The Factual Argument Against Global Warming, Cap and Trade, and the Copenhagen Treaty

[jrodefeld]

@Ludovic

Sounds fair. Let me know when you’ve started, k?

I’ve written a better researched, more comprehensive, and better documented post than 90% of posts I have seen here. Since you seem to have failed in reading comprehension, I will make my primary points a little more clear for our ADD readers out there:

1. The modern environmental movement was devised, financed and planned by bankers and international elite (Edmund de Rothschild and others) with the goal of creating a world bank and world government, deindustrializing the United States, and gaining control of the land and natural resources of the third world.

2. The science is NOT settled. The IPCC was from the beginning a political organization and should not in any way be considered the “state of the art in scientific research” on climate change, particularly given the continually exposed manipulation of data (Climategate), and models and charts proven to be fraudulent (The Hockey Stick graph and others). Also, the fact that they continually refuse to release their raw data for independent review under Freedom of Information Act requests further casts doubt on their credibility. That is not to say that their aren’t many honest scientists who believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming. There are, but there are many who raise questions and dispute elements of the politically funded “science”, yet they are attacked, ridiculed and harassed. Many scientists just go along with the official story so they won’t be harassed as they work on other scientific research. This further silences and marginalize those who raise questions, because those that due must be willing to stomach the abuse and backlash from the political establishment.

3. The Cap and Trade legislation is a scam designed to make certain corporations very wealthy buying and selling carbon credits. Like I said previously, Al Gore owns Generation Investment Management, which will make him a billionaire in this emerging market. The corporations have taken over our economy in this country, what makes you think they won’t be taking over this market as well? Corporations that care only about their own profit, rather than the good of the planet.

4. The Cap and Trade legislation and the Copenhagen Treaty WILL be very damaging to the economy, this cannot be ignored. See the following links:

Zerohedge

http://www.accf.org/media/docs/nam/2009/National.pdf

Examiner is back - Examiner.com

Seems a high cost to pay for a reduction of the rate of increase in world temperatures by a mere 0.05 degrees Celcius in fifty years.

Since I’ve had my say, now its your turn. Ludovic, step up to the plate. I await your response.

[jrodefeld]

@Grey

“Urine for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s metabolism, it’s the product of all plant material digestion, it is essential for certain sexual kinks and bed time comfort, it’s a product of all industrial binge drinking, it’s a product of life – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from water consumption to frosh week, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.”

Funny. The point of the quote was very serious, however. Shouldn’t we care about the ramifications of giving bureaucrats the power to micromanage ALL aspects of our energy consumption? Do you care about the lower income people who have been laid off given a new and harmful regressive tax, and new burdens on our economy which will prevent a recovery? What about those struggling in the Third World who will be told by international bureaucrats that they cannot industrialize their economies and create prosperity because it would marginally increase Co2 production? While you are having fun giving snarky comments, people much less fortunate than yourself will be hurt tremendously.

[GIGObuster]

@jrodefeld

I am aware of Merchants of Doubt. It is frequently brought up by AGW advocates to discredit contrary views. Also, from your side of the argument, all scientists who disagree with the IPCC and mainstream views on this subject are bought off by Big Oil and corporate interests.

Nope, skeptical scientists do exist.

potholer54

@jrodefeld

By the way, you shouldn’t EVER equate skepticism of the IPCC with those denying a link between smoking and cancer.

Sorry, the shoe fits on many of the ones you are bringing as examples. And those links comes from the history of several conservative think tanks.

@jrodefeld

The science of climate change, the history of changing weather patterns, the myriad factors that influence changing global temperature, the task of separating natural cycles related to changes on the Sun (we are currently experiencing a significant solar minimum) from the effect that human activity has is one of the most complex scientific endeavors one could make. Not to mention the hubris necessary to think we can project long term warming trends decades into the future when weather men can barely predict the weather even a week into the future. Also, assuming climate change is indeed real, the task then becomes what steps would it take to really reduce world temperatures drastically over the next few decades, given that populations continue to increase in numbers, and poorer countries are looking to become industrialized and raise their standard of living. To really effect the temperatures significantly, it would require a significantly reduced population, and a dramatically reduced standard of living for people throughout the industrialized world.

And then the solution is to turn into a scaremonger, yeah that will work.

There is no reason why we should assume that the only option is the false choice of reducing the standard of living vs controlling carbon emissions.

greenman3610

@jrodefeld

Cap and Trade WILL NOT affect a significant change in world temperature over the next few decades. Look through these links:

Cap And Trade - Bad Medicine For A Sick Economy

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100001151/cap-and-trade-which-part-of-we-cant-afford-it-doesnt-obama-understand/

An important point in this link is this passage:

“According to an analysis by Chip Knappenberger, administrator of the World Climate Report, the reduction of U.S. CO2 emissions to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050 — the goal of the Waxman-Markey bill — would reduce global temperature in 2050 by a mere 0.05 degree Celsius.”

www.ees.ufl.edu/homepp/zoltek/Junk%20Science.doc

Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain) - Master Resource
So basically, IF this legislation is successful and run halfway competently, we can expect to see global temperature rise between 0.05ºC and 0.112ºC less than if we did nothing. There are many other resources out there that confirms these figures. This is IF we reduced carbon emissions 80% over 2005 levels! We are talking about a statistically insignificant difference.

Now, what we DO know for certain is that this is a huge tax, will reduce peoples standard of living, make certain corporations and vested interests vast fortunes, and give bureaucrats massive power to regulate every aspect of human behavior.

That’s nice, it seems that you don’t know me really well, I do not concentrate on what to do, the science behind AGW does not change whereas we do something or nothing regarding the human release of global warming gases. I do think that proposed solutions still need to be investigated properly.

@jrodefeld

Why is it you can only see the ulterior motives of the “skeptics”? Even if some scientists are bought by Big Oil and have an agenda, it pales in comparison to the lucrative emerging carbon credit market. The prospects for making money are endless. What about the bankers who have financed this movement? What do you think their agenda is? If you actually took the time to read my initial post, you would see that it is the creation of a world bank. This has been documented so many times. You really need to open your eyes.

And so, more conspiracy theories.

Once again, not all scientists opposed to AGW are skeptics, some indeed are in the payroll of organizations whose product is only to seed doubts about the science instead of concentrating on what the best solutions will be.

[Poptech]

@GIGObuster

There is no need to analyze much, McIntyre had the data (a big refutation of one of your main points) and still he continued to demand it and not use it properly.

In some instances he had some of the data and in others he needed the methods used to recreate the results. What he continued to demand was what he did not have. Why are you so against reproducible results?

[jrodefeld]

@Squink

Yeah, it’s plain to see that they’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
Why should it be either a “method to control human behavior” or a “war against pollution”?
Why can’t it just be “something that happens” like cracking your head on the steering wheel when you try to adjust your seat while your foot’s on the brake pedal?
Why must you reduce physical reality to human terms? You do realize that it exists outside of our machinations and desires, don’t you?

I’m not reducing physical reality to human terms. Climate change is happening and, as you’ve said, exists outside the desires and deceit of humans. What I’m saying is that human beings are contributing relatively little to the larger cycles of climate change and more importantly anything that we could do to reduce carbon emissions would lead to a statistically insignificant change in global temperatures. As I stated previously, if we reduce Co2 emissions by 80% of 2005 levels (which isn’t going to happen), we would see a reduction in global temperature by less than 0.05 degrees Celcius.

The human element comes into play when looking into the ramifications of legislation on human liberty, prosperity, and the tradition of Capitalism as the engine of human progress and a method of raising his standard of living. Believe me, the economic system of free enterprise is under threat. That is what I am concerned about. A world government would take the power of governance as far away from the population as possible, with the least responsive body of politicians you could imagine.

[GIGObuster]

@Poptech

In some instances he had some of the data and in others he needed the methods used to recreate the results. What he continued to demand was what he did not have. Why are you so against reproducible results?

Well, that shows that you are really ignorant about how science works. Replication of the tools used is not the main point, otherwise it would indeed mean no progress or that researchers could miss some important new method, solution, or problem.

RealClimate: On replication

Science

Much of the conversation concerning replication often appears to be based on the idea that a large fraction of scientific errors, or incorrect conclusions or problematic results are the result of errors in coding or analysis. The idealised implication being, that if we could just eliminate coding errors, then science would be much more error free. While there are undoubtedly individual cases where this has been the case (this protein folding code for instance), the vast majority of papers that turn out to be wrong, or non-robust are because of incorrect basic assumptions, overestimates of the power of a test, some wishful thinking, or a failure to take account of other important processes (It might be a good idea for someone to tally this in a quantitative way – any ideas for how that might be done?).

In the cases here, the issues that I thought worth exploring from a scientific point of view were not whether the arithmetic was correct, but whether the conclusions drawn from the analyses were. To test that I varied the data sources, the time periods used, the importance of spatial auto-correlation on the effective numbers of degree of freedom, and most importantly, I looked at how these methodologies stacked up in numerical laboratories (GCM model runs) where I knew the answer already. That was the bulk of the work and where all the science lies – the replication of the previous analyses was merely a means to an end. You can read the paper to see how that all worked out (actually even the abstract might be enough).

Bottom line

Despite minor errors in the printed description of what was done and no online code or data, my replication of the dLM07 analysis and it’s application to new situations was more thorough than I was able to do with MM07 despite their more complete online materials. Precisely because I recreated the essential tools myself, I was able to explore the sensitivity of the dLM07 results to all of the factors I thought important. While I did replicate the MM07 analysis, the fact that I was dependent on their initial economic data collation means that some potentially important sensitivities did not get explored. In neither case was replication trivial, though neither was it particularly arduous. In both cases there was enough information to scientifically replicate the results despite very different approaches to archiving. I consider that both sets of authors clearly met their responsibilities to the scientific community to have their work be reproducible.

However, the bigger point is that reproducibility of an analysis does not imply correctness of the conclusions. This is something that many scientists clearly appreciate, and probably lies at the bottom of the community’s slow uptake of online archiving standards since they mostly aren’t necessary for demonstrating scientific robustness (as in these cases for instance). In some sense, it is a good solution to a unimportant problem. For non-scientists, this point of view is not necessarily shared, and there is often an explicit link made between any flaw in a code or description however minor and the dismissal of a result. However, it is not until the “does it matter?” question has been fully answered that any conclusion is warranted. The unsatisfying part of many online replication attempts is that this question is rarely explored.

To conclude? Ease of replicability does not correlate to the quality of the scientific result.

And oh yes, the supplemental data for my paper are available here.

[jrodefeld]

@GIGObuster

This is a perfect example of the perennial “I hope no one will notice that many already replied or debunked that item before”

450 more lies from the climate change Deniers | Greenfyre's

Long analysis, but suffice to say that it shows that those papers were:
Ever heard of a Google vomit? that list was the Google scholar vomit equivalent.

With more substance, but still just trowing up anything with the hope that something would stick

Okay, in this instance I believe you are mistaking debunking and disproving certain scientists with just disagreeing with them. Those in the Anthropogenic Global Warming crowd like to have it both ways. On the one hand they claim that all scientists agree with the IPCC reports. On the other hand, when papers are published that disagree with them, they expend tremendous effort trying to trash those with different opinions and conclusions in order to “make them go away”. The “refutations” are links to blogs, realclimate wiki and youtube. Not exactly the most reputable sources to refute scientific journals. By the way, Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal.

• Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, Ingenta, JournalSeek and SCOPUS

http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/eih-coverage.pdf

Since climate change has become almost a religion for some people, they put up blogs and spend tremendous energy trashing any and everything that disputes their own beliefs (both sides do this). The difference is I am not claiming there aren’t good scientists who believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming. You are claiming that there aren’t any good scientists who dispute Antropogenic Global Warming. That blog you linked to did a very poor job discrediting most of the papers on that list. The fact that he made an outright error on the top, claiming that Energy and Environment aren’t peer reviewed, further weakens his case. Why not just accept that there are good, decent scientists who dispute the IPCC and Climate Alarmism? Those 500 papers I linked to are just the start, but it would be pointless if you simply non critically reject anything that goes against your already determined opinion on the matter.

[Poptech]

@GIGObuster

Well, that shows that you are really ignorant about how science works. Replication of the tools used is not the main point, otherwise it would indeed mean no progress or that researchers could miss some important new method, solution, or problem.

No it shows you are really ignorant of what is being debated. Before you can even debate the science you have to be able to be able to replicate the results. Ironically you link to Gavin who has never been at the center of any paper’s replication controversy. His site is just a sounding board for scientists who refuse to disclose their data, methods and sourcecode.

Check the Numbers: The Case for Due Diligence in Policy Formation (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)

Empirical research in academic journals is often cited as the basis for public policy decisions,in part because people think that the journals have checked the accuracy of the research. Yet such work is rarely subjected to independent checks for accuracy during the peer review process, and the data and computational methods are so seldom disclosed that post-publication verification is equally rare. This study argues that researchers and journals have allowed habits of secrecy to persist that severely inhibit independent replication. Non-disclosure of essential research materials may have deleterious scientific consequences, but our concern herein is something different: the possible negative effects on public policy formation. When a piece of academic research takes on a public role, such as becoming the basis for public policy decisions, practices that obstruct independent replication, such as refusal to disclose data, or the concealment of details about computational methods, prevent the proper functioning of the scientific process and can lead to poor public decision making. This study shows that such practices are surprisingly common, and that researchers, users of research, and the public need to consider ways to address the situation. We offer suggestions that journals, funding agencies, and policy makers can implement to improve the transparency of the publication process and enhance the replicability of the research that is published.

[GIGObuster]

@jrodefeld

Okay, in this instance I believe you are mistaking debunking and disproving certain scientists with just disagreeing with them. Those in the Anthropogenic Global Warming crowd like to have it both ways. On the one hand they claim that all scientists agree with the IPCC reports. On the other hand, when papers are published that disagree with them, they expend tremendous effort trying to trash those with different opinions and conclusions in order to “make them go away”. The “refutations” are links to blogs, realclimate wiki and youtube. Not exactly the most reputable sources to refute scientific journals. By the way, Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal.

• Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, Ingenta, JournalSeek and SCOPUS

http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/eih-coverage.pdf

BTW just mentioning Energy and environment should be enough to look silly on your attempts to minimize what other sources are telling us, the reality is that all the links I made are based on science and recognized sources. What you are trying to do is a fallacy.

@jrodefeld

Since climate change has become almost a religion for some people, they put up blogs and spend tremendous energy trashing any and everything that disputes their own beliefs (both sides do this). The difference is I am not claiming there aren’t good scientists who believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming. You are claiming that there aren’t any good scientists who dispute Antropogenic Global Warming.

Nope, it is clear that you did not see the video, it was made by a former geologist that is now a science reporter. And yes, he differentiates on what is an skeptic scientist from a denier.

@jrodefeld

That blog you linked to did a very poor job discrediting most of the papers on that list. The fact that he made an outright error on the top, claiming that Energy and Environment aren’t peer reviewed, further weakens his case. Why not just accept that there are good, decent scientists who dispute the IPCC and Climate Alarmism? Those 500 papers I linked to are just the start, but it would be pointless if you simply non critically reject anything that goes against your already determined opinion on the matter.

The point remains, anyone that is publishing in E&E is doing it to avoid proper reviews.

Poptart’s 450 climate change Denier lies

Energy & Environment is peer reviewed

Peer review is a process that helps ensure the quality of science. It is not a perfect process (and here), but nonetheless a valuable one. I stated that Energy & Environment (hereafter E&E), a journal which published 82 of the papers on the list, is not peer reviewed. Poptech insists that E&E is a peer reviewed journal, so what are the facts?

1. E&E does NOT appear on the Science Citation Index Master Journal List. The ISI is considered “the” listing of peer reviewed journals, and for the most part if a journal does not appear there, it is not peer reviewed.

2. EBSCO (another index) does include E&E as peer reviewed

According to EBSCO, they use “the following tools to identify peer reviewed journals:

1. The Serials Directory, an online directory of serials with descriptions
2. The publisher of the journal
3. Feedback from librarians and professors
4. EBSCO Publishing staff librarians”

1 & 4 are in-house to EBSCO, and 2 is not necessarily reliable … so it is unclear to me how meaningful this inclusion on EBSCO is.

4. Scopus, another journal index, lists E&E as a trade publication as distinct and separate from peer reviewed journals.

5. There is no mention of peer-review in E&E’s description of themselves, a pretty significant omission if it actually is peer reviewed.

6. E&E openly admits to allowing politics to influence editorial decisions (here). Not only that, but the editor has stated:

In addition, she “says that the more mainstream climatologists agree, the more suspicious she becomes about claims that human activity is causing global warming.” For Boehmer-Christiansen, the more consensus there is among scientists, the greater reason there is for skepticism. I wonder how she feels about heliocentrism.

Thoughts on “Energy & Environment”

Thanks to Kfr we know that she has also said (emphasis added):

By the way, E&E is not a science journal and has published IPCC critiques to give a platform critical voices and ‘paradigms’ because of the enormous implications for energy policy, the energy industries and their employees and investors, and for research. We do not claim to be right …

Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen 3 Sept, 2009

More unintended honesty, and here is what an astute commenter on digg.com found:

HuangFeng

Um … here’s something curious: E&E is sometimes clearly marked into different sections which distinguish editorial, viewpoints, book reviews and refereed articles. But E&E is inconsistent, they curiously have a section called just “articles”, sometimes bundling everything under this title.

Everything was generic “article” and it wasn’t until I got down to the 10th article “Climate outlook to 2030″ only to find this is a viewpoint and not a refereed article.

The next is “Dangerous global warming remains unproven” which is a non refereed report.

The first refereed paper from E&E is the 16th E&E article listed: “Evidence for “publication Bias” Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature”. All the previous are generic “article” or some other.

So while E&E is a peer reviewed journal according to EBSCO, not all of the articles are claimed by the journal to be peer reviewed. A cursory examination of the first 16 E&E articles in the 450 list shows that only one is claimed to be peer reviewed by the journal.

[GIGObuster]

@Poptech

No it shows you are really ignorant of what is being debated. Before you can even debate the science you have to be able to be able to replicate the results. Ironically you link to Gavin who has never been at the center of any paper’s replication controversy. His site is just a sounding board for scientists who refuse to disclose their data, methods and sourcecode.

So you are still hung up on that? Even for all your silliness you still had to acknowledge that most of the data was already released and even links posted at Realclimate.

You may had a point that nowadays thanks to technology scientists should be able to release all, and indeed that is what is taking place. As already several months or even years have passed after the data and tools were released we should already (And the point remains that by now deniers should had come already with their own solid evidence) had concise evidence from denier sources about the “bad” science committed by the climate researchers. My experience after checking many past debates: Don’t hold your breath waiting for deniers to succeed.

McClimategate continues: Yet another false accusation from McIntyre and...

How do they get away with it? That’s the inevitable question as I examine one of the most specious – and despicable – “climategate” allegations from contrarians, namely the oft-repeated claim that climate scientists at East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit inappropriately adjusted certain tree-ring temperature proxy data to provide a better match with instrumental temperature record.

In an extraordinary interview with FoxNews in December of last year, economist Ross McKitrick alleged that scientists were “faking the match” between proxy and temperature data. McKitrick averred this was “not being honest with the reader” and even invoked a comparison to falsified experimental medical research. Stephen McIntyre of ClimateAudit recently claimed that the “artificial correction” seemed “to have entered the CRU toolkit” (in his submission to the U.K. parliamentary committee examining allegations arising from stolen CRU emails, no less).

Yet a close examination of the computer code and ensuing research bears out the key contention of the firm rebuttals from East Anglia University, as well as CRU scientist Tim Osborn, namely that the specific adjustments in question were for private exploration only and never incorporated into CRU scientists’ subsequent published research temperature reconstructions. So, once again, McIntyre and McKitrick have made odious and unfounded accusations, based on non-existent evidence. They should withdraw these specious allegations immediately.

Most readers will recall that among the “climategate” documents stolen last November from East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, were a number of research computer programs, with code and comments that appeared to show the use of a “fudge factor” to “artificially correct” tree ring-data after 1960. A number of bloggers, led by Anthony Watts, fell over themselves to bring forth this supposed “smoking gun” proof of fraudulence perpetrated by scientists.

As the furor over the stolen emails and documents mounted, Fox News prepared a one-hour documentary, provocatively entitled Global Warming … or a Lot of HotAir? The program was based largely on interviews with McKitrick and McIntyre (as well as Patrick Michaels), and aired a few days before Christmas. The program was subsequently archived at WattsUpWithThat in six convenient segments (unfortunately, the links are no longer operative due to flagrant copyright violation).

The remote split-screen interview with McKitrick is in the third segment and appears to have been conducted with McKitrick in his book-lined office at the University of Buckingham (where he was visiting professor until January). At around 3:30 of that segment, the documentary discusses the “fudge factor”.

FOXNews narrator: Then there is the suggestion that climate scientists were improperly massaging their data. It ’s found within the computer codes that they used in their temperature research. One program contained information referred to as a fudge factor.

FOXNews interviewer: Can you explain what the fudge factor is?

Ross McKitrick: The fudge factor is actually a line written into a computer program at the Climate Resaerch Unit, where they’ve run into a problem with their data. They want to fit some tree-ring proxy data to their temperature data, but the tree-ring proxy data goes in one direction; it goes down, and the temperature data is going up.

Narrator: In other words, at times the tree-ring data and the temperature didn’t match. The thermometers said warmer, and the tree-ring said cooler.

Interviewer: It almost sounds like it’s faking it.

McKitrick: It’s faking the match. The problem is, if they haven’t explained that they use this fudge factor to force it to match, then it’s not being honest with the reader.

Narrator: Another programmer note reads,  “These will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures”.

Interviewer: Do all scientists do this?

McKitrick: I sure hope not. I mean where would we be in medical science, for instance, if they took all the people that died from the experimental treatment and just recoded so it looks like they got better.

A few minutes later, a denial is desultorily displayed:

The University of East Anglia added that the “fudge factor” computer codes were never used for published articles or data and defended the Climatic Research Unit’s work, as its director, Phil Jones, has temporarily stepped aside for a university investigation, and the world has learned that the Unit had discarded much of its temperature data.

Aside from the obvious implication that the University denial is untrustworthy, since the head of CRU is “under investigation”, note that Fox introduces the canard that CRU had discarded “much of its temperature data”, data which was not actually CRU’s, and not relevant to the research discussed in any event.

Naturally, the debate about the “fudge factor” has become a key part of the U.K. parliamentary Science and Technology Committee investigation of the stolen CRU documents. In a submission to that committee, CRU paleoclimatologist Tim Osborn gave a detailed explanation of the matter.

8. CRU’s Computer Code is Fit For Purpose and Does Not Reveal Secret Manipulation of Data

   A small sample of my computer programming code was included in the disclosed files. It has been argued that comments within the code such as “Fudge factor” and “shouldn’t usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” demonstrate that data have been manipulated in an inappropriate and undisclosed manner. My programs that were highlighted on BBC Newsnight that contained comments such as these were not the basis for any published article or dataset, and thus are not a valid indication of inappropriate data manipulation. If we do need to make adjustments to data that are scientifically justified, then we state clearly both the justification and the adjustment when we publish the article or dataset. In relation to the second of the two highlighted comments, it was simply a note that should have read “…because these will have been artificially adjusted…” to remind myself that I had applied an adjustment to this particular set of data (for the purposes of exploring the consequences of recent trends for the calibration of tree-ring temperature proxies) and that if I did plot them it would give a false impression of the agreement between tree-rings and temperature because of the adjustment. Thus, rather than indicating that an undisclosed adjustment would be made, it was a warning to avoid using adjusted data without realising it. To re-iterate: I have made no adjustments to data except those that are scientifically justified and stated in published papers. [Emphasis added].

Yet despite these convincing and forthright explanations, McIntyre forged ahead with his own reckless accusation in his submission to the parliamentary committee.

7. One of the underlying problems in trying to use tree ring width/density chronologies for temperature reconstructions is a decline in 20th century values at many sites – Briffa’s 1992 density (MXD) chronology for the influential Tornetrask site is shown at left below. The MXD chronology had a very high correlation to temperature, but went down in the 20th century relative to what it was “expected” to do and relative to the ring width (RW) chronology (which had a lower correlation to temperature.) So Briffa “adjusted” the MXD chronology, by a linear increase to the latter values (middle), thereby reducing the medieval-modern differential. This adjustment was described in private as the “Briffa bodge” …

** “Bodging” then seems to entered [sic] into the CRU toolkit to get reconstructions to “look” right, as evidenced by the Climategate documents containing annotations that the method contains “fudge factors” or “very artificial corrections for decline” (e.g. …**

;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********

[Emphasis added]

**
Although neither McKitrick and McIntyre gave any specific instances where this undisclosed “method” to get “reconstructions to look right” had actually been used in subsequently published research, that inference was very clear. And McIntyre even implies that this was a regular occurrence, as the manipulation was supposedly part of the “CRU toolkit”.**

[Poptech]

@GIGObuster

The point remains, anyone that is publishing in E&E is doing it to avoid proper reviews.

18 | November | 2009 | Greenfyre's…

This is not true and greenfyre has been completely refuted over and over,

8. Greenfyre lies that Energy & Environment is not Peer-Reviewed. Again he links to the multi-billion dollar Thompson Reuters corporation’s commercial Master Journal List, implying that only journals on this list are peer-reviewed. This is absurd as anything listed there is purely subjective. Other competing companies clearly list E&E as a peer-reviewed academic journal,

EBSCO; Energy & Environment: Peer-Reviewed - Yes, Academic Journal - Yes (PDF)

EBSCO has been around for over 60 years and their services are used by Colleges, Universities, Hospitals, Medical Institutions, Government Institutions and Public Libraries.
9. Greenfyre attempts to smear the process by which EBSCO includes a journal as peer-reviewed. EBSCO clearly mentions ALL the methods they use to determine if a journal is peer-reviewed of which Greenfyre attempts to imply that they only use a select few such as just taking the word of journal itself, which is a lie. Ironically he criticizes the very process that journals appear on the multi-billion dollar Thompson Reuters corporation’s commercial Master Journal List - internal editors.
10. Greenfyre lies that the Scopus listing implies that E&E is not peer-reviewed. Scopus incorrectly lists Energy & Environment as a “trade” journal, which is illogical as it is not associated with any specific “trade” such as “chemical engineering”. EBSCO correctly lists it as an academic journal. But this is irrelevant as no mention in the Scopus listing is the peer-reviewed status of any journal.
11. Greenfyre lies that because the peer-review process is not mentioned on E&E’s website it is not peer-reviewed. This is absurd as I have personally spoken to the editor Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen and various authors of papers to confirm that E&E is peer-reviewed and challenged Greenfyre to do the same, something he has never done.
12. Greenfyre attempts to smear Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen by linking to random blogs and taking quotes she said out of context. Dr. Boehmer-Christiansen has simply admitted to allowing papers a chance to undergo E&E’s peer-review process where they may be arbitrarily rejected from this chance by the editors of other journals. This in no way means that they are published without review. Then of course she admits it is not a pure science journal, which it never claimed to be but rather an interdisciplinary academic journals that allows debate on topics that cross the natural and social sciences and have policy implications. Thus papers published will include both pure science, social science and a mix of both. This is effectively stated on their webpage,

“Energy and Environment is an interdisciplinary journal aimed at natural scientists, technologists and the international social science and policy communities covering the direct and indirect environmental impacts of energy acquisition, transport, production and use. A particular objective is to cover the social, economic and political dimensions of such issues at local, national and international level. The technological and scientific aspects of energy and environment questions including energy conservation, and the interaction of energy forms and systems with the physical environment, are covered, including the relationship of such questions to wider economic and socio-political issues. A major aim of Energy and Environment is to act as a forum for constructive and professional debate between scientists and technologists, social scientists and economists from academia, government and the energy industries on energy and environment issues in both a national and international context. It is also the aim to include the informed and environmentally concerned public and their organizations in the debate.”
13. Greenfyre further attempts to smear E&E by using HuangFeng’s so called “analysis”. While I agree that the online formatting E&E’s labeling is inconsistent, this does not prove a paper was not subject to the peer-review process. I pointed out to Huang multiple times that popular journals Nature and Science do not designate which articles are peer-reviewed or not. Using Huang’s standards Nature and Science should be removed as peer-reviewed journals for failure to disclose which articles are peer-reviewed or not.

[Poptech]

@GIGObuster

So you are still hung up on that? Even for all your silliness you still had to acknowledge that most of the data was already released and even links posted at Realclimate.

No I am not acknowledging that because for the papers in question, some or all of the data, some or all of the methods and some or all of the sourcecode was not released upon request or was not available.

Caspar and the Jesus paper (PDF)

[GIGObuster]

@Poptech

No I am not acknowledging that because for the papers in question, some or all of the data, some or all of the methods and some or all of the sourcecode was not released upon request or was not available.

Caspar and the Jesus paper (PDF)

More conspiracy, again, what is expected coming from Climate Audit.

[GIGObuster]

@Poptech

12. Greenfyre attempts to smear Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen by linking to random blogs and taking quotes she said out of context. Dr. Boehmer-Christiansen has simply admitted to allowing papers a chance to undergo E&E’s peer-review process where they may be arbitrarily rejected from this chance by the editors of other journals. This in no way means that they are published without review. Then of course she admits it is not a pure science journal, which it never claimed to be but rather an interdisciplinary academic journals that allows debate on topics that cross the natural and social sciences and have policy implications. Thus papers published will include both pure science, social science and a mix of both. This is effectively stated on their webpage,

“Energy and Environment is an interdisciplinary journal aimed at natural scientists, technologists and the international social science and policy communities covering the direct and indirect environmental impacts of energy acquisition, transport, production and use. A particular objective is to cover the social, economic and political dimensions of such issues at local, national and international level. The technological and scientific aspects of energy and environment questions including energy conservation, and the interaction of energy forms and systems with the physical environment, are covered, including the relationship of such questions to wider economic and socio-political issues. A major aim of Energy and Environment is to act as a forum for constructive and professional debate between scientists and technologists, social scientists and economists from academia, government and the energy industries on energy and environment issues in both a national and international context. It is also the aim to include the informed and environmentally concerned public and their organizations in the debate.”

And you think that helps? It is an admission that sticking to peer review science is not their main objective.

[Poptech]

@GIGObuster

And you think that helps? It is an admission that sticking to peer review science is not their main objective.

Why would a journal that is not a strict science journal only stick to an inclusion of pure science for all it’s papers? That is illogical. Some papers are strickly science, some social science, some a mix of both, regardless the proper peer-review process is carried out relating to the topic of the paper. Science papers are reviewed by scientists and social science papers by social scientists ect…

[GIGObuster]

@Poptech

Why would a journal that is not a strict science journal only stick to an inclusion of pure science for all it’s papers? That is illogical. Some papers are strickly science, some social science, some a mix of both, regardless the proper peer-review process is carried out relating to the topic of the paper. Science papers are reviewed by scientists and social science papers by social scientists ect…

And that was the point, it is not really a great accomplishment to publish then on that journal.

[Ludovic]

@jrodefeld

I’ve written a better researched, more comprehensive, and better documented post than 90% of posts I have seen here. Since you seem to have failed in reading comprehension, I will make my primary points a little more clear for our ADD readers out there:

1. The modern environmental movement was devised, financed and planned by bankers and international elite (Edmund de Rothschild and others) with the goal of creating a world bank and world government, deindustrializing the United States, and gaining control of the land and natural resources of the third world.

2. The science is NOT settled. The IPCC was from the beginning a political organization and should not in any way be considered the “state of the art in scientific research” on climate change, particularly given the continually exposed manipulation of data (Climategate), and models and charts proven to be fraudulent (The Hockey Stick graph and others). Also, the fact that they continually refuse to release their raw data for independent review under Freedom of Information Act requests further casts doubt on their credibility. That is not to say that their aren’t many honest scientists who believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming. There are, but there are many who raise questions and dispute elements of the politically funded “science”, yet they are attacked, ridiculed and harassed. Many scientists just go along with the official story so they won’t be harassed as they work on other scientific research. This further silences and marginalize those who raise questions, because those that due must be willing to stomach the abuse and backlash from the political establishment.

3. The Cap and Trade legislation is a scam designed to make certain corporations very wealthy buying and selling carbon credits. Like I said previously, Al Gore owns Generation Investment Management, which will make him a billionaire in this emerging market. The corporations have taken over our economy in this country, what makes you think they won’t be taking over this market as well? Corporations that care only about their own profit, rather than the good of the planet.

4. The Cap and Trade legislation and the Copenhagen Treaty WILL be very damaging to the economy, this cannot be ignored. See the following links:

Zerohedge

http://www.accf.org/media/docs/nam/2009/National.pdf

Examiner is back - Examiner.com

Seems a high cost to pay for a reduction of the rate of increase in world temperatures by a mere 0.05 degrees Celcius in fifty years.

Since I’ve had my say, now its your turn. Ludovic, step up to the plate. I await your response.

I see no scientific arguments here, just smears, innuendo and politics.

When all else fails, you can always call your opponent vile names.

[Poptech]

@GIGObuster

And that was the point, it is not really a great accomplishment to publish then on that journal.

Whether someone considers it an accomplishment to get one’s paper published in a certain journal or not is going to be completely dependent on the individual author and irrelevant.

[GIGObuster]

@Poptech

Whether someone considers it an accomplishment to get one’s paper published in a certain journal or not is going to be completely dependent on the individual author and irrelevant.

As has been clear from the overall discussion, it is unwise to assume that that is taking place in a vacuum, the context has to be taken into account.

[jrodefeld]

@Marley23

Very. Just like every other one world government conspiracy theory I have ever come across.

I’m sorry, but if you don’t think there are some powerful men who would like to see a world government, then you must really be uninformed about the nature of corporatism, the history of the United Nations and the concept of Fractional Reserve Banking. It is not a conspiracy theory. Its just the natural progression of government growth and power. There is a continual consolidation of power among fewer and fewer hands. I don’t think you could really argue that this hasn’t happened over the last 50-60 years of our history. I want to separate this from any other “New World Order” theory you may have heard. Did you know that the richest 700 people on the planet have more personal wealth than the bottom 3 billion combined? The very notion that some of these men may “make plans in secret” makes one a loon and a crazy person according to our national media. But I am not a conspiracy theorist. There are many mainstream news articles that detail the efforts of some men to use the threat of global warming and the Copenhagen Treaty in particular to push for a world government system. Consider these links:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/beware-the-uns-copenhagen-plot/story-e6frg6qx-1225791869745

EDITORIAL: Green world government

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/flannerys_hope_a_global_treaty_to_influence_your_every_move/

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=28266

There are many others. Remember I’m not talking about the “New World Order” or the “Illuminati” or the JFK assassination, I’m taking about bankers and UN people planning a massive expansion of international power with an international police force. I’m talking about the plans to replace the dollar as the reserve currency with a new international currency, possibly SDRs. Some links to back that up:

G20 not ready yet for new world currency debate

The G20 moves the world a step closer to a global currency

At G20, Kremlin to Pitch New Currency - Global Research

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=axEnb_LXw5yc

So, we are talking about 700 international bureaucracies, a world tax, a possible world currency, and a world police force. If this doesn’t sound like world government, what does? Its not some sinister “plot”, its just the evaluation of the facts. Unlike you, I have actually read much of the Copenhagen Treaty (at least the draft that was leaked in December) and I see what they are working on. Come on. Wake up.