The Guardian: Climategate was 'a game changer'
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Quantum Gravity 400.3: Mechanical Advantage of Simple Moveable Pulley = Optimal Probable Causation/Influence dP(AB)/d(A)
Next: Accentuate the negative (IPCC)
From: Eric Gisin on 5 Jul 2010 16:10 Mr Watts reports on a Pearce article in the lefty Guardian. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/05/the-guardian-climategate-was-a-game-changer/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/04/climatechange-hacked-emails-muir-russell Posted on July 5, 2010 by Anthony Watts Despite regular attempts by head in the sand AGW cheerleaders to make it go away, Climategate continues to affect the path of climate science. This endorsement of the Climategate effect comes from a most unlikely source, The Guardian's Fred Pearce, who also writes for The New Scientist. Most telling about all of the investigations so far is that they have not interviewed any of the primary investigators that question the methods and data, such as Steve McIntyre. The investigations thus far are much like having a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say. Is it any wonder the verdicts keep coming up "not guilty"? To summarize: it's a whitewash in the purest sense of the word. I don't expect career team player Sir Muir Russell's report to be any different. He's too much of an familial insider to have the courage to ask the plaintiff to get involved, and he didn't. But Steve McIntyre is going anyway. Hopefully they'll have the courage to hear what he has to say and not lock him out in the hallway. - Anthony 'Climategate' was 'a game-changer' in science reporting, say climatologists After the hacked emails scandal scientists became 'more upfront, open and explicit about their uncertainties' Excerpts from the Guardian article: Science has been changed forever by the so-called "climategate" saga, leading researchers have said ahead of publication of an inquiry into the affair - and mostly it has been changed for the better. This Wednesday sees the publication of the Muir Russell report into the conduct of scientists from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), whose emails caused a furore in November after they were hacked into and published online. Critics say the emails reveal evasion of freedom of information law, secret deals done during the writing of reports for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a cover-up of uncertainties in key research findings and the misuse of scientific peer review to silence critics. But whatever Sir Muir Russell, the chairman of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland, concludes on these charges, senior climate scientists say their world has been dramatically changed by the affair. "The release of the emails was a turning point, a game-changer," said Mike Hulme, professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia. "The community has been brought up short by the row over their science. Already there is a new tone. Researchers are more upfront, open and explicit about their uncertainties, for instance." And there will be other changes, said Hulme. The emails made him reflect how "astonishing" it was that it had been left to individual researchers to police access to the archive of global temperature data collected over the past 160 years. "The primary data should have been properly curated as an archive open to all." He believes that will now happen. .. "Trust has been damaged," said Hans von Storch of the KGSS Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany. "People now find it conceivable that scientists cheat and manipulate, and understand that scientists need societal supervision as any other societal institution." The climate scientist most associated with efforts to reconciling warring factions, Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said the idea of IPCC scientists as "self-appointed oracles, enhanced by the Nobel Prize, is now in tatters". The outside world now sees that "the science of climate is more complex and uncertain than they have been led to believe". .. Roger Pielke Jr of the University of Colorado agreed that "the climate science community, or at least its most visible and activist wing, appeared to want to go back to waging an all-out war on its perceived political opponents". He added: "Such a strategy will simply exacerbate the pathological politicisation of the climate science community." In reality, he said, "There is no going back to the pre-November 2009 era." .. But greater openness and engagement with their critics will not ensure that climate scientists have an easier time in future, warns Hulme. Back in the lab, a new generation of more sophisticated computer models is failing to reduce the uncertainties in predicting future climate, he says - rather, the reverse. "This is not what the public and politicians expect, so handling and explaining this will be difficult." Full story at the Guardian h/t to Tallbloke and WUWT reader Pat
From: spudnik on 5 Jul 2010 21:23 they'll never get too far, without some new, conceptual models. > But greater openness and engagement with their critics will not ensure that climate scientists have > an easier time in future, warns Hulme. Back in the lab, a new generation of more sophisticated > computer models is failing to reduce the uncertainties in predicting future climate, he says - > rather, the reverse. "This is not what the public and politicians expect, so handling and > explaining this will be difficult." thus&so: the Kyoto Protocol was stricltly cap&trade, a.k.a. "free trade" of the yore of British imperialism in 1776 (whence Smith's second hoax, _The Wealth of Nations_, was published), as Waxman's wunnerful bill of '91 on NOX and SO2. maybe, it was fortunate, that someone lied to Dubya about Kyoto's true nature, or he'd surely have signed it. so, how about an actual, tiny, accountable carbon tax, instead of the next and/or last bailout of Wall Street and the City (of London, financial district & gated community) ?? the voluntary USA cap&trade, apparently partly started by Sen. Obama via private foundations, is already huge, tens of billions of dollars US per annum since 2003, although much smaller than the EU's mandatory one. > > Kyoto and Cap & Trade. thus&so: ice that is within the arctic circles never gets direct insolation over 47 degrees from horizon (or less than 43 degrees from zenith). I mean, that is not really apparent in GCMers flatscreen HDTVs. > Which sea ice (Arctic summer or Antarctic winter) affects albedo, most? thus&so: all of the Liberal Media, oWned by consWervatives, seems to agree with Emmanuel, that this is the time to install BP's old cap&trade ideals from Kyoto ... actually, first launched in '91 under Waxman and H-Dubya. thus&so: so, acid rain is the germain topic, since it was the First Cap and Trade (Waxman's '91 bill). so, what I haven't seen dyscussed in the WSUrinal e.g., is just how wonderfully this'd worked -- who made the money in the God-am "free market?" [NB, Waxman's cmte. also ran the healthcare bill; is that a conspiracy, or doe he get free drugs?] thus&so: sad to say, I missed the authors of _Doubt Merchants_, when they came to the public library, as folks around here rely on me to be the (usually) lone contrarian in Santa Monica, the capital of Green (with the help of Alcoa's largest-ever bequest to the WAND Corp., when the President was chosen to be Dubya's Treasurer ... when HDPE bags are outlawed, only criminals and baby-smotherers will have HDPE bags -- a-hem.) you bring-up 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. well, 2003 was when a) they cut-off a tenth of our supply to Californicators (with their ban on offshore drilling), and spent a huge amount of oil on the new war ... and that's when the hedgers jacked the price up, kind of a double-whammy after the "electricity crisis" from Texas and Canada. thus&so: such is the nature of an ad hoc interpretation of glaciation, that added snowfall requires a "colder" planet (and that more icebergs calving necessarily implies melting ... not according to the satellite telemetry, circa the day of the panel at UCLA, a few y.a.; citing-out two of the professors, known to me.) > increasing WV content results in stronger cyclonic systems > as much as or more than vertical lapse rate changes. thus quoth: Miskolczi said in <http://www.met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf> thus&so: what if the same guy who was the source d'Eaugate for Bernward at the Post [*], was also the Vice President, who purposely set his mattress on fire in the first tower (second was hit by a 757 filled with fuel for most of a transcontinental flight, minus the steering loop); and, so, how many mattresses'd he have'd to set, to make for a controlled demolition? well, some of us believe that he was not just the acting president -- especially since the impeachment of Bill C.. * in the theatrical parlance of editor Bradley or ms. Graham, Woodstein ne'er followed the Pennzoil money to <a-hem>; see http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/ --BP's cap&trade plus free beer/miles on your CO2 creds at ARCO! http://wlym
From: Sam Wormley on 6 Jul 2010 01:18 Methane releases in arctic seas could wreak devastation Warming climate could lead to dead zones, acidification and shifts at the base of the ocean�s food chain. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/60831/title/Methane_releases_in_arctic_seas_could_wreak_devastation
From: Benj on 6 Jul 2010 03:24 On Jul 6, 1:18 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Methane releases in arctic seas could wreak devastation > Warming climate could lead to dead zones, acidification and shifts at > the base of the oceans food chain.http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/60831/title/Methane_releas... How about methane releases in the Gulf of Mexico? Idiot.
From: oriel36 on 6 Jul 2010 05:13
On Jul 6, 6:18 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Methane releases in arctic seas could wreak devastation > Warming climate could lead to dead zones, acidification and shifts at > the base of the oceans food chain.http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/60831/title/Methane_releas... Game changing indeed !,it is like bank robbers caught in the act and being contrite by pleading that when they go on continuing to rob the same bank,they will be more careful with their plans, in empirical- speak,being transparent and explicit means the opposite of what is intended. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVGGgncVq-4 In that piece of overcooked propoganda,at the end there is a grandiose declaration that "We have the power to save the world" or alternatively - "We will social engineer existence by dumping all the blame into a minor atmospheric gas", and while not as vocal as they were last year,they are still convinced that humans have control over global temperatures. The actual game changer Sam for both climate and planetary dynamics is the actual explanation for temperature fluctuations between the solstices and I would not waste one second using the modification to the explanation for the seasons to chase after the carbon dioxide bandwagon,it does show how little investigators actually know of global climate. Make no mistake Sam,the influence is still in the newsgroups and not the blogosphere and those who tough out the disadvantages of the usenet will receive an education like no other on the planet. |