Global Warming: Recent Data

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby retrofuturist » Thu Oct 17, 2013 5:29 am

Greetings Kim,

Kim OHara wrote:I would love to have such a thread but every previous attempt has been derailed by people who deny the problem exists.

Check this out...

A guide on how to get the most out of your new topics
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=8784

A well framed topic helps moderators help you.

Kim OHara wrote:Maybe we could start one that begins by saying explicitly that any such denial will be strictly OT and will be shunted over here quick-smart?

That's the way to do it.

Kim OHara wrote:Retro, if you have any doubts about the bits of your response that I bolded, please tell us and I will respond as best I can.

Not personally... I tend to lean towards the Bhikkhu Pesala way of looking at this. Or more specifically, I do what I can do (i.e. support the Greens) and don't waste much mental space on the issue beyond that. Me getting tied up in knots is not going to fix the issue of global warming.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14650
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby Kim OHara » Thu Oct 17, 2013 5:41 am

monkey_brain wrote:
Kim OHara wrote:
monkey_brain wrote:Errrm, it's a chart from a recent IPCC draft report. It proves nothing but certainly speaks to the issue of model projections from the recent past vs actual recorded temps, which in turn bears on the *pace* of increasing temperatures.

Hi, MB,
I can see it's a chart. I have no evidence that it's "from a recent IPCC draft report" except the words at the top of it - and I could whip up one of those myself in half an hour. It does not say anything about model projections by itself because we don't know what the alphabet soup is supposed to mean. Please explain![


Sorry, I thought you were super up on this stuff. Very much in the news of late has been the so-called "hiatus" and how it was going to be dealt with in the latest IPCC report.

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-c ... 1164.story

And the leaked 2nd draft report was all over the news back in Dec. 2012:

http://theconversation.com/human-role-i ... port-11357

And SkepticalScience has posts on it: http://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-draft-leak-global-warming-not-solar.html

The original leaker's link: http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/ Surely it has been hosted many other places by now. And the chart I put up can be found on p36 of Chapter 1, with explanatory annotations.

As for the unkind innuendo against McIntyre, I would say his blog is often extremely interesting, and that McIntyre puts the contrarian critique forward about as well as it can be put forward. And a record of actual achievements, as the wikipedia article mentions. If McIntyre can't be considered a "respectable" critic of AGW, then it would seem such a beast cannot exist.

"Stephen McIntyre (born c. 1947) is a Canadian mathematician, former minerals prospector,[1] and semi-retired mining consultant who is best known as the founder and editor of Climate Audit." Wikipedia says so - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre - and I'm sure he wouldn't let them get away with saying anything that was both unfavourable and untrue, so it must be true. Note: no climate science qualifications whatever. Best known for his blog.
Read the rest of the wikipedia articles and you will see plenty about his negativity (to put it mildly) towards the climate science community. You will not see anything about how any of his arguments have changed climate science for the better, because they haven't. All his work amounts to nothing more than harassment and annoyance of people who know better.


Thanks, I did read it. It's not super bad for a Wikipedia article on a controversial subject.

In a field as interdisciplinary as Climate Science, it seems natural that many of the errors, if such there are, will be due to lack of depth in the supporting disciplines. Like statistics. McIntyre's "negativity" arrives via his expertise in statistical analysis which generally dwarfs the standard found in a typical climate science expert (how could it be otherwise). Your favorite climate blog, SkepticalScience, calls his discovery of flaws in the NASA temperature records 2000-2006 an impressive achievement. http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=102 To be sure, they downplay their significance, after that admission.

Your world of angels and devils fails to due justice to McIntyre, and to gadflys in general.

Hi, MB,
I am "up on this stuff" (within reason) and it's because of that that I have no time for McIntyre. His positive contributions are not very significant and have been far outweighed by his negatives. If he wants to be a (useful) gadfly, he has to start by admitting his errors and apologising for harassing the people who were actually trying to do the work. Until then, he's a waster of time and space.
As for the chart and the leak, the LA Times article is a beat-up which gives equal airtime to misinformers such as Curry (might as well give equal airtime to flat-earthers), there's nothing to support the denialist case in "the conversation" and skeptical science hammers the nails into its coffin with "Rawls has completely misrepresented the IPCC report."
What are you left with? Not much.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby monkey_brain » Thu Oct 17, 2013 6:18 am

Kim OHara wrote:...What are you left with? Not much.

:namaste:
Kim


I'm left with nuance. I can't bear to part with it.

McIntyre has likely prevented many mistakes in the past several years, just by being out there, and the climate science community being very well aware that he is out there. "I"s are being dotted and "t"s being crossed, even while he sleeps. Don't you just want to give him a big sloppy kiss for that?
monkey_brain
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:53 am

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby Kim OHara » Thu Oct 17, 2013 6:31 am

monkey_brain wrote:
Kim OHara wrote:...What are you left with? Not much.

:namaste:
Kim


I'm left with nuance. I can't bear to part with it.

McIntyre has likely prevented many mistakes in the past several years, just by being out there, and the climate science community being very well aware that he is out there. "I"s are being dotted and "t"s being crossed, even while he sleeps. Don't you just want to give him a big sloppy kiss for that?

Nope. If I were handing out hugs and kisses to all the people who have done most to advance our knowledge of the climate, in order from greatest contribution to least, I would die of old age before reaching McIntyre. If I sped it up by sending them a dollar each instead of visiting them, I would run out of money before reaching McIntyre. ...
:shrug:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby Kim OHara » Thu Oct 17, 2013 6:34 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Kim,

Kim OHara wrote:I would love to have such a thread but every previous attempt has been derailed by people who deny the problem exists.

Check this out...

A guide on how to get the most out of your new topics
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=8784

A well framed topic helps moderators help you.

Kim OHara wrote:Maybe we could start one that begins by saying explicitly that any such denial will be strictly OT and will be shunted over here quick-smart?

That's the way to do it.

Thanks - worth a try, then, once this settles down a bit.
retrofuturist wrote:
Kim OHara wrote:Retro, if you have any doubts about the bits of your response that I bolded, please tell us and I will respond as best I can.
Not personally... I tend to lean towards the Bhikkhu Pesala way of looking at this. Or more specifically, I do what I can do (i.e. support the Greens) and don't waste much mental space on the issue beyond that. Me getting tied up in knots is not going to fix the issue of global warming.

Metta,
Retro. :)

I'm still waiting for Bhikkhu Pesala's clarification on that and I won't pre-empt the discussion I hope to have with him, but I do understand and respect your position.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby monkey_brain » Thu Oct 17, 2013 6:36 am

chownah wrote:"McIntyre's "negativity" arrives via his expertise in statistical analysis which generally dwarfs the standard found in a typical climate science expert (how could it be otherwise). "

Way massive assumptions here all around. Having a bachelors degree in mathematics does not mean that one has highly developed expertise in statistical analysis.....no way of knowing how much expertise a climate science expert might have unless you ask her about it.....it could be otherwise by just being otherwise.
chownah



Agreed on a B.S. in math not being much. I should know; I have one myself.

It happens on occasion that a curmudgeon takes up residence under a bridge, and proves to be surprisingly talented. Harrabin gets it right when he says

"When at the launch of the Sir Muir Russell inquiry I asked about the credibility of the review panel in the blogosphere, Sir Muir dismissed the enquiry with the flick of a wrist - he had been a senior civil servant and he had run a university, his bona fides were beyond question.

But the blogosphere does not respect past reputations, only current performance. And some of the top performers in the blogosphere are critics of the establishment.

Steve McIntyre, for instance, is a mining engineer who started examining climate statistics as a hobby. He has taken on the scientific establishment on some key issues and won.

He arguably knows more about CRU science than anyone outside the unit" (University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10178454
monkey_brain
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:53 am

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby lyndon taylor » Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:15 am

Why don't the no global warming people just come out and say they are pro pollution, as it is massive pollution by humans that appears to be causing global warming, the only possible "negative" from believing in global warming would be reduction in the amount of pollutants we are spewing into the environment, either you're for pollution or against it, or you could go and live in a cave, and just not notice it......
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community that has so generously given me so much, sincerely former monk John
User avatar
lyndon taylor
 
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby Kim OHara » Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:51 am

lyndon taylor wrote:Why don't the no global warming people just come out and say they are pro pollution, as it is massive pollution by humans that appears to be causing global warming, the only possible "negative" from believing in global warming would be reduction in the amount of pollutants we are spewing into the environment, either you're for pollution or against it, or you could go and live in a cave, and just not notice it......

That's sort of the point of the cartoon that Dave posted here a while ago - http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=18897#p264746. It's not so socially acceptable, though, to declare you're pro-pollution as to cast doubt on science or on the motives of its proponents.

:juggling:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby SDC » Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:25 am

Kim OHara wrote:I would love to have such a thread but every previous attempt has been derailed by people who deny the problem exists.
Maybe we could start one that begins by saying explicitly that any such denial will be strictly OT and will be shunted over here quick-smart?


Perhaps.

People that believe it's real need to find a way to make a difference without winning the argument. Because the shots taken back and forth are so incredibly useless to the cause. Just like some of the woppers that have been tossed by both sides in the threads on DW. I feel like some people are fighting to win the debate as opposed to making things better. I just think that if people sit at the negotiating table for too long it is a waste.

Can the debate be left behind and still make some positive changes?
User avatar
SDC
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm
Location: North Jersey

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby daverupa » Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:42 am

SDC wrote:Can the debate be left behind and still make some positive changes?


Just as with overpopulation, climate change requires a majority to be on board, if not a virtual totality; both are directly tied to lifestyle, and unsustainable ones cannot be a choice.

But social collapse is just samsara, so whatevs. ',=-\
Last edited by daverupa on Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4106
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby Kim OHara » Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:48 am

SDC wrote:
Kim OHara wrote:I would love to have such a thread but every previous attempt has been derailed by people who deny the problem exists.
Maybe we could start one that begins by saying explicitly that any such denial will be strictly OT and will be shunted over here quick-smart?


Perhaps.

People that believe it's real need to find a way to make a difference without winning the argument. Because the shots taken back and forth are so incredibly useless to the cause. Just like some of the woppers that have been tossed by both sides in the threads on DW. I feel like some people are fighting to win the debate as opposed to making things better. I just think that if people sit at the negotiating table for too long it is a waste.

Can the debate be left behind and still make some positive changes?

Actually, a lot of people have left the debate behind and are working for positive change. A very short list of those who have left it behind includes nearly every major scientific organisation in the world; many governments (even China; I know they're still building coal-fired power stations but they are simultaneously shifting to renewables); most of the world's major financial institutions (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/09/2756171/leader-world-financial-climate/); and so on. Down at grass-roots level, the story is the same - individuals and families choosing to do their bit to mitigate their - our - impact on the world.
But we're trying to drive with the handbrake on so long as big business (especially fossil fuel companies), some politicians (Tea Party in the US; Abbott and co here) and some media (did someone mention Murdoch?) continue to fight against the changes we need to make. They are losing support by the day but we still have some way to go.
We can choose our battles, though. I choose to smite the denialists since I figure that weakening their influence has a bigger positive effect than putting all my energy into growing a vegie garden and riding a bike.

:juggling:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby Dan74 » Thu Oct 17, 2013 12:34 pm

I agree that rather than debating back and forth on the subtle points of climate data and modeling that none of us here are really qualified to do, it is more productive to focus on what makes a healthy responsible lifestyle. Consuming less and polluting less should not be controversial, should it? Less coal burnt, few cars mean cleaner air, better health. Less dependence on fossil fuels means clean air and oceans, more ecosystems preserved rather than destroyed due to drilling, less dishonest foreign policy and more economic stability. And even if you are a dyed in the wool skeptic, there is still a chance that the scientific consensus will turn out to be right, so that's an extra reason, if you needed one.

Suppose there is a giant meteorite on a collision course with the Earth. Some scientists says it should break up and burn up before impact, others disagree. Would people be content to sit idly and hope that the first lot was right? To me Global Warming is similar. It is a real risk. Do we do something, especially when unlike with protecting ourselves against the meteorite, there is a lot of benefit in switching to cleaner energy and diminishing our consumption? Or do we do nothing because we are skeptical regarding the gravity of risk?
_/|\_
User avatar
Dan74
 
Posts: 2626
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby Ron-The-Elder » Thu Oct 17, 2013 2:02 pm

Dan74: Suppose there is a giant meteorite on a collision course with the Earth. Some scientists says it should break up and burn up before impact, others disagree. Would people be content to sit idly and hope that the first lot was right? To me Global Warming is similar. It is a real risk. Do we do something, especially when unlike with protecting ourselves against the meteorite, there is a lot of benefit in switching to cleaner energy and diminishing our consumption? Or do we do nothing because we are skeptical regarding the gravity of risk?


Hi, Dan. Kudos for excellent logic. :bow: However, suppose as well that there was a construction group that wanted to sell bunkers as in the 1950's when the concern was nuclear attack. Would you think them a reliable, unbiased source of information regarding prediction of planetary strikes from meteors? :shrug:

That is why some here on this board and elsewhere are prone to ignoring and/or debating scientists representing such clearly biased groups as "The Coal Industry", "The Oil Industry", and etc. By the same token solar power groups, wind mill manufacturers, and the nuclear community have axes to grind as well. :coffee:

So, instead, we suggested earlier in the thread that we stick to staying in touch with, reviewing "the latest data" and findings put forth by independent and credentialed organizations such as NASA and others. :twothumbsup:

And, as you said, many of us are not experts, but many of those parroting data from groups with questionable biases are not either. So, that is why I suggested sticking to reading the data, studying the associated sciences which led to the production of the data, and then making up our own minds. This does not mean that we should ignore what they report, but, realizing their potential for bias, should take what they have to report with a grain of salt. Remember that scientists studying the effects of tobacco smoke made it sound like smoking was good for us fifty years ago. But some of these same scientists became defectors reporting information later that was very beneficial to understanding the real risks associated with smoking and the secret manipulation of addictive components in cigarettes by tobacco companies, which allowed gov. health organizations to finally regulate appropriately. :soap:
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
 
Posts: 998
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby SDC » Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:24 pm

daverupa wrote:
SDC wrote:Can the debate be left behind and still make some positive changes?


Just as with overpopulation, climate change requires a majority to be on board, if not a virtual totality; both are directly tied to lifestyle, and unsustainable ones cannot be a choice.


I suppose.

I'm just concerned that it is an obsession for some --- on both sides. And for this issue and others what is a reasonable level of involvement and to what end.

I think I'm going to start another topic about this. Thread coming soon in the Open Dhamma forum if anyone is interested.
User avatar
SDC
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm
Location: North Jersey

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby Kim OHara » Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:38 pm

SDC wrote:
daverupa wrote:
SDC wrote:Can the debate be left behind and still make some positive changes?


Just as with overpopulation, climate change requires a majority to be on board, if not a virtual totality; both are directly tied to lifestyle, and unsustainable ones cannot be a choice.


I suppose.

I'm just concerned that it is an obsession for some --- on both sides. And for this issue and others what is a reasonable level of involvement and to what end.

I think I'm going to start another topic about this. Thread coming soon in the Open Dhamma forum if anyone is interested.

Great! :thumbsup:
It would be good to bear in mind Retro's advice - http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=18897&start=40#p264989 - about framing it to exclude disputes about the validity of the science.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby dagon » Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:40 pm

SDC wrote:
daverupa wrote:
SDC wrote:Can the debate be left behind and still make some positive changes?


Just as with overpopulation, climate change requires a majority to be on board, if not a virtual totality; both are directly tied to lifestyle, and unsustainable ones cannot be a choice.


I suppose.

I'm just concerned that it is an obsession for some --- on both sides. And for this issue and others what is a reasonable level of involvement and to what end.

I think I'm going to start another topic about this. Thread coming soon in the Open Dhamma forum if anyone is interested.


i would be interested - could i make a few suggestions
title it with climate change rather than global warming
set very clear parameter - discuss this with admin before posting
people report off topic posts to admin rather than responding to them (see TOS)

metta
paul
dagon
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 12:45 am

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby Kim OHara » Fri Oct 18, 2013 12:19 am

dagon wrote:i would be interested - could i make a few suggestions
title it with climate change rather than global warming
set very clear parameter - discuss this with admin before posting
people report off topic posts to admin rather than responding to them (see TOS)

metta
paul

That makes at least three of us on the same page, then.

:group:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby SDC » Fri Oct 18, 2013 12:23 am

Here it is: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=18928

It is not specifically related to climate change. It's a bit of a broader topic on world issues and our practice.
User avatar
SDC
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm
Location: North Jersey

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby chownah » Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:18 am

monkey_brain wrote:
chownah wrote:"McIntyre's "negativity" arrives via his expertise in statistical analysis which generally dwarfs the standard found in a typical climate science expert (how could it be otherwise). "

Way massive assumptions here all around. Having a bachelors degree in mathematics does not mean that one has highly developed expertise in statistical analysis.....no way of knowing how much expertise a climate science expert might have unless you ask her about it.....it could be otherwise by just being otherwise.
chownah



Agreed on a B.S. in math not being much. I should know; I have one myself.

It happens on occasion that a curmudgeon takes up residence under a bridge, and proves to be surprisingly talented. Harrabin gets it right when he says

"When at the launch of the Sir Muir Russell inquiry I asked about the credibility of the review panel in the blogosphere, Sir Muir dismissed the enquiry with the flick of a wrist - he had been a senior civil servant and he had run a university, his bona fides were beyond question.

But the blogosphere does not respect past reputations, only current performance. And some of the top performers in the blogosphere are critics of the establishment.

Steve McIntyre, for instance, is a mining engineer who started examining climate statistics as a hobby. He has taken on the scientific establishment on some key issues and won.

He arguably knows more about CRU science than anyone outside the unit" (University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10178454

Thanks for posting this. After reading it I went out and found his blog and read some of it so that I could reduce my own assumption coefficient. Now I am mostly in agreement with your assessment that he is skilled in statistical analysis.....or at least he is skillful in picking apart statistical analyses. I don't have the time or interest to develop a full understanding of all that he has blogged but it seems clear that he has taken on the task of pointing out inadequacies in the existing body of data and the current state of the analysis of climatological data and is doing so with thoroughness and vigor rarely found anywhere........it is rare to find someone with what seems to be such a focused passion for statistical analysis. Having sampled his blog entries I think that he is doing science a service by blogging. He is holding some feet to the fire so of course there is some squeeling..........but for those who are not aware of how science works, it is usual for serious scientists to solicit contrary opinions and most would be glad to have his input. I am sure that there are many climatologists who are glad for his input but since the ranks of climatology is filled with mere humans it is inevitable that some will whine a bit.

Also, very importantly, I do get the impression that he is NOT politicaly motivated like many people mentioned in this thread......or if he is so motivated at least he is sticking with rational criticism.....it is hard to know just exactly what motivates a person.
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Postby Kim OHara » Fri Oct 18, 2013 5:37 am

chownah wrote:Thanks for posting this. After reading it I went out and found his blog and read some of it so that I could reduce my own assumption coefficient. Now I am mostly in agreement with your assessment that he is skilled in statistical analysis.....or at least he is skillful in picking apart statistical analyses. I don't have the time or interest to develop a full understanding of all that he has blogged but it seems clear that he has taken on the task of pointing out inadequacies in the existing body of data and the current state of the analysis of climatological data and is doing so with thoroughness and vigor rarely found anywhere........it is rare to find someone with what seems to be such a focused passion for statistical analysis. Having sampled his blog entries I think that he is doing science a service by blogging. He is holding some feet to the fire so of course there is some squeeling..........but for those who are not aware of how science works, it is usual for serious scientists to solicit contrary opinions and most would be glad to have his input. I am sure that there are many climatologists who are glad for his input but since the ranks of climatology is filled with mere humans it is inevitable that some will whine a bit.

Also, very importantly, I do get the impression that he is NOT politicaly motivated like many people mentioned in this thread......or if he is so motivated at least he is sticking with rational criticism.....it is hard to know just exactly what motivates a person.
chownah

Hi, Chownah,
What you say is fair enough as far as it goes but I think we can go a little bit further into his motivation.
Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre#The_Hockey_stick_controversy says:
In 2002, McIntyre became interested in climate science after a leaflet from the Canadian government warning of the dangers of global warming was delivered to his residence. McIntyre states that he noticed discrepancies in climate science papers that reminded him of the false prospectus that had duped investors involved in the Bre-X gold mining scandal.[7]

The Canadian government pamphlets were based on the IPCC Third Assessment Report section which prominently displayed the hockey stick graph based on the 1999 reconstruction by Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH99). McIntyre began studying Mann's research which had produced the graph, and met Ross McKitrick.[16] They co-authored two papers disputing the data and methodology set out in the Mann, Bradley and Hughes 1998 journal article (MBH98).[17]

There's more there, if you want to look, but the heart of it is that he was first motivated by his (uninformed, gut-level) opposition to mainstream climate science. And that's where he has been coming from ever since. (He may not have had any choice, actually, since any amateur who announces his existence by jumping up and down shrieking that the experts are wrong, and is himself proved wrong, is hardly likely to be welcomed by those experts if he has a change of heart.)
In any event, no change of heart has ever been visible: he has kept on, as you say, "pointing out inadequacies in the existing body of data and the current state of the analysis of climatological data and is doing so with thoroughness and vigor rarely found anywhere."
If all he's looking for is dirt, he'll never find gold - let alone bring it back and share it.

:namaste:
Kim

[edited for clarity]
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

PreviousNext

Return to Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lostegasa and 4 guests