The Sun affects our weather??? Oh Noooooo!

[DiscoBiscuit]

Roy Spencer is the original AGW hypocrite. He's not unlike a medical doctor taking the oath and then defending not following it.

Roy gets his feelings hurt when the conclusions he supports don't pass peer-review. No different than bean counters adding wrong and being corrected (or in this case discounted) by others. But Roy is a rogue prima dona and cries systemic foul when his peers overwhelmingly disagree with conclusions he supports. Poor guy's been sanded with the rough stuff so much that he's now perennially against-the-grain.

Roy and grapeman are alike but different, they've both been suckered by politicization of the scientific process. Grapeman doesn't get paid to bullshit a weed forum. Yet Roy's one of the few, squeaky industry-wheels greased with cash. Roy practically excommunicated (himself) from the scientific community by attempting to refute the scientific process.

 

[grapeman]

Roy Spencer is the original AGW hypocrite. He's not unlike a medical doctor taking the oath and then defending not following it.

And yet you are OK with the IPCC and M. Mann's own emails discussing how they skewed the charts and repressed contrary opinions in your vaunted peer review process.

Do you even know how ignorant you appear?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Grapman, go back and look at your posts. You really need to mix up your comments, otherwise we could set our watches to your Rolodex of rebuttals.

Not all the 3%ers are brick walls like Roy. Einstein wasn't initially embraced but he didn't diss the scientific process. Eventually, the scientific community not only embraced Einstein's theories, they credit Einstein by name.

Roy's just a kink in the process until he gets with the program. Who knows, Roy might be just the guy that refutes AGW, receives scientific acclaim and all that. But we'll never know because he's not a contributor. He's just a heckler.

Kinda like you, grapeman.

And yet you are OK with the IPCC and M. Mann's own emails discussing how they skewed the charts and repressed contrary opinions in your vaunted peer review process.

Do you even know how ignorant you appear?

This is more proof you're no more objective than a door stop. You never considered anything after the accusation, never mind that fact there have been multiple investigations that basically say the interpretation of skeptics was wrong.

You make no mention of any investigation details because you can't get beyond the so-called accusations.

In the grapeman court of opinion, it only takes an accusation to conclude a guilty verdict

 

[dagnabit]

3%

lol

 

[greenmatter]

3% at best ..... i'm out

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Yeah, that 3% is the last figure we had before the peanut gallery made such a circus over the whole subject of climate change.

Before industrial barons affected the disinformation campaign to go along with genuine, scientific skeptics, 97/3 was the percentage of advocates to skeptics. Scientific opinions (on the record), their data and conclusions (on the record).

That 97/3 disparity wasn't distracting enough for greedy oil and coal executives. So they came up with a list of 1500 names that 'proves' AGW doesn't exist.

1500 names isn't that much when the global climate-science community registers in the tens of thousands. Noticeably absent were the credentials of the 1500. 1500 isn't too large a number to actually background check of at least some of these names. No surprise there were names identical to economists, pontificators and even a jolly gent that used to lie to Congress that cigarettes won't kill ya. But we can pretend these are 1500 bonafied, skeptic-scientist opinions. Still a bit paltry to the global community of climate scientists.

Then came the list of 32,000. I wonder if the folks that comprised this list actually took the time to mention education (even employer references.) They should have got the memo over the first list forgetting to reference any of this.

Doesn't matter, the local Rotary club list will suffice for those who've already made up their mind.

All during and since, the pinball machine floods the web with the latest skeptic study. Makes it look like there's lots of data to suggest AGW is a sham. But it's just a giant version of grapeman's list of tired excuses, peppered with an occasional, new study that somehow decided to ditch peer review before they published, lol.

I'm not a scientist and don't pretend to make definite either scenario. But the argument, in it's present form is like the New York Yankees vs the Bad News Bears. But these bears whine they're ostracized for their opinion and that's a bunch of crap. Until we get definitive data, climate science is nothing but opinions. These bad news bears weren't thrown out, they just realize they can take their case to a public that will substitute street logic for the scientific method.

Peer reviewed climate change journals receive all the fanfare of their original scientific journal publication. Only a few are copied by major media outlets. It's no wonder that major media overlooks climate studies that bastardize the scientific method.

That's how we got the noise machine to substitute for peer review and the fact that major media largely ignores the circus.

It only takes a single skeptic to refute the community's findings... to a skeptic. Get two names on a conclusion and it's twice-as-accurate, lol.

 

[dagnabit]

The only topic in the entire world where there is 97% scientific consensus is AGW!!!!
Seems kinda spurious no?
Like I said before 97% don't agree on the causation of gravity bit AGW?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

 

[dagnabit]

your turn.

 

[grapeman]

Yeah, that 3% is the last figure we had before the peanut gallery made such a circus over the whole subject of climate change.

Sorry you can't see what is right in front of your face.

The circus started, not with the deniers (as you refer to them), but with the proponents of GW, who intentionally skewed data and studies to obtain their desired results.

There are only a few of you die-hards left who, despite all the evidence, will not admit that fact. Your opinion is irrelevant as compared to the facts.

Keep the faith discoman. No reason to let facts get in your way now after you have become so invested in this religion over the years.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

1 of 8 separate investigations that conclude deniers never substantiated their accusations

http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf

Penn State has issued a phase one ruling on the inquiry into Michael Mann's conduct. They found there was no substance to the first three allegations, and said that while they could find no evidence to substantiate the fourth, they would convene a phase two inquiry on it, for which a committee of faculty has been appointed.

It is important to get the word on this out before the denialists grab the report and start distorting it.


Allegation 1: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data?

Decision: NO. Michael Mann did not engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data
------------------------------

Allegation 2: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?

Decision: NO. Michael Mann did not engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones
---------------------------

Allegation 3: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar?

Decision: NO. Michael Mann did not engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar
---------------------------

Eli humbly suggests that the mice list examples of people who accused Mann of these, so we may inquire for an apology. Links will be filled in.

Allegation 4. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities?

The committee of inquiry could, in their words, find no evidence of a violation on the fourth one, they believed that further inquiry was warranted given the public outcry.

Francesca Grifa of the Union of Concerned Scientists points out that

"The remaining question relates to whether Dr. Mann's conduct eroded public trust in the integrity of climate change science and climate scientists. Because different branches of science have different cultures, the committee—comprised solely of administrators—didn't feel it had the standing to pass judgment.

"Unfortunately, climate contrarians are already misrepresenting this finding to foster doubt regarding the strong scientific consensus on climate change. These baseless attacks on the character of scientists and the credibility of their institutions are intended to divert public attention from the challenge of addressing the real-world consequences of climate change.​

Eli wants to get this out there because Morano and Co are already in full cry about the phase two inquiry. Remind everyone that on three of the four charges McIntyre, Morano, Myron Ebell and Co were shown to be pond scum.

Mann has issued a response to the report

"I am very pleased that, after a thorough review, the independent Penn State committee found no evidence to support any of the allegations against me.
Three of the four allegations have been dismissed completely. Even though no evidence to substantiate the fourth allegation was found, the University administrators thought it best to convene a separate committee of distinguished scientists to resolve any remaining questions about academic procedures.
This is very much the vindication I expected since I am confident I have done nothing wrong.
I fully support the additional inquiry which may be the best way to remove any lingering doubts. I intend to cooperate fully in this matter – as I have since the beginning of the process."
​

More details below the fold

Beginning on and about November 22, 2009, The Pennsylvania State University began to receive numerous communications (emails, phone calls and letters) accusing Dr. Michael E. Mann of having engaged in acts that included manipulating data, destroying records and colluding to hamper the progress of scientific discourse around the issue of anthropogenic global warming from approximately 1998. These accusations were based on perceptions of the content of the widely reported theft of emails from a server at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Great Britain.​

Given the sheer volume of the communications to Penn State, the similarity of their content and their sources, which included University alumni, federal and state politicians, and others, many of whom had had no relationship with Penn State, it was concluded that the matter required examination by the cognizant University official​

All these communications were, as you might have expected given the source, incoherent. The University attempted a synthesis of the charges flying about

At the time of initiation of the inquiry, and in the ensuing days during the inquiry, no formal allegations accusing Dr. Mann of research misconduct were submitted to any University official. As a result, the emails and other communications were reviewed by Dr. Pell and from these she synthesized the following four formal allegations. To be clear, these were not allegations that Dr. Pell put forth, or leveled against Dr. Mann, but rather were her best effort to reduce to allegation form the many different accusations that were received from parties outside of the University. The four synthesized allegations were as follows together with the phase one ruling:
​

Allegation 1: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data?

Finding 1. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data. While a perception has been created in the weeks after the CRU emails were made public that Dr. Mann has engaged in the suppression or falsification of data, there is no credible evidence that he ever did so, and certainly not while at Penn State. In fact to the contrary, in instances that have been focused upon by some as indicating falsification of data, for example in the use of a “trick” to manipulate the data, this is explained as a discussion among Dr. Jones and others including Dr. Mann about how best to put together a graph for a World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report. They were not falsifying data; they were trying to construct an understandable graph for those who were not experts in the field. The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field.

Footnote: The word trick as used in this email has stirred some suspicion. However, trick is often used in context to describe a mathematical insight that solves the problem. For example, see in a classic text on quantum mechanics by David Parks: "The foregoing explanation of the velocity paradox involves no new assumptions; the basic trick, the representation of a modulated wave as the superposition of two (or more) unmodulated ones, has already been used to explain interference phenomena..." pg. 21, Introduction to Quantum Theory, David Parks, Third Edition, Dover 1992.

Decision 1. As there is no substance to this allegation, there is no basis for further examination of this allegation in the context of an investigation in the second phase of RA-10.
​

Allegation 2: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?

Finding 2. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data related to AR4, as suggested by Dr. Phil Jones. Dr. Mann has stated that he did not delete emails in response to Dr. Jones’ request. Further, Dr. Mann produced upon request a full archive of his emails in and around the time of the preparation of AR4. The archive contained e-mails related to AR4.

Decision 2. As there is no substance to this allegation, there is no basis for further examination of this allegation in the context of an investigation in the second phase of RA-10.

Allegation 3: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar?

Finding 3. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to him in his capacity as an academic scholar. In media reports and blogs about Dr. Mann and other paleoclimatologists, those who are named in the CRU email files are purported to have been engaged in conspiratorial discussions indicative of a misuse of privileged or confidential information. Although it is not clear where the exact accusation lies in this with respect to Dr. Mann, it is inferred that the emails prove the case. Those who have formed this view feel that, in their capacity as reviewers, Dr. Mann and his colleagues had early access to manuscripts from other authors with whom they disagreed, and that they could somehow act on those to reject them for publication. Actually, when one does due diligence on this matter, and asks about what papers were involved, one finds that enormous confusion has been caused by interpretations of the emails and their content. In some cases, the discussion and related debate centered on papers that were about to emerge which members of the purported conspiracy had written, but which were simply under embargo. In other cases, the discussion and related debate centered on papers that have emerged in otherwise notable scientific journals, which they deemed to have been published with a lower standard of scholarly and scientific scrutiny. The committee found no research misconduct in this. Science often involves different groups who have very different points of view, arguing for the intellectual dominance of their viewpoint, so that that viewpoint becomes the canonical one. We point to Kuhn2 as an authority on how science is done, before it is accepted as “settled.”

Decision 3. As there is no substance to this allegation, there is no basis for further examination of this allegation in the context of an investigation in the second phase of RA-10.

Allegation 4. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities?

Finding 4. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee could not make a definitive finding whether there exists any evidence to substantiate that Dr. Mann did engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities. It is the case that there has been a public outcry from some quarters that Dr. Mann and his colleagues did deviate from what some observers claim to be standard academic practice. All disciplines and scientific fields work within broad bounds of “accepted scientific” practice that apply to all researchers. However, within different disciplines of science there are additional elements of accepted practice that may be specific to those disciplines and therefore are different from those of other disciplines and fields. For example, accepted practices in a field of pure mathematics, such as number theory, may differ markedly from those in a field such as socio-biology. This is axiomatic. That said, the committee could not make a definitive finding on this allegation for reasons that follow. . . .​

followed by a summary of relevant Penn State research policies

Decision 4. Given that information emerged in the form of the emails purloined from CRU in November 2009, which have raised questions in the public’s mind about Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research activity, given that this may be undermining confidence in his findings as a scientist, and given that it may be undermining public trust in science in general and climate science specifically, the inquiry committee believes an investigatory committee of faculty peers from diverse fields should be constituted under RA-10 to further consider this allegation.

In sum, the overriding sentiment of this committee, which is composed of University administrators, is that allegation #4 revolves around the question of accepted faculty conduct surrounding scientific discourse and thus merits a review by a committee of faculty scientists. Only with such a review will the academic community and other interested parties likely feel that Penn State has discharged it responsibility on this matter.




​

 

[Sgt.Stedenko]

I'm not a scientist

Ding, ding, ding.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Are you number 32,001?

 

[Sgt.Stedenko]

I was on the list a long time ago.

How progressive of you to trash a list of scientists because they dont share your beliefs. Attack the messenger when you cant attack the message.

Stick to trashing oil barons, coal fat cats, the Koch Brothers and whoever is on your MMfA talking points short list.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

... How progressive of you to trash a list of scientists because they dont share your beliefs. Attack the messenger when you cant attack the message.

Stick to trashing oil barons, coal fat cats, the Koch Brothers and whoever is on your MMfA talking points short list.

I wouldn't care if Billy bob Koch sidelined as a climate scientist. As long as he accepted the scientific method.

But how do think-tanks, economists, journalists, etc get tied to lists of so-called 'climate scientists'? I'd venture a guess they're folks that discount the scientific method and or they're intellectually dishonest.

I've been thinking about taking night courses at the local tech college, maybe get some insight on the whole thing. I considered whether to approach from an economics or journalism background but the school doesn't offer these curriculum. I may have no choice but to approach the whole thing scientifically.

Why folks get upset over curious credentials is a mystery to me. I think Einstein was once seen as uneducated. That aspect didn't change the course of history because Einstein wasn't a renegade, he embraced the process.




IMO, there's proof that skeptic science doesn't embrace peer review, much less the scientific method itself. If the list of 32k are actually climate scientists and or their data contributors, that's a pretty sizable community of science educated professionals.

Has this community presented a single study that was subject to their own peer-review process? Sounds kinda moot when 32k scientists haven't produced consensus studies within their own community.

 

[Sgt.Stedenko]

My list of 32,000 requires signatories to have formal training in the analysis of information in physical science. This requires a minimum of a bachelors degree in science, engineering or related disciplines.
Journalists, economists, socialogists, Disco Biscuits need not apply.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Why do you diss peer review, sgt?

 

[Sgt.Stedenko]

Show me a list of 32,000 scientists with similar credentials who support AGW.
A list, with names is all I ask.

Crickets chirping....

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Are your thoughts on peer review private?


Similar credentials. I'm not sure the science community lists journalists, economists, think tankers, etc.

I'm not really sure a list of accredited names would do anything to influence those who may have already made their own conclusions. But I could be wrong.

 

[ItGrows]

But how do think-tanks, economists, journalists, etc get tied to lists of so-called 'climate scientists'? I'd venture a guess they're folks that discount the scientific method and or they're intellectually dishonest.

A scientist is somebody that study's science. You dont have to have a degree to be a scientist. Most of us here are botanists. Now that doesnt mean we know what we are talking about, just that we are indeed scientist by definition.