Climategate 2.0: Santer angry over not being able to silence skeptics

Discussion in 'Politics' started by bripat9643, Nov 23, 2011.

  1. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    67,802
    Thanks Received:
    8,074
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +27,317
    Climategate 2.0: Santer angry over not being able to silence skeptics | JunkScience.com

    Imagine that to debunk a study, you need the author’s approval.

    From the Climategate 2.0 collection (#5321), Ben Santer complains to Phil Jones that he and Tom Wigley didn’t get the chance to spike a skeptics’ paper critical of Santer/Wigley that was published in Climate Research — like they did a year earlier when the skeptics tried to get it published in the Journal of Geophysical Research:

    Dear Phil,

    In June 2003, Climate Research published a paper by David Douglass et al. The “et al.” includes John Christy and Pat Michaels. Douglass et al. attempt to debunk the paper that Tom and I published in JGR in 2001 (“Accounting for the effects of volcanoes and ENSO in comparisons of modeled and observed temperature trends”; JGR 106, 28033-28059). The Douglass et al. paper claims (and purports to show) that collinearity between ENSO, volcanic, and solar predictor variables is not a serious problem in studies attempting to estimate the effects of these
    factors on MSU tropospheric temperatures. Their work has serious scientific flaws – it confuses forcing and response, and ignores strong temporal autcorrelation in the individual predictor variables, incorrectly assuming independence of individual monthly means in the MSU 2LT data. In the Douglass et al. view of the world, uncertainties in predictor variables, observations, etc. are non-existent. The error bars on their estimated ENSO, volcano, and solar regression coefficients are miniscule.

    Over a year ago, Tom and I reviewed (for JGR) a paper by Douglass et al. that was virtually identical to the version that has now appeared in Climate Research. We rejected it. Prior to this, both Tom and I had engaged in a long and frustrating dialogue with Douglass, in which we attempted to explain to him that there are large uncertainties in the deconvolution of ENSO, volcano, and solar signals in short MSU records. Douglass chose to ignore all of the comments we made in this exchange, as he later ignored all of the comments we made in our reviews of his rejected JGR paper.

    Although the Douglass et al. Climate Research paper is largely a criticism of our previously-published JGR paper, neither Tom nor I were asked to review the paper for Climate Research. Nor were any other coauthors of the Santer et al. JGR paper asked to review the Douglass et al. manuscript. I’m assuming that Douglass specifically requested that neither Tom nor I should be allowed to act as reviwers of his Climate Research paper. It would be interesting to see his cover letter to the journal.

    In the editorial that you forwarded, Dr. Kinne writes the following:

    “If someone wishes to criticise a published papers/he must present facts and arguments and give criticised parties a chance to defend their position.” The irony here is that in our own experience, the “criticised parties” (i.e., Tom and I) were NOT allowed to defend their positions.

    Based on Kinne’s editorial, I see little hope for more enlightened editorial decision making at Climate Research. Tom, Richard Smith and I will eventually publish a rebuttal to the Douglass et al. paper. We’ll publish this rebuttal in JGR – not in Climate Research.

    With best regards,

    Ben
     
  2. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,619
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,214
    I dont think he wanted to be asked first, just a chance to respond.
    No matter, the scientist is a total whore scumbag who deserves to be washing test tubes somewhere.
     
  3. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    67,802
    Thanks Received:
    8,074
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +27,317

    There is a ton of really juicy incriminating evidence like this over at Junkscience.com

    The global warming scam is over. Climategate II is the final nail in the coffin.
     
  4. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,619
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,214
    It wont matter. There will still be people claiming it's real. Hellm, there are people who will swear that mercury in vaccines causes autism.
     
  5. tinydancer
    Offline

    tinydancer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    41,448
    Thanks Received:
    9,343
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Sundown
    Ratings:
    +20,953
    I'm loving every minute of this. I am in Dr.Tim Ball's back yard. I've been a skeptic from day one just because I garden. I know we have not been getting warmer and then when they changed all our zones back in I think it was 2003 when I really started to pay attention to this global warming bullshit, I realized they were fudging the data.

    Who ever is releasing this data needs to be cheered on. Bless his/her souls.

    Kudos!!
     
  6. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    67,802
    Thanks Received:
    8,074
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +27,317

    Perhaps, but they will be relegated to a fringe. The vast majority of people will only smirk whenever some warmist nutburger starts spewing the true religion.
     
  7. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,466
    Thanks Received:
    5,414
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,310
    Here we go again. Another round of denial from a bunch of willfully ignorant knownothing assholes. Sorry boys, the entire scientific community of the whole world is stating that AGW is real and already having serious consequences.

    Virtually every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world states that AGW is real. Sure, you point to a few scientists that state otherwise. And you can find the same number that believe in the Creationist version of the beginning. More than likely the same people.
     
  8. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,619
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,214
    "The entire scientific community of the world"? Really?
    Obviously that's a lie, otherwise there would be no dissent. But even if that were the case and there was one guy who said otherwise, the one guy could still be right. Because science is not democracy. It relies on scientific method and the global warming jihadis don't practice that.
     
  9. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,466
    Thanks Received:
    5,414
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,310
    AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

    AGU Position Statement
    Human Impacts on Climate
    Adopted by Council December 2003
    Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

    The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

    During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

    With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.
     
  10. likeabird03
    Offline

    likeabird03 Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2011
    Messages:
    413
    Thanks Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Sacramento
    Ratings:
    +60
    Did anyone know that Earth day was founded on the 100TH Birthday of the communism leader Lenin? I don't believe this to be a coincidence.

    Apparently Green is the new Red.

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page