While you may abhore absolutism, the fact is that knowledge in science builds upon acceptance of certain well established ”facts” that can be repeatedly observed by independent parties or have held up to strong empirical and theoretical challenge over time.  Scientists have no problem with freedom of thought, but they also believe that the natural world behaves in repeatable ways, and it’s that which governs which ideas about the natural world survive, not the scientists themselves.

    It’s fair to ask, though, what is the experimental basis for such confidence in the effect of CO2 on climate.  The certainty on display can certainly raise red flags if you are unfamiliar with it’s underpinnings, and noone can those justice in a post to a blog.  I would follow links of others to many summary statements by scientific societies, collections of papers, and especially to Spencer Weart’s History of Global Warming (available free online -Google it) — in which you will see the idea took a long time to acheive the status it has.  It’s an interesting read that touches on many branches of science.

    In a nutshell, though?

    CO2 is known to be transparent to visible light, while it absorbs heat radiation.  That’s been documented by Tyndall in the mid 1800′s and measured more precisely by those who developed heat seeking missle systems in the 50′s  by Plass and colleagues.   The behavior of CO2 in this regard is very very well known and many technologies depend on that knowledge.  With the right equipment, you would get the same answer.  It also is consistent with general principles of physical chemistry as it pertains to observed properties of other substances – so the confidence is not simply based on observations of CO2.

    Arhennius first suggested in 1896 that, due to it’s measured properties, increasing CO2 should reduce the efficiency by which heat radiated from earth is lost to space, which should in turn warm the earth given a certain amount of solar radiation coming in to produce that heat.  He also postulated several specific fingerprints of warming that resulted from what was called greenhouse gas emissions – i.e., spatial and temporal patterns of warming that would not be produced by other means (changes in solar radiation/albedo etc).  Recent workers working in more complicated models predicted other patterns as well that are unique to the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

    The many predictions of the theory have been tested in two ways, by comparing climates of planets with different abundances of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, and by looking at our own planet’s reponse to recently increasing CO2.  These comparisons were done while also accounting for other sources of heat (solar radiation, albedo changes, aerosols). In both instances, the effect of CO2 on average temperature, on spatial and temporal patterns of warming and the nature of outgoing radiation indicate that Ahrrenius, and the others that followed him were completely consistent with what the observed physical properties and the implications of those properties for planetary heat balance.

    Basically, it is really hard to find a idea in planetary science that is better supprted by the evidence than is the effect of CO2 on planetary energy balance.

  • Bogs_Dollocks

    Water vapour, including it’s condensed form of clouds, is the dominant green house gas. 

    CO2 is a minor green house gas.
    However, it is essential for plants and thus for all life on earth.

  • dank48

    “Quotations aside, religious zealotry has no hand in the scientific debate.”

    Exactly. Perhaps I misunderstood, but it seems to me you’re missing my point.

  • dank48

    All this discussion, and so many people have so much trouble sticking to the topic. I’m probably the dozenth person pointing out that the article is not about AGW; it’s about people’s behavior in discussions of AGW.

    Too many people accept “really really really believe” as a working definition of “know,” at least in the first-person singular.

    No matter how confident I am in my beliefs about AGW (or any other subject), I have an established track record of serious mistakes, unfortunate errors, and getting things wrong. So my normal human confidence in my own brilliant, well-educated, marvelously informed, insightful beliefs, convictions, and opinions should at least be seasoned by the awareness that I’ve been certain I was right plenty of times when I wasn’t, and I have no guarantee whatsoever that this isn’t another one of those times.

    Anyone who is unwilling to consider seriously the possibility that he or she might just be incorrect is  at least flirting with bigotry.

  • dank48

    Remember Richard Feynman’s criticism of many physicists’ fascination with computer models, which sooner or later come to seem more “real” to their devotees than the actual real world? He called the model obsession a disease. 

  • cocotartufo

    Actually, I think it’s a fallacy to diconnect the issue of the substance of AGW from the post.  Remember, the title is Climate Thuggery!”  The implication (and it is strong and unmistakable) is that the methods employed by proponents of the idea that humans are affecting climate are reduced to aggressive tactics because of their desperation to obscure alternate views. 

    I have argued that Mann and Mashey have simply responded to the aggression shown toward them – aggression that was clearly designed to silence those who adhere to the consensus and make it appear as if there is a large scientific debate on the matter. 

    Others have then suggested that the level of confidence exhibited by “AGW proponents” is itself a form of thuggery.  I say, it’s actually an indication of the strength of the evidence behind the proposition…evidence which can be discussed. 

    Look, there are two responses to someone who seems quite certain of their opinion.  One is to simply dismiss their opinion out of hand, because that person seems to be ”flirting with bigotry” as you describe it  But that in itself is a form of ”flirting with bigotry”, because it presumes that no person who has a strong opinion could possibly have sifted through the evidence and come to that position rationally.  I agree that if that person was unwilling to discuss the bases of that position, they would be rather off-putting.  But I am willing, as are others.

    I will say that it is often a thankless task – and it takes quite a bit of patience.  As Chris Colose has mentioned, we hear the same arguments that have been discredited by empirical research rear their heads over and over again as if they were born anew.  I have yet to find a skeptical argument that holds water, in my opinion. 

    That has jaded my attitude, I admit.  Maybe it has jaded others a bit more.  But, I still try to follow up every new criticism that I hear.  I don’t presume arrogance in the face of new evidence…the issue is too important. 

  • cocotartufo

    I think the behavorist debate is completely different.  That was about epistemology, there were no real substantial financial interests at stake, and the ideological warfare was contained within academia.

    Here we have people with vested economic and/or ideological interest claiming that there is a debate among scientists where there is none – in fact hasn’t been one for some time now on this issue except for a tiny minority of climate scientists (half of whom are named by Woods).  This false impression has somehow gotten swept up in the culture wars and in the general polarization of society, partly because it has received significant amplification in certain media outlets, many of which are owned by one very influential guy with an explicit political agenda (NAS is a small player, I agree). 

    As a result, we have scientists getting routinely  intimidated (in some cases physically threatened) for simply stating conclusions that are consistent with the general consensus or presenting data consistent with that consensus.  We have those scientists getting criticized for defending themselves, by Peter Woods in this very blog, as if they are “thugs.”  We have the entire scientific enterprise being called into question .. which in turn threatens the vary basis of rational decision making. 

    I dare say more is at stake here.  I welcome a return to more rational debate, but what Peter Wood has done here actually makes such a discussion less likely by labeling those who understand the consensus as thugs.  That can have nothing but a chilling effect on discourse.

    The tenor of the debate really is not that different from the tobacco debate, the ozone hole debate, the acid rain debate…  Same tactics repeated over and over again.  Interestingly, same outcome in the end, which I like to think that is because overwhelming evidence trumps vested interest.  Nature does what it does regardless of politics. 

  • R117532

    I take your point about the differences in my example. It was reminiscent, not identical. That dissimilarity does not vitiate the points that individuals like ‘dank48,’ ‘betterschool’ and I have made as many different ways as we can make them.

    Let me ask what you make of the fact that objective outside observers — calm, clear-eyed people who are generally favorable to the concerns you express — repeatedly tell you that you are behaving more badly that the opposition? You say “the opposition” is mean spirited. Does that justify mean spirited behavior within your group? At what point do you become responsible for your own methods? At what point do you realize that you are not advancing the cause of truth?

  • cocotartufo

    Like I said, you can’t do the subject justice in a response to a blog post!

    Water is a greenhouse gas, in the sense that it is largely transparent to visible light but absorbs heat radiation.  However, water is constantly precipitating out of the atmosphere, whereas CO2  does not.  In fact an H2O molecule only spends an average of 5-10 days in the atmosphere before it is leaves as raindrops.  Models indicate that the only real way to increase the average amount of water in the atmosphere is to increase or decrease temperature of the atmosphere on average.  Only greenhouse gases that do not precipitate can have a persistent effect on climate.  H2O vapor then amplifies the effect of these gases – in other words the effect of CO2 depends on water vapor being a greenhouse gas.  This feedback has been observed empirically in response to the climate cooling from the Pinatubo explosion (Soder et al Science 2002).

    CO2 is used by plants, it’s true, although this has nothing to do with it’s role in warming.  Under ideal conditions (i.e. full water nutrients light in greenhouses) you can get better growth of plants by increasing CO2 concentrations, as happens in greenhouses with monocultures.  When you are looking at the real world though, other factors are more important constraints on plant growth (mostly water but also nutrients, light, temperature).  Also, plants differ markedly in their responses to CO2.  The IPCC suggested that initially crop production might see a net benefit of CO2 increase, but that as warming increased, water and temp effects dominate and result in substantial decline in crop production – particularly in water stressed regions like SW USA.  However, recent long term experiments (FACE) with plots of CO2 on growth and biomass than expected, especially in natural mixed species plots.  Some see evidence that vines and weeds are especially favored by CO2.  I think that’s up in the air still.

    Basically, the effect of CO2 on plants is complicated.  Also the effects have been incorporated in global carbon models in a simple way since the 70s – if anything the science suggests less of an affect than originally assumed.

  • arthurpsmith

    “objective outside observer …  repeatedly tell you that you are behaving more badly that the opposition?” – really? Citation please! I have never been told such a thing by a person I could identify as an “objective outside oberver”! But if I did hear from such a person I would just ask them to compare the comments from us here with the comments from the threads at WattsUp and Bishop Hill that have linked here. Frustration at repeated false claims is a little different from mean spirit.

  • cocotartufo

    We agree…I’m pointing out that a position can be strongly held on the basis of evidence rather than zealoutry. 

    In this instance it is a demonstrable fact that a consensus exists among scientific bodies on the effects of humans on climate.  That consensus states that warming has happened, that it is almost certainly largely due to human activity through its effect on greenhouse gases, that warming will likely continue under business as usual and the consequences could be somewhere between pretty bad and disastrous.  I don’t believe it is zealoutry to point out that claims that such a consensus don’t exist fly in the face of observation.

    You argue implicitly that the consensus position is a form of zealoutry.  You do so using a single quote, a tactic could be classified as appeal to authority, hearsay, and cherrypicking.  I argue that the scientific consensus position is actually based on much more than that — the analysis over a century of evidence concerning how nature behaves – and that the support for this position is there for all to see in the public record.  It just can’t be given justice in a blog post response!

    You just have to take the time and effort to evaluate it fairly.  It takes ALOT of time and effort because were talking tens of thousands of papers written for specifically for scientists.  Luckily, there are distillations of that information out there that are more accessible.  Many of them.

  • Bogs_Dollocks

    cocotartufo 8 minutes ago in reply to Bogs_Dollocks wrote:

    “Water is a greenhouse gas, in the sense that it is largely transparent to visible light but absorbs heat radiation.  However, water is constantly precipitating out of the atmosphere, whereas CO2  does not.  In fact an H2O molecule only spends an average of 5-10 days in the atmosphere before it is leaves as raindrops.  Models indicate that the only real way to increase the average amount of water in the atmosphere is to increase or decrease temperature of the atmosphere on average.  Only greenhouse gases that do not precipitate can have a persistent effect on climate.  H2O vapor then amplifies the effect of these gases – in other words the effect of CO2 depends on water vapor being a greenhouse gas.”

    The exposition above may be best summed up as being not even wrong.

    What matters in the case of water vapour is not the residency time in the atmosphere of a particular water molecule [as all water molecules are identical] but the total amount of water molecules in the atmosphere at any given time. Water molecules are constantly entering the atmosphere through evaporation and leaving through condensation and precipitation. What matters is the net amount of water molecules in the atmosphere at any given time.  Water vapour in the atmosphere varies between 1% to 4%  at the earth’s surface [and ~0.40% averaged across the atmosphere] compared to  ~ 0.039% for CO2.

    The other important factor is the infrared absorption spectrum of water compared to CO2 and, here again, water dominates.

    [seems to be a limit to the number of replies so a new post]

  • willismg

    I liken this to the way “kids these days” don’t seem to actually play anything anymore…  they play video games about the things we used to actually play, like football, baseball, and even musical instruments. 

    I had to deal with people like this in a former life at an “International Nuclear Reactor Vendor” that shall remain nameless.  They were trying to get their new “passive safety” plant approved by the NRC but one of  their existing accident simulation models couldn’t handle the low pressure conditions in this new type of plant.  Even though I was the “expert” for this particular simulation package, the dinosaurs wouldn’t listen to me when I told them that simply typing “GO” over and over wasn’t gonna fix the problem.

    Eventually, a trusted associate and I had to go rogue and just upgrade the models to more appropriately account for (read: re-introduce) terms in the momentum equation that had been “engineering judgemented” out of the original formulation due to then existing computational limitations (both speed and memory). 

    Once we did this, and things started to fall into line, my associate and I were only begrudgingly credited with actually saving the licensing of the design.  We both left soon after.

    Feynman’s one of my favorites…  I make every student in my entry level engineering course read his critique of the Challenger explosion investigation as an example of just what clear thinking is and isn’t.

    Sorry for the war story, but my credentials were questioned by one of these folks the other day.

  • chriscolose

    The below discussion about water vapor (between Bog_Dollocks and cocotartufo) is a good example of how technical information can become cluttered in confusion as it makes its way from the peer-reviewed literature, to news or blog articles, to comment threads such as this.  This type of forum is how people form opinions; the corresponding frustration by scientists that the wrong opinions are being formed (and echoed by people who should know better) is what the author erroneously calls ¨thuggery.¨

     It is somewhat like the game played in elementary school when a teacher whispers a semi-complicated sentence into the ear of a student, and that student needs to whisper it into the ear of the next student, and so forth; finally, it is almost certain that by the time the last student repeats it back to the teacher, the original meaning is lost and convoluted (this game is often played to emphasize that spreading rumors is bad).  In the climate wars, you can modify this analogy by throwing in a few students into the middle of the line who know the real sentence, but garble it on purpose, and tell it to the next student.

    Water vapor is always present in the atmosphere, and is always contributing to the terrestrial greenhouse effect.  CO2 accounts for about a third of the clear-sky greenhouse effect in the tropics and a somewhat greater portion in the drier extratropics; with clouds, it still accounts for at least 20% of the greenhouse effect, relative to water vapor which constitutes about half (e.g., Pierrehumbert et al 2007; Schmidt et al 2010).  Even this does not tell the whole picture because removing all the CO2 in the atmosphere would effectively collapse the water vapor greenhouse, and plunge the Earth into an ice world (Voigt and Marotzke, 2010).  It is therefore hard to imagine how water vapor is ¨dominating¨ CO2, as opposed to complimenting it, with CO2 serving as the sturdy scaffold upon which the terrestrial greenhouse effect operates.

    That people are still throwing around the ¨CO2 is minor¨ line, just because it is a small part of the atmosphere by volume, or bother supplement that with irrelevant red herrings like ¨plants need CO2!!¨ just shows that they have no understanding of atmospheric radiative transfer or have bothered to follow the years of literature on the subject.

    It is not thuggery to say that people who do not want to properly educate themselves should not comment so confidently about why the scientific community is all wrong.

  • willismg

    For JH,

    Actually, I’m the one trying to get folks to back off of the reliance on the “Bible” of human created computer models.  I think that makes me Galileo, and the modellers the Church, nez pas?

  • EricAdler

    Mr Wood,
    It seems that you are either disingenuous or ignorant of the reality here. The fact is that Mann and Mashey are striking back at those who unfairly besmirched his reputation, including Wegman, and  Ball, who do not engage in the sort of  rigorous testing of Climate Science that you claim to desire. Add to that, the machinations of the right wing politician, Cuccinelli, the AG of Virginia, who is on a fishing expedition looking through university of Virginia records for material that he could use to discredit Michael Mann. If Mann’s critics stuck to publishing in peer reviewed publications, there would be no problems of the sort that you point to. Instead of doing so, Ball, using newspaper articles and blogs,  and Cucinelli using his power as Attorney General of Virginia,  are trying to smear the reputation of Michael Mann. They are not doing any rigorous testing of the conclusions of Mann or any other climate scientists.

    In fact Wegman’s criticisms of the original “Hockey Stick” paper, based on statistical arguments were conclusively shown to be incorrect. The Hockey Stick graph has been shown to be robust, using different forms of statistical analysis and different data selection criteria. There are about a dozen papers that have validated the conclusions of Mann’s original Hockey Stick paper.

    The thoery that greenhouse gases are responsible for warming the earth and making it habitable is 152 years old, and is well established tenet of climate science. In fact two opinion surveys show the 97% of climate researchers accept
    the theory that humans are responsible for the current trend of global
    warming. To give laymen the impression that opposition to the theory of AGW deserves the same weight as the consensus of climate scientists is to misinform the public.

    The history of global warming theory shows that opposition to it in the US arose from right wing think tanks that were opposed to environmental and health regulation, and funded a few scientists to try to debunk what is a sound theory, which is supported by principles of physics and all kinds of data, including radiation, satellite observations and paleoclimatology.

    Since you admit that you don’t know much about climate science, maybe you should stick to subjects you do understand.

  • cocotartufo

    Every fact you state is correct and actually in agreement with what I said.  Not only are those facts known to climate scientists, they are part and parcel of the models used to reproduce climate.  So while it sounds like you are arguing against the case, you actually are starting from the same assumptions they do…at least on a qualitative level.

    So I am not even wrong, and neither are you.

    The key fact that you left out is that water vapor condenses as precipitation at current conditions on earth, while CO2 does not.  The consequence is that when evaporation increases, condensation increases somewhere on earth to the same degree.  Moist warm air masses move quickly around the globe eventually cooling as they rise or move northward.  When they cool to the point where H2O becomes supersaturated, precipitation occurs and removes the water evaporated from other regions.  As a consequence of this loop, there is no way to increase average water content in our atmosphere substantially for the length of time needed to change climate unless you change temperature first, thereby increasing the average saturation point for water vapor.
     
    It’s not just a theoretical construct either.  We have seen water vapor respond very quickly to changes in global cooling due to Pinatubo, just as predicted by the physics.  The decline in water vapor amplified the effects of that volcano on the climate by changing the ability of the atmosphere to absorb infrared.  When the volcanic aerosols left the atmosphere a couple years later, the water vapor increased again, responding to the increase in solar radiation hitting the earth.  Water vapor is a feedback that amplifies any factor changing heat coming into the earth system – that includes solar radiation, aerosols from volcanoes and other greenhouse gases.
     
    By comparison, increases in CO2 are not matched by equivalent changes in CO2 absorption by the oceans or by land plants. That’s why CO2 has increased in the atmosphere in response to anthropogenic inputs.  CO2 as a consequence has lasting effects on climate as a greenhouse gas that are amplified by water vapor. 

    As I stated, this isn’t new.  It has been the understanding of climate scientists all along.

    I see Chris Colose has responded in more quantitive terms below.  He actually is a climate scientist, so i defer to him.
     

  • EricAdler

    The arguments of the so called heretics have been thoroughly refuted and are getting weaker as time passes. The evolution of climate is proceeding as would be expected from global warming theory. Record heat waves,  droughts and record rainfalls are occurring with increasing frequency in the 21st century.  Since you don’t know the science very well, you don’t understand this.

    Freeman Dyson, is not  a climate scientist of any kind. He is a professional “skeptic” and likes the attention that he gets from his position.

    No one is being lynched.  Climate Science deniers are being justifiably criticized by scientists because their arguments are just bogus.

  • dank48

    Thanks, EricAdler.

    Q.E.D.

  • EricAdler

    You are making a strawman argument here. The IPCC report recognizes that some people in some places may benefit from climate change, but overall, the effects of sea level rise, more intense drought and rainfall events and heatwaves will hurt the habitat for man, existing species and will hurt food production. These are scientific conlcusions, and are borne out by recent  drought and flooding events across the globe in recent years, as well as melting of sea ice and glaciers.
    If you can’t see that this is supported by basic science, you either don’t want to see the obvious, or you don’t understand science.  The ideas are basic and simple. Higher temperatures mean more evaporation of water which will dry out land areas which are already dry, and evaporate more water from the oceans making it rain heavily when it rains. Higher temperatures are melting glaciers which will make sea level rise.

    The principles are obvious. The computer modelling of climate serves to provide statistical projections which provide us with numbers, and more detailed projections.

  • cocotartufo

    So your saying that, Hansen’s views were surpressed, but because he complained about being suppressed, he was not suppressed?  How does that figure?

  • betterschool

    Again (and again, and again) I take no position on the impact issue. Apply a simple taxonomy to the true believers’ comments here. Virtually all of their attention is devoted to proving that we humans are contributing to global warming via CO2. Fine. I think the evidence of a contribution is solid. The evidence that the modifiable component of potential change would have a material impact on reducing CO2 is less clear and more contested. Also contested in the net impact and to what extent the curves flatten due to other factors. Notice that I said that not everything is clear. I didn’t say I’m on the other side, nor am I. Absolutely no unsolicited attention has been given to the “So what?” question. After I asked it at least five times, I got one reference. I checked it out and found that the claims are vague and based on speculation and untested models. I used to develop computer models and I can tell you that you don’t want to bet your 401K on them. Reading the reference provided, I found that at least one potential impact of modest warming might be positive (increased global agricultural productivity). I commented on that separately and won’t repeat here. Do you notice how you and your gang of zealots assume that anyone who asks a question is in the other side? What does that tell you? Do you see similarities to Joseph McCarthy? The Church of the middle ages? Sometimes a question is just a question. Among real scientists, that is almost always the case. Dichotomous thinking is small thinking.

  • JonasN

    Amazing EricA …

    Both Wegman and the NAS-repport arrived at the same conclusion regarding Mann’s hockey stick: It was flaw-riddled and (inappropriately) cherrypicked data, and the claimed conclusions (ie ‘unprecedented in 1000 years’) were wild guesses, and nothing else.

    True is that if you use the exact same data, and accept the very same assumptions about what these proxies show, you’d still get a hockestick, but a tilted one, and errorbars so wide that you cannot claim anything.

    Mann has received plenty of criticism for both the work, the methods used, the data selection, and for not disclosing neither data used nor his calculations. Rightly so! And many years later all this criticism and the suspicions av poor statistics and data treatment and selevtion proved correct. No one else than Mann is repsonsible for that fact.

    The various attempts to discredit Wegman (on completely irrelevant details) are all smoke and mirrors. And neither the Midieval Warm Period (MWP) nor the Little Ice Age (LIA) will go away, regardless of how many times Manns original data is tortured. The point there is that the proxies do not suffice to make such definite claims, and some of them (Bristlecones) are widely known to be inappropriate for the purpose.

    Another problem was the ‘hide the decline’, ie proof that these proxies weren’t proxies for temperature. But that is a separate issue, and Mann is criticized for that too. As he is for repeatedly (!) using the Tiljander sediment series upside down.

    Point in case:

    Mann has repeatedly shown that he is not primarily intrested in finding out the best knowledge about historical temperature records. Instead, his interest very clearly was (is?)  directed towards finding/using/massaging data to fit a desired (and nowadays well known) shape. And the leaked Climategate mails confirmed both that, and that his colleauges were aware of this.

    Tim Ball and Cuccinelli have nothing to do with this. Neither are Wegman or the NAS-panel to blame. The fact that Mann today is defending his tainted reputation with wild accusations, inflamed rethoric, political outburts and legal threats may possibly be understandable for the cornered and hurt ‘animal’ he is. But noone else but him got him into that corner. Hubris and mediocracy just don’t play well together (nor individually).

    As I said in the beginnig: It is amazing how bitterly some people try to defend both sloppy craftmanship and indefensible practices. But as you are aware of, you are not alone. Only in this thread have we seen the Masheys, Naumers, Hayneses, Mandias and many more.

    Unfortunately, this is not restricted only to the climate scare hangarounds, but also (presumably) reputable scientists who launch bitter counter attacks and both defend and try to rescue such poor practices with all means available.

    And I think this is what Peter Wood’s article is about. The entrenched bitter and personal warfare coming from the side who has had all the money, all the media and all the politicians on its side. With only slight and minor shifts in that balance in recent years.

    You yourself try the old worn out stupidities about right wing think tanks and funding. I can promise you, Eric A, that the problems the AGW-hypothesis is having nowadays, in no way are caused by those minor players. The main factors are reality (sound science and data) and the far overreaching by its proponents and all the activists who considered it as the best gravy train ever …

  • cocotartufo

    Actually, John is correct.  I could say that your rush to disparage him and climate science indirectly without thinking to look up what he is talking about is symbolic of the problem with “skeptics.”  But that also would be a logical fallacy.

  • willismg

    I’m not one for hero-worship, or pulling rank, or any of that, but I think Freeman Dyson deserves a little better than “professional ‘skeptic’”.  No respect….

  • willismg

    tee-hee….

  • chriscolose

    P.S. I am a grad student in atmospheric science…

  • willismg

    APS,

    You really don’t get it, do you….

  • EricAdler

    JonasN
    Wegman’s criticism of the Hockey Stick paper, concerning the use of non  centered PCA representation of the data was actually proven wrong. He himself did not use the appropriate procedure to cut off the number of components.

    The NRC report weakened the Mann paper’s  conclusions somewhat regarding the time period in which the increase in temperature could be called unprecedented saying that the uncertainty in the MWP was underestimated, but did not attack the paper in the way you represented. It actually endorsed most of the methodology and conclusions and said that they had been cofirmed by subsequent studies.

    http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=3
    Here is what they said about the Mann Hockey Stick paper:

    “…The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th
    century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at
    least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been
    supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional
    large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes
    in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and
    the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to
    be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years…..”

    It is pretty clear that you are echoing the denier blogosphere and don’t know what you are talking about. The opposition to global warming originated with the same crowd that tried to exonerate cigarette smoke and sulfur pollution as health risks. That is history.

  • EricAdler

    I should have said “professional contrarian”.  Dyson was certainly a great thinker in his youth but his day has passed.

  • JonasN

    Eric A

    People who feel that the need to use words as ‘denier’ or explain the today problems of the AGW-hypothesis, at least the more wild versions of it (w/ large positive feedbacks) with reference to tobacco lobby or Exxon, etc usually have zero to contripute with. Echo-chambers is a good analogy ..

    The question is: Why are you guys so desperate?

  • jsg077

    What has always struck me as odd about the debate over whether human activity contributes to global warming is the seemingly disproportionate consequences of the yea or nay hypotheses. 

    If AGW exists, on the one hand, it would seem to be a matter of some urgency to take plausible steps to ameliorate the consequences. If AGW does not exist, on the other hand, the consequences of said steps could be a needless cost burden. 

    It seems to me that the risk that AGW is correct outweighs the risk of imposing a needless cost burden. 

    This whole debate reminds of the satirical novel “War with the Newts,” in which the discovery of a potentially dangerous new species of salamanders leads to endless scientific discussion of whether the creatures really are dangerous, whereupon the salamanders take over the world. 

  • EricAdler

    Better school. You said,

    “Their religious like commitment to the idea that all changes accrue to
    the negative is not supported by any science I can see. I can see the
    concern but not the conclusions.”

    I pointed out the scientific principles that point strongly to negative consequences. There is nothing religious about this simple science.

    Now you claim,

    “I take no position on the impact issue.”

    and you proceed to criticize the idea that humans can reduce the emissions of CO2.
    You say,
    “The evidence that the modifiable component of potential change would
    have a material impact on reducing CO2 is less clear and more contested.

    The data clearly shows that human activities including land use and fossil fuel use, are responsible for CO2 increase. Human caused emissions represent twice the increase in atmospheric  CO2, making it clear that the natural environment is absorbing CO2 over time. It also is clear that alternative forms of energy, reforestation can reduce our CO2 emissions. To contest the data which shows that humans have the capacity to reduce or stop the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere is blind denialist nonsense.

    Your reference to McCarthyism in this context is overblown nonsense.

  • EricAdler

    Chris,
    I don’t agree that the misconceptions about climate science are related to the problem of serial communication of a story from person to person. The real reason that non scientists misconstrue the science, is opinion motivated bias. In the case of climate science, the statistics show that people who are not climate scientists, are prone to form opinions on the basis of political orientation. Conservatives oppose the theory that humans are causing global warming, or deny that global warming  is bad, or in some cases that it exists.

  • EricAdler

    Peter Wood wrote:
    “Is anthropogenic global warming (AGW) a valid scientific theory?  Is it
    well supported by the empirical data or is it mostly an artifact of
    computer modeling?  I don’t have answers to these questions.  I stand,
    rather, on the side of those who favor rigorous scientific inquiry,
    transparency, and openness.  I am not a climate scientist, but neither
    do I cede the whole matter of answering such questions to the designated
    experts.  Good science doesn’t limit itself to the views of narrow-cast
    specialists.  Valid observations, corrective criticism, competing
    hypotheses, and rigorous testing can and often do arise from other
    sources.”

    These are good questions, but they can easily be answered by consulting an account of the history of global warming. Instead of spending a few hours to read up on the subject from an easily accessible internet reference written by a science historian:
    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
    the author of the blog post would prefer to remain ignorant, or as he characterize it, “unbiased”.

    It is indeed possible that non scientists could contribute to progress in science, but most of the time  what we are getting from the non scientist bloggers on the subject of climate science is misinformation  and ignorance. There is no evidence of any real contribution from such people as McCintyre or Watts. All we are getting is flyspecking.

  • EricAdler

    You are talking trash. The history of the opposition to the AGW theory has been well documented. The movement was spearheaded by Seitz and Singer and right wing think tanks.
     
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

  • JonasN

    As I said Eric, Naomi Oreskes nonsensical book of smear is exactly what Wood addressed in his article. It has absolutely nothing to do with any relevant questions. But yes, it is fodder for the ranting mob of CAGW bystanders.

    And yes, as I said before: The NRC report criticized Mann for precisely the same shortcomings as Wegman did. The fact that you quote a different part won’t change that. Of course, the criticism was phrased differently (being commissioned from the ‘friendly side’), padded a little with other stuff and tucked away in the running text and discussions. Nevertheless, its chairman Gerry North gave testimony that “Dr. Wegman’s criticisms of the statistical methodology in the papers by Mann et al were consistent with our findings”. He/they also noted that the reconstructions (although others confirmed their ”qualitatively similar” shape) had less (ie low) confidence prior to ~1600, that bristlecone pines (which both gave the fairly straight handle and the sharp blade up-tick) were poor proxies, and came only from a small region:

    “For periods prior to the 16th century, the Mann et al. (1999) reconstruction that uses this particular principal component analysis technique is strongly dependent on data [ie bristlecones] from the Great Basin region in the western United States” 

    http://orsted.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=113

    And this from the friendly side! All this is known since long, and obvious for anyone interested. Get over it! Mann is still mining for hockeysticks (but archives his work better) 

    I find it rather amusing how bitterly those many activists struggle to rescue splinters from the hockeystick. Most of them without a clue about what the core issues are … only google-mining for supportive phrases.

    Hilarious!

  • EliRabett

    Godwin.

  • EliRabett

     ”Did you want to offer your children to be brutally gang-raped and
    then horribly tortured before being reminded of their parents’ socialist
    beliefs and actions?” the email reportedly says.

    “Burn in hell. Or in the main street, when the Australian public finally lynches you.”

    That threatening  enough for you Phil or you want to parse it a bit more?

  • EliRabett

     Rik, everything else isn’t “equal” among other things, water vapor will increase resulting in a net change of about 3 C for doubling CO2.  There are several lines of observations that lead to this conclusion, including study of past climate, observations and theoretical physics.

  • EliRabett

     John was being very nice.  However, let us proceed.  The original poster was either

    a.  Unfamiliar with the large literature across many fields dealing with the issue raised or
    b.  Disingenuous or
    c.  Lying

    in offering a false dichotomy,  Your choice.

    The “as far as I can see” is card forcing, because either the commenter cannot see very far, or is misleading, because there are many lines of evidence that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will lead to significant and difficult to deal with climate change, but it does allow a simple path of retreat: “I had taken my glasses off”

    Perhaps you would prefer that as a series of videos. Allow Eli to blog whore.

  • EricAdler

    JonasN,
    You wrote:
    “As I said Eric, Naomi Oreskes nonsensical book of smear is exactly what
    Wood addressed in his article. It has absolutely nothing to do with any
    relevant questions. But yes, it is fodder for the ranting mob of CAGW
    bystanders. ”

    Your  use of the epithet “smear” doesn’t make the events cited in Oreskes book go away or change any of the facts. The same people paid to impugn the science behind the theory that cigarette smoke causes cancer were employed to deny the theory that fossil fuel CO2 emissions are going to cause global warming. This is a historical fact and is well documented in her book. By denying that this is the case, you provide legitimacy to the label denier.

    The fact is that opposition to regulation is the root of much of the opposition to the scientific findings which support the theory of AGW.

    One of Wegman’s claims was that non centered PCA used to produce the hockey stick graph would have produced a hockey stick even if the data were totally due to noise. This was totally erroneous, because Wegman’s analysis did not include the correct number of principal components needed to analyse the data that he used. In fact centered and non centered application of principal components analysis to Mann’s data both give the same results when carried out properly.

    Wegman or his students, (it isn’t clear who did the actual work) were clearly incompetent and sloppy. Despite this, their attack on the validity of Mann’s work is still alive in the blogosphere among global warming deniers, and the  uninformed.  Wegman did a hatchet job on Michael Mann using incorrect and sloppy analysis. Mashey deserves praise for exposing Wegman for the charlatan that he is. Turnabout is fair play in this case.

  • arthurpsmith

    Several commenters and the original article here suggest that supporters of the scientific view on climate change are showing some sort of desperation in their actions and comments. I see some frustration, but it hardly seems desperate – most of the comments have been patient and quite reasoned, many with citations to reputable sources. On the other hand, there have been some very wild, ill-thought-out and short-tempered comments from the other side. The wild over-hyping of the recent Spencer-Braswell paper looks like a case study in desperation. So this claim seems much more to be a classical case of psychological projection – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

    Why might the denial side be so desperate right now? A few clues suggest themselves:
    * It’s been a very hot summer in some places
    * The recent cooling La Nina has ended; the solar cycle is also ramping up so the next couple of years will almost certainly break global temperature records, barring a major volcano
    * Serious candidates for the presidency from the Republican party are abandoning climate denial: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-valk/huntsmans-climate-stand-s_b_913285.html
    along with respected commentators like Jim Manzi.
    * The recent deficit focus of Congress and the White House has greatly increased the prospects for some form of removal of oil/coal subsidies or a plain carbon tax to raise revenue
    * News International, responsible for more climate-related obfuscation than any other media conglomerate, is in some hot water with the phone-hacking scandal
    * Christopher Monckton, lauded by the denial side including Peter Wood, has received a very tepid reception on his recent tour of Australia and New Zealand. That schtick is wearing thin.
    * The electric car market is taking off and the general public can now see an end to our dependency on oil.
    * Investment in wind and solar worldwide and in the US has been soaring, and prices have continued to drop – if it continues fossil fuels will find themselves priced out of major markets in a decade, reason for those invested in those resources to be generally quite desperate.

    Reality will always win out in the end. What is the best way to help others to accept it? Well, we’re sort of trying everything here. With great patience…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Rik-Van-Riel/639830381 Rik Van Riel

    Indeed, low water vapor appears to result in a positive feedback. However, clouds and thunderstorms appear to be negative feedbacks. Other aerosols appear to be negative feedbacks.

    The jury is still very much out on what the total feedbacks will look like.

  • JonasN

    Its funny how you continuously need to call other people incompetent, disingeneous, now even charltans. Especially given your own ‘performance’ here and on the matter.

    Regarding using (red, no trend) noise as indata, the NAS-report says (on p 90):

    “”McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) demonstrated that under some conditions the leading principal component can exhibit a spurious trendlike appearance, which could then lead to a spurious trend in the proxy-based reconstruction.” and then goes on to explain how this may happen. They even provide an example of their own, shown on the next page in Figure 9-2.

    How is that for “totally erroneous”? The blogger DeepClimate also tried to find things wrong, and the best he could come upp with was that in the figure McIntyre & McKitrick hade used in the manuscript, the had used some such random runs where this effect was visible, and that thes were not chosen entirely at random. A very moot point if you check the substans (althoug nothing I’d expect from you)

    Seriously:

    Wich part of “Dr. Wegman’s criticisms of the statistical methodology in the papers by Mann et al were consistent with our findings” do you find so hard to understand? Or are you really saying that the NAS-panel also was sloppy and inkompetent?

    And equally seriously:

    Are you really a denier of both the Little Ice Age and the Midevial Warm Period? And previous warm periods too?

    Because that is what your defense of Manns attempt mounts up to!

    And please, for get Oreskes, she had her 15 minutes of fame when Al Gore used her methodologically deeply flawed (unreviewed) Science-letter för his stupid claim of consensus. Neither they, nor the people in her book caused Mann to do a sloppy jobb trying to rewrite earths paleo-history. Nor did they cause Phil Jones to make up urbanization in China. And the definitely did not cause the missing heat in both atmosphere and oceans since more than a decade. As usual, you get the argument the wrong way around.

    And you seem to have gotten Mashey wrong too. What he did was to compare pieces of text. And if the matched, he’d cry foul over ‘plagiarism’, and if the words didn’t match, he cried foul over’ misrepresented. 250 pages up and down. A bit obsessive if you ask me! And no criticism of the actual content, the substance of report. Same thing with Bradleys complaint to, threats and bargaing attempts with George Mason Univ / Wegman. Like spoilt kids when being told that they were wrong.

    Look Eric, I dont know if you are a highschool kid, but you seem to completely have swallowed the fairytale narrative of the saint-like unselfish good guys on the one side, and the evil, scheeming, moneyloaded but incompetent villians on the other. And everytime I point you to where you simple understanding of things, in reallity is a little bit more nuanced and complicated, you simply jump to the next wild accusation and ‘explanation’ for … Yes, for what exactly?

    What are you defending so desperately? The climate scare? The fairytale narrative? Your ego and fear of having been misled? Embarassment over that haveing bought into doomsday proåhecies that won’t materialize (this time either)? What is it with you guys? Really!?

  • JonasN

    You say it ” .. doesn’t make the events cited in Oreskes book go away or change any of the facts”

    You are of course perfectly aware of that Oreskes and Conways book has the pupose to smear, to cast doubt and suspicion, the miscredit, persons. Through innuendo and cloak and dagger style conspirations and countless ‘connections’ with no other merit than guit by association. Have you even read the book yourself?

    Anyway, you are obviously a bit naïve but not entierly stupid. Not even you really think that their book is the objective historical description of the facts only the facts, and that nothing relevant is omitted. That both sides of the fence have arguments and positions objetively and fairly described in that book for the reader to make up his mind. Not even you believe that! (Or, am I wrong there?)

    But still you refer to it like gospel, and here although completely irrelevant to how the climate works, or what historical temperatures the earth has gone through. You even try it as an accusation against me!?

    Really!? How exactly were you thinking there? Were you thinking at all? Maybe, that attack is the best defence. And that you’d regain some initiative if you manage to turn the conversation to stupid talking points about oil funding, tobacco lobby and think tanks?

    As I stated very early: People who feel that they need to use the D-word, or come up with those stupid diversions/allegations, hardly ever have anything of substance to contribute. Usually they barely rehash what they have picked up elsewhere, memorized, and often without even understanding what the words mean, what their side’s argument actually amounts to (if formulated correctly) …

  • JonasN

    Interesting, Arthur P Smith

    But hardly convincing, a funny but rather disparate list of points with a load of wishful thinking thrown in. But I agree that reality will prevail and win in the long run.

    I also notice that in your patient and reasoned comment you feel that the use of the D-word is repeatedly necessary. I have noted that this often is accompanied by an almost obsessive need to demean and miscredit the other persons personality, morals, ethics, character flaws etc. Instead!

    Often completely unrelated to the topic under discussion. As if they meant that the other side’s personality will make the case, ie will be the argument for their own position and viewpoints.

    Now there you have a fine example of psycological projection ..

    But hey, maybe that’s true. Maybe that is the core of the argument …

    :-)

  • dank48

    Could you be slightly more complete in your disavowal of polytheism, making graven images, taking the Lord’s name in vain, failing to remember the sabbath and keep it holy, dishonoring your father and your mother, committing murder, committing adultery, stealing, bearing false witness, and coveting that which is thy neighbor’s? Before we go on, you understand.

  • betterschool

    You forgot to ask if ‘arthurpsmith’ is being paid by someone. As he implies with respect to Mr. Wood, anyone receiving compensation for his work is suspect. This leaves us in the capable hands of the retired, the unemployed, and the unemployable.

  • dank48

    Thanks for the reminder, but actually–for once–I didn’t forget. It’s just that you managed to find an example of something that, like lab rats vs. lawyers, I simply will not do.

  • betterschool

    I wasn’t serious. The medium I suppose.

  • dank48

    You list eight “reasons” for the desperation you see in your opponents, desperation that is certainly more visible to you than to me, but perhaps you have better vision. Of these eight, two are physical and therefore have a place in the AGW discussion:

    * It’s been a very hot summer in some places.
    * The recent cooling La
    Nina has ended; the solar cycle is also ramping up so the next couple of
    years will almost certainly break global temperature records, barring a
    major volcano.

    Six of your “reasons” are social:

    * Serious candidates for the presidency . . .
    *
    The recent deficit focus of Congress and the White House . . .
    * News International,
    responsible for more climate-related . . ., is in some hot water . . .
    *
    Christopher Monckton, . . . ,
    has received a very tepid reception . . .
    * The electric car market is taking off and the general public . . . .
    *
    Investment in wind and solar worldwide and in the US has been soaring,
    . . .

    Even if every one of these latter assertions is true, so what? Scientific truth, as has been pointed out a few dozen times in this discussion, is not determined by a vote, a poll, what politicians say or think or do, how well received speakers are, or the market for electric cars and alternative energy.

    Do you really expect anyone to find these “reasons” compelling? Frankly, Arthur, it seems to me the winds of desperation are blowing in a different direction.

    And this leads me back to what I take to be the main point of  Peter Woods’s original article. It seems to me that the incivility, underhanded tactics, and general disdain for fair play exhibited by many but by no means all who maintain that AGW is undeniable may be motivated by insecurity. The truth will out, perhaps not quite so promptly as we’d like, but it will out, no matter what we say or how well or ill we behave toward each other.

    No matter how it turns out, and I bet it won’t be entirely one-sided either way, behaving decently to each other will save those in the right from having treated the rest unjustly and it will save those in the wrong from having been even more wrong.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Mangan/100000886420382 Mike Mangan

    You are breathtakingly delusional.  
    * We are heading into a double dip La Niña.  Look at the ensemble forecast…
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CDB/Forecast/figf4.shtml
    * The Tea Party will make sure the Republican candidate is not a climate nutbar like all the Dems.  It is political poison for any candidate right now and rightly so.
    * The recent deficit and debt focus has already led the Republican House to specifically eliminate funding for the IPCC and other climate related scams.  When they take the Senate and Presidency next year the gravy train will officially come to an end.  
    * Government Motors sold 125 Volts nationwide in July.  No one wants to pay $42,000 for a clown car that needs massive federal subsidies just to show up on lots.
    * News international has…what, exactly to do with the crashing of the climate change myth?
    * Wind and solar will never provide more than a thimbleful of energy for the free world but thanks for reminding us to make sure that subsides for it are removed after we take Congress back.

    We’re educated.  We’re angry.  We are extremely motivated.  We outnumber you and we will outlast you.  Give up now while you have a smidgen of dignity left.  :)

  • cocotartufo

    Out of curiosity.  I have never understood why the Tea Party is so against technologies that whould make the US energy independent, so that we could save money on wars, help balance the debt, keep from being blackmailed politically by dodgy foreign entities, etc. 

     Plus, why dis the Volt when it is american made?  Why cede that market to foreign entities?  We should be promoting it, no?  It all seems strange for a movement devoted to fiscal and conservatism and patriotism.  What is the sense there?

    These should be points of common ground.  Why aren’t they?  I don’t get it.

    BTW…be careful what you wish for with la Nina. That’s is partly to blame for the ridiculous weather in Texas and the Southeast.

  • cocotartufo

    Jonas,

    I’m sure a somebody may have been unhappy about it…but do you really think it’s possible for a small number of people to get a position statement adopted by a large scientific society without the agreement of the vast majority of it’s members?  It is not easy to get such things done.  Scientists don’t like people speaking for them!

    I actually personally know 4-5 of the 250 members of the national academy of sciences from climate related disciplines who signed the May 2010 letter in support of the consensus on climate change that was published in Science.  I can assure you they did not sign by accident.  From what I know of the others I know less well, they didn’t either.  One of them is even a member of the National Association of Scholars!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Mangan/100000886420382 Mike Mangan

    The reply is to poor Mr. Smith.  It is no surprise that you don’t know what the Tea Party stands for or believes in and I can assure you the first thing we are dismissive of is strawman arguments.  We are against subsidies, period.  Your wind and solar and unicorn power barely contribute anything and only at the price of endless subsidy with tax dollars.  Besides it is ridiculous to waste time on them when all of our energy needs can be supplied by North American oil, coal, and nuclear power.  By all means start up your own companies, raise your own capital, and create the first dilithium crystals.  Just do it with your own money.  

    The Volt is a vastly overpriced POS sold to upper middle class white liberals to assuage their guilt.  They’re built by union thugs for a company that doesn’t even exist except for, once again, massive government intervention.  They’re built by people who would just as soon lynch me for being a Christian and believing in limited government.  

    Common ground?  The freaking vice-president of the United States thinks I’m a terrorist.  The only ground I’m interested in is the one you people will be laid out on.  You people have never been interested in a common ground.  That would imply you engaging in some form of persuasion.  You are the secular version of a jihadi.

    You do not want to persuade us so much as you want us to Submit.

  • cocotartufo

    You do realize, Mike, that all those fossil fuel industries also receive subsidies.  Twelve times the subsidies that renewables get according to Bloomberg.  Also, you are communicating with me using a technology that itself was invented with government investment in R&D.

    I don’t think I’ll comment on the rest since I’m not sure your being serious.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Mangan/100000886420382 Mike Mangan

    Really?  Name a subsidy that the oil companies get.  You can’t because they’re tax breaks.  They amount to about $4 billion a year and some of them are the same depreciation allowances that every other company gets.  But, as a Tea Partier, I’ll be more than happy to see an extremely streamlined tax system that benefits no one in particular.  We are definitely opposed to the corporate cronyism practiced by the scumbags at GE.  No more manipulating the government so they can sell worthless wind turbines and pay no federal taxes on billions in profits.  

    Occasional government success in RnD is overwhelmed by the eventual destruction of the economy.  You people fear a couple of degrees of warming more than $15 trillion in national debt, countless more trillions in unfunded state and federal pensions, a collapsing dollar, and the very real threat of hyperinflation.  You are economically illiterate, yet you always claim to be the smartest people in the room when it comes to science.  

  • EliRabett

     The are out determining damages, which look to be very substantial.  You are basically doing the Pat Michaels thing, sort of accidentally on purpose ignoring the forcings and feedbacks you don’t much like  See this for the Congressional version

  • EricAdler

    JonasN wrote:

    “Regarding using (red, no trend) noise as indata, the NAS-report says (on p 90):

    “”McIntyre
    and McKitrick (2003) demonstrated that under some conditions the
    leading principal component can exhibit a spurious trendlike appearance,
    which could then lead to a spurious trend in the proxy-based
    reconstruction.” and then goes on to explain how this may happen. They even provide an example of their own, shown on the next page in Figure 9-2.

    How
    is that for “totally erroneous”? The blogger DeepClimate also tried to
    find things wrong, and the best he could come upp with was that in the
    figure McIntyre & McKitrick hade used in the manuscript, the had
    used some such random runs where this effect was visible, and that thes
    were not chosen entirely at random. A very moot point if you check the
    substans (althoug nothing I’d expect from you)”

    You clearly did not understand the DeepClimate blog. Looking at a lot of examples of noise data and finding a few examples where the principle component is a hockey stick doesn’t prove anything. DeepClimate points out that in about 1% of the cases equal numbers of upward and downward hockey sticks result from the noise generated data, when the first principal component is taken. In addition, the first principal component does not tell the whole story.

     Analysis of this sort does not stop at one principal component, or even 2 principal components. There is a procedure for determination of the number of principle components to use for represent the data. The cut off in the number of principle components is determined by looking at the noise level in the representation of the data. Wegman did not carry out this procedure and arbitrarily stopped at one principal component in his analysis of the artificial noise data.

    The crux of Wegman’s argument was, that using the generally accepted procedure of centered Principle Components Analysis, the first two principal components  looked very different from the non-centered PCA used by Mann et. al.,  which needed only two PC’s to represent the data. This is clearly an incorrect argument, because according to the accepted procedure five two PCA’s are needed to represent the data when centered PCA is used.  When the correct procedure is followed, both centered and non centered PCA produce practically the same graph.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/

     Unfortunately, the NAS committee did not recognize these errors, and gave Wegman too much credit. Actually Wegman merely echoed the faulty analysis of McIntyre and McKittrick, as was shown by DeepClimate, rather than investigating it thoroughly.

    I hope that I have cleared up this matter for you and that you will be grateful for this.

  • EricAdler

    JonasN wrote:

    You say it ” .. doesn’t make the events cited in Oreskes book go away or change any of the facts”

    “You
    are of course perfectly aware of that Oreskes and Conways book has the
    pupose to smear, to cast doubt and suspicion, the miscredit, persons.
    Through innuendo and cloak and dagger style conspirations and countless
    ‘connections’ with no other merit than guit by association. Have you
    even read the book yourself?”

    I am aware of no such thing. The book is accurate and well documented.

    “Anyway, you are obviously a bit
    naïve but not entierly stupid. Not even you really think that their book
    is the objective historical description of the facts only the facts,
    and that nothing relevant is omitted. That both sides of the fence have
    arguments and positions objetively and fairly described in that book for
    the reader to make up his mind. Not even you believe that! (Or, am I
    wrong there?)”

    The facts show that Seitz and Singer, who at one time were prestigious scientists, turned to opposing the science which shows that CFC’s , cigarette smoke, and global warming are damaging to health and the environment, and did so in the pay of right wing think tanks opposed to regulation. The fact is that they were paid to lend  their scientific prestige to these arguments, even though they were not experts in these fields.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Seitz

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

    Your claim that this is a smear, and that I am naive does not make these facts go away. They are well documented by many references.

  • EricAdler

    Please show how the people on this blog who oppose Peter Woods claim that the AGW side is guilty of thuggery or mean spiritedness. We are entitled to challenge Woods’ characterization. Thuggery means threatening or violent behavior. It has not been evident in the comments we have made here.

    I second ArhturpSmith’s challenge that you find an “objective outside observer” who says that I or other pro AGW posters are behaving like thugs.
    Vigorous criticism of unsound science is not thuggery.

    Mann and other scientists have been the victims of slander by anti AGW bloggers, who have made charges of fraud. They are entitled to retaliate and challenge those who attack them personally.

  • EricAdler

    Bogs_Dollocks wrote:

    “Water vapour, including it’s condensed form of clouds, is the dominant green house gas. 

    CO2 is a minor green house gas.
    However, it is essential for plants and thus for all life on earth.”
    CO2 is not a minor greenhouse gas. Cocotartufo has pointed out how the effect of CO2 on temperature is amplified by water vapor. Your reply seems to ignore this point. It either is something you don’t  understand or something you don’t want to acknowledge.This mechanism has been understood by scientists since 1859 when John Tyndall did his experiments on the spectra of greenhouse gases. Anthropogenic global warming was described by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 and his calculations of the effect of CO2 were amazingly accurate for the times, even though he didn’t have computers that are available today.

  • willismg

    Mr. R.

    You forgot the actual correct answer…  d.  I was trying to be polite to people who I believe are behaving in a boorish manner.  I thought that maybe the example might sink in.

    Based on the tenor of the comments here, I shan’t make that mistake again.

  • JonasN

    Well Eric, if this book is so accurate, why aren’t you able to at least rudimentary give a somewhat accurate description of what these debates were about? Are you aware of that ‘regulation’ is politics, not science. I asked you before if you at all had read it yourself. Your lack of answer and many wikipedia references indicate that you probably have gotten your impressions from similar sources as where you have picked up your climate belief-system.

    Anyway, all that (Oreskes & Conway) has nothing at all to do with neither climate or historical temperatures.

    I reckon that is why you so obsessively cling to that meme …

  • EricAdler

    JonasN wrote:
     
    “Are you aware of that ‘regulation’ is politics, not science.
    I asked you before if you at all had read it yourself. You lack of
    answer and many wikipedia references indicate that you probably have
    gotten your impressions from similar sources as where you have picked up
    your climate belief-system.”

    I am certainly aware that regulation is politics. As I mentioned, opposition to government regulation is the raison d’etre for the right wing think tanks financed by conservatives and big business. They realized that if AGW is accepted by the general public, it would mean government regulation of CO2 emissions, similar to action taken against CFC’s and sulfate pollution of the air. That is why they employed these like minded old retired scientists to oppose the theory of AGW, after they used them to opposing the science that said cigarette smoke was bad.
    These are historical facts, whether I have read the whole book or just excerpts from the book doesn’t change these facts. Your opinion of how I obtained my information on climate science is irrelevant, but it is worth mentioning that I have a PhD in physics, although it is not in climate science. My scientific background is sufficient for me to recognize the most of the arguments against AGW presented by the leading deniers are bogus.

    “Anyway, all that (Oreskes & Conway) has nothing at all to do with neither climate or historical temperatures.

    I reckon that is wy you so obsesively cling to that meme …”

    The  topic we are discussing is Woods’ blog post, which complains that  many  who support the theory of AGW are very  angry at those that deny its validity. I am arguing that the history of the opposition, which is mainly motivated by politics, rather than by scientific evidence explains this.

    Some of the comments on this thread do involve discussion of the science. Based on what I have read here, this discussion mirrors what is going on in the wider blogosphere. Most of the opponents of AGW don’t really know what they are talking about.

    This will ultimately be settled by the scientific literature. At the present time, the overwhelming balance of papers and climate researchers support AGW. The small number of actual climate scientists, such as Lindzen, Spencer and Pielke who publish papers questioning AGW,  have embarrassed themselves with the poor quality of their publications.

  • JonasN

    cocotartufo, below (Sorry, I saw your reply first now)

    What I am saying is that the argument about ‘supporting accademies’ is invalid, and for two reasons:

    1) None of them asked their membership in any way about their opinions, and
    2) Opinions (regardless of how sincerely held) do not constitute scientific confirmation.

    Now, such academies and their board and management are usually populated with elderly academics who have been advancing on the ladder through the bureaucratic and political  systems (nothing wrong with that). They look after the interests (funding) of heir constituency, and have left the meticulous detail digging of hard reserach behind.

    What all these academis have done is just echo the IPCCs SPM report. Ie accepted it without questioning.

    I am absolutely certain that there exist those who support the proclamations, even based on their own fields. I have no problem with people signing with their own names.

    That is not the problem. The problem is that they purport the view that all members (‘the entire academy’) is behind them, Wich it definitely is not. And as I said, several attempts to challenge/modify those statements have been quashed. You might know of the APS. But the UK Royal Society actually changed their pronouncement quite significantly. Because members made a stink.

    Ie the reoccuring appeals to authority are false … also in this case. Thos who want to make the CAGW case still need to show us the data and reserach (and stop hiding behind unaämed others)

  • EricAdler

    Priniuf
    The single paper you are referencing, by  Spencer and Braswell, is an outlier in the literature on climate. It doesn’t make sense to hinge your argument on such a paper which is counter to the rest of the literature on Climate over the past 100 years, in which clouds are viewed as a feedback rather than a climate forcing mechanism. This paper has been heavily criticized by climate scientists. The paper does not actually appear in a journal devoted to climate research, because it probably couldn’t have passed peer review in such a journal.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/

  • EricAdler

    Since 97% of Climate Scientists accept the theory of AGW as correct, and the theory has been around for 116 years, it seems misinformed to claim that the issue is unsettled. In addition the overwhelming majority of the published literature has accepted this for some time.
    I think you owe it to yourself to read the “History of Global Warming”, by science historian and physicist, Spencer Weart, which is available online at:

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

    In my opinion 116 years of observation and scientific publications, and the agreement of 97% of scientists represent the “long haul” that you desire to validate the theory.

  • EricAdler

    JonasN,
    In your reply to cocotartufo you wrote:

    “So!? You claim the argument is “Increasing CO2
    increases heat stored in the atmosphere and earth” or that “the unique
    signatures of CO2′s effect on that heat balance have been observed”

    May
    I suggest to you that you first aquaint yourself with how the
    AGW-hypothesis is formulated, from your side of the fence!? To at
    least phrase the arguments from there correctly?”

    Based on what I know, cocotartufo correctly stated two of the supporting arguments for AGW.
    Your claim that he did not is simply false.

  • JonasN

    Eric, I expected as much. Your opionons about the book, its merits, its accuracy, are second hand, from blogs and like minded who confirm your beliefs.

    And yes, opposition to stupid leftist politics and spending is a major part of the reason d’etre for that side of the political spectrum wich doesn’t hold those political beliefs. That is a truism! Is this supposed to be a surprise? A revalation of any kind? A heavy argument regarding how the climate works? Of course its not. Its politics as it has always been!

    You seem to want to make an extra argument here, regarding say tobacco industry. With respect to how the climate works and what (if anything) controls its variations. But you never get there. You want to imply that intelligent people knowlingly tell lies about things (eg how the climate works) and are getting paid for it. And you are telling me such things as an accusation!?

    That is stupid beyond mere ignorance. I don’t get paid, I don’t have to lie, I don’t refer to neither Singer, Seitz, fossil fuels, tobacco, Koch Industries, Heartland or anything such for my arguments. The fact that some convene at the Heartland conference neither  bolsters nor waekens the strength of their arguments.

    It is the side who can’t debate the issues wich constantly need to bring upp irrelevant (and made up) connections.

    You are right that those defending the climate scare orthodoxy are very angry and need to resort to ‘denier’ and stupid accusations and made up connections, ad hom:s and guit by association. You do the same. And on every more factual issue  you’d brought up, you were given polite and factual answers, and links showing that you didn’t have a case (beyond mere belief). Over and over again. And every time you fails, you tried jumping to a new talking point, and abandoned it shortly after, and tried a new one.

    And not only did you try new ones, one after another. Many of the claims you tried out initially were just plain wrong. False! Untrue! Lies, if you wish, either by you or by those who fed you those in the first place. (But i reckon, you’d claim ignorance)

    Still, after having failed over and over again, you are the one making aggressive accusations that I (a person you do not know, and with superior knowledge about the debate) somehow have been bought or tricked into my views and the arguments I put forward!?

    Those would be some quite bold and preposterous insinuations. Especially since you never argue the facts (beyond the sikmplest ‘talking point version’), when you even get those wrong, nor are capable of standing your ground or showing any interest in learning things you you didn’t already believe in the first place.

    The only thin that remains are varios (stupid, irrelevant, false) ad hominem.

    Now you are trying to tell me about the (poor) quality of papers you haven’t even read, and which you wouldn’t understand a thin of if you tried?

    C’mon Eric. Do you really expect me to take your such ascertions seriously!? No, of course not. Nobody can. My question is rather why there are so many hang around supporters of your kind who only can contribute drivel ad homs and relay memorized phrases from pro-AGW-activist-blogs!?

    C’mon Eric, for some moments you tried to ‘instruct’ me on how non-centered principal components neven can produce hockey sticks from red noise, when calibrating towards the modern day intrumental record.

    Did you really expect me to buy into that bluffing (given your performance, both before and after)?

    Really? Is deceit and blind guesswork, and dito accusations really all you have? And additionally hope to get away with?

    WIth such supporters, it is no wonder the CAGW-side has such a hard time getting any traction nowadays  …

  • EricAdler

    Jonas,

    With respect to your point number 2 above,
    Peter Wood disavows any expertise on climate science in his original post. Mandia is entitled to conclude he has very little understanding, based on this.

    The attribution of 50% of the recent global warming to CO2 was definitely not the work of political experts, as you claim. Your credibility on this is totally gone. Here is the list of contributors to the WG1 report of AR4. Please list the political people who are not climate scientists that you find:

    https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-annexes.pdf

    It seems that you are going overboard in your defense of Wood’s post, and have no grasp of the facts or reality, based on your statements.

  • JonasN

    You are wrong here too. Totally wrong. Are you aware of that the RealClimate link you provided states: ” no one has ever disputed MM05′s arithmetic ” (MM05 being McIntyre and McKitrick) although that statement is not true. The team did fight bitterly over the MM validity, and the ClimateGate mails reveal part of that.

    DeepClimate (another anonymous activist blogger) did however examine the MM code carefully, and claimed that the samples presented where not picked quite at random. Instead those were chosen from runs that gave a somewhat higher degree of ‘hockeystickness’ than the average. With an HS-index of up to 1.8-1.9 wheras the average was somewhat lower (~1.6-1.7 if i remeber correctly).

    The point is not at all that some random noise samples would have a hockey-stick shap, either up or down (they do!). The point is that the procedure picked those (both versions) and amplified their weigth.

    Please Eric, dont try trump me with things obviously far beyond your grasp … It doesn’t make you look good.

    (I think Oreskes and Conway, or at least what you think they say, is about at the top of your level of comprehension. And reassures belief is still just belief!)

  • EricAdler

    I guess you do not frequent global warming denier blogs like Wattsupwiththat and ClimateAudit, when you say that the only people doing attacking are those on the AGW side. Please look at those an others because you will find plenty of invective and attacks on posters and scientists who support AGW.  When I comment there I am regularly  been accused of being paid to proffer my views, and have been banned from many such web sites for making logical and factual arguments supporting AGW. Scientists such as Hansen, Mann and others are regularly accused of fraud. in those web sites?

    Your comment indicates that you don’t really have much acquaintance with this issue.

  • EricAdler

    I like the term “denier”.  Many of the people who dispute AGW deny basic physics, the fact the  CO2 increases above 280ppM are due to human industrial activity, and that the thermometer record is meaningful in any way.
    They generally prefer the term skeptics, but they totally lack skepticism of any of the crackpot theories that are proffered to dispute AGW.

  • JonasN

    Eric A. Yes, ‘based on what you think you know’. The point here is that you do not really know, only relay what you have heard.

    CO2 doesn’t store energy/heat. It scatters IR-radiation in two narrow bandwiths. And the heat balance referred to would be the temperature, which doesnt comply with the hypothesis since about a decade (and didn’t ever before 1975).

    A different matter would be its footprint, a hot spot i the higher troposhere in the tropics. Which hasn’t been found either. But that is not a signature on the heat balance.

    What has been observed though is that the extra CO2 indeed does scatter IR of those wavelengths where it is supposed to. But that has nothing to do with any heat balance (which is the crux of the CAGW-matter. The missing heat, remember!?)

    Sorry Eric, but the more you try, the more of your ingorance is revealed.

  • JonasN

    Eric,

    Why don’t you read what i say instead of making things up. The claim was that ~half of the temp during the latter half of the 20th century was due to manmade GHG:s. That amounts to ~0.2 °C. I think this may be exaggerated, and the empirical data does not support it. But I can accept it as a hypothesis put forward.

    However, the statement that this ‘attribution’ was ‘very likely’ (ie 90% certainty) is a purely politically negotiated claim. Actually, the bureaucrats involved in wrting the SPM-repport (released before the main report, which later had to be altered to ‘comply’ with the SPM-version) wanted to bolster that number even higher, but some of the more scientifically inclined objected. The 90% figure is a result of such ‘negotionations’. There is no data or calculation supporting that figure. The SPM-version doesn’t list any authors!

    And if you’d like to prove me wrong, you simply could point me towards the research where such a probability is derived, where the calculations and underlying assumptions are presented, and where the authors with affiliation are clearly identified.

    But you can’t! No such calculation exists. And it seemed that you where completely unaware even of that fact!

    Remember: The take-away-message from the AR4 SPM  “Most of the observed increase in global averagetemperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenicgreenhouse gas concentrations.” was echoed around the entire world as the foremost posterchild for the climate scare. It appeared in almost every newspaper and media outlet.

    But the first part was the speculative hypothesis, and the second part was pure guessing. (And the actual AR4 report does nowhere support that number)

    Sorry, you’ve been had again, Eric. And what have you to offer in reply? Accusations and ad hom:s … as usual I’d like to add!

  • EricAdler

    Peter Wood wrote:
    “In 2007, Weather Channel meteorologist Dr. Heidi Cullen seemed to call
    for the firing of meteorologists who expressed doubt about AGW. She
    later clarified to The New York Times
    that “I didn’t exactly say that. I was talking about the American
    Meteorological Society’s seal of approval. I was saying the A.M.S.
    should test applicants on climate change as part of their certification
    process. They test on other aspects of weather science.” In 2009,
    Environmental Protection Agency economist Alan Carlin was subjected to
    a gag order by an EPA administrator after submitting a report that was critical of the role of CO2 in recent global warming.”
     
    His account of this is quite interesting. Who says Heidi Cullen seemed to call for the firing of meteorologists who expressed doubt about AGW? Peter Wood didn’t give a citation, but the answer is in the NYTimes link. It was  Rush Limbaugh!!  How credible is that charge? How can an educated person take the word of Rush Limbaugh? Heidi Cullen is a the only climatologist at the Weather Channel. She found that meteorologists know very little climatology and wanted to change that. Is that proof of thuggery?

    Wood also misrepresents the situation surrounding Alan Carlin. He is an economist who works on climate change as a hobby. He made some unsolicited comments regarding an official EPA report on climate change, which were suppressed. The reason for the dismissal of his comments is clear to those who are up on climate science. Reading what he said in the CBS link, we find that he claims Greenland’s ice cap is not melting at an accelerated rate, that variation in solar radiation is mainly responsible for global warming, and that temperatures have declined for the past 11 years. All of these are incorrect.

    Carlin was not hired to work on climate science, and his comments were disregarded by the EPA management. This is not unusual or improper in any way. Carlin is still free to blog on climate change any time that he wants to. If Wood had followed the developments in the science of climate change, he might understand why Carlin was given short shrift by the EPA.

    It is nonsense for  Wood to cite these cases as thuggery! It is appalling to see such tripe posted at the Chronicle of Higher Education.

  • duppy_conqueror

    denier, denialist, inactivist, and Adullamite, the last 2 of which made me LOL, thanks James & Eric! Warmist has a real ZING to it, both the belief in 1 syllable + suffix -ist implying a dogmatic religious belief, a teasing connotation, and not so positive. Skepticism has a fine classical history, so I can see we they (or I) would prefer it. How about neo-Pyrrhonist? Too long.

    Anyway, compared to global lava ball, global snow ball, global night from asteroid hit, or global peeling from the sun gone red giant or supernova, all of which have happened or will, this pending catastrophe seems relatively tolerable for now. (Don’t hate! Shut off all unused lights!)

  • harryrsnape

    Eli attempted to respond, but as usual you need to read the details to see the deception.
    The full quote that he lifted an excerpt from is this:”Climate campaigners have also noticed a surge in the frequency and virulence of this new form of cyber-bullying. The following was received by a young woman (who asked that her name not be used):“Did you want to offer your children to be brutally gang-raped and then horribly tortured before being reminded of their parents socialist beliefs and actions?“Burn in hell. Or in the main street, when the Australian public finally lynchs you.”This was part of an article on the “travails” of being an alarmist scientist, the details are actually about the abuse of a “climate campaigner” not a scientist, this was used as some adjunct information, presumably because the author lacked anything remotely interesting regarding a real climate scientist.

  • harryrsnape

    Mann’s analysis was based upon statistical techniques of dubious quality. McIntyre and McKitrick have more relevant statistical experience that Mann, neither they, or Mann, gathered any of the underlying data, so a climate science background would not be necessary to review this work.

    Happer is an eminent Physicist and Trimble a Professor in Geography, both experienced and trained scientists and able to judge scientific issues, particularly the mathematics, the methods and the ethics that surrounded Mann’s work.

    Wegman’s report apparently contains some definitions that are not properly attributed regarding  social networks, none of this has anything to do with the statistical errors found to exist in Mann’s work by McIntyre and McKitrick.

    That you have tried to conflate the two issues either reveals a total lack of understanding of a rather simple point, or a deliberate attempt to mislead. Either way it doesn’t paint a plattering picture of your contribution.

  • jaybergman

    I share Dr. Wood’s skepticism about anthropogenic global warming.  And I reject not infrequent insinuations from proponents of it, such as Al Gore, that critics are not only incorrect but morally deficient, even evil.
     
    Moreover, I find in some of the arguments for AGW the logical fallacy pervasive in Freudian psychoanalysis.  At times when the weather is exceedingly warm, we hear that this is proof of AGW.  But when the weather is similarly cold, we hear that this, too, is proof of AGW (for example, from Robert Kennedy jr.)  AGW, in other words, is beyond proof or disproof — and is therefore no longer science but unsubstantiated dogma, a kind of secular religion.

    Jay Bergman
    Professor of History
    Central Connecticut State University
    New Britain CT &
    Member, Board of Directors,
    National Association of Scholars

    P.S. Dr. Wood did not ask me to comment on his article.  Nor did he see my comments above before I posted them.

  • EricAdler

    You wrote:
    “At times when the weather is exceedingly warm, we hear that this is
    proof of AGW.  But when the weather is similarly cold, we hear that
    this, too, is proof of AGW (for example, from Robert Kennedy jr.)”

    No climate scientists argues that weather in a given day or month at a given location is proof of any climate trend. You will never find such an argument  in any scientific publication on climate science.

    Indeed you quoted Robert Kennedy Jr. who is not a climate scientist. I don’t form my opinion on climate science based on what I read from history teachers or attorneys, unless they are citing real climate scientists.

    Robert Kennedy Jr. who is an attorney did not make make the argument you attributed to him.
     
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/news/rfk-jr-15-months-ago-global-warming-means-no-snow-or-cold-dc

    He was not talking about a single winter, but rather about a number of years he remembers in his childhood and pointed out that in general recent years have seen less snow in Washington DC. People normally don’t go skiing or sledding anymore like they used to. This is not a reflection on a single day or months weather, and does qualify as an observation on climate change although it is not global but local climate.

    In fact the opinion editor of the Washington Examiner, from whom you apparently get your opinion on climate science, (you didn’t give a reference but it seems I have found the story online) made the following statement:

    “Having shoveled my walk five times in the midst of this past weekend’s
    extreme cold and blizzard, I think perhaps RFK, Jr. should leave weather
    analysis to the meteorologists instead of trying to attribute every
    global phenomenon to anthropogenic climate change.”

    It is pretty clear that he is trying to confuse  people into thinking that a single blizzard event outweighs the record of many years of weather which we call climate.

    I am dismayed that a professor of History gets his opinons on Climate Change from an opinon editor in a right wing political publication, rather than looking at publications by experts in climatology, and would want expose his folly to the public. This does not seem very scholarly to me.

  • JonasN

    Eric

    Again you are making wide, sweeping, general statements pretending to speak for ‘climate scientists’ (which you definitely are not) and claiming that you can determine which ones are of the ‘real’ variety and which ones aren’t.

    Maybe you should look up what Kevin Trenberth has to say about reversing the meaning of the ‘null hypothesis’ wrt weather events and climate change.

    You might miss most of the points, of course, but there is more to Bergmans observation than just some lines from a newspaper editor.

  • JohnMashey

    Thank you for  expressing your opinion, as per my email shown at:
    http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/guest-post-bottling-nonsense-mis-using-a-civil-platform
    about a day ago.  Hopefully, mor NAS affiliates chairs will go on teh record as well.

  • EricAdler

    JonasN,
    Another empty post devoid of substance.
    You say,
    “there is more to Bergmans observation than just some lines from a newspaper editor”
    If Bergman has another point why is he keeping it a secret?
    If you know what it is, why aren’t you more specific?

     Bergman’s opinion about climate change  seems to be based on  a right wing  newspaper editor who is confusing a weather event with climate. In the case of Heidi Cullen, Peter Wood forms his opinion about the actions of a climatologist based on what Rush Limbaugh said. This is not very scholarly to say the least.You don’t even attempt to refute that.

    Bergman is making a straw man argument here on the basis of that confusion. His comment is what you would expect from a bar room conversation about climate change, rather than that of a “Scholar” on web site dealing with issues involving higher education.

    You are saying I missed a point that he made in his brief post.  I have no clue what his secret unspoken point was, or if he has ever heard of Kevin Trenberth, or read anything that he has written.

    Do YOU want to discuss Trenberth’s remarks on communication climate change,  which caused such a stir in the AGW denier blogosphere?

    http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2011/02/22/straight-talk-from-kevin-trenberth-on-denialists-climate-science-communication-and-climate-change-policy/

    http://ams.confex.com/ams/91Annual/webprogram/Paper180230.html

    In his remarks Trenberth points out how the media promotes disinformation about climate change, confusing weather and climate. Trenberth points out:

    “The media continue to report highly misleading material about how cold outbreaks, snow events, or one cold month nullifies global warming when
    the big picture continues to indicate otherwise.”

    It seems that laymen such as Bergman and Woods have fallen as victims to this disinformation, but they are willing victims, because right wingers are motivated by politics to dislike the scientific theory of AGW

  • JonasN

    No, it was neither empty nor devoid of substance. I told you what to look for. But istead you hope that guessing(!) there was only one source he based his position on, also will prove correct. Again one of the many logical fallacies of yours:

    That what you can’t see, or do not know, or do not know about, therefore cannot exist  or be correct.

    Please, can’t you grow just a trifling bit above that level?

    I see that you now (together with Trenberth) whine over that the media is not sufficiently supportive of his/your/AGW-scare views. Al Gore does the same.

    Well pity you! Grow up, get over it, deal with reality instead of whining about that just a little less climate propaganda will pass entirely unchallanged through the media.

    Are you serioulsy totally unaware of that under decades: “The media continu[ously] reported highly misleading material about” global warming, climate change and all upcoming disasters!? Still does!

    Well uf you weren’t, that certainly explains why your views are so extemely onesided and still gullable …

  • JonasN

    Now, if you wish to argue something of stubstance, please go ahead:

    Start by defending Trenberth’s version of the null hypothesis. Argue that this is the new way to conduct science. And please do so without copy-pasting his lines, or others, about the matter.
    Do it in your own words, as best you can from your understanding. Argue that the concept of a null-hypothesis (when evaluating a scientific proposition) should be overturned when it comes to climate science.

    Please, fire away …. But remember that your words remain and can be read by everyone!

  • http://profiles.google.com/topologyrob Robert Davidson

    Jafco, this is simply false. Mann’s work has been repeatedly exonerated. I can’t believe this pseudoscientific hoax (climate denial) has made it into this journal, and that comments on the level of creationism are here.

  • http://profiles.google.com/topologyrob Robert Davidson

    Have you seen how biologists talk about creationists? They are similarly frustrated. Climate denial is so similar to creationism, and holds as much water.

  • http://www.facebook.com/IH8LIBS Roy Brown

    If the ‘science is very, very clear’, then why do all the ‘scientists’ say “We need more funding, because we don’t know enough to understand the system.”, “But we know man is breaking the system!”. And if the ‘science is very, very clear’, why then does none of the modelling and forecasting match observation?

  • http://www.facebook.com/IH8LIBS Roy Brown

    You decapitate your own support of Wood’s “Reasoned argument” by labeling one side or the other as “good and evil”, “destiny”, and “salvation”. There’s no reasonable argument with fanatical bias.

  • EricAdler

    JonasN,
    The opinion editor of the Washington Examiner, is not a climate scientist, and neither is JFK Jr.. Bergman is precisely echoing an editorial opinion piece for his justification for his skepticism of the climate science behind AGW.

    I am not a mind reader. Maybe you are. If there is more to Bergman’s observation, maybe you can tell us what it is.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    “I share Dr. Wood’s skepticism about anthropogenic global warming.

    Your ignorance about it is even more profound than his, although your arrogance is on par.

    “At times when the weather is exceedingly warm, we hear that this is
    proof of AGW.  But when the weather is similarly cold, we hear that
    this, too, is proof of AGW (for example, from Robert Kennedy jr.)”

    These are not the arguments made … you are apparently too ignorant and/or unintelligent to understand the actual arguments. And considering that 97% of climate scientists accept AGW and that there is not a reputable science organization in the world that denies it, with thousands of supporting journal articles, it is quite revealing that the only proponents you mention are Al Gore and RFK Jr. If you had ever actually conferred with a climate scientist or even simply any informed person, you would know that it is not “cold”, but the levels of snowfall and other forms of precipitation that are consistent with global warming, because of the increased carrying capacity for water vapor  of a warm atmosphere.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    This grossly dishonest post clearly offers no rebuttal to what Eric Adler wrote.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    “Is anthropogenic global warming (AGW) a valid scientific theory?  Is it
    well supported by the empirical data or is it mostly an artifact of
    computer modeling?  I don’t have answers to these questions.”

    Then you are an ignoramus who is unqualified to write on the subject. It really isn’t difficult for any honest person to ascertain the answers to these questions.

    “I stand, rather, on the side of those who favor rigorous scientific
    inquiry, transparency, and openness.”

    No, you clearly don’t.

    “I am not a climate scientist, but
    neither do I cede the whole matter of answering such questions to the
    designated experts.”

    This is a profoundly anti-intellectual, anti-science stance when the “designated experts” are the vast bulk of climate scientists, who expertise comes from being familiar with the science and the mass of peer-reviewed journal articles that lay out the evidence. Rather than consult with this community and examine the evidence, you have written a grossly dishonest article that is all about “tone” as perceived by you and not at all about science.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    Why didn’t Peter Wood respond to this? I think the reason is clear: he is intellectually dishonest.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    Peter Wood did not respond to this (unless he’s secretly JonasN) because
    he’s intellectually dishonest … that is, any intellectually honest
    person would have responded (and would have acknowledged the truth of Eric Adler’s statements).

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    “The exposition above may be best summed up as being not even wrong.”

    Indeed, it is correct … and you said nothing that refutes it.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    “Let me ask what you make of the fact that objective outside observers –
    calm, clear-eyed people who are generally favorable to the concerns you
    express — repeatedly tell you that you are behaving more badly that
    the opposition?”

    No one *objective* or *clear-eyed* makes such a claim. How would you “objectively” assess your own purported objectivity?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    The 12 people who liked this and the 14 who liked Girma’s other post are either unaware or don’t care that, scientifically speaking, what Girma wrote is bollocks.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    18 people liked the teabagger’s smears. Telling.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    ” IT seems more like the authors want to minimize any potential positive outcomes, which are also speculative”

    This from someone who fancies himself “objective” and “clear-eyed”. Snort.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    Funny coming from a Koch bros employee.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    “to be so sure of myself, but I know a lynch mob when I see it”

    Ironic much? Your certainty about what you “know” when you “see” is intellectually  dishonest, ignorant, and arrogant.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    ” I’m not one for hero-worship, or pulling rank, or any of that”

    Funny, then, that you did exactly that. When it comes to climate science, Dyson deserves no respect.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    “Q.E.D.”

    What an arrogant, intellectually dishonest …

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    “not supported by any science I can see. I can see the concern but not the conclusions”

    Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    Your mind is so open that evidence and logic pass right through it.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    “anthropormorphic warming theory”

    Your lies about NASA might have more credibility if you were to at least use passably correct terminology.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    “call to rise above … rhetorical thuggery”

    If only you would, Peter, and stop writing these libelous articles.

    ” It is entirely typical of how Mashey and Haynes operate that they seize
    this circumstance in an attempt to weave a conspiracy theory about
    NAS’s and my motives.”

    You are a vicious, foul liar.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    Peter Wood is a bad, bad, man.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    “I possess sufficient scientific literacy”

    No, you are a complete and utter ignoramus … and you are also clearly a LIAR when you say that this is not about taking a position of global warming. You are a classic denialist, and typically ignorant of the *mass* of climate science supporting AGW, and the position you have taken in re Mashey, Mann, et. al. is driven by ideology.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    “Peter, you are having your cake and eating it too.  You can’t claim not
    to know enough to be an expert and then state with unqualified certainty
    that a climate scientist can’t be taken seriously when talking about
    his own field.”

    That’s a polite way of saying that he’s dishonest scum.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    “And yet you and your supporters seem to think that what is said by
    people in comments on a blog has some bearing on the character and
    motivations of active research scientists. Why?”

    Because he’s a thug.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    ‘I take it that it is not the term a “warmist” would use to describe
    themselves, perhaps opting for “climate activist” or “AGW proponent”‘

    Try “scientist” or “familiar with the accumulated scientific evidence on climate”.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    “how do we know if your presumed cause (AGW) is responsible”

    By doing science. That’s how we know.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    “Have someone help you understand that Mr. Wood has taken no particular side on the climate science debate.”

    That’s a lie.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    “on another commenter’s point”

    Or your sockpuppet, as your misstatements are almost identical.

    “Is it not equally likely, based on current scientific evidence (not a
    social belief that we shouldn’t dump CO2)  that net good will come from
    global warming?”

    Only someone completely ignorant of the relevant facts would think so.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    “Historically, periods during which we had no robust competing theories
    have not been times in which substantial scientific progress was made.
    Were I you, I would be concerned about that.”

    As a “philosopher of science”, you are an inept failure … that is what you should be concerned about. That some theories, such as AGW, Evolution, germ theory, atomic theory, QM., etc. are well established does not mean that we are in a “period” of no robust competing theories, you blitherer.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    “The overall feeling I get”"

    Having virtually no knowledge or understanding of the scientific evidence, a feeling is all you have.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    “Atoms existed before the statement of the Pauli Exclusion principle, and
    I trust they will continue to exist long after quantum mechanics goes
    the way of the four elements.”

    That is incredibly stupid. Your physics professor was of course not saying that the world would not exist in the absence of the *statement* of the Pauli Exclusion Principle, he was saying that the world would not exist if the the Pauli Exclusion Princple didn’t *hold*. That’s a counterfactual … it’s mindbogglingy dumb to counter with a statement like “atoms exist” when the discussion is about what the world *would* be like if the physics were different.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    ‘ but incredulity is not the same thing as a “lack of knowledge.”‘

    Learn to read: John Mashey did not say they are the same thing, he said that the incredulity is *from* lack of knowledge.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    “I was trying to be polite to people who I believe are behaving in a boorish manner”

    The actual correct answer is that you are an ignorant pompous ass, like Rnumber, dank48, betterschool … all blitheringly ignorant fools who presume to preach to climate scientists what the science does or doesn’t say.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    “they thought the world was cooling”

    A ridiculous falsehood repeated by ignorant denialists and repeatedly refuted.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    “Your comments justify the piece’s title. ”

    Wood is the thug.

  • celested

    I believe this thread has a lot to offer in understanding where higher education and climate science have parted company in recent years.  The great majority of the 258 (so far) comments have pretty obviously taken one side or the other on the question of confidence in climate science’s insistence that anthropogenic global warming is a growing and serious problem.

    What I found particularly interesting is the proportion of those selecting the Like button for the comments that question that confidence, which far outnumber the likers of comments expressing or implying confidence in the science.

    When was the last time higher education had so little confidence in a branch of science?  And to what can we attribute this lack of confidence?  That it is clear that climate science is all humbug?  Or that those in higher education dislike being lectured to on topics where the answers are so obvious that there is no need for scientists to wade in and stir things up without a compelling reason?

  • JohnMashey

    celestad:
    1) Do you think Peter Wood and NAS are representative of higher education?

    2) Do you think that most of the comments here have been written by people seriously  involved in higher education?

    You might want to check
    http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/guest-post-bottling-nonsense-mis-using-a-civil-platform

    and then a brief analysis of the (predictable) dynamics of all his can be found at:
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.php

    3) Do you think “likes” are a meaningful polling technique?

    4) I would have been delighted if:
    a) Peter Wood had stayed engaged, instead of ignoring my and Rob’s article.
    b) A few more NAS members had been willing to participate (I asked the affiliate leaders, but only one posted).
    c) A few more clearly-identifiable academics showed up.

  • celested

    John,

    No method is likely to recruit confirmed skeptics to your viewpoint, and preaching to the choir is almost as pointless.  I would expect your continuing and enthusiastic efforts here to have the greatest payoff with whatever open-minded swing voters might still be following this thread, if any.

    To this end might I suggest replacing the “obviously I’m right and they’re wrong” attitude evidenced in your many posts here with one better suited to outreach, which is how one generally approaches the lay public as well as those in higher education who aren’t expert in the area in question.

    This came through strongly in your response to my post here.  Your “You might want to check,” comment is presumptuous. Maybe I’m unfamiliar with the positions staked out by the sides in this CHE quarrel, more generally the climate debate for the period Angstrom-Wood to Lindzen-Singer, more importantly the relevant atmospheric physics (thermo, QM, spectroscopy, etc.) and cycles (carbon, hydrological, etc.), maybe not, but it is presumptuous to assume unfamiliarity.

    Likewise with your implied challenge to the meaningfulness of “likes”.  Maybe they’re meaningless, however the ratio I indicated is at least consistent with the uniform reports by all major US polling organizations that Americans this year are taking global warming less seriously than they used to.  For you to ignore this trend is as ostrich-like as those who base their skepticism of AGW on a casual replacement of its science with their own brand, and their preference for Lindzen, Singer, and Pielke as the credible authorities on the subject.

    I’m sorry if I seem to have gotten my back up over your response, but you completely blew off my third paragraph, which I felt raised an important question.  Is higher education rejecting one of its own disciplines by putting it in the same camp as say cold fusion, or is it merely complaining that the basic facts about the impact and consequences of 7 billion people on the atmosphere’s aerosols and greenhouse gases, whatever they might be, are too obvious to be worth arguing about?

    Of course higher education might in fact be largely aligned with mainstream climate science, which would make my question both presumptuous and irrelevant.  However the tone of the discussion in this thread suggests otherwise.  In such a situation, although the ultimate question may be the one whose answer settles the debate, it is not necessarily the question to ask first.  Just because your position seems obvious to you doesn’t make it so for others, who may prefer to approach it via smaller steps.

    But given the number of clicks needed to scroll down to this point, one imagines the audience for our exchange can now be counted on one hand.  Perhaps this blog could benefit from a “Recent comments” sidebar at the top supplementing the “Recent posts” one.

  • celested

    Megginson, your comment here is the first one I’ve felt comfortable with in this thread, as it succeeds in being substantive without having to stake out the “you’re right and I’m wrong” position that most commentators have adopted.

    So I would turn to you rather than to either Mr. Wood or Dr. Mashey (who has been the only one I’ve criticized so far) to ask about something that has been puzzling me.

    Why do you suppose the focus of this thread has been the attacks on skeptics when the attacks on climate scientists are surely just as noteworthy if not more so?

    The latter date back at least as far as 1996 with the repeated attacks by Fred Seitz on IPCC lead author Ben Santer.  These began with Seitz’s op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal for June 12, 1996.  Wood’s “Climate thuggery” title is cast from the same mold as Seitz’s title for his editorial: “A Major Deception in Global Warming.”  Seitz wrote “I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process” and appeared to foreshadow a larger agenda with “If the IPCC is incapable of following its most basic procedures, it would be best to abandon the entire IPCC process.”

    Seitz being well credentialed, having served as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, this naturally caused an enormous uproar, and all organizations concerned proceeded to investigate these startling charges.

    The upshot was that those who continued to believe Seitz’s charges would appear to have been cut from the same cloth as those convinced that someone besides Harvey Lee Oswald shot JFK.  Nothing short of a huge conspiracy theory can overcome the fact that every government and scientific organization that looked into the matter completely exonerated Santer.  Santer’s own recent perspective on this episode can be read here where he is still clearly being dogged by these unfounded charges made against him 14 years earlier.

    Santer of course is not the only climate scientist to come under attack in this way.  Phil Jones and Michael Mann have been more recent recipients of strikingly similar treatment.

    The complete neglect of these attacks by Mr. Wood is what puzzles me.  Unless he’s a conspiracy theorist (of which there is clearly no shortage among climate skeptics) I find it very hard to reconcile this neglect with the earnestness with which he professes his neutrality in the matter.

    Having been critical only of Dr. Mashey in my previous posts, I hope picking on the other side this time corrects any misimpression that I’m taking sides in this quarrel.  While I don’t see how to defend either Mashey or Wood, I also don’t see how to defend a theory that says that the surface of the Earth receives nearly
    twice as much energy from the atmosphere as it does from the Sun
    .  No wonder so many are skeptical of global warming when they hear what sounds like rubbish to them.

  • celested

    Quoting Bogs_Dollock,: “The exposition above may be best summed up as being not even wrong.What matters in the case of water vapour is not the residency time in
    the atmosphere of a particular water molecule [as all water molecules
    are identical] but the total amount of water molecules in the atmosphere
    at any given time. Water molecules are constantly entering the
    atmosphere through evaporation and leaving through condensation and
    precipitation. What matters is the net amount of water molecules in the
    atmosphere at any given time.  Water vapour in the atmosphere varies
    between 1% to 4%  at the earth’s surface [and ~0.40% averaged across the
    atmosphere] compared to  ~ 0.039% for CO2.”

    Based on what the other contributors to this thread have written, it would appear that Bogs_Dollock’s exposition is itself not even wrong, merely irrelevant, as it considers only the irrelevant statistic concerning the quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

    Whereas this quantity has been responsible for around 33 degrees of warmth over the past several million years, and closer to 40 over the past half-billion years (the polar ice caps did not exist 100 million years ago), the extra 2-4 degrees expected between now and 2100 has less to do with absolute quantity than rate of change of individual greenhouse gases.

    The industrial age has witnessed an increase of CO2 from 280 to 390 ppmv, with a likely further increase to 600-800 ppmv by 2100.  Even though there is far more water in the atmosphere than CO2, H2O’s quantity averaged over a decade is not increasing at anything like the rate of CO2 averaged over the same period.

    In the short run, only the rate of change matters, not the quantity.  In the long run the biosphere can easily adapt, but not so easily in the short run.

    Moreover the relevant rate of change is not linear but compound (as in “compound annual growth rate”).  Each doubling of a greenhouse gas adds a certain number of degrees to the surface temperature.  In order for any increase in water vapor to have the same effect as the increase in CO2 from 280 ppmv to 560 ppmv (whenever that happens), its 0.4% average across the atmosphere would have to increase to 0.8%.

    If this doesn’t happen, as seems extremely likely, then doubling of CO2, along with methane and certain nitrogen oxides, will raise the temperature, not by an unpleasant amount but at an unpleasant rate without any help from water vapor.

    However if it does happen, that hardly makes things any better.  If doubling CO2 were to add 3 degrees (for the sake of argument), and doubling water vapor were to do the same, then for both to double would mean close to a 6 degree increase.

    Bogs_Dollocks is trying to argue that these increases can’t have any impact on surface temperature, but this is bog-standard skepticism of science of the kind found on hundreds of other Internet blogs.  It has no deeper significance than any of the dozens of other rejections of science by those outside the fields in question, to which the Chronicle of Higher Education bears not-so-mute testimony, the general knowledge and erudition of its subscribers notwithstanding.

  • celested

    How, indeed, can I attribute any credibility to someone who villifies
    all opposition.

    Quite right, you shouldn’t.

    Your harder task is to refute the credibility of those scientists who have been trained in atmospheric thermodynamics and radiation physics and who calmly go about their research paying no attention whatsoever to skeptics who base their objections on those vilifying the skeptics, instead carefully documenting their results in the accumulating scientific literature.

    If the strongest argument of skeptics is the existence of vilifiers of skeptics (which from the outset has been what this whole Climate Thuggery thread has been about), climate skepticism as an alternative theory of climate doesn’t have a serious leg to stand on.

    Every serious attempt on this thread at a scientific objection to AGW has been based on one or another well-known fallacy.  Without a scientific leg to stand on, AGW skepticism has nothing to fall back on than to complain about being vilified.

    C’mon, surely AGW skepticism can rise above that and muster a serious argument in its favor?  Yes?

  • celested

    Have you seen how biologists talk about creationists? They are similarly
    frustrated. Climate denial is so similar to creationism, and holds as
    much water

    Maybe, but one big difference is that while it’s easy to find creationists who don’t mind being compared to climate skeptics, it’s hard to find climate skeptics who don’t mind being compared to creationists.  There’s Roy Spencer, but who else can you name?

  • celested

    “Happer was not a climate scientist.”

    Who is, then?

    Will Happer is one of the 14 coathors of the 1982 volume The long-term impacts of increasing atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels edited by Gordon J. Macdonald.  Happer’s contribution was 7 pages on the use of Raman scattering to determine atmospheric gas ratios to high precision.

    Unless you’ve (co)authored a climate science book yourself, or at least published in a climate science journal or conference, you have no business questioning the credentials of those who have.

    Embarrassingly for someone working in optics, Will seems not to have grasped the relevance to climate science of the detailed structure of the HITRAN line spectra tables, but that’s not the same thing as having no background in climate science.

  • celested

    Let us look at the following data from the Climate Research Unit at the
    University of East Anglia to attempt to answer the above question.  http://bit.ly/nicmt9

    This is about as brutally cherry-picked as one can make data.  The shorter the period the easier it is to find temperature declines, at any time in the last 40 years.  For 8-year periods it gets a bit harder — if you want to demonstrate any sort of temperature decline since 1982 you’re basically stuck with one of 2001-2009, 2002-2010 (Girma’s period), and 2003-2011.

    The obvious question is, if temperature is declining, shouldn’t we see it for a full decade?  No, because it’s not declining in that or any other meaningful sense, as can be seen from the decade 2000-2010,

    What’s so pathetic here is for climate skeptics to accuse others of fraud when they’re so obviously dependent on fraud themselves to make their case. 

  • profmurph

    If I graded students to the standard by which I was graded, at least half would fail. But then, I would be fired for holding them to any standards. Guess what I do?

  • profmurph

    Sort of like it is now. Few standards, little learning and more social engineering. Why learn if it is not required?

  • lpeterss

    Our department at a less-selective liberal arts college has a nice qualitative rubric that works well as a starting point.  It covers content, organization, grammar, and voice.  I include it in my syllabi so that students know what they should be aiming for, and my TA does a mock evaluation session at the beginning of the semester with sample essays.  I often find, of course, that a particular paper mixes B and D characteristics — those are the ones that end up with Cs.  But for research papers, I grade the research process as well as the final product — my TA and I were just discussing one this afternoon that was written during the last 24 hours of a month-long project period, with predictable results.  The student probably could have written the same paper without even having attended class (which, actually, was pretty much the case).  Thus, even though the student was capable of putting together grammatically correct sentences and a load of general bull-hockey overnight, she will end up with a D. 

  • 22081781

    “They need the attendance policy to help them make good choices that enable them to succeed.”  This suggests that these students are not mature adults. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eliana-Osborn/572634960 Eliana Osborn

    Educationally, they aren’t mature.  They are new to school and do need help maturing in that way. 

  • http://twitter.com/ksmanning K. S. Manning, PhD

    How is making an attendance policy mandatory going to help them make good choices?  If you take the choice away (as you do by making it mandatory) what have they learned?  If they fail because they choose not to come, that is their responsibility.  I feel if you baby them you’ll end up with babies. 

    Furthermore, you become responsible for the paperwork required by a required attendance policy.  Don’t you have better ways you can spend your time?  I do. 

    If they can pass without coming, god bless ‘em.  If they fail without coming, god bless ‘em.  If they come and work hard for their own success, so will I.  But I will not work harder for that success than they themselves will.

  • proftowanda

    The term “mandatory” may be problematic for you.  In this context, the policy does not mean that campus police will dragoon students to class.  They still have the choice to attend or not. 

    And then, as you say, they will see whether their choice was wise or irresponsible.  And that will be part of their maturing process.

    Those of us who teach “13th graders” recognize that they are in transition, and a rather abrupt one, from the K12 years — when their attendance truly was mandatory — to the responsibilities of the college years.  If they are to succeed in college, they really do need to come to class, although they may not realize that.  Having a policy with penalties and impact upon the grade, not a policy that could send police to the door, correctly focuses the onus upon academics and can persuade more students to attend, with the result that more students succeed — and more may make the connection and continue on their own to attend class and get to graduation.

    And if a colleague wishes to spend her time on assisting students in transition in this way, while you either opt to do so another way — or perhaps opt out of teaching these transitional students and only see those who succeeded and went on to upper-level coursework — it is not for others of us to question such policies . . . lest yours and ours be questioned next.

  • missoularedhead

    I bribe. In a discussion-based ethics class, I tell students that if 80% of them show up for all 14 weeks of class, in week 15, we will have pizza and casual conversation about their research. If 80% DON’T show up, then it’s 5 minute formal presentations with powerpoint required.  So far, so good. Thank goodness, as I don’t know who would dislike those presentations more, myself or the students!

  • big_giant_head

    Have you ever met one? 

  • eng101

    Agreed! I did not have a strict attendance policy my first few semesters
    teaching on the college level (attendance policies seemed so
    “high-school” to me), but I now have one. My original attitude was, “If
    they choose not to come to class and don’t pass, that’s their problem,
    not mine.” I still believe that, but I also recognize that many of these
    first-year students don’t realize how much missing class can cripple
    their ability to master the subject taught (not to mention crippling
    their grade). I want them to succeed, and I’ve found that having a strict attendance policy increases their chances of doing so.

  • 11196496

    How to balance ‘required’ attendance and responsible choice? Respect the fact that students have a life outside the classroom and may have to balance two competing goods, being in class and being somewhere else to do something good. My attendance policy, the Industrial Policy of Attendance, is this: students who are in class at every meeting for the first month earn a ‘sick’ day. This is similar to a business policy. Sick days may be accumulated just as in most businesses. The only requirement for using a sick day is to inform me before class starts by phone or e-mail that they intend to take the day as a sick day. All other absences impact a student’s grade. There is no permission to use these sick days on exam days or days a student is scheduled to lead a class or make a presentation. Using this policy, I saw attendance improve considerably. Students occasionally tell me why they are taking sick days. Their reasons validate for me the importance of encouraging students to make good prudential judgments.

  • wilkenslibrary

    Oh how I wish that contingent faculty had sick days…

    Betsy Smith/Adjunct Professor of ESL/Cape Cod Community College

  • yellow1

    Any, all, none, and some can be both plural or singular, FYI. 

  • minnesotan

    I suppose it would be odd if a publication dedicated to reporting higher education news didn’t have its own organizational idiosyncrasies, like the institutions it covers. ;)

  • minnesotan

    “All of those students is passing.”? Not in this case.

  • MChag12

    That is my feeling as well most of these policies are just more work for me. Including I am beginning to believe, the academic dishonesty policies. They require A LOT of paperwork from me, but the student gets it erased with one 15 minute counseling session. And the rate of plagiarism has just gone up. So I should bother why?

  • cacarte

    In my experience, most of them are not

  • yellow1

    None of the pies are delicious. Not trying to beat the dead horse, but this one has nothing to do with poor grammar instruction, British vs. American usage, etc. Any, all, none, and some are four words whose context will more than likely determine if they are singular or plural.

    minnesotan: The author did not write, “All of those students is passing.” However, the author starts with “several students,” turns that into “they,” and leaves none plural. These words, unlike a word like “dogs,” cannot be taken out of sentence level context when determining whether they are singular or plural. It comes down to context, like when we say, “All is well.” I’ll grant that all is typically plural, but it is not always.

  • sinaoni

    Maturity and adulthood are two different concepts that an attendance policy does not address.  Attendance policy should set the tone for acceptable behaviors in our classrooms.  Some fifty year olds are not mature and some fourteen year olds are.

  • tardigrade

    “Maturity” is a context laden value judgement.  Which is why I hate the word.  Outside of physical processes it is almost universally used when “objectifying” one’s personal value preconceptions to another’s context.

  • tardigrade

    Out of curiosity, what was the overall grade distribution (including withdrawals) before this policy and after it?

  • tardigrade

    “This is similar to a business policy. Sick days may be accumulated just as in most businesses. ”

    The problem is is that I’m paying “you” (indirectly, granted) to be there, not the other way around.

    My mind knows the difference.  It also knows the difference between real work, with real importance (such as one would do in an old-style apprenticeship), and make work that has no other meaning than to function as a generic teaching device that may or may not be teaching me things I don’t already know, or feel I need to know.

    No policies are going to change this knowledge. Period.  And I don’t entirely have conscious over-riding control over the value judgements either, as I got this way through over a decade of formative experiences in K-12, and on-the-job learning.

  • akprof

    My only complaint re multi-year grants is that I think colleges should be required to provide them rather than simply allowed. If a student athlete gets injured and can no longer play, the college should have some obligation to the athlete who gave up his/her health for the college!

  • zeigrog

    I fear that the NCAA “situation” has reached the stage where it would take a miracle to make Division I and II intercollegiate athletics acceptable in a truly sound educational institution. Division III intercollegiate sport with its accompanying rules is the only way to go. Financial assistance to bona fide students with proven financial need is the only acceptable way to go.