Global Warming Redux: Have they lost their credibility?

OK, this is 500th global warming thread here on the SDMB (give or take a few). According to Phil Jones, besides admitting to being sloppy with his record keeping, the world was possibly warmerduring medieval times than it is now. I don’t recall reading about cars, jets or coal burning power plants around that time unless I was asleep during that part of history class.

Also, there has been no “statistically significant” global warming over the past 15 years. He also admits to have lost track of the raw data used in his reports.

Tie this in to the controversies over the reliance on weather stationsin urban areas, the Himalayan glaciers melting and the shoddy calculations used for flooding susceptibilityin the Netherlands, is anyone else out there doing a little :rolleyes: whenever you hear something new about how much we are destroying the environment?

I’m sure some sites (such as the ever popular RealClimate.org) will dismiss or minimize the problems. However, we are making policy and economic changes based on reports being put out by the Nobel Prize winning organization.

My friend is a forensic chemist and she said that if her data was that suspect she would have had her credibility destroyed on the witness stand and would probably be fired. Bottom line, should we be telling the IPCC and the AGW proponents to STFU until they get their acts together by double checking their reports and data or, better yet, going back to square one and trying again?

The consensus among genuine scientists is that climate change caused by human actions is real.

Those who don’t want to believe this continue to finds reasons not to.

There have always been climate changes- cooling trends and warming trends. Even long before man was here, even before the dinosaurs were here.

Thus the fact of the Medieval Warm period does not detract from the fact of Global Warming. It does show that it was fairly warm then, and things weren’t so bad. There was also the Little Ice Age, and things were pretty tough then.

There has been a recent warming trend over the last century. How much of that is natural and how much caused by humans is a matter of debate.

Sure.

A debate that has the vast majority of the worlds scientists backed by data on one side, and large corporations like Exxon who fund disinformation campaigns by Astroturing on the other hand.

Could you please tell us what the global temperatures have been, annually, for the past 15 years?

It should be simple enough to see if things are indeed getting hotter or not.
I’m not sure what “statistical signficance” would have to do in this context, which I interpret to mean an inference test. Since there’s only one population of annual global temperatures, we don’t need to conduct any inferential test to determine if a given value is greater or not.

Really? * The vast majority of the worlds scientists know precisely how much of the current climate change is caused by humans? Last I heard it was a “significant” amount or that “very likely” most of the current trend was caused by humans. I have also seen “due primarily”, " most of the warming"* and other terms.

I have seen no consensus that sez "68% of the warming is caused by humans. "

“*There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.”

http://amap.no/acia/
Or, maybe you just didn’t read my post carefully and thought I said *whether or not any is caused by humans. *:dubious:

There is little doubt of a current warming trend, as I said. There is little doubt humans are one of the causes of that trend. How great is the trend, and how much humnas have caused is a matter of debate.

So I guess John Christy was a “genuine” scientist when he was a lead author on the IPCC but is not one now that he’s expressing doubts about AGW?

Those who want to believe AGW will continue to find reasons to do so even as the “consensus” among “genuine” scientists erodes.

To begin, I was on record already of putting Phil Jones over the coals for being the most clumsy of researchers, not for his work but for how he is all thumbs dealing with the media and critics.

That being said:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/daily_mail_caught_in_another_l.php

Untie that, that is indeed a very fraudulent thing to say by the Times.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm

About the only “big” error found among thousands of items in the report, and still the glaciars are melting, it is just that not at the estimation of the error that was a typo and that did not change the science.

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/02/indians_go_wacko.php

Yeah, did you notice the government of the Netherlands complaining about the IPCC using the the data that was furnished by the government of the Netherlands?

In any case the scientists from the Netherlands report that this error is only grave to the mind of the shoddy reporters.

http://www.pbl.nl/en/dossiers/Climatechange/content/correction-wording-flood-risks.html

I would wonder why even after acknowledging that there had been many threads on this before you did not bother to understand that many on the media do not have a clue or do maliciously misinterpret the reports from the scientists.

And you propose to then trust Mc Experts to lead the way? incidentally not a link to RealClimate was used for this post, even though they are also climate researchers.

So far the IPCC has been found to have an error rate that would be envy of many organizations, when reporters are coming with no perspective and misleading quotations it is not the IPCC who gets to be discredited, but the denier media.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/journalismgate.php

As for the consensus that counts:

97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php

As the pattern shows that denier media and clumsy reporters are all thumbs regarding the science, I assume by default that the people they mention are misquoted or were wrong before. (Even if mistaken, that does not mean they deserve to be dumped, do you have a cite that John Christy lost his position for making an honest mistake?)

You did notice who made the correction? Yeah, I thought you would notice.

You know, AGW, real or imagined as with most things green is a good idea on it’s own merit. The things that we can accomplish with little to no deviation should be done anyway. The crazy folks that keep pushing this in order to set an agenda (if that is what they are doing) will cause AGW to be a misshapen heap of collective dung, to be lumped on the dung heap.
Baby Steps.

Consensus: buy a dictionary and look it up.

Except that the consensus was based on the works of people like Phil Jones who advanced the “hockey stick” graph back 2000 years. He’s now back-peddling and admits he can’t produce the material to back it up.

I’m not a scientist but every business project I ever worked on required that I be able to produce the background numbers on demand for review. This was for projects ranging from thousands to over a million dollars a year. in comparison, we’re being asked to accept data and models that are not subject to review for decisions that will start in the billions and will certainly cost trillions when looked at globally. It’s important that the information and theoretical models be accurate.

This doesn’t mean we abandon research on climate or methods of mitigating possible damage. All this means is that we don’t chase down a blind trail spending money irresponsibly.

No, that is not what he said. And he is still referring to the previous reconstruction done by him, he is not part of the group that worked in the later reconstruction that did publish the data.

As it is clear you are still missing it this needs to be mentioned again: The proxy record temperature is not used to conclude that global warming gases are a problem now.

Fine, that is why the research of Mann was reviewed once again and so far the conclusion is that regarding his previous and latest hockey stick reconstructions Mann did not change or altered the data.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/04/penn-state-michael-mann-hockey-stick-science/

As for Phil Jones, I already said that I will not defend his sorry character, but this once again does not deny so far that his or other research are not valid.

Like I’ve been saying, the word is “consensus”. Seriously, a lot of people don’t understand what the term means. It doesn’t mean unanimous approval. If 10,000 scientists say something is the mainstream view of their field, then the fact that one guy (or even 100 guys) disagree or changed their minds doesn’t invalidate the consensus.

And it’s not a democracy. Lawyers and talk show hosts and liberal arts majors and car mechanics and brain surgeons don’t get to vote - they may be intelligent and knowledgeable people in their own fields of expertise but they’re not climatologists. If doctors say flu vaccines are a good idea, you don’t ban them because Jenny McCarthy thinks they cause autism.

I think its fair to say the AGW is taking a fair beating in the media, and that its effecting a lot of people in the street.

I dont think its fair to say this is based on a credible debunking of the research. Its comes across more as classic god of the gaps arguments, where it cant offer credible alternative theories for the data, other than ‘its a green conspiracy’ shticks.

Otara

“Climatology” is not a singular discipline. It consists of computer programmers, mathematicians and a host of other sciences that come together under a banner name. Each of those disciplines are links in a chain and each discipline depends on the accuracy of the others.

When we see University programs where there is deliberate exclusion or manipulation of data and individuals such as Jones who cannot back up their work then those links have to be discarded.

It’s amazing that people are so locked into the concept of Global Warming that no amount of bad information can supplant a desire to promote policies regardless of monetary consequence. When prominent scientists have been exposed for fraud or misrepresentation of data then common sense dictates that we question what is going on in the broader field to ensure we move in the right direction.

Indeed, the only thing I would have to modify is that it is clearly an unfair beating.

“Amazon Gate” is a good example of that unfairness:

http://climatesafety.org/swallowing-lies-how-the-denial-lobby-feeds-the-press/

As much huffing and puffing has been inferred, do you have a cite for that manipulation?

Again, unless you can post the evidence that there was fraud, we will have to dismiss your say so’s.

Lessee…Prof. Jones now admits that:
-he faked the data, and cannot find his notes
-there has been (apparently) no warming since 1995
-the “Medieval Warm Period” was a global phenomenon
What part of “fraud” isn’t clear here?