×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Virginia High Court Rejects Case Against Climatologist Michael Mann

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the one-to-go dept.

Earth 420

ananyo writes "The Virgina Supreme Court on Friday tossed out an investigation by the state's conservative attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, into Michael Mann, the former University of Virginia climatologist whose work on the now-famous hockey-stick graph has become a lightning rod for climate skeptics. 'In a dense and conflicted 26-page ruling (PDF) covering a century and a half of case law — including references to kings as well as modern "functional incongruities" that divided the judges themselves — Virginia’s high court ruled that the university is not a "person" and thus is not subject to Cuccinelli’s demands under the state’s Fraud Against Taxpayers Act.' The 'climategate' scientist has been cleared of wrongdoing by a number of investigations."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

420 comments

An agenda (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39230809)

Everybody's got an agenda.
There is no fact.

Re:An agenda (4, Insightful)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 2 years ago | (#39230837)

Everybody's got an agenda.
There is no fact.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." [wikiquote.org]

--Phillip K. Dick.

Re:An agenda (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39231023)

Well said!

Re:An agenda (4, Insightful)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231367)

Fascinating that you sometimes need to quote a guy who at one point hallucinated being taken over by the prophet Elijah to some people, because he makes more sense than their ramblings, Scary, actually, given how often I have to use your quote myself.

Re:An agenda (5, Insightful)

medlefsen (995255) | more than 2 years ago | (#39230869)

Tell that to the computer you're using which depends on two centuries worth of scientific advancement. The goal of science is to account for bias and get closer to truth in spite of it, and it's obviously worked. The same system that brought you electromagnatism, antibiotics, and plastic has now brought you climate change. You can bet against them but history isn't on your side.

Re:An agenda (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39231017)

Pretentious. Climate change is a tautology. Climate changes because nutation and precession of the Earth and Moon affect the solar incidence angle and distance not to mention the primary factor, ripples in the output of the sun. Before all the pretentious nonsense of the "climate change/global warming" nobody would worry about this. In fact, the astrophysics literature shows a wonderful correlation between the orbital parameters and the various Major and Minor Ice Ages that given our knowledge of astronomy rises to proven causation.

Never mind that the primary gases for the terrestrial greenhouse effect are water and methane, with CO2 representing a single digit contribution to the effect -- which means (for the truly dense among you) that if we stop the carbon-based economy climate change will go on exactly like before and the only thing that will happen is that you will die of cold and starvation.

This is about control and pushing upon individual sovereign nations a supra-territorial tax to fund the UN independent of its current strictures.

Re:An agenda (4, Funny)

EkalbG (872803) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231087)

Interesting... so which Koch funded "institute" are you quoting?

Re:An agenda (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39231177)

Unlike the pretenders to the throne, I am a real scientist. I can back my claims. I worked in hyperspectral satellite data acquisition at one point in my career and the relative IR impact of water, methane and CO2 is common knowledge. Maybe we should stop the water cycle instead of the carbon cycle (yes, that's a joke).
Water vapor H2O ~54 %
Carbon dioxide CO2 ~9%
Methane CH4 ~7 %
Ozone O3 ~5 %

Further From New Foundations for Classical Mechanics:
**BEGIN QUOTE**
Celestial Mechanics is the crowning glory of Newtonian mechanics. It has
revolutionized man’s concept of the Cosmos and his place within it. Its
spectacular successes in the 18th and 19th centuries established the unique
power of mathematical theory for precise explanation and prediction. In the
20th century it has been overshadowed by exciting developments in other
branches of physics. But the last three decades have seen a resurgence of
interest in celestial mechanics, because it is a basic conceptual tool for the
emerging Space Age.

The main concern of celestial mechanics (CM) is to account for the motion of
celestial bodies (stars, planets, satellites, etc.). The same theory applies to the
motion of artificial satellites and spacecraft, so the emerging science of space
flight, astromechanics, can be regarded as an offspring of celestial mechanics.
Space Age capabilities for precise measurements and management of vast
amounts of data has made CM more relevant than ever. Celestial mechanics
is used by observational astronomers for the prediction and explanation of
occultation and eclipse phenomena, by astrophysicists to model the evolution
of binary star systems, by cosmogonists to reconstruct the history of the Solar
System, and by geophysicists to refine models of the Earth and explain
geological data about the past.

To cite one specific example, it has recently
been established that major Ice Ages on Earth during the last million years
have occurred regularly with a period of 100,000 years, and this can be
explained with celestial mechanics as forced by oscillations in the Earth’s
eccentricity due to perturbations by other planets. Moreover, periodicities of
minor Ice Ages can be explained as forced by precession and nutation of the
Earth’s axis due to perturbation by the Sun and Moon.
**END QUOTE**

Re:An agenda (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231347)

So how do you explain that the changes we're seeing are happening within a century or two while glaciation happens on the order of millennia?

Re:An agenda (3, Interesting)

rs79 (71822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231539)

Watch this and ask if you still have a question. Nature of things, David Suzuki, 1 hr. We're 200 years into a 1000 year cycle of magnetic pol revrsal. This is why they keep having to change the numbers on runways periodically.

CERN reproduced the findings which does explain the climate. Then the CERN lab director put a gag order on the results. Look this all up for yourself.

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/poles/ [vrx.net]

Re:An agenda (0)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231575)

and did these oscillations always occur? If not, when did they start? When the ice ages happened, or was that a product of Panama coming out of the ocean and breaking the pacific-atlantic current? Real scientists stand by their work and don't hide as anonymous cowards.

Re:An agenda (4, Insightful)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231239)

That's a weak argument -- essentially a mass scale argument from authority. The strong argument is that the data support the conclusion that the climate is warming and that much of that warming is due to human activity -- and no other possible cause has been shown to be sufficient to cause what has been observed.

THAT is why the smart money is on continued warming and on conservation or other measures to contain it.

Re:An agenda (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39231547)

Tell you what -- since you think that mass-scale arguments are "weak" (in chemistry no less!). How about NASA and history... you might consider their "facts" more relevant. Please notice that we are, statistically, well within NORMAL oscillations of the historical climate record...

***BEGIN QUOTE** ...By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today. Climatologists call this period the Climatic Optimum. During the Climatic Optimum, many of the Earth's great ancient civilizations began and flourished. In Africa, the Nile River had three times its present volume, indicating a much larger tropical region.

From 3000 to 2000 BC a cooling trend occurred. This cooling caused large drops in sea level and the emergence of many islands (Bahamas) and coastal areas that are still above sea level today. A short warming trend took place from 2000 to 1500 BC, followed once again by colder conditions. Colder temperatures from 1500 - 750 BC caused renewed ice growth in continental glaciers and alpine glaciers, and a sea level drop of between 2 to 3 meters below present day levels.

The period from 750 BC - 800 AD saw warming up to 150 BC. Temperatures, however, did not get as warm as the Climatic Optimum. During the time of Roman Empire (150 BC - 300 AD) a cooling began that lasted until about 900 AD. At its height, the cooling caused the Nile River (829 AD) and the Black Sea (800-801 AD) to freeze.

The period 900 - 1200 AD has been called the Little Climatic Optimum. It represents the warmest climate since the Climatic Optimum. During this period, the Vikings established settlements on Greenland and Iceland. The snow line in the Rocky Mountains was about 370 meters above current levels. A period of cool and more extreme weather followed the Little Climatic Optimum. A great drought in the American southwest occurred between 1276 and 1299. There are records of floods, great droughts and extreme seasonal climate fluctuations up to the 1400s.

From 1550 to 1850 AD global temperatures were at their coldest since the beginning of the Holocene. Scientists call this period the Little Ice Age. During the Little Ice Age, the average annual temperature of the Northern Hemisphere was about 1.0 degree Celsius lower than today. During the period 1580 to 1600, the western United States experienced one of its longest and most severe droughts in the last 500 years. Cold weather in Iceland from 1753 and 1759 caused 25% of the population to die from crop failure and famine. Newspapers in New England were calling 1816 the year without a summer.

From 1550 to 1850 AD global temperatures were at their coldest since the beginning of the Holocene. Scientists call this period the Little Ice Age. During the Little Ice Age, the average annual temperature of the Northern Hemisphere was about 1.0 degree Celsius lower than today. During the period 1580 to 1600, the western United States experienced one of its longest and most severe droughts in the last 500 years. Cold weather in Iceland from 1753 and 1759 caused 25% of the population to die from crop failure and famine. Newspapers in New England were calling 1816 the year without a summer.

The period 1850 to present is one of general warming. Figure 7x-1 describes the global temperature trends from 1880 to 2006. This graph shows the yearly temperature anomalies that have occurred from an average global temperature calculated for the period 1951-1980. The graph indicates that the anomalies for the first 60 years of the record were consistently negative. However, beginning in 1935 positive anomalies became more common, and from 1980 to 2006 most of the anomalies were between 0.20 to 0.63 degrees Celsius higher than the normal period (1951-1980) average.

Re:An agenda (3, Insightful)

funwithBSD (245349) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231405)

It also gave us eugenics, Aether, the fixed universe, phrenology, and Fleischmann/Pons cold fusion.

Many scientific theories that are accepted as truth at the time turn out to be false, or are superceeded as science finds out more.

And sometimes, as in the case of phrenology and eugenics, people are harmed in the name of science.

Re:An agenda (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231617)

The goal of science is to account for bias and get closer to truth in spite of it, and it's obviously worked.

If you are willing to wait decades, or even centuries, science will come to the correct conclusion. It corrects itself. But that doesn't mean for any given question, right now, that science has the correct answer.

As other people have pointed out, scientific institutions are wrong a lot in the short term. They'll get it sorted out in the long term, though.

Re:An agenda (2)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231797)

It is, however, more correct than a random Joe's gut feeling on the matter. Not only more correct, but correct more often. Furthermore, argument from authority is NOT a fallacy when there is an actual authority in the subject matter. It is a weak argument, yes, as it is easily countered. It is, however, NOT a fallacy.

That's no reason to ignore things. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39230909)

Everybody's got an agenda.
There is no fact.

Yeah, and everyone has a bias.

But that's absolutely no reason to ignore what folks have to say and many times, there's a system in place to compensate for one's bias - like peer review.

Facts are independent of "agenda" and "bias". (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39230995)

Facts do exist. The only role that "agenda" and "bias" play are when accepting said facts. Any agenda and bias have absolutely no impact on the factuality of the fact, however.

Let me give you an example. Take JavaScript. The fact is that it's a shitty programming language. When you analyze it objectively, every single aspect of it is a failure or is horribly wrong in some way or another. Of course, there are people with bias and an agenda (usually people who only know JavaScript, and nothing but JavaScript) who insist that it's not a shitty programming language. But their ignorance or bias does not change the fact that JavaScript is a shitty programming language.

The same goes for many other subjects, including climate change. There are facts that will exist regardless of what one or more people believe about them. Nothing will change that these facts are factual. They just inherently are.

Thrown out on a technicality (-1, Flamebait)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 2 years ago | (#39230811)

Hopefully it at least sends a warning to academics in a similar position -- keep your nose clean when spending taxpayer money, and don't conspire to avoid complying with FOIA requests.

Re:Thrown out on a technicality (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39230895)

When do the VA taxpayers get the money back that this idiot spend pursuing his personal witch hunt? He's the one who has defrauded the VA taxpayers. He simply decided to disbelieve the overwhelming scientific consensus among climate scientists, that goes well beyond Mann his data and the United States, that climate change is happening. I guess his legal education didn't make him a scientist, but rather a fool with thick partisan glasses.

Re:Thrown out on a technicality (2, Insightful)

KiahZero (610862) | more than 2 years ago | (#39230901)

The real takeaway is "Don't do research that irritates Republicans, or they might conduct partisan witch-hunts devoid of any actual basis."

Re:Thrown out on a technicality (-1, Troll)

itsybitsy (149808) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231029)

Nonsense. Your take away is only for people - like you - who side with political parties rather than thinking for themselves.

Also it's clearly evident that you're putting politics above the facts of the Mannian Statistical Lies and Scientific and Financial Frauds.

You're doing the despicable anti-science politics dude.

Re:Thrown out on a technicality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39231163)

I give this troll 0/10: you're being too obvious and heavy-handed about it.

Re:Thrown out on a technicality (3, Insightful)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231259)

No. The scientists were being attacked because they dared to publish science results that some politicians didn't like. Those politicians were Republicans. You're entitled to your own opinions but not to make up your own facts.

Re:Thrown out on a technicality (3, Funny)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231377)

But, but, making up their own facts is what their whole propaganda machine runs on! And they are too big to fail!

Re:Thrown out on a technicality (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39231243)

As opposed to the partisan witch-hunts devoid of any factual basis which are conducted by Democrats at the first sign of political opposition.

Re:Thrown out on a technicality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39231387)

I'm sure you'd have posted evidence if you had any, just as you wouldn't have posted anonymously if you had any evidence.

This troll is also 0/10.

Re:Thrown out on a technicality (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231419)

As the court didn't even look into the case, whether the accusations have any basis remains in question. The fact that one side happens to have a political motivation in the matter does not disprove the accusations either. The university could easily clear its name by complying with the FOIA request, but for some reason it's reluctant to do so...

Re:Thrown out on a technicality (2)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231451)

I suspect the U is fighting the FOIA request because it's a fishing expedition and they know it. Cuccinelli doesn't have any evidence of wrongdoing or he'd have presented it by now and used it as probable cause to continue the investigation, so he's using FOIA in an attempt to grab up everything.

Re:Thrown out on a technicality (2, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231739)

Looks like I've got to add a step to the list.

The Republican 9^H10 Step Global Warming Denial Plan

1) There's no such thing as global warming.
2) There's global warming, but the scientists are exaggerating. It's not significant.
3) There's significant global warming, but man doesn't cause it.
4) Man does cause it, but it's not a net negative.
5) It is a net negative, but it's not economically possible to tackle it.
6) Litigate against scientists that don't follow the Republican party line.
7) We need to tackle global warming, so make the poor pay for it.
8) Global warming is bad for business. Why did the Democrats not tackle it earlier?
9) ????
10) Profit.

The real takeaway is ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39231461)

Say whatever you want to support the DNC, and you don't have to show your work at all. If you can get the government to pay for it(local, state, fed), and you get the army of brainwashed hipsters to support your opinions masquerading as facts, then you have pulled off the Intelligentsia trifecta.

Re:Thrown out on a technicality (1)

drooling-dog (189103) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231495)

Or, more properly, don't do research that inconveniences industries (like carbon-based fuels) that patronize the Republicans. A few well-funded public relations firms will have more weight than any amount of science you can muster.

There's nothing about climate science that is inherently conservative or liberal, and no reason that conservatives should be upset about it except that it is one of several threads that may motivate us to lessen our reliance on the oil companies. That's it. And the attacks on climate science by conservatives didn't begin with a bona fide scientific controversy, but rather with a bunch of PR firms that were hired by Exxon-Mobil (among others) to sow doubt among conservative commentators and the public. That is what passes for scientific credibility among conservatives these days.

personhood (4, Insightful)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 2 years ago | (#39230813)

Interesting-- so corporations are persons, according to the Supreme court, but universities aren't, according to the Virginia court.

Re:personhood (5, Funny)

itsybitsy (149808) | more than 2 years ago | (#39230867)

"Interesting-- so corporations are persons, according to the Supreme court, but universities aren't, according to the Virginia court."

The realty is that Corporations and Universities are abstract concepts that represent a group of people. Are they people? As much as Soylent Green is people.

Re:personhood (1)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231109)

This then means that anything the UVA does is public property, it cannot have intellectual property of its own, it cannot have copyright or patent rights.

Way to throw the baby out with the bath water. Look at the lengths they go to to prevent the release of information. This is right up there with the ruling that criminals don't have to register their guns because that would violate their right against self-incrimination. Anytime you get conflict like this, there is an agenda forcing the ruling.

Re:personhood (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231273)

The agenda is the government doesn't like being sued. The government owns the courts. Nothing to see here.

Re:personhood (4, Informative)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231289)

UVa is an agency of the state of Virginia. It is not a corporation, it is a part of the government which means it can assert sovereign immunity.

Re:personhood (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231385)

Interesting-- so corporations are persons, according to the Supreme court, but universities aren't, according to the Virginia court.

I still say that, if corporations, or anyone for that matter want to be treated as people, then let them. They can donate just like people can. However, only allow individual from that organization to vote. After all, we are a one person, one vote system. They want to be treated as a person, we treat them as a person.

Re:personhood (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231403)

Corporations aren't people according to the supreme court. People get confused because of the term 'corporate personhood,' which is a legal term that isn't actually being a person at all. You can verify this by asking yourself why corporations can't vote. Corporations don't have all the rights people have, it is a myth that the supreme court considers them people.

Re:personhood (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39231799)

There's irony in there somewhere, but I imagine it's been taken out back and is getting a good flogging by the media.

Statistical Games Disqualify You As A Scientist. (-1)

itsybitsy (149808) | more than 2 years ago | (#39230823)

“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” – Ernest Rutherford

And that is if you're using statistics without hiding the decline and thus distorting the alleged science claims.

Re:Statistical Games Disqualify You As A Scientist (2)

KiahZero (610862) | more than 2 years ago | (#39230873)

I'm sure CERN will be thrilled to know that they're disqualified from being scientists.

Re:Statistical Games Disqualify You As A Scientist (-1, Troll)

itsybitsy (149808) | more than 2 years ago | (#39230907)

If a scientist at CERN fabricates data to support their claim then yes he/she/they would be committing scientific fraud and if that fraud gets them more grant monies, as in the case of Dr. Michael Mann, then it graduates to financial fraud.

Most scientists actually show their work. Mann did not. Heck he can't even reproduce it. He can't even show others his work. It took years of sleuthing by many to uncover the details and depths of Mann's frauds in his Hockey Stick Statistical Lies.

If as a scientist you fabricate data to support your claims then you're not qualified to be a scientist, a con artist maybe, but not a scientist.

Re:Statistical Games Disqualify You As A Scientist (4, Insightful)

KiahZero (610862) | more than 2 years ago | (#39230923)

"If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment." - a stupid sentiment, regardless of who said it.

Anyhow, your assertions have been investigated and found to be false.

Re:Statistical Games Disqualify You As A Scientist (-1, Troll)

itsybitsy (149808) | more than 2 years ago | (#39230951)

No, political whitewash investigations did not even get into the actual frauds committed by Mann et al.. In fact they went out of their way to ignore and avoid the facts. The very questions asked in the inquiries showed that.

Obviously you've not followed the case beyond the fluff political whitewash.

Re:Statistical Games Disqualify You As A Scientist (4, Insightful)

pnewhook (788591) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231011)

No sorry. This conservative witch hunt against this work has been clearly shown to be politically biased and non factual. Stop perpetrating the myth.

Re:Statistical Games Disqualify You As A Scientist (-1, Troll)

itsybitsy (149808) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231049)

It's not a witch hunt when Mann fabricated scientific data and with it committed financial frauds. Being honest in science is a must and Mann violated that basic scientific principle. He has received millions of dollars in funding subsequently, all based upon that successful hide the decline fraud. So by supporting Mann you're supporting a criminal scientist who'll lie and cheat at science, heck he can't even produce the means to have other scientists reproduce his work. How much more pounding on your politicized brain do we have to do in order for you to get that fraud in science is not acceptable?

Re:Statistical Games Disqualify You As A Scientist (4, Informative)

pnewhook (788591) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231253)

No sorry, this is clearly a witch hunt.

Read here: http://spectator.org/blog/2010/05/17/top-mann-nemesis-hes-not-a-fra [spectator.org]

it was an extremely odd audience reaction: McIntyre received a standing ovation upon his introduction, thanks to his dogged research and unrelenting demand for information and accountability, but then his blase' attitude about scientists' behavior -- particularly Mann's -- left most of the audience cold and some even angry. The applause for McIntyre was tepid upon the conclusion of his remarks.

Clearly the supporters of the audit are not interested in the truth, they are only interested in seeing Mann fail, regardless of the evidence. Get off your high 'this is fraudulent use of tax dollars!' horse and actually look at the evidence and conclusions - not what the crackpot right wing tells you to think.

Re:Statistical Games Disqualify You As A Scientist (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231399)

Listen, the tactics of repeating a lie until it becomes perceived truth has gotten a bit stale since the times of Goebbels. You might want to search for an alternate strategy. At least give us something more creative. It has become annoyingly boring at this point.

Re:Statistical Games Disqualify You As A Scientist (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39231063)

NO. I am a scientist. It is clear that the climate change "scientists" deliberately ignored data, cherry-picked and conspired -- in written word -- to pursue an agenda in support of a falsity in order to further the IPCC UN-dictated agenda.

This was deliberate and criminal.

The Wikileak emails show this directly as does the wonderful series of expose that ran in the UK Telegraph.

Re:Statistical Games Disqualify You As A Scientist (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231487)

I doubt your word that you're a scientist.

1) Who are you, and what are your qualifications, published papers, credentials, etc.? A scientist should be proud of his work and reputation.

2) Which field are you a scientist in? If you're not a climatologist, you're not qualified.

Re:Statistical Games Disqualify You As A Scientist (-1, Troll)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231241)

Horseshit. McIntyre proved empirically that the "hockey stick" algorithm was written to generate a hockey stick by pumping in noise and getting - a hockey stick.

No witch hunt, Mann used shaky technique, poor method and outright fraud *at best*.

Re:Statistical Games Disqualify You As A Scientist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39231391)

Nonsense. McIntyre generated 10 000 random runs and then picked up a hundred that showed an upward blade:
http://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-style/
If you seriously believe that disproves Mann's hockey stick graph, you need a 101 on statistics.

Hockey stick confirmed (5, Informative)

tgibbs (83782) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231525)

Actually, no. McIntyre proved that there was a technical flaw in Mann's method of statistical analysis that could occasionally cause an artifactual upturn (or, with equal probability, a downturn) at the end, but despite analyzing a large number of noise data sets, he was not able to find even one case that generated an upturn that approached the magnitude of Mann's "hockey stick" analysis. So, correctly interpreted, McIntyre's results proved that it was highly unlikely that Mann's Hockey Stick curve could result from the artifact. So it is not surprising that numerous subsequent studies, using analyses not subject to this error, and also looking at other types of climate data, have confirmed that the hockey stick is correct. [skepticalscience.com]

So in the end, McIntyre's technical criticism of Mann's approach (which at worst involved a subtlety of statistical analysis that no reasonable scientist would have called a "fraud") turned out to be correct, but irrelevant to Mann's conclusion.

Re:Statistical Games Disqualify You As A Scientist (-1, Troll)

itsybitsy (149808) | more than 2 years ago | (#39230979)

You do know how easy it is to lie with statistics don't you? Oh right scientists can do no wrong in your world view and we should dispense with reproducibility of their claims and take them on faith. Right.

Mann is a master at lying with statistics.

As is Dr. James Hansen of NASA GISS, fabricating many temperature readings using 1,200 km and 250 km radius circles for a temperature station as if it's temperature represents accurately all the area in those circles. Then he passes off these graphs as if they are accurate representations of his alleged Arctic CO2 Climate Doomsday Rapture aka CAGW. It's not just he arctic either. Where ever there are no temperature stations they commit these frauds rather than working to put in more actual temperature stations. They have disqualified themselves as scientists by their scientific and financial frauds.

Reproducable data (3, Insightful)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231135)

You do know how easy it is to lie with statistics don't you? Oh right scientists can do no wrong in your world view and we should dispense with reproducibility of their claims

You are aware that right now six different independent groups are analyzing the temperature records, using ground, ocean, balloon, and satellite measurements, and getting very consistent results?

You are aware that an independent analysis, "BEST" (by U.C. Berkeley), was set up (and funded by, among other things, many skeptics) with the explicit purpose of doing an independent analysis without the purported "biases" that critical claim other temperature groups had.
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/10/climate-skeptics-perform-independent-analysis-finally-convinced-earth-is-getting-warmer.ars [arstechnica.com]

Here's a quote from leading skeptic Anthony Watts about that BEST study (March 2011):

“I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.the method isn’t the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU.That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet. Dr. Fred Singer also gives a tentative endorsement of the methods.Climate related website owners, I give you carte blanche to repost this.

Guess what-- the results are still the same. The data showing the planet is warming is real.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111020/full/news.2011.607.html [nature.com]

How much "reproducability of their claims" do you want?

Satellite measurements, ground station measurements,ocean measurements, balloon-sonde measurements, microwave measurements-- very different techniques, same answers.

Showing Warming is NOT Showing Causation of CO2 (-1, Troll)

itsybitsy (149808) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231271)

There is no independently verifiable evidence that CO2 is the cause of the slight warming that has occurred since the Little Ice Age in the real atmosphere. There is a slight Linear+Cyclic Warming since at least the 1880, 132, years ago and significantly despite CO2 being pumped out in vastly increased quantities since the 1940s/50s the temperature has not deviated from the slight Linear+Cyclic Warming. CO2 has not caused Temperature to deviate!

To show warming is not to show the cause of the warning. That is the mistake you alarmists make. You think that the warming is the whole ball of wax. It isn't since you've not shown causation in the REAL ACTUAL ATMOSPHERE.

Girma Orssengo's analyses using the standard observational temperature and CO2 data sets shows that Mother Nature has falsified the alleged CAGW Hypothesis. It's well worth your time to comprehend this elegant and clear analysis.

" *Effect Of CO2 Emission On Global Mean Temperature*

Examination of Figure 3 shows that the Global Mean Temperature Anomaly (GMTA) for 1940 of 0.13 deg C is greater than that for 1880 of –0.22 deg C. Also, the GMTA for 2000 of 0.48 deg C is greater than that for 1940 of 0.13 deg C. This means that the GMTA value, when the oscillating anomaly is at its maximum, increases in every new cycle. Is this global warming caused by human emission of CO2?

The data required to establish the effect of CO2 emission on global mean temperature already exist. The global mean temperature data are available from the Climate Research Unit of the Hadley Centre shown in Figure 3, and the CO2 emission data are available from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre [8]. *For the period from 1880 to 1940, the average emission of CO2 was about 0.8 G-ton, and the increase in the GMTA was 0.13+0.22=0.35 deg C. For the period from 1940 to 2000, the average emission of CO2 was about 4 G-ton, but the increase in GMTA was the same 0.48-0.13=0.35 deg C. This means that an increase in CO2 emission by 4/0.8=5-fold has no effect in the increase in the GMTA. This conclusively proves that the effect of 20th century human emission of CO2 on global mean temperature is nil.*

*Note that the increase in GMTA of 0.35 deg C from 1880 to 1940 (or from 1940 to 2000) in a 60 year period has a warming rate of 0.35/60=0.0058 deg per year, which is the slope of the linear anomaly given by Equation 1. As a result, the linear anomaly is not affected by CO2 emission. Obviously, as the oscillating anomaly is cyclic, it is not related to the 5-fold increase in human emission of CO2.

Figure 4, with high correlation coefficient of 0.88, shows the important result that the observed GMTA can be modeled by a combination of a linear and sinusoidal pattern given by Equation 3. This single GMTA pattern that was valid in the period from 1880 to 1940 was also valid in the period from 1940 to 2000 after about 5-fold increase in human emission of CO2. As a result, the effect of human emission of CO2 on GMTA is nil.* "
http://pathstoknowledge.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/predictions-of-gmt.pdf [wordpress.com]

Furthermore the conclusive counter evidence analysis based upon *observational data* by Girma Orrsenago puts a nail in the coffin of the AGW Hypothesis as promoted by the CO2 Climate Doomsday AGW Rapture proponents. *Orrsenago shows that Nature falsified the CAGW hypothesis*.

Hole in Man Made Global Warming.

a) Global Mean temperature (GMT) => http://bit.ly/zISeEo [bit.ly]
For the period from 1880 to 1940, GMT increased by about 0.35.
For the period from 1940 to 2000, GMT increased by about nearly the same 0.35.

b) Human CO2 emission => http://bit.ly/wD1SZj [bit.ly]
For the period from 1880 to 1940, CO2 emission increased by about 150 G-ton.
For the period from 1940 to 2000, CO2 emission increased by about 840 G-ton.

How come the increase in CO2 emission by 460% has not caused any change in the GMT?

Re:Showing Warming is NOT Showing Causation of CO2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39231529)

There is no independently verifiable evidence that CO2 is the cause of the slight warming that has occurred since the Little Ice Age in the real atmosphere.

There's plenty:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html

Repeating "linear+cyclic" is not gonna save you as a magic incantation would do: if you want to claim that a cycle is causing the warming, you need to specify WHAT is undergoing the cycle, i.e. you need to pinpoint the forcing. And the same for the linear component. In presence of a decrease of radiation to space in CO2 absorption bands (satellite data), an increase of radiation in CO2 radiation bands (surface data) and rising temperatures, all your arguments are just hand waving. And you haven't even started explaining why in the earth physics should be suspended and our CO2 emissions (and we KNOW how large they are and how much of them stays in the atmospehere) wouldn't increase the GH effect.

Re:Showing Warming is NOT Showing Causation of CO2 (0)

itsybitsy (149808) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231737)

Alleging a cause is not the same as proving it is the cause conclusively!

Besides CO2 hasn't caused temperature to deviate in the REAL ACTUAL ATMOSPHERE as noted above thus the CAGW claims of "CO2 driving Temperature" are falsified by Nature.

Re:Reproducable data (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231303)

"Guess what-- the results are still the same. The data showing the planet is warming is real."

Guess what? Not the real question and everyone knows it including you.

The real question is two-fold. Is human activity responsible for "runaway warming" (runaway being a question itself) and will the things presented to 'correct' it (oddly by the very people doing the research) be correct themselves or even necessary?

Now, since the Earth warms and cools independently of human presence, you need to *prove* a link in order to radically alter human activity. And *that* is the actual target of all this research.

Re:Statistical Games Disqualify You As A Scientist (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39231061)

It can easily be seen by your reference to "hiding the decline" that you simply don't understand what youy're talking about. One doesn't "hide" anything by publishing papers about it that get hundreds of citations. A piece of advice: read less denialist propaganda, more actual scientists' work. Michael Mann didn't "hide" his work, reproduced it more than once, and his results have been supported by all other work in this area -- with decentered PCA, without it, using other statistical methods etc. Heck, even Wegman trying to discredit Mann had to remain content with the "bad method, good results" diagnosis. You're just throwing the same old mud that didn't stick the first time -- while each year, as more reserach is done, Mann's work is more vindicated. No wonder the denialosphere is getting openly hostile to science in general -- there's no other way to ignore the fact that science unequivocally supports Mann, not you.

Re:Statistical Games Disqualify You As A Scientist (-1, Troll)

itsybitsy (149808) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231191)

It took years of sleuthing to find the "hidden decline", and it wasn't found by official peer review.

Peer review isn't magical saint hood for a paper people, it just means that a few peers (the number varies) looked at it and couldn't find anything wrong with it. Papers and the ideas in them are tossed into the dust bin of science all the time. That is the way science works.

It's you AC who doesn't get it. The number of references means nothing about the accuracy of the paper and it's concepts. Nature rules as the final judge not how many frigging references to the paper you fool. In the case of Mann's frauds he has been caught lying in a scientific paper and plotting to subvert the scientific process.

As a scientist myself I find that repugnant. Heck even Professor Muller, a noted Co2 Climate Doomsday Rapturist, says that he'll never read another paper from Mann et al. again since they can't do what they did in science, it's not acceptable.

So get your brain out of your politicized hole in the ground and wake up.

Re:Statistical Games Disqualify You As A Scientist (2)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231533)

Guess we just lost the whole field of statistical thermodynamics. The theory guys in the next building over will be thrilled...

But the University 'found' the missing documents (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39230889)

The decision is made, but the university had stated before the case that they could not find documented asked for via FOIA.

During the case the university magically found them.

So now they can be asked again for those documents and more information can come to light on how this 1 study magically invalidated 1900+ pieces of peer reviewed science over the course of 300 years. A win for science in the end.

King's privilege (3, Insightful)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 2 years ago | (#39230911)

From the decision:

...a "person" is defined as "any natural person, corporation, firm, association, organization, partnership, limited liability company, business or trust."

[...]

Because UVA is indeed a public corporation, and the term "corporation" can be found in the definition of a "person" under FATA, Code 8.01-216.2, the circuit court ended its investigation at this juncture. We find that this conclusion ignored several significant reasons why "person" in Code 8.01-216.2 cannot properly be read to include agencies of the Commonwealth.

[...]

See, e.g., Whiteacre v. Rector, 70 Va. (29 Gratt.) 714, 716 (1878) ("It is old and familiar law . . . that where a statute is general, and any . . . interest is diverted or taken from the king, . . . the king shall not be bound unless the statute is made by express words or necessary implication to extend to him.")

Government is above the law. All hail the king. Welcome to Braveheart.

Re:King's privilege (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39231095)

Pretty much.... you can't sue the federal government unless it allows you to. This probably exists at the state level in state courts, though I don't know for sure.

Re:King's privilege (0)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231195)

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The takeaway is that using FATA in this case is the wrong tool entirely. There's still an ongoing suit using the Freedom of Information Act, which was the correct tool to use in this case... if one can use "correct" to reference this fishing expedition.

But please, don't let the facts interrupt your Internet Libertarian rant.

Re:King's privilege (2)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231721)

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The takeaway is that using FATA in this case is the wrong tool entirely. There's still an ongoing suit using the Freedom of Information Act, which was the correct tool to use in this case... if one can use "correct" to reference this fishing expedition.

From FATA [taf.org]:

8.01-216.10. Civil investigative demands; issuance.

A. Whenever the Attorney General or his designee has reason to believe that any person may be in possession, custody, or control of any documentary material or information relevant to a false claims law investigation, the Attorney General or his designee may, before commencing a civil proceeding or making an election under this article, issue in writing and cause to be served upon such person, a civil investigative demand requiring such person (i) to produce such documentary material for inspection and copying, (ii) to answer in writing written interrogatories with respect to such documentary material or information, (iii) to give oral testimony concerning such documentary material or information, or (iv) to furnish any combination of such material, answers, or testimony.

Sounds to me like FATA CID's were indeed designed for "fishing expeditions".

Let the climate models speak for themselves (-1, Troll)

tp1024 (2409684) | more than 2 years ago | (#39230991)

The climate models speak for themselves. If you look at 10 year old and 20 year old models, they couldn't predict current temperatures - which stopped rising 14 years ago. If you look at arctic ice models, they neither predicted the decline in 2007 before 2007 nor did the post-2007 models predict the absence of further decline. Quite the contrary, according to the opportunistic papers (based on linear trend extrapolation, no doubt) published at that time, the arctic ought to be ice-free next summer. According to the IPCC report 2007, the glaciers ought to have melted in 2035. Thousands of climate science peers couldn't muster the common sense necessary to doubt that figure. Today, we know that even the revised figure is a figment of distorted data, taken from about a dozen out of thousands of laciers in the area, selected not by randomized sampling, but by the convenience of measureing them. In fact, the amount of water is Himalayan glacies stayed the same over the last 10 years.

None of that changes anything about the fact that coal and tar sand mining, oil drilling and shale gas are destroying huge tracks of nature and have severe consequence for human health. It doesn't change the fact that it is a good idea to replace fossil fuels wherever possible, if only to get away from the political troubles that Middle Eastern and Russian oil are causing, or the fact that reserves are running out.

Overstating your case only makes you look silly in the end, even if you currently enjoy a lot of public support.

Re:Let the climate models speak for themselves (0)

tp1024 (2409684) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231021)

According to the IPCC report 2007, the Himalayan glaciers ought to have melted in 2035. (The word was in there prior to changing the sentence, though not afterwards.)

Re:Let the climate models speak for themselves (1)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231067)

This, while publicized, was a misprint and has since been retracted. The proper arrangement if digits is "2350". It was a transcription error and if you read the report that cites the source, the source material is the 300-year later date.

Re:Let the climate models speak for themselves (1)

tp1024 (2409684) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231219)

That's wrong. It was not a misprint, the article appeared exactly as it was written and it was written exactly with the intention of writing 2035 and not 2350, because the IPCC article was based on a false news report on a scientific paper. As you could read here on slashdot 2 years ago.

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/01/23/2211222/claims-of-himalayan-glacier-disaster-melt-away [slashdot.org]

And even the revised date has since been found out to be false, as the glaciers that weren't measured are growing and make up for the losses measured thus far. They weren't measured because they were less convenient to measure, and understandably so, because the terrain is simply very difficult. But it is shoddy science to take a non-representative sample of glaciers and extrapolate the total ice-loss of all glaciers from their average ice-loss, without reporting any of the caveats arising from the necessarily bad sample. That said, out of about 200,000 glaciers worldwide, only 0.075% were actually measured in the last decade (with some areas such as the Alps being heavily over-represented) and those 0.075% necessarily form the base on which scientific claims have made. A base which is just too small to make any claims.

As Wittgenstein said:"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"

Re:Let the climate models speak for themselves (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39231509)

1. Make completely false claim causing alarmism
2. Regulate and tax the crap out of people based on false claim
3. Get called out that you lied in #1 then just simply claim it was a misprint
4. Keep taxes and regulations on people since they already passed - Profit!

Its amazing how often AGW data is a "misprint". Its almost as if every shred of it is a lie and as they get called out there are claims of "misprints" or people being brought up on law suits for fraud are aquitted and they think that means their lies are ok.

Why is it if AWG is so obvious and undenyable they have to lie about every little aspect of it?

Re:Let the climate models speak for themselves (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231185)

Bullshit.

Global temperatures are still rising. Anybody saying otherwise has come unmoored from the data.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.E.gif [nasa.gov]

Re:Let the climate models speak for themselves (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39231277)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

Hmm, it appears Phil Jones of the CRU disagrees with you. In case you don't know who he is, he is the one that writes all the reports that the IPCC uses and is the ONLY person on the planet that has had full access to all unmanipulated weather data. He manipulated the data to prove it was still raising but had to admit even after doing that he couldn't prove it. NASA does not have worldwide historical data despite what you or anyone else claims, only the CRU in England does.

Why are you ignoring facts that don't agree with your prmisie? Are you anti-science?

Re:Let the climate models speak for themselves (2)

itsybitsy (149808) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231375)

http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/IPCC-20071.png [clivebest.com]

HadCrut3 disagrees with GISS on that.

GISS is well known for fabricating their data using 1,200 km radius circles with just one temperature station in them. That is not permitted in science when you are representing that the data is actual temperature measurements since it leads people - such as your self - to the incorrect conclusions about the data. GISS data is NOT pure raw observational temperature data, it's got tons of fabricated data in it. Thus GISS can't be relied upon for factual temperature data.

Also in the graph is the bonus that you'll see how the IPCC "climate models" are worth nothing as their predictions were ALL falsified by Nature herself.

Oh, and yeah, the temperature hasn't risen in the last decade or so, sure it goes up and down but as the graph shows... it more trending down than up.

A witch hunt, but... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39231001)

This does have all the trapping of a witch hunt, but damn, if the science can't withstand the scrutiny of full publicity...

That's what really bothers me about the climate debate: why can't we see the raw data? Why can't we see the source code for all the climate models?

With that in mind, why spend literally trillions of dollars trying to prevent the climate from changing, when it's going to change anyway? Maybe not in the exact same way as it would sans humanity, but it's going to change. Better to use the resources and effort to address that, than using it tilting at the useless windmill of trying to make the Earth's climate static.

The court weaseled out of this one (2)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231073)

Clearly the court didn't want to pass judgement on the nature of the case (no pun intended) and instead chose to throw it out on an Angelina Jolie-ish thin concept.
It also sets an interesting precedent. If, as the court claims, the university is not a person as a requirement for a legal claim on the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, then one could argue that no university should be allowed to get taxpayer funding because there can be no oversight.

Rational win (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39231077)

Excellent news. Its a BS case anyway.

Can't be sued? (2)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231139)

Wait, I'm confused. Corporations are persons that can be sued but universities aren't?

Re:Can't be sued? (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231275)

UVa is a state school, not a private entity. As such it enjoys sovereign immunity.

Re:Can't be sued? (1)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231335)

Don't forget that it can't hold copyright or patents rights as well :-)

Sovereign Immunity: The Story of Your Enslavement (1)

itsybitsy (149808) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231479)

"UVa is a state school, not a private entity. As such it enjoys sovereign immunity."

Sovereign Immunity is such a crock, it's what the ruling elite use to enslave the rest of us and what they use to literally get away with mass murder death killing on a vast scale around the globe and here at home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A [youtube.com]

Re:Can't be sued? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39231639)

Wait, I'm confused. Corporations are persons that can be sued but universities aren't?

No, the point of the majority ruling is that an official state university is not a different person from the state itself, and that the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act cannot be used by one part of government to sue another part.

There was a concurring opinion on different grounds, who thought that FATA could be used in theory, but that the Attorney General had not actually presented any grounds on which to ask for an order. His request boils down to "Mann's research supports the idea of AGW, but as I refuse to accept that this idea could be true, I will assume he must be a fraudster. Let me seize everything he every touched or wrote so I can look for evidence".

Agreed (1)

frisket (149522) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231149)

I concur. The university is not a person; it's a university. This fact seems to have escaped the complainants.

If, as the court claims, the university is not a person as a requirement for a legal claim on the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, then one could argue that no university should be allowed to get taxpayer funding because there can be no oversight.

This is nonsense. You can oversee a university just as you can oversee a person. It has nothing to do with the Act.

Contrived case anyway. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39231223)

If you can't disprove a theory go after the messanger?

Read Republicans (2, Interesting)

Enrique1218 (603187) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231233)

When was the last time a Rebublican read a science book? First, carbon dioxide is a heat trapping gas. It absorbs infrared and converts to kinetic energy. This is the basis of IR spectroscopy. Alternatively, read about the planet Venus. Then, burning fossil fuels will dump carbon dioxide that has been fixed by living things over the last 500 million years. That is why they are called fossil. Putting that together, things are going to warm up if we keep burning the fuel. I dont need a Phd to figure that out

Re:Read Republicans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39231319)

Uh, as one poster above showed, water vapor contributes more than 5x what carbon dioxide does....

Re:Read Republicans (2)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#39231489)

Uh, as one poster above showed, water vapor contributes more than 5x what carbon dioxide does....

Good. Now learn about atmospheric retention times and the difference between forcings and feedbacks. Then, you might add something meaningful.

Re:Read Republicans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39231505)

Let me guess. You're still skipping out that the "sun" is a major primary climate driver like the rest of the pro-agw crowd too.

Get back to me when you read up on how things work in the world instead of 'forced models' which only rely on specific inputs from very narrow view points. Then you might have something useful to add. As an interesting point, new peer reviewed paper came out about a week ago that showed that yes virginia, the sun does drive the climate more-so than anything else.

Falsification of AGW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39231567)

Falsification of AGW

Why there is no valid evidence that justifies accepting the AGW hypothesis

The Null Hypothesis is a well-established foundational element of the scientific method as currently practiced by professional scientists [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis]. It requires no proof.

In the context of AGW, the Null Hypothesis is that changes in global temperature are dominated by unspecified natural causes other than the human emission of CO2, such that any contribution of human CO2 emissions to changes in global temperature are too small to be worth the costs of mitigating human CO2 emissions by political means. The Null Hypothesis is formulated that way precisely because the issue to be decided isn't whether human emissions of CO2 have any effect at all on temperature, but whether the effect (if any) is large enough to justify political action. Whether there's any effect at all is a valid scientific question, but it's not the point of the political controversy.

Skeptics (all scientists are skeptics, by definition) have no need to prove what causes nature to do whatever it does naturally. Some AGW skeptics do prefer other specific hypotheses which are not the Null Hypothesis (e.g., the Sun is the principal driver to terrestrial temperature,) and those hypotheses do require proof. But most skeptics make no such claims.

What should skeptics be required to prove? Their only common claim is that there is no valid proof of AGW. Valid proof must withstand criticism in general, and valid proof must especially withstand the criticism that it fails to show at least a 3 sigma probability that AGW fits the evidence better than the Null Hypothesis does.

Note that the claim that 'there is no evidence for AGW' is a negative claim, and a negative cannot be proved, only falsified (as is true of any scientific hypothesis, by the way.) AGW believers should be able to easily disprove it, if it's false. But that's properly and necessarily their burden, not that of the skeptics.

AGW believers would falsify the skeptics' claim by demonstrating that valid proof of AGW does in fact exist. The only responsibility of the skeptics would be to show why any such claimed proof isn't valid--or to accept the evidence of the AGW believers as valid, and admit that the claim that no valid proof exists has been falsified.

Of course, most of those reading this are neither scientists nor climatologists. But others are, and they should already have published one or more peer-reviewed papers which show, step by step and point by point--quantitatively, not qualitatively--that there is at least a 3 sigma probability that AGW fits the evidence better than the Null Hypothesis does. So if you are an AGW believer, go find those peer-reviewed scientific papers. That should be easy to do, shouldn't it?

Shouldn't it?

So why can't you find any such papers?

You can't find any because the observed warming is fully consistent with the Null Hypothesis. Which means there is not at least a 3-sigma difference between the probability that the Null Hypothesis explains the evidence and the probability that AGW does so. Which means the observed warming is not evidence of AGW.

Were there to be cooling of sufficient magnitude for a sufficiently long period of time, that would falsify AGW. Pinning down "sufficient magnitude" and "sufficiently long" requires a full, scientifically and mathematically rigorous quantitative analysis. An AGW believer would of course demand to see that formal analysis in a peer-reviewed scientific paper before accepting any claim that AGW has been falsified. So you will of course understand that we skeptics must do the same before accepting the claim that AGW should be accepted as sufficiently proven to be worth the costs of mitigation--which are extremely expensive, and not just in terms of money.

But if warming is not evidence for AGW, then there is no evidence for AGW (by "AGW," we mean the hypothesis that there is positive feedback in the climate system due to human emissions of CO2 large enough to be worth mitigating.) And the only "evidence" the IPCC even claims to have (for AGW as we've defined it) is that their computer models predict significant positive feedback due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

It's true that the greenhouse gas effect equations predict a very slight warming due to CO2--but those same equations require that the amount of warming decreases logarithmically as CO2 concentrations increase. And those same equations show that the current CO2 concentrations are well into the region where even doubling atmospheric concentrations of CO2 would have very little effect.
The IPCC climate models assume that the slight warming predicted by the greenhouse gas effect equations will be drastically amplified by synergistic affects. It is that latter assumption (drastic amplification of the slight warming produced by the greenhouse gas effect) for which there is no proof, and which is absolutely required in order to make the warming any sort of problem.

The IPCC climate models have been "curve fitted" so as to correspond with past temperature history. Any statistician will tell you that such "curve fitted" models cannot be validly used as proof of anything, nor to make valid predictions of the future. And in fact, the future predictions of the models have been invalidated by reality repeatedly.

Worse, one of the ways that the models have been "curve fitted" is by assuming that any deviation between the models and the historical climate is due to the unproven "drastic synergistic warming" that magically transforms slight warming of no consequence into significant warming that might be harmful (or might be net beneficial.)
In other words, climate models that operate solely according to first principles do not show any warming trend that would be worth mitigating, neither in the past nor in the future. To force the models to agree with past history, they have been modified to use a "fudge factor" that arbitrarily amplifies any direct greenhouse gas effect warming non-linearly. And when those modified models with the magic fudge factors are run into the future, they unsurprisingly show significant warming. It would be amazing if they did not, since they are arbitrarily hard-coded (by fiat, not by application of scientfic laws) to non-linearly amplify the warming computed to occur by application of the greenhouse gas effect equations.

Such circular reasoning may be proof of dishonesty or of incompetence, but it cannot be valid proof that the climate system has positive feedback that amplifies the slight warming from human emissions of CO2 predicted by the greenhouse effect equations. Why? Because you cannot prove something by assuming it.

To be fair, the IPCC attempts to overcome that objection by claiming that, since it was necessary to assume positive feedback in order to make the climate models' predictions conform to the historical record, that that strongly suggests that there must in fact be positive feedback. But that claim depends on a logical fallacy.

Why? Several reasons:
1) The climate models are a combination of computations from first principles (measured physical phenomena and proven physical equations that model/predict the beahvior of nature) and "fudge factors," "magic numbers" and other unproven guesses about how the climate system behaves. Therefore, there are multiple sources of error in the models, any one of which, or any combination of which, could contribute substantially to the difference between the predictions the models make when they do and when they don't include code that assumes "positive feedback." No one can prove that the discrepancy between the model's predictions and the historical data isn't in some part of the code or parameter data that has nothing to do with feedback effects (positive or negative.)
2) The climate models are known to be incomplete in other ways. It's not just that the way they model some aspects of the climate system is known to be imperfect, or to be no better than educated guesswork, or even just unproven assumptions (such as the feedback,) it's that they don't even try to account for all the issues that might matter. So again, no one can prove that the discrepancy between the model's predictions and the historical data isn't simply due to a failure to even consider the effects of possibly important parts of the climate system.
3) No one can prove that there aren't important aspects of nature that materially affect climate that we don't even know about, and so don't even think to include in the climate models.

The climate models cannot--at present--be valid evidence for AGW.

Consider also the following:
"YESTERDAY, a former chief at NASA, Dr John S. Theon, slammed the computer models used to determine future climate claiming they are not scientific in part because the modellers have “resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists”.
A founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, Journal of Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, and International Symposium on Forecasting, and the author of Long-range Forecasting (1978, 1985), the Principles of Forecasting Handbook, and over 70 papers on forecasting, Dr J. Scott Armstrong, issued a statement declaring that the forecasting process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis." [http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/01/no-scientific-forecasts-to-support-global-warming/]
The professional, credentialed critics of AGW are legion. More than 31000 credentialed scientists have signed a petition stating that 'there is no scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide...is causing, or will in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." [http://www.petitionproject.org/]

The Coming of the New Ice Age: End of the Global Warming Era?
Girma Orssengo's analyses using the standard observational temperature and CO2 data sets shows that Mother Nature has falsified the alleged CAGW Hypothesis. It's well worth your time to comprehend this elegant and clear analysis.

  " *Effect Of CO2 Emission On Global Mean Temperature* Examination of Figure 3 shows that the Global Mean Temperature Anomaly (GMTA) for 1940 of 0.13 deg C is greater than that for 1880 of –0.22 deg C. Also, the GMTA for 2000 of 0.48 deg C is greater than that for 1940 of 0.13 deg C. This means that the GMTA value, when the oscillating anomaly is at its maximum, increases in every new cycle. Is this global warming caused by human emission of CO2? The data required to establish the effect of CO2 emission on global mean temperature already exist. The global mean temperature data are available from the Climate Research Unit of the Hadley Centre shown in Figure 3, and the CO2 emission data are available from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre [8]. *For the period from 1880 to 1940, the average emission of CO2 was about 0.8 G-ton, and the increase in the GMTA was 0.13+0.22=0.35 deg C. For the period from 1940 to 2000, the average emission of CO2 was about 4 G-ton, but the increase in GMTA was the same 0.48-0.13=0.35 deg C. This means that an increase in CO2 emission by 4/0.8=5-fold has no effect in the increase in the GMTA. This conclusively proves that the effect of 20th century human emission of CO2 on global mean temperature is nil.* *Note that the increase in GMTA of 0.35 deg C from 1880 to 1940 (or from 1940 to 2000) in a 60 year period has a warming rate of 0.35/60=0.0058 deg per year, which is the slope of the linear anomaly given by Equation 1. As a result, the linear anomaly is not affected by CO2 emission. Obviously, as the oscillating anomaly is cyclic, it is not related to the 5-fold increase in human emission of CO2.
Figure 4, with high correlation coefficient of 0.88, shows the important result that the observed GMTA can be modeled by a combination of a linear and sinusoidal pattern given by Equation 3. This single GMTA pattern that was valid in the period from 1880 to 1940 was also valid in the period from 1940 to 2000 after about 5-fold increase in human emission of CO2. As a result, the effect of human emission of CO2 on GMTA is nil.* "
  http://pathstoknowledge.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/predictions-of-gmt.pdf [wordpress.com] . Furthermore the conclusive counter evidence analysis based upon *observational data* by Girma Orrsenago puts a nail in the coffin of the AGW Hypothesis as promoted by the CO2 Climate Doomsday AGW Rapture proponents. *Orrsenago shows that Nature falsified the CAGW hypothesis*.
In summary, since the Little Ice Age about 130 years ago the Earth's temperature has risen slightly on a Linear+Cyclic (30 years warming, 30 years cooling, repeat, ...) trend. Since 1957 CO2 has increased, HOWEVER the temperature linear+cyclic trend has NOT DEVIATED as would be expected if CO2 where causing the Earth's temperature to rise. We're currently in about ~12 years or so into what appears to be a cooling phase of the linear+cyclic cycle. As Girma points out we shall see what happens as it happens.H/T Peter William Lount

Lindzen and Choi’s new paper out — confirms negative feedback, unlike AGW climate models
http://www.heliogenic.net/2010/05/03/lindzen-and-chois-new-paper-out-confirms-negative-feedback-unlike-agw-climate-models/ [heliogenic.net]

IPCC'S FATAL ERRORS: INTERNAL MODELING MISTAKES BY IPCC ARE SUFFICIENT TO REJECT ITS ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING CONJECTURE
ALBEDO REGULATES CLIMATE, NOT THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT.CO2 HAS NO MEASURABLE EFFECT ON CLIMATE.
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2009/03/_internal_modeling_mistakes_by.html [rocketscie...ournal.com]

Chinese 2,485 year tree ring study shows natural cycles control climate, temps may cool til 2068
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-shows-shows-sun-controls-climate-temps-will-cool-til-2068/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JoNova+(JoNova)&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher [joannenova.com.au]

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
By Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
http://www.schmanck.de/FalsificationSchreuder.pdf [schmanck.de]

Anthropogenic Global Warming - Fact or Hoax?
A well-researched article suggesting Anthropomorphic Global Warming may be a hoax.
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html [middlebury.net]

The Coming of the New Ice Age: End of the Global Warming Era?
http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2012/01/31/the-coming-of-the-new-ice-age-end-of-the-global-warming-era/?singlepage=true [pjmedia.com]

modern day monkey trial (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39231791)

The American south is really a pathetic backwater.

  Protip: in America only NYC, SF and LA are civilized. Outside of those metro areas your results may vary widely.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...