Global Warming: Policy-Driven Deception

[HalfLotus]

The Climategate emails are available online for free. You can read them and decide for yourself what you think, rather than rely on interpretation from 'independent' sources, whatever that means. For the most part they are written in plain english, with some jargon that should be readable to anyone familiar with the issue.

One thing I notice is that skeptic sites tend to publish the actual email text, whereas catastrophists sources, which includes most of the corporate media, just print what people ought to think of them. First thing I did was read some of the actual emails, and their content is damning.

"Redefin[ing] the peer-review process", and cheering the death of skeptical scientists shows you where Jones and his crew stand. They're advocates first , and scientists second.

[Spinko]

The Climategate emails are available online for free. You can read them and decide for yourself what you think, rather than rely on interpretation from 'independent' sources, whatever that means. For the most part they are written in plain english, with some jargon that should be readable to anyone familiar with the issue.

One thing I notice is that skeptic sites tend to publish the actual email text, whereas catastrophists sources, which includes most of the corporate media, just print what people ought to think of them. First thing I did was read some of the actual emails, and their content is damning.

"Redefin[ing] the peer-review process", and cheering the death of skeptical scientists shows you where Jones and his crew stand. They're advocates first , and scientists second.

Exactly.

The warmist scammers tried to argue the emails were taken out of context.

They were, but only by themselves.

In plain light, they are damning of climate science.

Scam, scam, scam.

[Wernazuma III]

Exactly.
The warmist scammers tried to argue the emails were taken out of context.
They were, but only by themselves.
In plain light, they are damning of climate science.
Scam, scam, scam.

No, they're not. Albeit they reveal a disturbing relationship of leading scientists of the panel towards scientific procedures (and fuelling doubts regarding conclusions drawn from their data).

However, being selective about arguments is not exlusive to those people. "Skeptics" tend to forget tons of sound results, picking on a number of examples of bad practice and bias. What they don't do is offering relevant studies themselves.
Almost all of them reduce the problem to attacking scientific procedures alltogether, not contributing much meaningful (there is a handful of scientists who work on real projects with skeptic hypothesis, but very few).

One very critical email from "Climategate", written in reply to a disturbing mail, and which is commented by skeptic John Costello with the words "I couldn’t express it any better myself." (http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/) actually is authored by Tom Wigley, whose research actually predicts an even higher man-made climate change to happen but that we can't influence much of it anymore. Wigley is quoted all throughout the text for his critique of the IPCC - yet he criticizes it from a VERY different approach.
Here the text:

Dear Eleven,

I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “view” when you say that “the latest IPCC assessment makes a convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions.” …

This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed, balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.

Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully themselves. You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just this! I fear that some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science—when, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords with the IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on the subject.

…

When scientists color the science with their own personal views or make categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what they are doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is, in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics …. I find this extremely disturbing.

So, this is a tale about leading people of an important institution being insincere as scientists but not a tale against man made climate change itself - which is advocated by a lot more people and independent studies than those based on the IPCC itself.

[Drake Tungsten]

"MWP"? Cite source as well please, because I don't know what you're talking about there.

If you don't know what the MWP is, you probably shouldn't be posting in a thread on climate change.

[Spinko]

No, they're not. Albeit they reveal a disturbing relationship of leading scientists of the panel towards scientific procedures (and fuelling doubts regarding conclusions drawn from their data).

However, being selective about arguments is not exlusive to those people. "Skeptics" tend to forget tons of sound results, picking on a number of examples of bad practice and bias. What they don't do is offering relevant studies themselves.
Almost all of them reduce the problem to attacking scientific procedures alltogether, not contributing much meaningful (there is a handful of scientists who work on real projects with skeptic hypothesis, but very few).

Firstly you've not been looking very hard if you don't know any "sceptic" papers. For instance we now have released at www.wattsupwiththat.com news of temperature reconstruction based on clams, their shells are a good indicator of sea temperature. These show a MWP.

Secondly, science works by someone developing a hypothesis and then everyone trying to knock it down (even those who provisionally think the hypothesis is correct). If the hypothesis is not found wrong, then it stands. So is is completely in accordance with the scientific process for sceptics to attack the AGW hypothesis and key papers, which is what they have done.

Your argument that they should develop some sort of "alternate hypothesis" (for what exactly?) shows a failure to understand science.

[Wernazuma III]

Firstly you've not been looking very hard if you don't know any "sceptic" papers. For instance we now have released at www.wattsupwiththat.com news of temperature reconstruction based on clams, their shells are a good indicator of sea temperature. These show a MWP.

I never claimed there were none, or that all evidence would point towards a single scenario, read the post more closely. There's nothing wrong of course with studies pointing the finger on discrepancies or contrary evidence. But the authors of these studies are generally not the same as the promoters of "climategate"...

Secondly, science works by someone developing a hypothesis and then everyone trying to knock it down (even those who provisionally think the hypothesis is correct). If the hypothesis is not found wrong, then it stands. So is is completely in accordance with the scientific process for sceptics to attack the AGW hypothesis and key papers, which is what they have done.
Your argument that they should develop some sort of "alternate hypothesis" (for what exactly?) shows a failure to understand science.

I think you should think deeper. This debate is far from being about "hypothesis" anymore. You have to frame all scientific positions and hypothesis (since there are scores of them) within the wider paradigm, which does not depend anymore on the soundness of a particular paper or the integrity of a single person.
Wanting to bring down a paradigm needs much more and requires alternative models that still cope with evidence found by thousands of climatologists and glaciologists, etc. - unless you assume they all fake their studies.

[Spinko]

I never claimed there were none, or that all evidence would point towards a single scenario, read the post more closely. There's nothing wrong of course with studies pointing the finger on discrepancies or contrary evidence. But the authors of these studies are generally not the same as the promoters of "climategate"...



I think you should think deeper. This debate is far from being about "hypothesis" anymore. You have to frame all scientific positions and hypothesis (since there are scores of them) within the wider paradigm, which does not depend anymore on the soundness of a particular paper or the integrity of a single person.
Wanting to bring down a paradigm needs much more and requires alternative models that still cope with evidence found by thousands of climatologists and glaciologists, etc. - unless you assume they all fake their studies.

So it's different this time?

[Kidlicious]

This is a money quote for health care.

I think the health insurance knows more about cutting overall health care costs than anyone, because it's their business. I've already stated that many times.

[MikeH]

Their business is to maximise profits, not to minimise expenditure.

[Kidlicious]

Their business is to maximise profits, not to minimise expenditure.

That makes no sense.

[MikeH]

Higher value items can be more profitable, but have higher costs associated with them. You can make more profit by selling the best product available, whether it be healthcare or a car, at a premium rate even if it costs a lot more to provide because people can attach value to goods and services beyond their real worth.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

"MWP"? Cite source as well please, because I don't know what you're talking about there.

If you don't know what the MWP is, you probably shouldn't be posting in a thread on climate change.

Other acronyms one should be familiar with before participating include:

MBH
MM
AGW

Wegman report

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Higher value items can be more profitable, but have higher costs associated with them. You can make more profit by selling the best product available, whether it be healthcare or a car, at a premium rate even if it costs a lot more to provide because people can attach value to goods and services beyond their real worth.

A successful business with the tight operating margins the insurance industry makes requires success at both ends, revenue and cost containment regardless of the competitive environment.

[rah]

Especially with the current limited investment income potential.
Heck when interest rates were high, Insurance companies could lose money on the underwriting side and still make a good buck.

[ricketyclik]

"MWP"? Cite source as well please, because I don't know what you're talking about there.

If you don't know what the MWP is, you probably shouldn't be posting in a thread on climate change.

Au contraire. I spent four years at university studying meteorology and thermodynamics. It is quite possible I do know the phrase to which the acronym refers, but if I do it escapes me at the moment.

This is the 3rd time you've attacked my credibility on an issue because I don't know what an individual statement is referring to. You seem to adopt the stance "everyone who wishes to comment on an issue must know every single detail about it, and to ask a question about it is to admit complete ignorance on the subject".

Well Drake, I argue that such a stance in itself is unrealistic, and suggests an insecurity revealing a method of argument based on bluster.

So pull your head in child.