Assessment of the first consensus prediction on climate change

[Oddball]

Ian bro.....ever notice that these environmental radicals live in a state of perpetual anger and misery? Whats up with that?

It's inherent to the mindset of misanthropes, Luddites and lifer victims.

 

[westwall]

You would have to exceptionally retarded or completely brainwashed to get that nonsense out of what Dr. Hulme actually said in that article you cited. He was critiquing and debunking a piece of trash pseudo-science called 'Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1,500 Years', by S Fred Singer and Dennis T Avery.


Grow a brain, retard.

Direct quote from this professor of 'climate science':

"Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity."

Do you understand what he is admitting???

The social ramifications of his getting funded and having the ear of policy makers is more important....according to him....than whether or not the science of global warming is accurate.

I don't know what makes you so stupid, but it really works!

I understand what he is saying. You quite obviously don't. I suppose you being a brainwashed retard has something to do with that.

No, no you don't. You're too fucking stupid to wipe your own ass so no, you don't understand this either.

 

[RollingThunder]

Direct quote from this professor of 'climate science':

"Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity."

Do you understand what he is admitting???

The social ramifications of his getting funded and having the ear of policy makers is more important....according to him....than whether or not the science of global warming is accurate.

I don't know what makes you so stupid, but it really works!

I understand what he is saying. You quite obviously don't. I suppose you being a brainwashed retard has something to do with that.

RT- you are breathtakingly stupid. you are shown a quote where someone is saying that scientists should trade in their scientific integrity for a short term boost in the politics of an uncertain climate doomsday scenario and you agree with it!

what happens when we go ten years without the effects of all the dire predictions coming true? oh wait.....that has already happened. climate scientists are trading in all the banked reputation that scientists of all fields have earned over decades and decades. I am concerned that the next time science cries 'wolf' there will be nobody listening because of the travesty of global warming and the triumph of politics over scientific reasoning.

No, no you don't. You're too fucking stupid to wipe your own ass so no, you don't understand this either.

What a bunch of brainwashed retards!!!

Why don't you mental midgets try reading the whole article by Prof. Hulme instead of just a few out of context quotes? Oh.....right.....you're retarded.

Forum rules don't allow me to quote the whole thing so go to the article website for that, but here is a few excerpts that give some context to the fragments that were used to confuse you. You denier cultists may well be far too brainwashed and bamboozled to understand what he's actually saying even with someone holding your hand and pointing to each word, so this is more for the rational people who may be reading this thread than it is for you denier cult dingleberries.

The appliance of science
The Guardian
Mike Hulme
13 March 2007
(excerpts)

Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere warms the planet and sets in motion changes to the way the weather is delivered to us, wherever we are. Science has worked hard over a hundred years to establish this knowledge. And new books such as Singer and Avery's (Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1,500 Years), or opinion pieces in the Daily Mail, do not alter it. Deploying the machinery of scientific method allows us to filter out hypotheses - such as those presented by Singer and Avery - as being plain wrong. That science is an unfolding process of discovery is fairly self-evident. We know a lot more about climate change now than 17 years ago when the first IPCC scientific assessment was published. And no doubt in another 17 years our knowledge of how the climate system works and the impact that humans have made on it will be significantly different to today. Yet it is important that on big questions such as climate change scientists make an assessment of what they know at key moments when policy or other collective decisions need to be made. Today is such a time.

The other important characteristic of scientific knowledge - its openness to change as it rubs up against society - is rather harder to handle. Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this particular mode of scientific activity as one that occurs where the stakes are high, uncertainties large and decisions urgent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken. It has been labelled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science. So this book from Singer and Avery can be understood in a different way....Singer and Avery are using apparently scientific arguments - about 1,500 year cycles, about the loss of species, about sea-level rise - to further their deeper (yet unexpressed) values and beliefs. Too often with climate change, genuine and necessary debates about these wider social values - do we have confidence in technology; do we believe in collective action over private enterprise; do we believe we carry obligations to people invisible to us in geography and time? - masquerade as disputes about scientific truth and error. We need this perspective of post-normal science if we are going to make sense of books such as Singer and Avery's.

The danger of a "normal" reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow. If only climate change were such a phenomenon and if only science held such an ascendancy over our personal, social and political life and decisions. In fact, in order to make progress about how we manage climate change we have to take science off center stage. This is not a comfortable thing to say - either to those scientists who still hold an uncritical view of their privileged enterprise and who relish the status society affords them, or to politicians whose instinct is so often to hide behind the experts when confronted by difficult and genuine policy alternatives. Two years ago, Tony Blair announced the large, government-backed international climate change conference in Exeter by asking for the conference scientists to "identify what level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is self-evidently too much". This is the wrong question to ask of science. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity. Lack of such reflective transparency is the problem with "unstoppable global warming", and with some other scientific commentators on climate change.

© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[RollingThunder]

[V....O.....I.....D]

Here's the thing, kookiepukie - retards like you never "win", although you are often crazy and delusional enough to imagine in what passes for your 'mind' that you are "winning" even when you're just making a utter fool out of yourself in the real world. Of course, you personally are far too retarded to even understand what is going on in the first place, or what the stakes are, so it's hard to conceive of what you imagine you're "winning". Other than perhaps a contest to find the most imbecilic and gullible denier cult dingbat in America. You may be "winning" that one, although the competition seems pretty fierce, just on this forum. Try dumbing down your exceptionally moronic posts even more, if that is even possible, if you want a shot at the title. Post more cartoons and photo-shopped pics of retards like yourself; that should help.

 

[IanC]

The paragraph is directly quoted.

Actually, what you call a paragraph, is a quote-mined, sans context, section of the original material.

Slapping quotation marks around a group of words removed from the context of their original formation and then embedding those snippets into distorted interpretations and confabulations to try and make it sound like the person being quoted is agreeing with the person using those snippets is what is defined as "quote mining,"


Quote Mining
Quote mining - RationalWiki

((And the original author is not saying what is being attempted to be twisted into his words))

Stupid is what stupid does and what we have here are mindless people only using their mouth, because they have no mind to back it up.

I've tried to be a teacher and have failed, long before coming to here. How do you teach people who already know reality and will lie for their agenda? All you can do is make it so they don't have the only voice to delude others. We know shit is going down in this world and they will say it's happened before and means nothing. No matter what happens, the fools will always be fools. Some are fools, but most are people put on websites paid to lie.

I brought up that point on WUWT. Free speech doesn't mean you can say destorying your planet will keep you from the consequence of legal action against you. I didn't press the point and simply said it. I was banned from the place and before then they wouldn't allow my input if the science didn't support their agenda. I still think they need to be sued and the future will prove it. I don't money from them fucking fools, but the government and the people of our may have a different mind, so let me hear them cry then.

I dont believe you. it takes dedicated trolling over a period of time to get bounced from WUWT.

 

[IanC]

Ian bro.....ever notice that these environmental radicals live in a state of perpetual anger and misery? Whats up with that?

Ive been called a Denialista a few times lately. for some reason I always feel the urge to put one of the exotic Kcups in the coffee maker.

 

[IanC]

RT- you are breathtakingly stupid. you are shown a quote where someone is saying that scientists should trade in their scientific integrity for a short term boost in the politics of an uncertain climate doomsday scenario and you agree with it!

what happens when we go ten years without the effects of all the dire predictions coming true? oh wait.....that has already happened. climate scientists are trading in all the banked reputation that scientists of all fields have earned over decades and decades. I am concerned that the next time science cries 'wolf' there will be nobody listening because of the travesty of global warming and the triumph of politics over scientific reasoning.

No, no you don't. You're too fucking stupid to wipe your own ass so no, you don't understand this either.

What a bunch of brainwashed retards!!!

Why don't you mental midgets try reading the whole article by Prof. Hulme instead of just a few out of context quotes? Oh.....right.....you're retarded.

Forum rules don't allow me to quote the whole thing so go to the article website for that, but here is a few excerpts that give some context to the fragments that were used to confuse you. You denier cultists may well be far too brainwashed and bamboozled to understand what he's actually saying even with someone holding your hand and pointing to each word, so this is more for the rational people who may be reading this thread than it is for you denier cult dingleberries.

The appliance of science
The Guardian
Mike Hulme
13 March 2007
(excerpts)

Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere warms the planet and sets in motion changes to the way the weather is delivered to us, wherever we are. Science has worked hard over a hundred years to establish this knowledge. And new books such as Singer and Avery's (Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1,500 Years), or opinion pieces in the Daily Mail, do not alter it. Deploying the machinery of scientific method allows us to filter out hypotheses - such as those presented by Singer and Avery - as being plain wrong. That science is an unfolding process of discovery is fairly self-evident. We know a lot more about climate change now than 17 years ago when the first IPCC scientific assessment was published. And no doubt in another 17 years our knowledge of how the climate system works and the impact that humans have made on it will be significantly different to today. Yet it is important that on big questions such as climate change scientists make an assessment of what they know at key moments when policy or other collective decisions need to be made. Today is such a time.

The other important characteristic of scientific knowledge - its openness to change as it rubs up against society - is rather harder to handle. Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this particular mode of scientific activity as one that occurs where the stakes are high, uncertainties large and decisions urgent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken. It has been labelled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science. So this book from Singer and Avery can be understood in a different way....Singer and Avery are using apparently scientific arguments - about 1,500 year cycles, about the loss of species, about sea-level rise - to further their deeper (yet unexpressed) values and beliefs. Too often with climate change, genuine and necessary debates about these wider social values - do we have confidence in technology; do we believe in collective action over private enterprise; do we believe we carry obligations to people invisible to us in geography and time? - masquerade as disputes about scientific truth and error. We need this perspective of post-normal science if we are going to make sense of books such as Singer and Avery's.

The danger of a "normal" reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow. If only climate change were such a phenomenon and if only science held such an ascendancy over our personal, social and political life and decisions. In fact, in order to make progress about how we manage climate change we have to take science off center stage. This is not a comfortable thing to say - either to those scientists who still hold an uncritical view of their privileged enterprise and who relish the status society affords them, or to politicians whose instinct is so often to hide behind the experts when confronted by difficult and genuine policy alternatives. Two years ago, Tony Blair announced the large, government-backed international climate change conference in Exeter by asking for the conference scientists to "identify what level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is self-evidently too much". This is the wrong question to ask of science. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity. Lack of such reflective transparency is the problem with "unstoppable global warming", and with some other scientific commentators on climate change.

© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

the added context only makes the original quote sound worse. scientists should produce science only, and leave politics for politicians. we expect politicians to distort the truth but we trust scientists to respect it.

the medical field has incorporated some safeguards that should be brought into climate science. one team should design the experiment, which is then passed along to another team(s) to perform. this would lessen the impact of certain scientists that look for spurious correlations and coincidences, then build a paper around them.

I cant imagine any reputable scientist using a proxy like the Tiljander cores which were distinctly labelled as unsuitable for temperature reconstructions because of human agricultural interference. Mann not only used them, but used some of them upside down because they gave a result that he was looking for.

 

[IanC]

If you think Jones is worse than a joke, let's play Paleoclimatology 001 and you tell us how to construct the climate of the past 1000 years!

I would prefer to talk about Jones' UHI paper. it was done with Chinese temperature series. Jones said his rural series were long standing stations with no movements and continuous records. it turns out that he defined rural as less than 200,000 people (?!?!), and of his 60+ sites more than fifty had moved! when he was asked for his data he said he had lost it! (just like he lost his CRUTemp data). his co-author in the US was brought up on fraud charges but managed to blame a yet another un-credited co-author back in China. Jones claimed a 0.005C/yr effect but they decided that the proper course of action was to just add 0.005C to the error bars.

once Jones had been informed of the multitude of mistakes in this paper did he retract it or even put an addendum on it saying that it was unreliable? of course not! he even continued to cite it.


when I have more time perhaps we should discuss the selection of proxies used for temp reconstructions. the cherry picking, faulty methodologies, and lack of updates when new info is available is just about the strongest sign of scientific malfeasance possible.

I've never read Jones' UHI paper and if it exists on an internet search engine, it's covered with a ton of Denialista spam. You may think getting information from a blog is information, but I don't and it isn't unless it's a somewhat private blog of professionals exchanging information. My experience in examining Denialista claims is they have always turned out to be baseless and a waste of time, but Denialistas are all about wasting other people's time.

Jones was involved in setting up 5 degree lattitude and 5 degree longitude grids and that date would indicate one of the early HadCRUT maps which had good bit of China missing data for many grids, like 40% to 50%. I don't know what Jones' paper was about, but for an urban heat island to be meaningful over such a large area requires a lot of asphalt and many cities to change the area much differently than rural measurements. It's not the size of the city that's important, but what the city is like. The HadCRUT grids are large enough that they can contain many geographic features with different climates. You also have the problem of having good data during a base period of 30 years and HadCRUT has been using 1961 to 1990 as a base period, at least lately. That may be why Jones wrote a 1990 paper, but wouldn't Jones have been involved with setting up these grids all over the world?

You do realize don't you if Jones biased the base period upward, it would show less increase in temperatrure after the base period? Temperature data tends to be biased upward, until there is vigilance to make the data representative of a grid. Once established, there is a very conscious effort to obtain reliable data, because it will screw up future measurements, whether it's biased one way or the other, if you don't. You should also realize a task the size of China would require a trained team to accomplish. I seriously doubt Jones was running all over China examining weather stations to make sure the data provided is representative of the grid. The Chinese wouldn't have been concerned before HadCRUT to make their temperature measurements representative of a grid that hadn't been established before the system was set up. The station is usually assigned to a meteorologist who reports monthly averages of continuous measurements back to the archive. Grids need enough stations to be averaged into representative measurements.

As far as the other stuff goes, Jones would need a computer bank to carry around that amount of data and didn't he leave HadCRUT before all the testimony you are citing? 5 degree by 5 degree grids are rather large, but if you had to set them up everywhere where you could on the Earth and examine the reliability and continuity of weather station data for the past 30 years, then it had to require a considerable effort, even before receiving data to your archive.

See if you can find Jones' UHI paper and I don't see how someone can object or support anything they just hear about on a blog without reading it. Later, I'll try to check some other sources where it won't be buried in Denialista spam. A lot of good science has been buried on the internet by the nonsense of the right-wing and I'm not just talking about climate science.

I went back and checked the background of Wang and Jones 1990 UHI paper. it is a total travesty and is the subject of many climategate emails which give it context. I could give you many links but you would reject them all as 'Denialista'.

if anyone is interested in one of the many detective stories that litter climate science's efforts to withhold data and obscure malfeasance, here is a link to Climate Audit which will give you the background and many more links to specific details. Phil Jones and the China Network: Part 1 « Climate Audit

 

[Oddball]

 

[RollingThunder]

No, no you don't. You're too fucking stupid to wipe your own ass so no, you don't understand this either.

What a bunch of brainwashed retards!!!

Why don't you mental midgets try reading the whole article by Prof. Hulme instead of just a few out of context quotes? Oh.....right.....you're retarded.

Forum rules don't allow me to quote the whole thing so go to the article website for that, but here is a few excerpts that give some context to the fragments that were used to confuse you. You denier cultists may well be far too brainwashed and bamboozled to understand what he's actually saying even with someone holding your hand and pointing to each word, so this is more for the rational people who may be reading this thread than it is for you denier cult dingleberries.

The appliance of science
The Guardian
Mike Hulme
13 March 2007
(excerpts)

Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere warms the planet and sets in motion changes to the way the weather is delivered to us, wherever we are. Science has worked hard over a hundred years to establish this knowledge. And new books such as Singer and Avery's (Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1,500 Years), or opinion pieces in the Daily Mail, do not alter it. Deploying the machinery of scientific method allows us to filter out hypotheses - such as those presented by Singer and Avery - as being plain wrong. That science is an unfolding process of discovery is fairly self-evident. We know a lot more about climate change now than 17 years ago when the first IPCC scientific assessment was published. And no doubt in another 17 years our knowledge of how the climate system works and the impact that humans have made on it will be significantly different to today. Yet it is important that on big questions such as climate change scientists make an assessment of what they know at key moments when policy or other collective decisions need to be made. Today is such a time.

The other important characteristic of scientific knowledge - its openness to change as it rubs up against society - is rather harder to handle. Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this particular mode of scientific activity as one that occurs where the stakes are high, uncertainties large and decisions urgent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken. It has been labelled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science. So this book from Singer and Avery can be understood in a different way....Singer and Avery are using apparently scientific arguments - about 1,500 year cycles, about the loss of species, about sea-level rise - to further their deeper (yet unexpressed) values and beliefs. Too often with climate change, genuine and necessary debates about these wider social values - do we have confidence in technology; do we believe in collective action over private enterprise; do we believe we carry obligations to people invisible to us in geography and time? - masquerade as disputes about scientific truth and error. We need this perspective of post-normal science if we are going to make sense of books such as Singer and Avery's.

The danger of a "normal" reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow. If only climate change were such a phenomenon and if only science held such an ascendancy over our personal, social and political life and decisions. In fact, in order to make progress about how we manage climate change we have to take science off center stage. This is not a comfortable thing to say - either to those scientists who still hold an uncritical view of their privileged enterprise and who relish the status society affords them, or to politicians whose instinct is so often to hide behind the experts when confronted by difficult and genuine policy alternatives. Two years ago, Tony Blair announced the large, government-backed international climate change conference in Exeter by asking for the conference scientists to "identify what level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is self-evidently too much". This is the wrong question to ask of science. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity. Lack of such reflective transparency is the problem with "unstoppable global warming", and with some other scientific commentators on climate change.

© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

the added context only makes the original quote sound worse.

That's your rather retarded opinion but it just shows that you were unable to understand what was being said. Your incomprehension is not very surprising, given how brainwashed and bamboozled you obviously are.

scientists should produce science only, and leave politics for politicians.

Scientists do "produce science" but if it is important science with broad implications and possibly dangerous consequences, they then have a duty to communicate the implications of their findings to the public and to world leaders. Dr. Hulme was talking about the difficulty scientists are having in doing that clearly when the area of science involved is one "where the stakes are high, uncertainties large and decisions urgent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken".

Science informs and guides political decisions in the world of rational and intelligent people. In the sad and confused little bizarro-world that you denier cultist inhabit, apparently scientists are supposed to do their work quietly and keep their mouths shut. LOL.

we expect politicians to distort the truth but we trust scientists to respect it.

Too bad you have no respect for science and the facts and instead go around judging and rejecting scientific evidence and conclusions based on your political prejudices and fantasies.

the medical field has incorporated some safeguards that should be brought into climate science. one team should design the experiment, which is then passed along to another team(s) to perform. this would lessen the impact of certain scientists that look for spurious correlations and coincidences, then build a paper around them.

Your myths about the supposed failures of climate science are the result of the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign that tries to smear and denigrate both the scientists and the scientific methodology in order to prevent or delay the necessary measures to drastically limit mankind's carbon emissions. Your myths about this are pure BS though.

I cant imagine any reputable scientist using a proxy like the Tiljander cores which were distinctly labelled as unsuitable for temperature reconstructions because of human agricultural interference. Mann not only used them, but used some of them upside down because they gave a result that he was looking for.

That's one of the myths you've been fed by that propaganda campaign.

McIntyre & McKitrick wrote a comment in 2009 to PNAS on the Mann et al. (2008) paper, and on the Tiljander issue they said:

"Their non-dendro network uses some data with the axes upside down, e.g., Korttajarvi sediments, which are also compromised by agricultural impact (M. Tiljander, personal communication),…"​

To this, Mann et al. (2009) responded:

"The claim that “upside down” data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use."​

 

[IanC]

What a bunch of brainwashed retards!!!

Why don't you mental midgets try reading the whole article by Prof. Hulme instead of just a few out of context quotes? Oh.....right.....you're retarded.

Forum rules don't allow me to quote the whole thing so go to the article website for that, but here is a few excerpts that give some context to the fragments that were used to confuse you. You denier cultists may well be far too brainwashed and bamboozled to understand what he's actually saying even with someone holding your hand and pointing to each word, so this is more for the rational people who may be reading this thread than it is for you denier cult dingleberries.

The appliance of science
The Guardian
Mike Hulme
13 March 2007
(excerpts)

Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere warms the planet and sets in motion changes to the way the weather is delivered to us, wherever we are. Science has worked hard over a hundred years to establish this knowledge. And new books such as Singer and Avery's (Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1,500 Years), or opinion pieces in the Daily Mail, do not alter it. Deploying the machinery of scientific method allows us to filter out hypotheses - such as those presented by Singer and Avery - as being plain wrong. That science is an unfolding process of discovery is fairly self-evident. We know a lot more about climate change now than 17 years ago when the first IPCC scientific assessment was published. And no doubt in another 17 years our knowledge of how the climate system works and the impact that humans have made on it will be significantly different to today. Yet it is important that on big questions such as climate change scientists make an assessment of what they know at key moments when policy or other collective decisions need to be made. Today is such a time.

The other important characteristic of scientific knowledge - its openness to change as it rubs up against society - is rather harder to handle. Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this particular mode of scientific activity as one that occurs where the stakes are high, uncertainties large and decisions urgent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken. It has been labelled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science. So this book from Singer and Avery can be understood in a different way....Singer and Avery are using apparently scientific arguments - about 1,500 year cycles, about the loss of species, about sea-level rise - to further their deeper (yet unexpressed) values and beliefs. Too often with climate change, genuine and necessary debates about these wider social values - do we have confidence in technology; do we believe in collective action over private enterprise; do we believe we carry obligations to people invisible to us in geography and time? - masquerade as disputes about scientific truth and error. We need this perspective of post-normal science if we are going to make sense of books such as Singer and Avery's.

The danger of a "normal" reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow. If only climate change were such a phenomenon and if only science held such an ascendancy over our personal, social and political life and decisions. In fact, in order to make progress about how we manage climate change we have to take science off center stage. This is not a comfortable thing to say - either to those scientists who still hold an uncritical view of their privileged enterprise and who relish the status society affords them, or to politicians whose instinct is so often to hide behind the experts when confronted by difficult and genuine policy alternatives. Two years ago, Tony Blair announced the large, government-backed international climate change conference in Exeter by asking for the conference scientists to "identify what level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is self-evidently too much". This is the wrong question to ask of science. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity. Lack of such reflective transparency is the problem with "unstoppable global warming", and with some other scientific commentators on climate change.

© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

the added context only makes the original quote sound worse.

That's your rather retarded opinion but it just shows that you were unable to understand what was being said. Your incomprehension is not very surprising, given how brainwashed and bamboozled you obviously are.






Scientists do "produce science" but if it is important science with broad implications and possibly dangerous consequences, they then have a duty to communicate the implications of their findings to the public and to world leaders. Dr. Hulme was talking about the difficulty scientists are having in doing that clearly when the area of science involved is one "where the stakes are high, uncertainties large and decisions urgent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken".

Science informs and guides political decisions in the world of rational and intelligent people. In the sad and confused little bizarro-world that you denier cultist inhabit, apparently scientists are supposed to do their work quietly and keep their mouths shut. LOL.






Too bad you have no respect for science and the facts and instead go around judging and rejecting scientific evidence and conclusions based on your political prejudices and fantasies.

the medical field has incorporated some safeguards that should be brought into climate science. one team should design the experiment, which is then passed along to another team(s) to perform. this would lessen the impact of certain scientists that look for spurious correlations and coincidences, then build a paper around them.

Your myths about the supposed failures of climate science are the result of the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign that tries to smear and denigrate both the scientists and the scientific methodology in order to prevent or delay the necessary measures to drastically limit mankind's carbon emissions. Your myths about this are pure BS though.

I cant imagine any reputable scientist using a proxy like the Tiljander cores which were distinctly labelled as unsuitable for temperature reconstructions because of human agricultural interference. Mann not only used them, but used some of them upside down because they gave a result that he was looking for.

That's one of the myths you've been fed by that propaganda campaign.

McIntyre & McKitrick wrote a comment in 2009 to PNAS on the Mann et al. (2008) paper, and on the Tiljander issue they said:

"Their non-dendro network uses some data with the axes upside down, e.g., Korttajarvi sediments, which are also compromised by agricultural impact (M. Tiljander, personal communication),…"​

To this, Mann et al. (2009) responded:

"The claim that “upside down” data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use."​

what Mann is saying is, "my methodology does not differentiate between right side up or upside down, it uses the proxies according to the best fit." in the case of the Tiljander cores the methodology decided to use some (but not all) cores upside down.

Figure 1. Excerpt from Tiljander Boreas 2003 Figure 5 – rotated to warm is up orientation. The increased sedimentation in 19th and 20th centuries is attributed to farming and bridge construction and is not evidence of “cold”.

Figure 2. Mann et al 2008 proxy 1064 plotted reverse to Mann orientation (showing that the author’s original orientation is achieved only by inverting the Mann orientation.)

Figure 3. Mann et al Series 1064 (in Mann orientation) converted to 10-year averages, truncated to 1800 and scaled. Mann orientation is upside-down to the orientation in Figures 1 and 2.

Kaufman and Upside-Down Mann « Climate Audit


if it wasnt for skeptical sites like Climate audit and WUWT, ordinary laymen would not have access to proxy series at all. we would just be patted on the head and told everything is just fine by charlatans like Mann and Thompson.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW is a Cult populated with crazy people totally unaffected by facts

 

[RollingThunder]

AGW is a Cult populated with crazy people totally unaffected by facts

Ahhhhh....poor CrazyFruitcake, you came so close to being correct about something for the first time in your sad little life as a half-wit.....only one word off from being right.....too bad you missed it.....here, I'll correct it for you so it fits reality....

AGW denial is a Cult populated with crazy people totally unaffected by facts

 

[SSDD]

AGW denial is a Cult populated with crazy people totally unaffected by facts

You really are oblivious to the real world aren't you? Ian just gave you undeniable proof that man used upside down proxies regardless of what your handlers told you and you just go right on as if the proof hadn't been given to you. What do you do, put duct tape over your screen to censor out inconvenient facts that render your religion to the status of hoax that it deserves?

 

[RollingThunder]

AGW denial is a Cult populated with crazy people totally unaffected by facts

You really are oblivious to the real world aren't you? Ian just gave you undeniable proof that man used upside down proxies regardless of what your handlers told you and you just go right on as if the proof hadn't been given to you. What do you do, put duct tape over your screen to censor out inconvenient facts that render your religion to the status of hoax that it deserves?

In the real world, the world scientific community is solidly supporting the conclusions of the climate scientists on the reality and dangers to our world of AGW. In the real world, you denier cultists are seen as fringe lunatics similar to the Flat Earth Society. The BS put forth by denier cultists or denier cult blogs does not constitute "undeniable proof" about anything in the real world, only in the deranged bizarro-world that the poorly educated anti-science denier cultists inhabit.

 

[westwall]

AGW denial is a Cult populated with crazy people totally unaffected by facts

You really are oblivious to the real world aren't you? Ian just gave you undeniable proof that man used upside down proxies regardless of what your handlers told you and you just go right on as if the proof hadn't been given to you. What do you do, put duct tape over your screen to censor out inconvenient facts that render your religion to the status of hoax that it deserves?

Religions don't do facts. They rely on "faith". blunder is a religious fanatic..

 

[Dubya]

AGW denial is a Cult populated with crazy people totally unaffected by facts

You really are oblivious to the real world aren't you? Ian just gave you undeniable proof that man used upside down proxies regardless of what your handlers told you and you just go right on as if the proof hadn't been given to you. What do you do, put duct tape over your screen to censor out inconvenient facts that render your religion to the status of hoax that it deserves?

Religions don't do facts. They rely on "faith". blunder is a religious fanatic..

You can figure out what you want and invent the rest. I'll tell you about an assessment of climate. It's going to be a lot worse than they say. That's a no brainer. It's going to be bad.

 

[IanC]

AGW denial is a Cult populated with crazy people totally unaffected by facts

You really are oblivious to the real world aren't you? Ian just gave you undeniable proof that man used upside down proxies regardless of what your handlers told you and you just go right on as if the proof hadn't been given to you. What do you do, put duct tape over your screen to censor out inconvenient facts that render your religion to the status of hoax that it deserves?

In the real world, the world scientific community is solidly supporting the conclusions of the climate scientists on the reality and dangers to our world of AGW. In the real world, you denier cultists are seen as fringe lunatics similar to the Flat Earth Society. The BS put forth by denier cultists or denier cult blogs does not constitute "undeniable proof" about anything in the real world, only in the deranged bizarro-world that the poorly educated anti-science denier cultists inhabit.

undeniable proof?!? only the CAGW side is declaring that. the skeptics are pointing out flaws in the data and the methodology used in at least part of climate science.

you seem to think that ideas are intractably tied to those who speak them rather than stand alone concepts that are accepted or rejected upon their inherent worth.

I gave you an example of how Mann butchered the use of a proxy. upon further though I realize I was mistaken in my understanding of how it affected the paper's conclusions. I originally thought that the sharp downturn in recent times had been flipped to show a hockeystick upturn. instead, it seems as if it was used to flatten out both the MWP and LIA because it shows the exact opposite of historical records by implying that the MWP was cold and the LIA was warm.

does anybody here realistically believe that the MWP was ~2 standard deviations colder than the Little Ice Age? why was this not found in peer review? why has it not been corrected? why is this faulty paper and its results still being used as background reference in new papers?

RT- you say you are concerned about the integrity of science yet you are willing to hand wave away concerns about an obviously incorrectly used proxy. if it is a mistake why isnt it getting corrected? if it is not a mistake why isnt there a better excuse than "Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors"?

 

[RollingThunder]

AGW denial is a Cult populated with crazy people totally unaffected by facts

You really are oblivious to the real world aren't you? Ian just gave you undeniable proof that man used upside down proxies regardless of what your handlers told you and you just go right on as if the proof hadn't been given to you. What do you do, put duct tape over your screen to censor out inconvenient facts that render your religion to the status of hoax that it deserves?

Religions don't do facts. They rely on "faith".

LOL.....so writes a hard core member of the lunatic little astro-turfed cult of AGW denial....with no sense of irony either....too funny....LOL...especially humorous in that the ol' walleyedretard is one of the variety of denier cultists who never has any actual facts to support his ridiculous fraudulent claims....he just has an unshakable "faith" in his own deluded opinions even when shown definitive evidence that the entire world scientific community disagrees with his defective misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the scientific evidence and conclusions regarding anthropogenic global warming/climate changes.