Althouse: "If [Gleick's] judgement is this bad, how is his judgement on matters of science?"

February 22, 2012

"If [Gleick's] judgement is this bad, how is his judgement on matters of science?"

"For that matter, what about the judgement of all the others in the movement who apparently see nothing worth dwelling on in his actions? When skeptics complain that global warming activists are apparently willing to go to any lengths–including lying–to advance their worldview, I’d say one of the movement’s top priorities should be not proving them right."

147 comments:

Methadras said...: I’d say one of the movement’s top priorities should be not proving them right.

It isn't even a legitimate movement anymore. It's a religion that is dead because of their lies and conspiracies to hide the reality that taking government money to try and prove that man is the cause of natural phenomenon. We know what they've done. We know how they did it. And we know what their objective is. To create a hysteria to shift massive amounts of wealth. To burden people who produce and consume with unyielding taxes in the name of that hysteria.

How many times has the name of this religion changed? Global cooling. Global warming. AGW. Now it's climate change. Like the typical leftards they are, they want to usurp the language to fit their ideology to once again let everyone know that they know better than we do. And what's worse? They obliterate the scientific method and the notions of science into smithereens and when conservatives call them out on it, we are called anti-science. Really? Leftards have done more to harm science themselves than anything else I've seen in my lifetime.; 2/22/12, 10:00 AM
Unknown said...: Dr Gleick has not exactly covered himself in glory in this shoddy exercise--In 20 years, I predict, the whole global warming/AGW thing will be long forgotten and buried in the trash heap along with nuclear winter.; 2/22/12, 10:08 AM
Roger J. said...: Apolgies--once again I have failed to use the right email sign in--RogerJ posted the comment labelled unknown.; 2/22/12, 10:13 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: I’d say one of the movement’s top priorities should be not proving them right.

No, that would require integrity, which is in pretty short supply on that side of the aisle.

Like the "yoga is exercise" crowd - which is much the same group, actually - they'll say and do anything for the cult/cause,...; 2/22/12, 10:15 AM
MadisonMan said...: So only Saints can do Science?

I better resign.; 2/22/12, 10:17 AM
edutcher said...: It's never been about science.

It's been about politics since a lot of the closet Communists took over the Enviro movement.; 2/22/12, 10:20 AM
Original Mike said...: MM: If you are fabricating memos from people you consider your enemy, than yes, please resign. You are tarnishing the reputation of the rest of us; 2/22/12, 10:21 AM
CJinPA said...: MM: If you are fabricating memos from people you consider your enemy, than yes, please resign. You are tarnishing the reputation of the rest of us

Has that been proved? The fabricating? It would not shock me, and would be a dagger for much of the warming movement, but I don't know that it's been proved. Apparently, several of the documents he obtained through fraud are legit. But the most controversial document remains in question.; 2/22/12, 10:28 AM
Matt Sablan said...: CJinPA: Heartland says it is a forgery. McArdle agrees; reading some of it, I agree. The person writing it is a cartoon villain reveling in cartoon villainy (read the rich sentence where the author says his goal is to dissuade teachers from teaching science and he refers to himself as "anti-climate.") The memo gets key facts wrong, and the version I saw did not have a letter head or signature. It does not have the same metadata as the rest of the documents (showing it was made at a different date and scanned on a different machine).

That's heavy enough to convince me that it is fake. If anyone thinks it is legit, I think the ball is in their court to prove it. The case that it is a fake is overwhelming at the moment.; 2/22/12, 10:34 AM
Original Mike said...: Hasn't been proven, but IMO it sure is the most likely scenario. Gleick gets the real documents through subterfuge. There's nothing really in them, so he inserts a damning (and ridiculous, I might add) memo. He's in danger of being tagged with the act of falsely obtaining the real documents, so he rushes out an admission to the less heinous act.; 2/22/12, 10:35 AM
Rusty said...: MadisonMan said...
So only Saints can do Science?

I better resign.

Maybe leaving it to scientists would be a better idea. And before you start defending Glieck's actions, science depends on objectivity. Experiments are rigorously designed to discount a scientists subjectivity.
Political activists know shit all about science.; 2/22/12, 10:38 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Note that no one can legitimately claim it is not a fake (if we assume Gleick did not forge it).

Gleick got it anonymously, and it did not come to him in the same email with the rest of his documents. So, the only reason he believes it is true is that an anonymous source gave him something too good to check, and he believed it.

None of the other people in the email (I think it said 15 people were on it?) who received the initial memo have come forward to say that they received it (that I know of). There's nothing wrong with receiving anonymous emails on this stuff, so they could do it safely. They could say anything: I didn't believe it, I didn't find it interesting, I hadn't gotten around to authenticating it by the time I saw stories in the news about it already -- etc., and be perfectly safe.

The only way to really prove this is a real document is if who ever leaked it comes forward, or someone within Heartland confirms it. I doubt the second will happen, so, we're stuck with relying on the first.; 2/22/12, 10:39 AM
Original Mike said...: Rusty - MM is a scientist. I'm puzzled at his post.; 2/22/12, 10:40 AM
tim maguire said...: MadisonMan, are you seriously defending this as "good enough" science?

I realize lying, cheating, and stealing helps your cause and you're ok with anything that helps your cause, so I guess my real question is, is lying, cheating, and stealing so normal to you that you can't imagine reasonable fair-minded people might object?; 2/22/12, 10:42 AM
Original Mike said...: To defend MM, I guess he thinks the only thing Gleick did was obtain the real documents under false pretenses. I don't think it stops there.; 2/22/12, 10:44 AM
Fen said...: I can't wait to pillory every "scientist" who's whorshiped at the altar of AGW.

Tar and Feathers is not good enough for them. They should be taken out back and shot.; 2/22/12, 10:46 AM
Tank said...: I think MM was joking about not being a saint himself. I don't think he was endorsing this guy in any way.

We can disagree, but I don't think he falls into the "lack of integrity" group we sometimes see here.; 2/22/12, 10:48 AM
Fen said...: MadisonMan provides a good example of the "scientists" who have squandered whatever integrity they have trying to minimize the fraud of people like Gleick.; 2/22/12, 10:49 AM
CJinPA said...: Matthew,

I've read those arguments, and tend to agree. It's just that I've been debating the issue with liberals and wanted to know if we had a smoking gun.; 2/22/12, 10:49 AM
Roger J. said...: I would submit scientists are everyday people, albeit with some higher degree of education--when you work in a field, you do get wedded to your work and theories. Reputable scientists evaluate their criticisms; others do not. Our flaw is, IMO, to assume that scientists are a special breed not unlike Plato's philosopher kings--they are not. They are flawed human beings just like the rest of us.; 2/22/12, 10:50 AM
Fen said...: "I don't think he was endorsing this guy in any way."

Ah bullshit. He's trying to pretend that, since Gleick outed himself as a fraud, all scientists should be "saints". Find me a quote where MM denounces the un-science of Gleick and I'll extend him some courtesy.; 2/22/12, 10:50 AM
tim maguire said...: Tank, MM's no troll, I agree with you. But he wasn't defending the document as not fraudulent, he was defending fraudulence as acceptable science.

There's just no way around that fact.; 2/22/12, 10:53 AM
Tank said...: Go look at what he posted.

YMMV; 2/22/12, 10:54 AM
ndspinelli said...: I guess you ran up that self-indulgent "Year later protest" posts up the flagpole and noboby saluted. It was narcisssitic and lame.; 2/22/12, 10:55 AM
William said...: During his own lifetime, most of Marx's predictions were proven wrong. Yet for many generations many academically gifted people stubbornly continued to believe in his "science" of history and economics. So far as I know, there's never been any examination of why so many generations of smart people were so fervent in their belief in a theory that was so patently false and was so visibly harmful to many millions of people.....The people who believed that Mao was an agrarian reformer, now tell us that global warming is settled science. There's something about bourgeoise civilization that arouses the ire of the theorizing class.; 2/22/12, 10:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Some crazy AGW supporters are suggesting that Heartland sent the forged to document to Gleick in order to trap him! So much for the reality-based community.

The argument does bring to mind this great piece by Tim Blair on the Dan Rather forgeries .; 2/22/12, 11:01 AM
MikeR said...: "He's in danger of being tagged with the act of falsely obtaining the real documents, so he rushes out an admission to the less heinous act." I must be really slow - I've finally realized the point to his confession. His problem was that the memo's pdf was scanned, recently, separately from all the others, and on the West Coast. So Gleick says that he got a paper copy in the mail. He can't send that to all those blogs, so he had no choice but to scan it - and hopefully got rid of the original. He has come up with an explanation that deals with that fact.

Of course, it's all a lie, since the original basis for suspecting him anyhow was that Steve Mosher recognized his style, and anyhow it's an absurd story. But that's much harder to prove. Lawyers, is Heartland likely to actually push him for civil and criminal charges? Can they get access to his computer and stuff?; 2/22/12, 11:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Gleick has apparently hired the well-known, and frightenly expensive, criminal defense attorney John Keker.; 2/22/12, 11:09 AM
FleetUSA said...: The AGW people have stepped on themselves -- again.; 2/22/12, 11:10 AM
tim maguire said...: Here's what he posted, to make it easier for people to go look:

MadisonMan said...So only Saints can do Science?
I better resign.

Apparently my mileage does vary, because I don't see any way to read that as merely a joke that he isn't a saint.; 2/22/12, 11:10 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "Lawyers, is Heartland likely to actually push him for civil and criminal charges?"

Not a lawyer. My thought -- had he stolen documents that were harmless in any one's hands, I'd maybe extract a public apology and flogging, as is happening. See him stripped of his honors and lose his job. Call it a day.

However. The documents he stole include the personal contact information of Heartland's employees; phone numbers, addresses -- things like that. In the wrong hands, those are incredibly dangerous. An example needs to be made that this is not appropriate, and the full weight of the law needs to fall on him for his theft. We can't prove slander/libel if he honestly believed the fake memo was real, but we can prove he stole the documents and distributed stolen goods.

That's just my thought. Going after me is fine; you go after my team/family/employees, there's heck to pay.; 2/22/12, 11:11 AM
The Unknown Pundit said...: Everyone has an agenda, unfortunately, the truth usually isn't very high on the agenda.; 2/22/12, 11:13 AM
Jon Burack said...: iT IS NOT UP TO ANYONE to prove this memo is a fake. It is up to Gliek prove it is not, or to make everything he knows about its origin available to the public so the authenticity or not can then be discovered. Anyone suggesting this even MIGHT be authentic is playing a game or falling for one. The obvious reasons to doubt it mean it is incumbent on Gliek to fess up and actively aid in tracking down its true author. If he does not, that is as great if not a greater betrayal than anything else he has done.; 2/22/12, 11:16 AM
Hagar said...: @William,

What's with the past tense?; 2/22/12, 11:18 AM
Original Mike said...: "It is up to Gliek prove it is not [fake]"

Remember when Rather claimed it was up to others to prove his documents were fake?; 2/22/12, 11:22 AM
Brian Brown said...: Some crazy AGW supporters are suggesting that Heartland sent the forged to document to Gleick in order to trap him!

So in other words, they have an emotion-based response to the issue and no amount of facts will change their beliefs.; 2/22/12, 11:24 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "Remember when Rather claimed it was up to others to prove his documents were fake?"

Then someone did. And we all laughed.; 2/22/12, 11:28 AM
Bill said...: Matthew: "None of the other people in the email (I think it said 15 people were on it?) who received the initial memo have come forward to say that they received it (that I know of)."

This isn't quite right. Gleick's story is that he received the memo by mail, and then tricked a Heartland staffer into emailing the other documents to him. He then scanned the memo himself and, posing as a "Heartland Insider", he sent them all to various people. The "15 people" is from his cover letter on that package.

Like most people, I suspect the order of the events is a little different....; 2/22/12, 11:29 AM
Original Mike said...: Have the AGWers used the "fake but accurate" line yet?; 2/22/12, 11:30 AM
Brian Brown said...: This is so funny. From the fake Glick memo:

We will also pursue additional support from the Charles G. Koch Foundation. They returned as a Heartland donor in 2011 with a contribution of $200,000.

Hysterical.

Just mention Koch and the AGW dupes go insane.

This couldn't have happened to a nicer group of people.; 2/22/12, 11:30 AM
n.n said...: They have neither a consensus nor, apparently, sufficient evidence and arguments to support their position. Their scientific enterprise based on limited, circumstantial evidence is failing to meet its objective, as have similar enterprises throughout human history.

The [open] Earth system can only be described by its chaotic behavior. It has been incompletely and, apparently, insufficiently characterized. Its complexity is further embedded in its unwieldy composition. Not even our super computers are capable of modeling the motion of its constituent components.

That said, there is evidence that we are capable to describe its behavioral envelope within a limited frame of reference (i.e. science). Assuming that the mean and variance remain within their recorded range, then in order to reduce inherent and manufactured risk, it would be best to pursue reasonable adaptations to the extremes. The extreme which poses the greatest threat to humanity, both mechanical and biological, would be cooling, not warming.

We need to get our priorities in order. We need to increase our independence through domestic resource recovery and development. We need to exploit resources and energy production as they are best suited to application. We also need to dispense with irrational fears of nuclear processes, etc. Not only will this improve our domestic situation, but it will also remove encumbering (and expensive) foreign obligations, and after we help our selves, we will, once again, be in a position to help others.; 2/22/12, 11:32 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Ah. Yeah. My chronology is messed up. My fault there.; 2/22/12, 11:32 AM
John Cunningham said...: The watermelons [green on outside, red on inside] backing the AGW hoax will never recant. they are a cult of religious fanatics, impervious to facts or reason.
Stephen Schneider, a leading warmalist, told a greenie conference back in the late 80s that the actual science was too tentative and ambiguous, so it was mandatory to exaggerate, hide discrepancies, etc.
note also in the emails released from U of E Anglia that the warmalists were telling each other that their models were not working. e.g., Kevin Trenberth told a fellow warmalist that their models were travesties, and that the models could not account for the past 15 years of no warming.; 2/22/12, 11:33 AM
Insufficiently Sensitive said...: Our flaw is, IMO, to assume that scientists are a special breed not unlike Plato's philosopher kings--they are not. They are flawed human beings just like the rest of us.

'Our' flaw? In the world of AGW politics, the 'us' are the politically organized groupthinkers who wish to use the word 'science' (not the method) as a club of authority upon the heads of their skeptical opponents.

The scientifically illiterate Al Gore is one of 'us'.

The finest achievement of science was its method - the strict examination of measurements and evidence, the public analysis of all of it, and the yielding of hypotheses before better evidence.

Those publicly-funded 'scientists' who refuse to share their data - even in the face of FOIA requests - have abdicated their claim to the title, and should be driven from the temple.

The science is never settled, but 'we' are determined to blind ourselves to that crucial fact.; 2/22/12, 11:37 AM
Kevin said...: Has that been proved? The fabricating? It would not shock me, and would be a dagger for much of the warming movement, but I don't know that it's been proved.

Here's a clue - an internal Heartland Institute memo would not refer to people who agree with Heartland's positions as "anti-climate", as the forged memo does. Not only is it a forgery, it is amateurish.

Using social engineering to get Heartland's actual memos is a lot less serious that forging a memo explicitly to damage Heartland's reputation. Whoever did the forgery is in a lot of trouble.; 2/22/12, 11:38 AM
MayBee said...: Some crazy AGW supporters are suggesting that Heartland sent the forged to document to Gleick in order to trap him!

I wonder how they knew he wouldn't do any due diligence on that original (fake) memo.; 2/22/12, 11:39 AM
Original Mike said...: "Then someone did. And we all laughed."

Actually, he trotted out that argument when he was already on the defensive. The forgery was pretty much obvious at that point, and his detractors were saying, "Well, Mr. News Man, prove to us they're real". And he replied, Well, prove they're not." Problem was, they already had. But what makes it such a ridiculous demand is, Rather was a journalist, supposedly in pursuit of the truth, not a party hack.; 2/22/12, 11:39 AM
Brian Brown said...: Has that been proved? The fabricating?

Ok, here is the title of the memo:

Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy

What do you think?; 2/22/12, 11:42 AM
Matt Sablan said...: I still laughed.; 2/22/12, 11:49 AM
Bill said...: Jay: "Just mention Koch and the AGW dupes go insane."

Gleick for starters -- he got the number wrong. Koch gave only $25k in 2011, for health care work, not climate change. $200k was the amount they were hoping to get in 2012.; 2/22/12, 11:50 AM
Seeing Red said...: 10:10 No Pressure. BOOM SPLAT!

LOLOLOLOLOL; 2/22/12, 11:54 AM
Tank said...: Jay said...

Has that been proved? The fabricating?

Ok, here is the title of the memo:

Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy

What do you think?

OK, that's funny.

Conclusive too.; 2/22/12, 11:56 AM
Original Mike said...: Deep Climate is arguing that the same guy they say is "responsible" for "Angry Badger" is responsible for setting up Glieck. Someone wake Garage!; 2/22/12, 12:02 PM
Patrick said...: T man, that piece by Blair was fantastic.

"Actually, we were thinking of giving the memos to Dan Rather."

"Proceed."; 2/22/12, 12:03 PM
Kirk Parker said...: t-man,

The "Team Blah" post on Rather and the memos is wonderful. Thanks for remembering that!; 2/22/12, 12:07 PM
Crimso said...: "Reputable scientists evaluate their criticisms; others do not."

Good scientists provide more scathing criticisms of their own work than anyone else. It's how we avoid making fools of ourselves in front of our peers.

IANAL, so perhaps one who is can address this: did he not openly admit to wire fraud?; 2/22/12, 12:07 PM
IggyRules said...: It's not a dead religion Methadras. You can't kill religion. It's been here all along. Simply start calling it what it really is; the liturgy of pantheism.; 2/22/12, 12:08 PM
Balfegor said...: Re: Kevin:

Using social engineering to get Heartland's actual memos is a lot less serious that forging a memo explicitly to damage Heartland's reputation. Whoever did the forgery is in a lot of trouble.

Well, except that fraudulently misappropriating confidential documents seems a lot more obviously illegal than forging a memo. I mean isn't that "social engineering" potentially wire fraud?

Whereas the outright forgery -- I'm less sure that's illegal.; 2/22/12, 12:09 PM
traditionalguy said...: I have followed Judith Curry at Georgia Tech on this science for a year. She always takes the proper stance on the science as if it is a science, for which she has been under attack from Lysenkoists , such as the sloppy Mr Gleick.

Like a gang war between crips and bloods for territory, drive-by rumbles have been coming from the CO2 is pollution Con artists trying to eliminate any dangerous truth tellers.

I know con men quite well. They get sloppy when they think no one is around to challenge their lies.; 2/22/12, 12:09 PM
Balfegor said...: Re: MayBee:

I wonder how they knew he wouldn't do any due diligence on that original (fake) memo.

Maybe they just assumed he's a driveling moron?; 2/22/12, 12:11 PM
jimspice said...: Anyone notice that Gleick admitted the behavior was unethical, and nearly every science blog condemned his actions?; 2/22/12, 12:14 PM
Original Mike said...: "Good scientists provide more scathing criticisms of their own work than anyone else. It's how we avoid making fools of ourselves in front of our peers."

It's also the right thing to do. I'll be dead and gone when AGW either does or does not ruin the Earth. But these guys are besmirching my good name in the here and now.; 2/22/12, 12:15 PM
Balfegor said...: Anyone notice that Gleick admitted the behavior was unethical, and nearly every science blog condemned his actions?

Did they? One would hope they would. That's not exactly a hard call there.; 2/22/12, 12:15 PM
Original Mike said...: "...and nearly every science blog condemned his actions?

Go read Deep Climate; 2/22/12, 12:16 PM
Brian Brown said...: jimspice said...
Anyone notice that Gleick admitted the behavior was unethical, and nearly every science blog condemned his actions?

Hysterical.

Link us to 3 "science blogs" condemning these actions.

You silly propagandist, you.; 2/22/12, 12:18 PM
MadisonMan said...: If you think I'm defending his actions, please read what I wrote.

You can't dismiss a person's scientific findings based on perfidy in another area. That's a very narrow statement. Don't broaden it.

traditionalguy: Judy Curry was once at UW, as a post-doc.; 2/22/12, 12:20 PM
bgates said...: Anyone notice that Gleick admitted the behavior was unethical

Hilarious. Not "his" behavior, "the" behavior.

But fine, he admitted his commission of wire fraud was unethical. Let's make him Pope.; 2/22/12, 12:20 PM
CJinPA said...: Well, except that fraudulently misappropriating confidential documents seems a lot more obviously illegal than forging a memo.

But we're not ultimately fighting a legal battle here. We're talking about whether or not a manmade global warming crisis is real or not. And the forgery severely undermines the AGW argument. I don't really give a crap about whether he broke a law. (He will not be prosecuted.); 2/22/12, 12:21 PM
bgates said...: If you think I'm defending his actions, please read what I wrote.

You implied that there are two possible categories of scientists, saints and those who commit wire fraud. Since it's unreasonable to expect people to be saints, that suggests you think basically all scientists are out there committing a little wire fraud every now and again, but that shouldn't impeach their credibility otherwise.; 2/22/12, 12:24 PM
CJinPA said...: Here's a clue - an internal Heartland Institute memo would not refer to people who agree with Heartland's positions as "anti-climate", as the forged memo does. Not only is it a forgery, it is amateurish.

I get that. I made that point in debating an AGW guy here (in keeping with Gleick's false ID approach, I go as "Brad." The blogger wouldn't post my comment making the argument you cite):

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/the_heartland_science_denial_d.php; 2/22/12, 12:26 PM
Anonymous said...: edutcher said:
"It's never been about science. It's been about politics since a lot of the closet Communists took over the Enviro movement."

Communists have always - from controlled / backed the Environmental movement.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Cobb; 2/22/12, 12:30 PM
Fen said...: jimspice: Anyone notice that Gleick admitted the behavior was unethical,

Only because he was already busted and trying to ward off a civil lawsuit from Heartland. Please don't pretend he has any remorse for his actions, other than getting caught,

and nearly every science blog condemned his actions?

Wrong again. WattsUp and ClimateAudit have a list of "science" blogs that seek to minimize his offense.

Just like you are. As in, I don't see anything from you denouncing him. You're just another Gleick apologist. Go take your AGW totems and shove them up your ass.; 2/22/12, 12:31 PM
Original Mike said...: "You can't dismiss a person's scientific findings based on perfidy in another area."

Except it is his area and it does speak to his integrity as a person, and thus as a scientist.

I'm still not sure I'm getting your point. It reads as if you are saying "all scientist do it", but I can't imagine that's what you meant.; 2/22/12, 12:33 PM
Carnifex said...: Madman made a nice self deprecating joke. I see nothing more in it.

This inner cabal of the Heartland is apparently run by anonymous? And the memo is only seen by the members of the cabal, no one else. Except for the supposed leaker? Who would have to be a member of this inner cabal.

Who can't find the news room of the New York Times by himself. Or Rolling Stone, or Variety, or even his home town paper.

No one will prove that this memo is fake. But it is highly unlikely to be a real memo.

Meade gave the tip yesterday of only having to enter the word that has the blot in it...today I have 2 words with no blot. Tomorrow, next week, sometime, I am going to predict, 2 words with 2 blots.; 2/22/12, 12:33 PM
Fen said...: MadisonMan: You can't dismiss a person's scientific findings based on perfidy in another area.

Thats a howler. Thanks for the laugh.

Yes, we can trust a man who cheats on his wife to not cheat us... er... no.

Like we can trust data from a guy who was just caught forging it...

You've beclowned yourself today, trying to pretend "only Saints" should have credibility as regards AGW. If you can't denounce Gleick without reservation or purpose of evasion, I suggest you go impale your credibility elsewhere. You, a scientist? Really?; 2/22/12, 12:35 PM
Original Mike said...: "And the forgery severely undermines the AGW argument."

Well, that's a bit much. The science is "right" or it isn't, independent of the actions of this one guy. It is not irrelavent, however, that Gleick, who is presumably well versed in the science, thought that Science needed a little help.; 2/22/12, 12:40 PM
CJinPA said...: Well, that's a bit much. The science is "right" or it isn't, independent of the actions of this one guy.

The fogery undermines the AGW argument...that skeptics are nothing more than moustache-twisting corporate titans out to protect their precious oil profits. How's that?

No, it does not dent the science itself either way. But it does affect the science argument in that it undermines the AGW talking point regarding the skeptics' 'anti-science' motives.; 2/22/12, 12:50 PM
Original Mike said...: "Good scientists provide more scathing criticisms of their own work than anyone else. It's how we avoid making fools of ourselves in front of our peers."

I've been thinking about this some more, Crimso. While I know this is correct (because I've lived it for 30 years), the dynamics in climate science are maybe different. "All" your peers, apparently, have bought into AGW, or least they pretend to publically. I'm not sure you can do science in this field at the current time.; 2/22/12, 12:55 PM
Fen said...: Well, that's a bit much. The science is "right" or it isn't, independent of the actions of this one guy.

Well, once "scientist" (and on an Ethical Board, no less) was willing to violate Califorinia Penal Code to promote his version of science. It makes you wonder what else he was willing to do in service to his brand of "science". Therefore, his entire body of work is suspect and should be gone over with a fine-toothed comb.; 2/22/12, 12:57 PM
Patrick said...: "MadisonMan: You can't dismiss a person's scientific findings based on perfidy in another area."

I agree, but you'd do well to take a closer look at the scientific findings (and process), especially when the perfidy is in service to a whole bunch of policy prescriptions he is pushing based upon those findings.; 2/22/12, 12:57 PM
Original Mike said...: "...it undermines the AGW talking point regarding the skeptics' 'anti-science' motives."

Yeah, it's pretty damaging in that regard.; 2/22/12, 12:58 PM
Fen said...: Hey, I wonder if the other members on that "ethical" board are also charlatans. They obviously don't have a high standard for admission.; 2/22/12, 12:58 PM
Original Mike said...: "Therefore, his entire body of work is suspect and should be gone over with a fine-toothed comb."

I certainly agree with that. I don't know what his contributions to the field are. I sure would be cringing if I were a co-author of his.; 2/22/12, 1:01 PM
Fen said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/22/12, 1:05 PM
Fen said...: It reads as if you are saying "all scientist do it", but I can't imagine that's what you meant.

Its the Reductio Ad Absurdum fallacy. MadisonMan was attempting to imply that, since we dismiss Gleicko because of his fraud, we must necessarily hold that all Scientists must have the virtues of a Saint.; 2/22/12, 1:07 PM
Original Mike said...: Yes, that's the way I read it.; 2/22/12, 1:09 PM
Fen said...: MadisonMan: If you think I'm defending his actions -

Oh I hear you. Your silence is deafening.

Look at you - the closest you come to denouncing him is claiming that your aren't defending him.

Weasel less please.; 2/22/12, 1:10 PM
Original Mike said...: ...and you stated it better than I did.; 2/22/12, 1:10 PM
Original Mike said...: "Oh I hear you. Your silence is deafening."

Maybe he's working; which is what I should be doing.; 2/22/12, 1:12 PM
PJ said...: MadisonMan: You can't dismiss a person's scientific findings based on perfidy in another area.

True enough, assuming sufficiently strict definitions of "dismiss" and "scientific."

The worst scoundrel may, by adhering to scientific method, arrive at findings which only a fool would reject out of hand solely because of the scoundrel's personal character. That is precisely the beauty/genius of scientific method.

But one would hardly be a fool if, upon receipt of the scoundrel's press release touting his new findings, one were to demand to know about the integrity of the data upon which the findings were based, the reproducibility of the results, the integrity of the peer review (if any), and (if computer modeling is involved) the program code.

If the scoundrel were anything less than entirely forthcoming with such information, that by itself would not prove that his findings were wrong. But under those cicumstances, one would have to be a fool not to take the scoundrel's personal character into account when deciding whether to invest heavily in a new venture based on those findings.

Right?; 2/22/12, 1:13 PM
Writ Small said...: You can't dismiss a person's scientific findings based on perfidy in another area.

Dismiss, no. Doubt, yes.; 2/22/12, 1:14 PM
Crimso said...: "I'm not sure you can do science in this field at the current time."

Especially if the prominent (i.e., powerful) figures in the field have acted to actively suppress contrary studies. They need to do some very serious soul-searching, or else quit calling themselves what they are not.; 2/22/12, 1:17 PM
Crimso said...: And I've done a cursory search to see if the NAS has ever booted a member. Haven't found anything yet, but someone who purports to be an authority on ethics and integrity in science who has committed such a fraud doesn't exactly help their image.; 2/22/12, 1:20 PM
William said...: Although it is difficult to predict the environmental behavior of the earth over an extended period of time, it is somewhat easier to predict the behavior of leftists when they are in pursuit of their worthy goals. Their worthy goals are the higher truth, and all facts are subordinate to this higher truth.....One has to admire the panache with which they rewrite history as it unfolds before their very eyes. It's kind of touching the way the commenters here feel that this will damage in any way Gleick's reputation. At the end of his life Alger Hiss had his pension restored, was reinstated to the bar, and gave well paid speeches at Ivy League colleges. Any criticism of Gleick will only burnish his reputation as someone willing to take risks in order to advance the cause of truth.; 2/22/12, 1:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Mystery leaker identified as Lucy Ramirez.; 2/22/12, 1:44 PM
ErnieG said...: AGW is said by some to be scientific. Sometimes the word science is used loosely, as Mark twain did in this celebrated lecture.; 2/22/12, 1:49 PM
Original Mike said...: "Especially if the prominent (i.e., powerful) figures in the field have acted to actively suppress contrary studies."

That really influences my view on this topic. I haven't have the time to come to an informed opinion on the science. But the actions of the AGW crowd vis-a-vis publication is a big red flag. And Gleick's actions here are of the same ilk.; 2/22/12, 1:51 PM
virgil xenophon said...: All this assumes that Climate "Science" really IS a "science." I would opine that this is not the case. What we have here is a bunch of fairly poor computer modelers calling what they do "Climate Science" w.o. having a clue as to the underlying basics of the composite core scientific disciplines. Perhaps, PERHAPS, sometime in the future what is today known as "Climate Science" MIGHT acquire the status and certitude of the field known as "Economics"--but don't hold your breath.; 2/22/12, 2:17 PM
Original Mike said...: Modeling is a component of lots of science, nowadays. You can't do an experiment on 100 Earths with varying levels of CO2.; 2/22/12, 2:23 PM
MadisonMan said...: Any criticism of Gleick will only burnish his reputation as someone willing to take risks in order to advance the cause of truth.

I disagree. I think his faking something will make people look a little more carefully at his results in the future. But I don't think it clouds past results -- because if they were suspect, someone would have found that out already. Scientists relish nothing more than pointing out the errors in someone else's analyses. Especially if they are an anonymous reviewer.; 2/22/12, 2:41 PM
Patrick said...: "Scientists relish nothing more than pointing out the errors in someone else's analyses. Especially if they are an anonymous reviewer."

Madison Mad solves the internet in two short sentences.; 2/22/12, 2:54 PM
Original Mike said...: "But I don't think it clouds past results -- because if they were suspect, someone would have found that out already. Scientists relish nothing more than pointing out the errors in someone else's analyses. Especially if they are an anonymous reviewer."

That's not the world we live in anymore. Being able to rigorously assess another’s work would take a lot of time and access to his data.. We’re not talking about checking his math (which reviewers don't do, either). But when there's premeditated fraud involved, it can remain hidden for years. Especially when your peers have a vested interest in the communal story.; 2/22/12, 3:01 PM
Original Mike said...: Because it's become impractical to check another's work, the system requires trusting the integrity of the author. And this guy just flushed his down the toilet.; 2/22/12, 3:03 PM
PJ said...: Modeling is a component of lots of science, nowadays. You can't do an experiment on 100 Earths with varying levels of CO2.

I agree that modeling is a "component" of science in the sense that it can generate interesting testable hypotheses. But I don't think you get a scientific result by fooling with the inputs on a computer model and examining the effect on the outputs, so in that sense I agree with virgil.

And yes, sometimes computer models are the best we can do because there are practical impediments to doing scientific testing. But that doesn't make computer models science.; 2/22/12, 3:06 PM
Original Mike said...: Oh, it's science, but you are correct to be leary of the results. It's a tricky business.; 2/22/12, 3:12 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: @mike, re:modeling
Sure, but modeling is no panacea. GIGO always applies. Modeling works best if you fully understand all the elements at work...or if you want to see what a likely result is IF your hypothesis is correct.
But it absolutely doesnt work to model if you assume that co2 has a specific impact, when the amount of impact is not currently known. They should have modeled their assumptions about co2 in 100 different scenarios, then made some predictions....if those predictions panned out, it would conditionally indicate some sort of correlation warranting further study.
But their predictions weren't even close: no warming over the last 15 years, despite significantly increased co2 worldwide....that falsified their assumptions...but instead, they screeched that their models proved co2 was having an effect as yet unseen.
That is a great example of the tail wagging the dog.; 2/22/12, 3:20 PM
damikesc said...: Scientists relish nothing more than pointing out the errors in someone else's analyses. Especially if they are an anonymous reviewer.

In the Anglia emails, the scientists who noticed huge problems with the theory of AGW definitely didn't seem to relish that.

Modeling is a component of lots of science, nowadays. You can't do an experiment on 100 Earths with varying levels of CO2.

True.

But the models are used by these "scientists" are universally terrible.; 2/22/12, 3:21 PM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: There are scientists from many fields that make up the pro-AGW "side" and plenty from the same fields who are not "in consensus" on AGW. So there isn't really any specific scientific field that is concerned with "climate change."

Gleick was a water resource specialist when he founded the Pacific Institute. The majority of the AGW crowd tend to be shrill and thoroughly buy into the Groupthink that gives a lie to any pretense of Scientific Method at work. Science is a process, not a tabulation of votes.

Whoever posited the theory that, in this climate of Groupthink, "maybe real science can't be done" under these circumstances may have struck the perfect question for our Age:

Can the scientific method be applied to Climate Science Models in the present state?

Anyone who believes the models show AGW but has NOT condemned Gleick's fraud (and possible forgery) is forgoing science for politics, just like the IPCC does.; 2/22/12, 3:22 PM
Original Mike said...: "But I don't think it clouds past results -- because if they were suspect, someone would have found that out already."

A guy named Robert Slutsky published fradulent work in my field when I was just starting out. In fact, I referenced a couple of his papers in my own work before the truth came out. And it came out not by the review process (the reviewers didn't catch him; they had no way of knowing he was fabricating his data). Co-workers realized he couldn't have been doing all of the animal experiments he was reporting on.

The scientific review process is a very unreliable cop.; 2/22/12, 3:23 PM
Original Mike said...: "They should have modeled their assumptions about co2 in 100 different scenarios, then made some predictions"

I assume they have. In particular, I assume they have used their models to "predict" the recent past from the more distant past. But this is where I have to admit that I am not up on the specifics.; 2/22/12, 3:27 PM
damikesc said...: And let's not pretend that there aren't plenty of "climate scientists" who view him as a hero. There isn't a lack of support for him and he will always have a good paying job and plenty of sycophants.; 2/22/12, 3:45 PM
Original Mike said...: "There isn't a lack of support for him and he will always have a good paying job and plenty of sycophants."

Hell, this might have been a premeditated career move.; 2/22/12, 3:48 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/22/12, 4:20 PM
Anonymous said...: So only Saints can do Science?

I better resign.

The primary problem with the left. If none of us are perfect then we are all equally evil and should all be treated exactly the same. It's like dismissing John Wayne Gacy's crimes by saying "no one else is a saint", but the fact remains he's a twisted evil person; and yes Gleik is a twisted evil man exceeding Gacy. Gleik wishes to stop technological innovation and improvements in human lives. Environmentalists have all ready established themselves as misanthropes, seeing humans as viruses destroying mother earth, wishing to kill all those that don't conform. Environmentalists are simply evil. MadisonMan's blithe dismissal showcases the way the depraved justify to themselves their own craven twistedness.; 2/22/12, 4:22 PM
Insufficiently Sensitive said...: Modeling is a component of lots of science, nowadays. You can't do an experiment on 100 Earths with varying levels of CO2.

But you might compare your projections of CO2 and temperature with what the one-and-only earth actually did during the study period. Strangely, we've not seen much - or anything - in the way of such hindcasting in the publications of the wizards who'd like us to return to the neolithic to 'save' the earth, under their benevolent direction.; 2/22/12, 5:12 PM
Fen said...: Madison Man: "So only Saints can do Science? I better resign."

Ken: The primary problem with the left. If none of us are perfect then we are all equally evil and should all be treated exactly the same. It's like dismissing John Wayne Gacy's crimes by saying "no one else is a saint"... MadisonMan's blithe dismissal showcases the way the depraved justify to themselves their own craven twistedness.

Damn. I wish I had said it that way.; 2/22/12, 5:38 PM
Fen said...: MadisonMan: if they were suspect, someone would have found that out already

The CRU database had calls that returned a negative value for the sum of two sqaures..

ie.. x2 + y2 = -1

And we would never have known if not for whoever leaked the Harry Read Me file.

So I call bullshit on your false assumption. It fails if there is a conspiracy to commit fraud.

Hell, Glieck can't even get the basic math right in his forgery ($200k from Koch). Gee, its as if he's not accustomed to any scrutiny of his work, to make such careless errors.; 2/22/12, 5:45 PM
Steve Koch said...: I'd like to give a shout out to the brilliant Steve Mosher. Steve was the guy who originally received the CD that had all the ClimateGate emails and distributed the contents for the world to see.

Steve also wrote a ClimateGate book that should be read by anyone who does not realize how fraudulent and politicized climate science is.

Most recently, Mosher is the sleuth who outed Gleik as the perp in the Heartland Institute fraud.; 2/22/12, 6:10 PM
J Melcher said...: The original release of documents was made by an anonymous e-mailer who represented himself as a "Heartland Insider". He released to 15 Carbon Dioxide Control Advocacy sites simultaneously. They in turn published the docs. The "insider" claim was accepted, the provision characterized as a "leak" and the source as a "whistle blower."

This turns out to be something distinctly other than true.

Professor Gleick appears to have lied to his ALLIES. He misrepresented himself to his FRIENDS. He fraudulently placed disinformation into the marketplace of ideas -- poisoning the debate -- by abusing his familiarity with the probable reactions and behaviors of his own TEAM.

Doesn't this strike anyone as a bit unethical, even if you happen to believe in the errors and sins of the "Deniers" and "anti-science" drooling morons Xtian rightwing Nazi (insert additional dozen insults here) sympathizers of Heartland?; 2/22/12, 6:28 PM
Crimso said...: "Scientists relish nothing more than pointing out the errors in someone else's analyses. Especially if they are an anonymous reviewer."

Personally, I'd put sex ahead of that. But you are generally correct (and I suspect a bit guilty at having taken such pleasure yourself! Like heroin, or so I would guess).; 2/22/12, 6:38 PM
Steve Koch said...: Gleik has admitted to being a fraudster. The ridiculous "strategy" doc that he almost certainly wrote marks him as a ridiculous fraudster.

While the prosecution of Gleik will be interesting, what is more interesting is how the climate science establishment reacts. The more accommodating to Gleik their reaction is, the more devastating it will be to the reputation of climate science.

Maybe this will be enough to rouse the somnolent GOP house leadership to investigate federally funded climate science corruption and maybe even at least attempt to slash funding for the malefactors.

Or not.; 2/22/12, 6:48 PM
Fen said...: Professor Gleick appears to have lied to his ALLIES. He misrepresented himself to his FRIENDS. He fraudulently placed disinformation into the marketplace of ideas -- poisoning the debate -- by abusing his familiarity with the probable reactions and behaviors of his own TEAM.

Doesn't this strike anyone as a bit unethical..?

And here's the thing - if you came home early from work one day and found you wife having an orgy in your bed with 4 other guys... would you really be so dense as to believe "this was the only time, honey" she did this?

People start out with small careful deceptions, but then increase the risk and amount of deceptions because they grow careless from getting away with it for so long.

So, given the breadth of Gleick's dishonesty in this episode, how can anyone believe its the only time he's done this kind of thing?

I bet an investigation of his life will find his career is rife which such deceptions.; 2/22/12, 6:52 PM
Crimso said...: And I'll have to say that I disagree about modeling in a subtle way. Computer models are a tool of science. They are not experiments in the real world. They are simulations. Would you rather take medication tested in animals and then humans, or medication tested in computer simulations of the human body?

The first objection to the unfairness of that question is likely to be that the body is too complex to model accurately. Except that the underlying science is well-understood (it all, ALL, comes down to charcteristics of water, weak chemical interactions, and the laws of thermodynamics; good luck building the model that bootsraps itself to even the simplest organism from those underlying factors). I don't for one second believe climate (much less predictions 100 years out) is as simple a system as they claim.; 2/22/12, 6:55 PM
Balfegor said...: "MadisonMan: You can't dismiss a person's scientific findings based on perfidy in another area."

I . . . but look. Can't you? Scientific research depends a lot on trust. If you were a lawyer and discovered that opposing counsel in a case was the kind of man who will give a false name over the phone in order to get his hands on documents and information, would you really not factor that in when assessing representations he makes about the facts? If you were an investor, and you discovered that the CFO of the company you want to invest in is the kind of man who will forge documents, would you really not take that into account when examining the financial statements?

And beyond that, there's a basic question of competence in reading the literature. If this fellow did forge the memo, and made obvious errors like moving hoped-for 2012 numbers into 2011, and mixing up donations earmarked for health care issues and donations for climate issues . . . wouldn't you kind of tend to doubt that the man has the diligence or attention to detail necessary to do meaningful scientific research in the first place?; 2/22/12, 7:02 PM
Balfegor said...: Re: MadisonMan:

But I don't think it clouds past results -- because if they were suspect, someone would have found that out already. Scientists relish nothing more than pointing out the errors in someone else's analyses. Especially if they are an anonymous reviewer.

Maybe, except that in the short term, that just doesn't seem to happen with out and out fabricated data. Look at the Diederik Stapel scandal that broke last year. The man had been massaging his data inappropriately for at least 7 years -- possibly going all the way back to 1997 -- before it was actually dealt with.; 2/22/12, 7:09 PM
Gene said...: Liberals spend most of their waking hours thinking about how to control other people, corporations, everything. When socialism didn't pan out in America they switched to the allegedly crucial need to reduce CO2 to prevent a worldwide catastrophe.

Since no one much believes them anymore they prophesize one disaster after another, including the near complete inundation of Florida if the Greenland ice sheet melts. That's no doubt true. But what they don't mention is that the melting of a two mile thick ice sheet could take 500 years.

I don't know why liberals are concerned about rising sea levels anyway, given that the oceans have been rising now for the last ten- or twelve-thousand years (since the end of the last ice age). But now suddenly I'm supposed to live in a hut with no heat and no gas because of it?; 2/22/12, 7:10 PM
Steve Koch said...: The global climate models are a joke. The predictions from the GCMs were way, way off. Climate is a chaotic system (think butterfly effect). Modeling an enormous, poorly understood chaotic climate system with unreliable inputs and huge chunks of missing data and pretending that we can predict the climate with that model is fraudulent.; 2/22/12, 7:11 PM
Crimso said...: "Maybe this will be enough to rouse the somnolent GOP house leadership to investigate federally funded climate science corruption and maybe even at least attempt to slash funding for the malefactors."

In what is now an embarrassing irony (for anyone involved with any sense of shame), though it isn't apparent from the linked pdf (it is clear in the published version), the corresponding author of this letter is Peter Gleick (in the published version his name is first on the list and he is noted as the corresponding author). It was apparently prompted by some belief that those mean anti-science Republicans were actually going to look into the issue of climate change.; 2/22/12, 7:13 PM
Gene said...: There's something about bourgeoise civilization that arouses the ire of the theorizing class.

There certainly is. It's the fact that they're not running it.; 2/22/12, 7:21 PM
Fen said...: Well, hat tip to you Crismo. We rarely agree, but I have to note that you've approached this with integrity and not the usual spin-deflection I've come to expect from the AGW crowd.; 2/22/12, 8:04 PM
Original Mike said...: "But you might compare your projections of CO2 and temperature with what the one-and-only earth actually did during the study period. Strangely, we've not seen much..."

Actually, I assume they've nailed this test. But it's not much of a test because you get to manipulate ("I'm sure they'll object that that's harsh) both sides of the equation. If they haven't even done that, it's game over.; 2/22/12, 8:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Can the expression on a person's face in a photo tell you anything useful about them? I'm sure that the art of choosing a photo to either promote or discredit anyone is well advanced by now. Nevertheless, I look at the shit eating smirk on this specimen's face and think how satisfying it would be to interrupt his self congratulatory reverie with a kick in the chops. Maybe followed by a line I once heard in a dubbed kung fu movie: "How do you like the taste of the feet?" http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100138560/peter-gleick-the-johann-hari-of-climate-science/; 2/22/12, 8:29 PM
Original Mike said...: "And here's the thing - if you came home early from work one day and found you wife having an orgy in your bed with 4 other guys... would you really be so dense as to believe "this was the only time, honey" she did this?"

You'd pretend to, if you've been cheating yourself.; 2/22/12, 8:31 PM
MadisonMan said...: Climate is a chaotic system (think butterfly effect).

No.

Climate forecasts are not undone by chaos like weather forecasts are. Climate forecasts are essentially an energy balance problem. The difficulty (if I can understate things) is (1) observing (and understanding) the actual goings-on and (2) successfully modeling them.

One can approximate a lot of (1). But whether that leads to (2) is an open debate.; 2/22/12, 8:32 PM
Crimso said...: Well, Fen, I didn't realize we rarely agreed. I actually thought that we tended to either be neutral or in agreement. OTOH, if you post a comment I agree with, but I don't speak up, then it would seem that we don't agree. You don't strike me as particularly supportive of Obama or the left in general. Where do we disagree? Just curious.; 2/22/12, 8:32 PM
Original Mike said...: "I don't for one second believe climate (much less predictions 100 years out) is as simple a system as they claim."

Me neither. And I think your reference to medical science is spot on;

"Would you rather take medication tested in animals and then humans, or medication tested in computer simulations of the human body? "

I have to make increasingly tortured explanations when I apply for animal-based experiments.

"Why can't you use compter models?"

Because if we were smart enough to write the damn simulations I wouldn't have to do the damn experiment in the first place!; 2/22/12, 8:47 PM
Original Mike said...: The biggest thing for me in trying to pick apart the climate debate is the hubris. These people aren't scientists, they're zealots.; 2/22/12, 8:58 PM
Steve Koch said...: MadisonMan said...
"Climate is a chaotic system (think butterfly effect).

No.

Climate forecasts are not undone by chaos like weather forecasts are. Climate forecasts are essentially an energy balance problem. The difficulty (if I can understate things) is (1) observing (and understanding) the actual goings-on and (2) successfully modeling them.

One can approximate a lot of (1). But whether that leads to (2) is an open debate."
---------------------------------

So you admit that we can't properly observe, understand, or accurately model the climate. Your argument seems like high level hand waving.

The earth has frequently tipped into ice ages based on quite small changes such as increased volcanic activity. Small input changes have led to large unpredictable climate changes. Sounds like a chaotic system.

Climate model forecasts have been extremely inaccurate. The CAGW climate scientists are completely flummoxed about why surface and ocean temps for several years have not increased as their models predicted. The model predictions were waaay off. That is reality, that is the current state of the art of climate prediction.

At this point some CAGW scientists are doubting the accuracy of the Argo system for measuring ocean heat content. This means either they don't know how to measure the heat in the oceans (which contain the vast majority of the heat on earth) or their models are wrong. Either way they don't know what they are doing.

I notice you don't mention the effect of clouds and cloud formation or the effect of biotics on cloud formation. Clouds have a huge impact on climate but are very poorly understood.

We are not close to being able to accurately model the climate.; 2/22/12, 10:17 PM
Fen said...: Crismo: Where do we disagree? Just curious.

Oh my bad. I just realized I confused you with someone else. Must be the avatar. Sorry about that. For a moment I thought we had finally gotten a rational Lefty on these boards.; 2/22/12, 11:44 PM
Anonymous said...: t-man,

In the Dan Rather oeuvre, Iowahawk cannot be overlooked either. A veritable classic:

MY TELEPROMPTER IS DEADLY

The one sentence second paragraph alone is worth the price of admission.; 2/23/12, 1:35 AM
Crimso said...: "Oh my bad. I just realized I confused you with someone else. Must be the avatar. Sorry about that. For a moment I thought we had finally gotten a rational Lefty on these boards."

Confuse me with the Geico caveman, perhaps?

I'm sure if we tried, we could find something we disagree on, but why ruin a good time? I've been around (though not always vocal) for 5 years or so (maybe more), and recall having seen your comments from a long time back.

And, not to nitpick as I've seen many others do this, it's "Crimso," not "Crismo." Think "Crimson." I should ditch it and go with the name. I'm tenured.

I don't think MM is trying to convince anyone that climate models are correct or incorrect, just that they're not something somebody pulled out of their ass.; 2/23/12, 7:21 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: Scientists relish nothing more than pointing out the errors in someone else's analyses. Especially if they are an anonymous reviewer.

In the Anglia emails, the scientists who noticed huge problems with the theory of AGW definitely didn't seem to relish that.

Moreover, in that case, the reviewers were often far from anonymous. The ability to get specific sympathetic reviewers for their papers was one of the things discussed at some length in the disclosed ClimateGate emails. And, of course, they were also manipulating the front end of the process too, controlling what was accepted for publication by boycotting journals that didn't toe the AGW line. Plus, working to get any non-sympathetic editors fired.; 2/23/12, 7:21 AM
damikesc said...: Climate model forecasts have been extremely inaccurate.

Have they devised one that can actually predict the existence of El Ninos, which are quite predictable events?; 2/23/12, 8:34 AM
MadisonMan said...: The earth has frequently tipped into ice ages based on quite small changes such as increased volcanic activity.

I suppose that depends on your definition of frequently. Ice ages in the recent past -- say, the past 800K years -- tie pretty nicely to Milankovitch cyles.

Have they devised one that can actually predict the existence of El Ninos, which are quite predictable events?

Where on Earth did you get information that ENSO is predictable? Quick question: Will there be an El Nino this summer?; 2/23/12, 8:52 AM
Original Mike said...: "Confuse me with the Geico caveman, perhaps?"

I'm thinking Tom Hanks in Cast Away.; 2/23/12, 9:45 AM
Michael McNeil said...: But what they don't mention is that the melting of a two mile thick ice sheet could take 500 years.

That sounds about right — when global warming gets going good (as it likely will, in my view). But for the immediate future it will proceed much more slowly. Climate modeling (even by AGW proponents) indicates only a single foot (or about a third of a meter) of sea level rise due to the melting of glaciers and ice sheets by the end of this century.

For comparison, it's worth considering, I think, just how fast (or not fast) such melting is occurring right now. (We're talking glaciers and ice caps, mind you, not the relatively thin floating pack ice in the oceans surrounding the world's poles — the latter I'd say may indeed disappear within decades.)

In this regard, an interesting paper just came out this last Feb. 8 in the journal Nature, to wit “Recent contributions of glaciers and ice caps to sea level rise,” which presents the results of the GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite experiment, which for the first time actually measured the amount of glacier and ice cap loss worldwide, rather than just broadly estimating same based on a relatively few samples.

Here are a few of the striking findings. First, it turns out that the ice loss from the high Himalayan glaciers (that the 2007 IPCC report erroneously stated as due to melt by 2035) is actually only about a tenth of previous estimates. The present paper fully admits this updated result.

What it doesn't admit, or even breathe word of, is just how long the world's glaciers and ice caps will last at present rates of ice cap melting — as measured by GRACE over the period 2003-2010.

To arrive at this interesting figure, one must separately look up just how much ice there is in the world, and personally do the computation — which I've done, and here it is:

According to the study, the total worldwide glacier and ice cap (GIC) loss is −536 ± 93 Gt yr^-1 — that is, 536 billion metric tons (or gigatons) annually.

Next, the total volume of GIC ice on this planet — which I've looked up in the Satellite Image Atlas of Glaciers of the World (United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1386-B) — is about 3.30 x 10^7 km^3, which translates to some 33 million gigatons of GIC ice.

Simple division produces the time required (once again, at present rates) for all the world's glaciers and ice sheets to disappear: the answer is some 62,000 years — or about five times the interval since the end of the ice age.

Is it any wonder that catastrophic AGW proponents avoid mentioning such little details like the plague?; 2/23/12, 3:56 PM
walter said...: Favorite overheard conversation between UW Botany researchers: "If you want a better chance of getting your lab grants, find a way to connect your work to global warming"

Science!; 2/23/12, 10:43 PM