# ClimateGate 2.0? Are you fucking kidding me? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 27, 2011, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243 "2011-11-27T15:39:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2011, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/361 "2011-12-11T23:53:41Z")
P.S. By the way, my examples of Briffa and Jones are just examples. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/362 "2011-12-12T21:14:19Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Lol, it’s just one article. It’s a gigantic splash page. Or, to quote the “60 seconds” version: “My original attempt to outline the state of the climate skeptic’s case ballooned into 80+ pages, so there may be many people who rationally just have no desire to tackle that much material.” I’ll try reading _that_ version through. > [@](#): > > Anyway, if you want to seriously discuss global warming, you should probably take the time to understand the position you are arguing against. Fair enough. But don’t expect me to spend a lot of time slogging through the denialist literature, like you wouldn’t expect an evolutionary scientist to spend much time slogging through the Intelligent Design literature. > [@](#): > > Let me ask you this: Do you think it’s a problem if somebody has a strong opinion about the global warming controversy but does not even know that water vapor feedback is at the core of the controversy? Whee, _this_ is a fair question. :rolleyes: You say that water vapor feedback is the core of the controversy. More insane people like FX and Monckton claim that solar variance is the thing we should be worried about. Most of the climate scientists claim that it’s not a controversy. I mean, hell, even calling it a “controversy” is a bit of a misnomer; the “controversy” is, like with creationism, for the most part among the laypeople, with a vast majority of scientists having very few, if any, qualms with it. > [@](#): > > You aren’t doing yourself a favor by simply ignoring arguments which go against your pre-held beliefs. Says the guy who has GIGObuster on ignore. Look, when I go to research _science_, I go to the scientists. I go look up the _research_. I look into the _peer-reviewed studies_. What you’re doing is akin to getting someone who is not aware of, say, Junk DNA in an evolution debate, and pointing him not to TalkOrigins, but, say, Behe’s website. Not to mention that it is by a person with no scientific credentials, but he’s also representing a viewpoint which is not exactly widespread among those _actually studying the phenomenon_. > [@](#): > > Anyway, as you seem to realize, the main argument for the water vapor feedback hypothesis consists of computer simulations. However, it is trivial to demonstrate that many perhaps most of those computer simulations are wrong. And as far as I know, none of them have been validated by making interesting, accurate, bona fide, consistent predictions. Well… There’s [this “Nature” article](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v349/n6309/abs/349500a0.html) (and for those who aren’t paying attention, “Nature” is _kind of a big deal_ as far as natural science publications go), but I admit that’s not quite fair because you need a subscription to the magazine or to pay out the nose. But hey, what’s this? Is that from… _1991_?! Then there’s the [Held and Soden](http://www.dgf.uchile.cl/~ronda/GF3004/helandsod00.pdf) paper from 2000, which says, quote: > [@](#): > > No empirical or model/data comparisons suggest that water vapor feedback is > negative, even in the tropical upper troposphere. Indeed, models with strong water > vapor feedback, comparable to that obtained in simple models with fixed relative > humidity, are able to simulate many aspects of the observed structure and variability > of the humidity field. And the [Wentz and Schabel paper from the same period](http://www.ssmi.com/papers/Wentz_Nature_2000.pdf)… And then [This paper](http://www.meteorology.miami.edu/%7Ebsoden/files/science_pinatubo_02.pdf) citing how without positive water vapor feedback, the models accounting for Pinatubo fly off the track wildly. And [this…](http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005.../2005GL023624.shtml) Don’t get me wrong, on [the resource site](http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/papers-on-water-vapor-feedback-observations/) I found these articles on, there was some interesting stuff for the other side, and it seems this isn’t _quite_ as much of a done deal as it seems to be. That said, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the figure of 0.01% come up up earlier in the thread, as a threshhold of likelihood at which point we really need to stop and consider what we’re doing? This looks less like 0.01% and more like 50% among the peer-reviewed literature and real climatologists, if not more. > [@](#): > > In short, global warming rests upon a very slender reed. Just thought I’d point out that this reminds me most of a certain youtuber named “PPSimmons”. > [@](#): > > Lol, the normal last refuge of the warmist who has been cornered. What? It doesn’t matter at all that your view is essentially a fringe view within the scientific community? That most of the scientists working on it disagree with you? > [@](#): > > No, that’s not my position. Again, please do not mischaracterize my position. > > Let’s try to figure out exactly where you disagree with me, or even if you disagree at all: > > First, do you agree that doing climate simulations and temperature reconstructions require the researcher to make multiple judgments? This is not so much a point of disagreement so much as a point of confusion; I’m not entirely sure what judgement calls come into question here. Not about to go denying it if it is true, though. > [@](#): > > Second, do you agree that it’s possible for a researcher to make those judgments in such a way as to seriously bias his results? Assuming they are present? Yes. > [@](#): > > Third, do you agree that there is a serious risk that a dishonest researcher with an agenda will do just that? Assuming? Yes. > [@](#): > > Fourth, do you agree that for these reasons, Jones’ work is more suspect than it otherwise would be? I’ll give you this: Jones’s work _was_ suspect. Then about 6 individual research teams went over it and found neither bias nor flaw in his methodology or results, _and_ all of his data, methodologies, and further information was laid bare for the skeptics to pick over like a bunch of vultures, at which point the skeptic/denialist community basically threw up their hands and said, “Fuck this shit, using out-of-context quotes to confuse the general public is _soooo_ much easier than actually checking our facts to make sure that bias was actually present.” Or did that realization go more like this: “Geez, we can’t find _anything real_ on these guys! Quick, so that we don’t look stupid, let’s take some out-of-context quotes and claim that _that_ is proof that something fishy is going on!” > [@](#): > > Fifth, do you agree that another warmist researcher who defends Jones probably believes that Jones’ tactics are okay? “Tactics”? Wow, are you serious? But hold on, before we get to that, let me make an analogy. Let’s say you have a friend named “Bob”. Bob is caught shoplifting: he stole a candy bar from a store. Now, the store-owner is not happy about this, and decides to make an example of bob. So he ties bob to a stake in the store’s basement and leaves him there for 3 days with nothing to eat or drink, and no ability to move. You are not happy about this. You say to the store’s owner, “Hey, wait a minute, Bob didn’t do anything even remotely deserving of a punishment this severe!” In response to that, he shoots back, “so you think shoplifting is okay, then?” Obviously, you don’t think that shoplifting is okay just because you think that a wildly unsuitable and unjustified punishment is wrong. And clearly, not everyone who believes that Jones should not be held up as a pariah and an example of “everything that is wrong with the scientific world” for his misconduct, especially when his research is good. Furthermore, while his “misconduct” was often a cited issue, I think that it was blown massively out of proportion. I mean, will you explain, in your own words, what you think he did, and what you think was wrong with it? > [@](#): > > :shrug: As far as I know, none of your cites contradicts my point. In terms of actually demonstrating bias, that’s tricky since it’s easy enough for a warmist researcher to invent a rationalization for his decisions. So you’re not even going to _try_ to prove your point? You’re just going to ignore the results of 6 studies, and claim that you have “reasonable suspicion”? And your excuse for this _astounding_ intellectual laziness is “the researcher could offer an explanation”? Wow, that’s almost FXM low. Come on, you’re better than this. When you claim that the research is biased, the burden of proof is on _you_ to demonstrate that this is true. You have not done this. You have essentially ignored the evidence that directly contradicts that idea. You have provided no cases of bias beyond a few out-of-context emails of a scientist which, when seen in the big picture, show very little more than heartfelt and sincere frustration and anger at an incredibly annoying pest who he couldn’t deal with and who was sabotaging their work, and whose threats turned up extremely empty. > [@](#): > > That said, Keith Briffa’s decision to truncate his proxy reconstruction around 1950 for the 2007 IPCC report seems to be the result of bias. Got a link to what you’re talking about? I’m having trouble finding it… Especially seeing as the second result when I punch that into google is, well, _your post_… ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2011, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/363 "2011-12-13T20:22:43Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Fair enough. But don’t expect me to spend a lot of time slogging through the denialist literature, like you wouldn’t expect an evolutionary scientist to spend much time slogging through the Intelligent Design literature. You don’t even understand what your own side is saying, let alone what the other side is saying. Anyway, I have spent hours and hours reading articles, blog posts, and IPCC reports on the warmist side of the debate. Because I actually care about learning the truth. Anyway, you have not answered my question. I asked if it’s a problem if somebody has a strong opinion about the global warming controversy but does not even know that water vapor feedback is at the core of the controversy? You evaded that question by asserting that there is not a controversy. I disagree, but I will rephrase the question: Do you think it’s a problem if somebody has a strong opinion about the global warming hypothesis but does not even know what the core components of that hypothesis are? > [@](#): > > Says the guy who has GIGObuster on ignore. :shrug: GIGOBuster repeatedly refused to answer a simple, reasonable question about his position. If Warren Meyer had done the same thing to you, you would be justified in refusing to engage with him any more. > [@](#): > > Look, when I go to research _science_, I go to the scientists. I go look up the _research_. I look into the _peer-reviewed studies_. Do you look at all of them? Or are you selective? If you are selective, how do you choose them? And do scrutinize them for logical flaws? How do you make sure that you are fairly considering the arguments against your position? > [@](#): > > Well… There’s [this “Nature” article](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v349/n6309/abs/349500a0.html) (and for those who aren’t paying attention, “Nature” is _kind of a big deal_ as far as natural science publications go), but I admit that’s not quite fair because you need a subscription to the magazine or to pay out the nose. But hey, what’s this? Is that from… _1991_?! > Then there’s the [Held and Soden](http://www.dgf.uchile.cl/~ronda/GF3004/helandsod00.pdf) paper from 2000, which says, quote: I’m not sure what your point is here. Are you denying that none of the computer simulations have been validated by making interesting, accurate, bona fide, consistent predictions? > [@](#): > > What? It doesn’t matter at all that your view is essentially a fringe view within the scientific community? That most of the scientists working on it disagree with you? First things first: What exactly is my “view,” according to you? And where is your proof that most of the scientists working on the question disagree with me? > [@](#): > > Then about 6 individual research teams went over it and found neither bias nor flaw in his methodology or results I’m extremely skeptical of this especially given that Jones has published a lot of papers. Can you quote, cite, and link the relevant language? > [@](#): > > In response to that, he shoots back, “so you think shoplifting is okay, then?” My response: Shoplifting is absolutely wrong. Ok, now please answer my question: > [@](#): > > Fifth, do you agree that another warmist researcher who defends Jones probably believes that Jones’ tactics are okay? And please show me where Michael Mann condemned Jones’ conduct just as I condemned shoftlifting. > [@](#): > > So you’re not even going to try to prove your point? You’re just going to ignore the results of 6 studies, and claim that you have “reasonable suspicion”? Umm, I have no idea what your point is here. Are you claiming that any of these 6 studies contradict my point? If so, please QUOTE the relevant language from the studies. > [@](#): > > When you claim that the research is biased, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that this is true. My claim is that the research is suspect. I did give an example of bias however. So I’m not sure what more you want from me. > [@](#): > > Got a link to what you’re talking about? I’m having trouble finding it… It’s discussed in the article I linked which you refused to read. Chapter 4, just do a word search for the word “Briffa.” By the way, it appears you have not answered my questions from before: (1) Do you agree that according to Michael Mann, recent temperatures represent a thousand-year high? (2) Do you agree that the Berkeley paper you cite does not go back anywhere near that far? These are very simple questions. I apologize if you answered them and I missed your answers. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2011, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/364 "2011-12-13T21:24:01Z")
For the reader out there that cares, one just needs to point out here that it is really impossible to play the ignorance card as brazil is doing here, BEST used also data that was not used in previous reconstructions, that it does not go that far back as Mann did was a feature not a bug, and still Muller’s survey found that Mann’s data was not off the mark for the previous century, meaning that Mann was telling the truth all along. Also when one takes into account the fact that the latest Mann reconstruction was made with one of the critics of Mann (and we know this thanks to Climategate 2.0, thank you very much) that should be enough to show how off base the Brazilian nut over here is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243.md?page=18)