"Climate change is accelerating beyond expectations"; while Americans' belief in AGW declines

I don’t think there is a conflict of interest (or CoI as you say), I merely concede that there could be. I think scientists engaged in climate studies need to tread carefully when it comes to drumming up public and political support for things like major changes to our lifestyle, or attempts to fundamentally alter our use of fossil fuels. There is a fine line there between the science and a political agenda, and I can certainly see how, if one crosses those lines, there could be a CoI. To use your own example, Bo, if a scientist is studying the effects of cigarettes on lung cancer, then that is a good thing. If that same scientist then goes on a crusade to stop people smoking through the use of public and political means, and using such a crusade to further their own funding and gain prestige, then there could be a CoI. It’s far from impossible. I’m not saying that this is the case with all scientists who project their research into the public realm, nor am I pointing any fingers at AGW (or folks who study the effects of smoking)…just that it’s a pitfall that needs to be considered.

-XT

The problem was that the context of that graph was also excluded.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html

What I see here is that they compensated for the artificial cooling and warming that the urban isles and other conditions caused to readings. In other words, the difference would be worse if they would not have done the adjustments. And the pointed at graph shows the difference that any users of the raw data need to be aware of, now many deniers sites did claim that no corrections were made to account for the heat coming from readers on cities or other locations.

It looks to me like NOAA did the corrections only to get deniers to point at a graph that shows the result of the adjustments, adjustments that BTW deal with degrees in Fahrenheit, not **Celsius **and are limited to the USA.

Well Gavin, it is clear that deniers are indeed claiming that after making corrections for issues that deniers claimed that it caused the readings to be unreliable is giving them a “great” bit of “evidence” (the graph) to continue claiming that they are unreliable. :rolleyes:

So the answers are:

“Are the NOAA folks a bunch of ‘deniers’?”
NO

“do you believe that the NOAA doctored that graph?”
NO

Now, sleestak, do you grant the chance that deniers are misrepresenting what the graphs actually say?

Here’s a pretty good Wall-Street Journal article about the fundamental conflict of interest.

There’s not a conflict of interest that I’m seeing. Sure, they have motivation to lie and manipulate the data if they feel it will make their case better, but that’s true of anyone advcoating anything. It’s not a conflict of interest. So the issue becomes the objectivity of their data - there’s nothing inherent about the situation that doesn’t give them the option of being truthful in their advocacy.

Fair enough.

I think the reverse is more likely, and the issue of smoking and cancer is relevant too!

I remembered the presentation of Historian Naomi Oreskes on “The American Denial of Global Warming”

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/02/oreskes_on_the_american_denial.php

Long video there, but it is recommended to see it.

As the video is long, here are the highlights with the time in the video they appear:

Those groups and think tanks were notorious for coming with opinions and biased research that supported inaction by politicians regarding subjects like Tobacco, Ozone depletion chemicals, Acid rain causing chemicals, and then greenhouse gases like CO2. In all cases further research showed that outfits like the Marshal Institute were wrong.

As Naomi Oreskes notices, even with the fact that their research and opinion were debunked in the past, those outfits almost never acknowledge that they lost or are losing in the scientific arena, people going to their sites can almost never find any acknowledgment that current or new research has made their points non-operational, so then others just continue to repeat those items. It will not affect the science, the intention is to influence the politicians and the people.

Using cherry picked stolen emails with no context to allow them to make baseless and reckless accusations is not beneath them has been demonstrated here and elsewhere.

(On edit) Follow the money? Why is that many ignore the money that is going to the denial machine? (And that includes the WSJ)

bolding mine

First, my apologies for editing out the abbreviation. The default font I use shows a proper upper-case “i” with a header and footer, but the font used once I hit submit uses an upper-case “i” with no header/footer, so it just looks like a lower-case “l”, and it was instantly irritating to see, so I edited it back to the phrase Sam used.

Now, I agree with what you’ve said here. And I have no problems with the idea of being cautious when looking at data from someone with an agenda. But Sam makes the statement that

He offers no citations for his assertion, no evidence to back up what he says. He just bulls right thru it as if it was a fact, and the reasoning he seems to have used to arrive at his conclusion is so ludicrous I couldn’t help but notice it and call it out.

See, you used phrases (that I bolded) that show possibility, while Sam has gone beyond possible, beyond probable, to conclude, seemingly without evidence or logic, that there is a “fundamental conflict of interest”.

And that’s what I was taking exception to, and calling out.

If the thermometer/proxy cover of the US during the 20th century was given a score of 100, what would be the score for South America, Africa, Middle East, south Pacific, Indian Ocean?

Yeah, an editorial published in a newspaper owned by News Corp. about a “scandal” that was manufactured through deceit and cherry-picking… forgive me if I say that this displays too much potential for conflict of interest for me to give it much weight. I mean, I read this:

So I doubt that anything the WSJ writes these days is going to deviate too much from the line that the rest of Murdoch’s media outlets disseminate, and that line favors big business and the M-I Complex, and those are the people who stand to benefit most from discrediting any AGW researcher. To me, this looks like more of the same type of shenanigans that the Marshall Institute has been doing for nearly 30 years now.

Gigobuster, you’re now quoting from the comment area of a webpage. C’mon.
I’m sure many of the changes are right, but it still does not itch right.

:rolleyes:

This is Gavin:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/gschmidt/

Thank you for showing once again that you are not paying attention. RealClimate has the real thing, ClimateAudit has the yahoos.

This was YOUR link to a comment section with 1300 comments. As usual, you expect me (us) to read stuff like that.
Dude, what a man-crush.
I do not not know Dr. Schmidt well enough to call him Gavin, but he’s a mathematician (like Steve McIntyre of Climateaudit)…oh noes, he’s not a climatologist!
It’s not like the chair of the IPCC is not an earth-science guy or something similar to natural sciences…damn…he’s an economist.
(I know it’s ad hominem, but but it shows how silly this can get with the name calling)

The quote was the only thing I wanted to point at, as it was directed at your “great” misleading bit of evidence.

Once again, they are yahoos at ClimateAudit. The bits of evidence so far show where they are coming from. They ignore evidence, misrepresent data (and even graphs) and now resort to use stolen cherry picked emails to press baseless allegations.

I would ignore them until they clean up their act.

From SourceWatch:

“Shyster”? “Data credibility”? I suppose your admission that “global temps [might] fluctuate” is your way of establishing a pro-science bent. :rolleyes:

Wow! Flickster dishes out unsubstantiated gibberish, but thinks that someone commenting on oil industry revenue should have to provide detailed financial breakdowns! :smack:

He thinks (or pretends to think) that someone claimed an entire $1.6 trillion was used to suborn media personnel. Hmm, let’s do the math. 10,000 media-ites worth suborning; divide into 1.6 trill; that’s $160 million per head. Maybe flickster’s just jealous the oil companies aren’t suborning him! :stuck_out_tongue:

I’ve been browsing blogs about the leaked e-mails for the “smoking guns” and, not counting the rejection of tree-ring data since this had already been publicised, I’ve seen two specific claims:
(a) one researcher trying to get software to work with an old data format kept a detailed debug log, with “I’m getting negative squared-error sums!” being the comment that caught the anti-climate blogger’s attention. (It seemed doubtful the blogger knew what a squared error sum was or what its negativity might imply.)
(b) in private e-mail, scientists call the anti-climate bloggers “idiots.” (I’d be worried if they didn’t call them idiots!)

And if it turns out one of the scientists did do something dishonest or stupid, so what? If we pick sides in this debate by which side has the most stupid or dishonest people, there’s little doubt who would win. :slight_smile:

Best is just to ignore right-wing claptrap. Recall the “Real Anita Hill” which David Brock later recanted. I mentioned to a right-wing acquaintance that Brock admitted lying; he responded “How do we know he’s not lying now?” (There’s a fallacy there – let’s see if any of the anti-intellectuals in this debate can spot it.)

Are you saying that the entire science of AGW is a moneymaking scam cooked up by Al Gore?

All those climatologists and research institutes (it’s not like East Anglia is the only one) are being bribed by Al Gore to lie?

So what you’re saying, if I may summarize, is that:

These so-called environmentalists 30-40 years ago were dead-ass wrong in their narrow assertions about a technology that, had we enacted it and begun to rely on it as a primary energy source would have actually prevented what they believe we’re causing because of our consumption. This is happening, in chief, because of what they did back then.

Therefore, in a twist of very sad irony, the dying polar bears and melting arctic ice are the fault of the environmentalists who are again ringing the alarm bells about the dangers of what we’ve been forced in the first place by them, to do.

Super. Now where did I park my Hummer?

His degree is in applied mathematics, but he has a very impressive publication list in the field of climate science…So, yes, he is a climate scientist in any realistic sense of the word. Climate science is a fairly young field so a lot of the scientists in that field have their original training in a related field. (E.g., Jim Hansen is originally an astrophysicist who got interested in the Earth’s climate system only after first studying Venus.)

From this week’s “Top 10 Conservative Idiots”:

I love this about these AGW debates on this board.

If the skeptics mention a mistake presented by Al Gore, who is the single biggest and most influential proponent of AGW on the planet, we get told that it’s irrelevant. Gore isn’t a scientist. Even when we specifically mention Gore’s views to demonstrate public perception, that’s the response.

But when Hannity says something, that’s suddenly highly relevant to any thread. Because apparently Hannity is a sicentist. :rolleyes: