A: Correct. It is about manipulating the IPCC, not the peer review literature itself. I dont really know if that strengthens your case, however. For more extensive discussion, head over to the CRU nemesis himself: http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/17/climategatekeeping-2/
B: But here you go for some cut n paste - how to deep six a "dangerous" paper or journal editor in some easy steps (as far as I know it has not been published so far):
From: Phil Jones
To: rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Michael E. Mann",tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:49:22 +0000 Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,jto@u.arizona.edu,drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, keith.alverson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.
Cheers Phil
Dear all, Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore probably, so don't let it spoil your day. I've not looked at it yet. It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I've had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !
Cheers Phil
"From: Keith Briffa To: Edward Cook Subject: Re: Review- confidential REALLY URGENT Date: Wed Jun 4 13:42:54 2003 I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review – Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting - to support Dave Stahle’s and really as soon as you can. Please Keith"
Hi Keith, Okay, today. Promise! Now something to ask from you. Actually somewhat important too. I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your Tornetrask recon as the main whipping boy. I have a file that you gave me in 1993 that comes from your 1992 paper. Below is part of that file. Is this the right one? Also, is it possible to resurrect the column headings? I would like to play with it in an effort to refute their claims. If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically, but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved inverse regression method is actually better in a practical sense. So they do lots of monte carlo stuff that shows the superiority of their method and the deficiencies of our way of doing things, but NEVER actually show how their method would change the Tornetrask reconstruction from what you produced. Your assistance here is greatly appreciated. Otherwise, I will let Tornetrask sink into the melting permafrost of northern Sweden (just kidding of course). Cheers,
Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL. Cheers Phil
And another one:
Thanks a bunch Phil, Along lines as my other email, would it be (?) for me to forward this to the chair of our commitee confidentially, and for his internal purposes only, to help bolster the case against MM?? let me know t
"Where do you find evidence that they "fudged their data"?"
Fudged is the nice thing to say "deleted" or "lost" seems to be the most widely applicable phenomenon. I.e: (AR4 is the IPCC report)
"From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann” Subject: IPCC & FOI Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!! Cheers Phil "
The hottest shit right now I guess is their making up of non-existent non-moved Chinese weather stations to "disprove" UHI.
Otherwise, "Hide the decline" offers an interesting case study. Consensus Cultists love to say the quote is "taken out of context", etc. - but this merely confirms that they are indeed... cultists. The more context you get, the more you see that the point was indeed to... fudge the presentation of the proxy record (to prevent any embarrassing... declines).
This new trend of political affiliations and sexual practices being merrily intertwined in public discourse is interesting. Now, the Teabaggers (TM) have blazed the trail, so public acceptance (at least amongst MSNBC Countdown viewers) should be high.
So, I am trying to come up with something good for you little commies out there:
-Buttfucking Bolshevists? -Assreaming Al Qaeda fans? -Creampie Commies? -Radical Rimjobs?
"Not sure who the "he" is that you are refering to, neither have done any climate science but Lomborg claims he has and that his rants should be included in the IPCC reports."
Could you please link to what you consider is a Lomborg "rant". It would be very enlightening as to your judgement. Or perhaps you can just quote some really ranty rantyness straight up for us?
So, he paints himself that way without saying it, which is proven by... others saying it?
It should be noted the allegory was brought on by his conviction of "dishonesty" by the Danish DCSD in a fact-free decision that was later rescinded. If you can find the decision, do read it, for a look at what a true scientific embarrassment looks like.
(It also offers interesting insight into the mentality of The Cult)
... is not his actual arguments (important as they may be), but rather that the attacks on him - in their viscousness, dishonesty and general rage-inducing pompousness - highlight how venal large swathes of the "scientific establishment" have become.
"If you are going to criticize someone's work, you need to be doubly careful that the things you take issue with are valid. Here it appears that the criticism is far less solid than the material it criticizes"
You only need to be "doubly careful" provided one is doing science-related things. Now, in bolstering the doomsday cult of your choice, however...
"Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is Page 18 of 27 very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005). [IPCC, 2007c, p. 493]"
How is that "settled science" working out for you Frielyboy?
"Without reading both books, I can't take sides on the merits. But I will say some of the stuff in TFA sets off my alarms--like spending a footnote on a WHO report just to cite the population of Europe."
When doing math, statistical sources matter. But here we have something substantial to discuss. Is Lomborg dishonest in this case? Read along for the answer!
Friel: "But Lomborg's only source for these figures—a chart in the statistical annex of a 2004 World Health Organization report—contains no data on human mortality due to excess heat or cold. In fact, the words "excess heat" and "excess cold" make no appearance in the WHO document; neither does the word "heat," and the word "cold" appears only once in a reference unrelated to death due to excess cold.
Lomborg's reference to the WHO document, which allegedly supports his claim that two hundred thousand people die each year in Europe from excess heat, reads in its entirety: "207,000, based on a simple average of the available cold and heat deaths per million, cautiously excluding London and using WHO’s estimate for Europe’s population of 878 million (WHO, 2004a:121).”
However, page 121 of the 2004 WHO report—The World Health Report 2004: Changing History— which is what this source references, lists no data on cold- and heatrelated deaths per million, or for cold- and heat-related deaths in any context.
Likewise, Lomborg's very next reference-to support his claim that 1.5 million Europeans die annually from excess cold - reads in its entirety: "1.48 million, estimated in the same way as total heat deaths."
Thus, Lomborg's references indicate that page 121 of the 2004 WHO report is the source of his estimates of annual heat- and cold-related deaths in Europe; however, this page in the WHO report lists no statistics for either cold- or heat-related deaths. Consequently, there is no apparent basis here or elsewhere in Cool It for Lomborg's claim that 1.5 million Europeans die annually from excess cold. [LD, p. 86, emphasis added]
Lomborg: "In fact, the text and first endnote in this section make it very clear where the figures are sourced from: “Based on the summary of the biggest European heat and cold study (Keatinge, et al., 2000, p. 672).” (p. 170).
In the UK edition of the book, there is even a figure with the numbers, with the further explanation: “estimated in the text, using Keatinge et al., 2000:672.” (p. 233, CIUK) Friel’s claim that I relied on a WHO document that does not support my case is astonishing and profoundly disingenuous.
I clearly used the WHO report solely to provide an estimate of Europe’s population (because WHO uses the standard geographical definition of Europe to the Ural Mountains).This is evident in the text that Friel himself quoted: “and using WHO’s estimate for Europe’s population of 878 million (WHO, 2004a:121).”
Finding this study on Google Scholar took me all of two seconds using the reference provided by Lomborg (in his book).
In short, from this example, picked by you - not me, it plainly evident that is Friels honesty or literacy that should be in question, not Lomborgs. This is likely to be representative of the "debunking" in its entirety, going from what I have read of the rebuttal so far.
"Without reading both books, I can't take sides on the merits. But I will say some of the stuff in TFA sets off my alarms--like spending a footnote on a WHO report just to cite the population of Europe."
When doing math, statistical sources matter. But here we have something substantial to discuss. Is Lomborg dishonest in this case? Read along for the answer!
Friel: "But Lomborg's only source for these figures—a chart in the statistical annex of a 2004 World Health Organization report—contains no data on human mortality due to excess heat or cold. In fact, the words "excess heat" and "excess cold" make no appearance in the WHO document; neither does the word "heat," and the word "cold" appears only once in a reference unrelated to death due to excess cold.
Lomborg's reference to the WHO document, which allegedly supports his claim that two hundred thousand people die each year in Europe from excess heat, reads in its entirety: "207,000, based on a simple average of the available cold and heat deaths per million, cautiously excluding London and using WHO’s estimate for Europe’s population of 878 million (WHO, 2004a:121).”
However, page 121 of the 2004 WHO report—The World Health Report 2004: Changing History— which is what this source references, lists no data on cold- and heatrelated deaths per million, or for cold- and heat-related deaths in any context.
Likewise, Lomborg's very next reference-to support his claim that 1.5 million Europeans die annually from excess cold - reads in its entirety: "1.48 million, estimated in the same way as total heat deaths."
Thus, Lomborg's references indicate that page 121 of the 2004 WHO report is the source of his estimates of annual heat- and cold-related deaths in Europe; however, this page in the WHO report lists no statistics for either cold- or heat-related deaths. Consequently, there is no apparent basis here or elsewhere in Cool It for Lomborg's claim that 1.5 million Europeans die annually from excess cold. [LD, p. 86, emphasis added]
Lomborg: "In fact, the text and first endnote in this section make it very clear where the figures are sourced from: “Based on the summary of the biggest European heat and cold study (Keatinge, et al., 2000, p. 672).” (p. 170).
In the UK edition of the book, there is even a figure with the numbers, with the further explanation: “estimated in the text, using Keatinge et al., 2000:672.” (p. 233, CIUK) Friel’s claim that I relied on a WHO document that does not support my case is astonishing and profoundly disingenuous.
I clearly used the WHO report solely to provide an estimate of Europe’s population (because WHO uses the standard geographical definition of Europe to the Ural Mountains).This is evident in the text that Friel himself quoted: “and using WHO’s estimate for Europe’s population of 878 million (WHO, 2004a:121).”
Finding this study on Google Scholar took me all of two seconds using the reference provided by Lomborg (in his book).
In short, from this example, picked by you - not me, it plainly evident that is Friels honesty or literacy that should be in question, not Lomborgs. This is likely to be representative of the "debunking" in its entirety, going from what I have read of the rebuttal so far.
If ones argument is strong relative to public perception, one benefits from an open and honest argument.
If ones argument is weak relative to public perception, well... "Denialist conspiracy crusade lunatics" it is.
In short: The whole AGW hysteria is entirely reliant on the reputation cascade for operating. If they let up on the ostracism of dissenters, Gaia knows what will happen.
Of course the amount of money poured into climate research and carbon trading schemes - fields completely reliant on the steady production of ever scarier doomsday scenarios - receive far more cash than "Skeptics" will ever dream of seeing from Exxon.
Hell, the nemesis of the CRU boys is a Canadian retiree.
""AGW has been proven to be bogus!1!!1!!" Response: Fuck yeah, and the moon landing was a hoax; 9/11 was executed by Cheney; the holocaust is a fraud; and the sun is a motherfucka charriot of fire."
This illustrates the perils of arguing using allegories.
After reading about half of Lomborgs rebuttal, I think the more pertinent issue is "can Friel read"? Perhaps we can set up a literacy fund to help the good man get some remedial ed?
As for your assertion that "Lomborg paints himself a persecuted DaVinci":
1. As far as I know, he has never compared himself to DaVinci. I.e, you are making shit up.
and
2. He has had the pleasure of being convicted (and then aquitted) of the novel thought-crime of "unintentional dishonesty". Gotta love those cultists - they are at least an inventive bunch.
"Based on the fact that the numbers he used for deforestation were not applicable to the problem, aggregated over different collection methods, and completely irrelevant to the problem caused by deforestation: loss of habitat for endemic species."
The horror! "not applicable to the problem and aggregated over different collection methods" (in someones opinion)! This man should obviously be read of out polite society!
"So yes, we can ignore him. As for your statement "that global warming "scientists" were dishonest in their research", that's not true either. The closest thing that has been demonstrated is that some researchers are human and petty in their responses to other people's requests and research. That's a long way from demonstrating that EVERY researcher has faked his research."
Thats not the point - if secrecy, intolerance, conspiracy against dissenters and sheer dishonesty and sloppiness is frequent at the top levels of a discipline, then there is hardly any need for blanket deception for the results coming out of it to be unreliable. Especially when the discipline is largely concerned with the prediction of the distant future.
You do not "debunk", you ostracize. The main modus of debate of AGW proponents from day one has been moralistic, not empirical.
Hence the conversion of "skeptic" from badge of honor to a mark of shame, and the introduction of the "denier" label to further amp up the hysteric persecution of those who dont go with the program.
This also explains the skepticism of the general public. Joe Blow doesnt know his tree rings from his ice cores, but he sure knows what fanaticism looks like.
After all, how can one trust a science where "skepticism" is career death? The answer is simple: One cant. And as the tip of the iceberg is now visible for all to see - the remaining question is how much is hidden by the sea...
The above poster illustrates something very important:
Part of the reason one should be very skeptical of AGW alarmists is their rabies-like demeanor and aggression against all that they perceive as even the slightest heresy against their little modern day apocalypse cult.
Wider implication: Never trust the results in any discipline that is subject to a reputation cascade. (I.e, disciplines where even mild dissenters are ostracized)
"The NY Times is not left-wing. The Guardian is left-wing. Unless you're using the American definition of 'left' which is basically anyone who objects to bringing back the workhouses."
Yes, US conservatives are surely fighting hard to "bring back the workhouses". Care to mention any?
"In any given election, 99% of Americans vote for candidates who support large government spending on social projects, so I'm not sure how right-wing the population really is."
Ever heard of quantitative thinking? You should try it some time.
"Bear in mind the teabaggers are a very small group of Fox News astroturfers who had no problems with big government when a white president was giving blank cheques to the military."
Indeed - conservative support for the military is surely conditioned on the president being white.
On a side note, I've been thinking - now that you classy libs have moved political discourse a step forward by bringing sexual slurs to straight 'news' reporting with the teabag explosion, how should Fox et al keep the populist edge?
I say Liberals should henceforth be known as "buttfuckers". Further expansion is possible of course: "Liberal buttfuckers took it up the ass yesterday in Mass...", etc. etc.
a) Your characterization of the released emails and data is... well, bullshit.
Corrupting peer review by blackballing 'unreliable' voices, conspiring to oust "troublesome" journal editors, keeping published papers out of the IPCC "even if we have to redefine what the peer-review litterature is", etc. is not "playing with scenarios".
Rigging your models to paper over huge flaws (I.e. tree rings not being good temperature proxies) is not "playing with scenarios".
Deleting data and programs rather than keeping them open for review, even when illegal, is not "playing with scenarios".
And the sheer incompetence on display in their modelling is most certainly not "playing with scenarios".
And so on.
Now, moving on to the issue of extrapolation: We don't know either way, but we can make educated guesses.
- We now know that some of the leading people in the field behave in a corrupt manner to reach their preordained conclusions.
- We have long known that the field has built up a perverse incentive structure, where holding "correct" views yields career advancement and public prestige, while holding "incorrect" views leads to career death and public ostracism.
Needless to say, good science is rarely produced under those conditions.
"Errrm... because it's such god-damned good science ?"
Yes, clearly, as we can glimse from the data and correspondence released.
"It's entirely possible the models and theories are wrong. On the other hand if they're right, and there is not good evidence they're wrong, then waiting an arbitrary time to react results in an inability to react effectively."
That's the nifty thing about putting armageddon way into the future - you will never be held to account if (when) your prediction is wrong.
Of course, we also now know that some major names in the field were quite exasperated that their models had failed to predict recent climactic trends.
"All the debate from the non-climate change side is ad hominem. Al Gore flies a plane, scientists are in it for the money etc clap trap."
Bullshit. People like 'MM' are obviously doing very serious work. That is why the 'scientists' in the emails are obsessed with them, and why it is such a priority to them to make sure that Macintyre, et al don't get their hands on the data.
"Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real."
The corrupt culture of "science" (word used broadly) on display obviously most certainly undermines the case.
For a long time, climatology has been unique among the sciences, as it has faced a starkly politicized incentive structure for researchers.
Thanks to the emails, we now know beyond a doubt (among other things) that the entire process of peer review in the field (especially with regards to the critical IPCC reports) has been messed up on purpose by Jones, Mann, et al.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, I didnt consult wikipedia. And you didnt make a point.
A: Correct. It is about manipulating the IPCC, not the peer review literature itself. I dont really know if that strengthens your case, however. For more extensive discussion, head over to the CRU nemesis himself: http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/17/climategatekeeping-2/
B: But here you go for some cut n paste - how to deep six a "dangerous" paper or journal editor in some easy steps (as far as I know it has not been published so far):
From: Phil Jones
To: rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Michael E. Mann" ,tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:49:22 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,jto@u.arizona.edu,drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, keith.alverson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more
to do with it until they
rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the
editorial board, but papers
get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.
Cheers
Phil
Dear all,
Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore probably, so
don't let it spoil your
day. I've not looked at it yet. It results from this journal having a
number of editors. The
responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few
papers through by
Michaels and Gray in the past. I've had words with Hans von Storch about
this, but got nowhere.
Another thing to discuss in Nice !
Cheers
Phil
"From: Keith Briffa
To: Edward Cook
Subject: Re: Review- confidential REALLY URGENT
Date: Wed Jun 4 13:42:54 2003
I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review – Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting - to support Dave Stahle’s and really as soon as you can. Please
Keith"
Hi Keith,
Okay, today. Promise! Now something to ask from you. Actually somewhat important too. I
got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and
Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims
that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression)
is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your Tornetrask recon as the main
whipping boy. I have a file that you gave me in 1993 that comes from your 1992 paper.
Below is part of that file. Is this the right one? Also, is it possible to resurrect the
column headings? I would like to play with it in an effort to refute their claims.
If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to
review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It
won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically,
but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies,
without showing that their improved inverse regression method is actually better in a
practical sense. So they do lots of monte carlo stuff that shows the superiority of
their method and the deficiencies of our way of doing things, but NEVER actually show
how their method would change the Tornetrask reconstruction from what you produced.
Your assistance here is greatly appreciated. Otherwise, I will let Tornetrask sink into
the melting permafrost of northern Sweden (just kidding of course).
Cheers,
Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it
wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either
appears
I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Cheers
Phil
And another one:
Thanks a bunch Phil,
Along lines as my other email, would it be (?) for me to forward this to the chair of our commitee confidentially, and for his internal purposes only, to help bolster the case against MM?? let me know
t
"Where do you find evidence that they "fudged their data"?"
Fudged is the nice thing to say "deleted" or "lost" seems to be the most widely applicable phenomenon. I.e: (AR4 is the IPCC report)
"From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil
"
The hottest shit right now I guess is their making up of non-existent non-moved Chinese weather stations to "disprove" UHI.
Otherwise, "Hide the decline" offers an interesting case study. Consensus Cultists love to say the quote is "taken out of context", etc. - but this merely confirms that they are indeed... cultists. The more context you get, the more you see that the point was indeed to... fudge the presentation of the proxy record (to prevent any embarrassing... declines).
This new trend of political affiliations and sexual practices being merrily intertwined in public discourse is interesting. Now, the Teabaggers (TM) have blazed the trail, so public acceptance (at least amongst MSNBC Countdown viewers) should be high.
So, I am trying to come up with something good for you little commies out there:
-Buttfucking Bolshevists?
-Assreaming Al Qaeda fans?
-Creampie Commies?
-Radical Rimjobs?
Tell me if you see something that you like.
"Not sure who the "he" is that you are refering to, neither have done any climate science but Lomborg claims he has and that his rants should be included in the IPCC reports."
Could you please link to what you consider is a Lomborg "rant". It would be very enlightening as to your judgement. Or perhaps you can just quote some really ranty rantyness straight up for us?
So, he paints himself that way without saying it, which is proven by... others saying it?
It should be noted the allegory was brought on by his conviction of "dishonesty" by the Danish DCSD in a fact-free decision that was later rescinded. If you can find the decision, do read it, for a look at what a true scientific embarrassment looks like.
(It also offers interesting insight into the mentality of The Cult)
So far, these are my own writeups:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1559622&cid=31242704
Thirty seconds and two Googlings confirm Lomborg is right (on an issue raised in TFA) and Friel is a liar.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1559622&cid=31242742
Friel biting his own glacial ass. Delicious.
For the whole shebang, do take the time to read:
http://www.lomborg.com/dyn/files/basic_items/118-file/BL%20reply%20to%20Howard%20Friel.pdf
... is not his actual arguments (important as they may be), but rather that the attacks on him - in their viscousness, dishonesty and general rage-inducing pompousness - highlight how venal large swathes of the "scientific establishment" have become.
"If you are going to criticize someone's work, you need to be doubly careful that the things you take issue with are valid. Here it appears that the criticism is far less solid than the material it criticizes"
You only need to be "doubly careful" provided one is doing science-related things. Now, in bolstering the doomsday cult of your choice, however...
Friel, denouncing Lomborg on glaciers:
"Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is Page 18 of 27 very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005). [IPCC, 2007c, p. 493]"
How is that "settled science" working out for you Frielyboy?
http://www.lomborg.com/dyn/files/basic_items/118-file/BL%20reply%20to%20Howard%20Friel.pdf
"Without reading both books, I can't take sides on the merits. But I will say some of the stuff in TFA sets off my alarms--like spending a footnote on a WHO report just to cite the population of Europe."
When doing math, statistical sources matter. But here we have something substantial to discuss. Is Lomborg dishonest in this case? Read along for the answer!
Friel: "But Lomborg's only source for these figures—a chart in the statistical annex of a 2004 World Health Organization report—contains
no data on human mortality due to excess heat or cold. In fact, the words "excess heat" and "excess cold" make no appearance in the WHO document; neither does the word "heat," and the word "cold" appears only once in a reference unrelated to death due to excess cold.
Lomborg's reference to the WHO document, which allegedly supports his claim that two hundred thousand people die each year in Europe from excess heat, reads in its entirety: "207,000, based on a simple average of the available cold and heat deaths per million, cautiously excluding London and using WHO’s estimate for Europe’s population of 878 million (WHO, 2004a:121).”
However, page 121 of the 2004 WHO report—The World Health Report 2004: Changing History— which is what this source references, lists no data on cold- and heatrelated deaths per million, or for cold- and heat-related deaths in any context.
Likewise, Lomborg's very next reference-to support his claim that 1.5 million Europeans die annually from excess cold - reads in its entirety: "1.48 million, estimated in the same way as total heat deaths."
Thus, Lomborg's references indicate that page 121 of the 2004 WHO report is the source of his estimates of annual heat- and cold-related deaths in Europe; however, this page in the WHO report lists no statistics for either cold- or heat-related deaths. Consequently, there is no apparent basis here or elsewhere in Cool It for Lomborg's claim that 1.5 million Europeans die annually from excess cold. [LD, p. 86, emphasis added]
Lomborg: "In fact, the text and first endnote in this section make it very clear where the figures are sourced from: “Based on the summary of the biggest European heat and cold study (Keatinge, et al., 2000, p. 672).” (p. 170).
In the UK edition of the book, there is even a figure with the numbers, with the further explanation: “estimated in the text, using Keatinge et al., 2000:672.” (p. 233, CIUK) Friel’s claim that I relied on a WHO document that does not support my case is astonishing and profoundly disingenuous.
I clearly used the WHO report solely to provide an estimate of Europe’s population (because WHO uses the standard geographical definition of Europe to the Ural Mountains).This is evident in the text that Friel himself quoted: “and using WHO’s estimate for Europe’s population of 878 million (WHO, 2004a:121).”
Finding this study on Google Scholar took me all of two seconds using the reference provided by Lomborg (in his book).
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/321/7262/670
The quote is confirmed by Google Books:
http://books.google.se/books?q=estimated+in+the+text,+using+Keatinge+et+al.,+2000:672&btnG=S%C3%B6k+i+b%C3%B6cker
In short, from this example, picked by you - not me, it plainly evident that is Friels honesty or literacy that should be in question, not Lomborgs. This is likely to be representative of the "debunking" in its entirety, going from what I have read of the rebuttal so far.
http://www.lomborg.com/dyn/files/basic_items/118-file/BL%20reply%20to%20Howard%20Friel.pdf
"Without reading both books, I can't take sides on the merits. But I will say some of the stuff in TFA sets off my alarms--like spending a footnote on a WHO report just to cite the population of Europe."
When doing math, statistical sources matter. But here we have something substantial to discuss. Is Lomborg dishonest in this case? Read along for the answer!
Friel: "But Lomborg's only source for these figures—a chart in the statistical annex of a 2004 World Health Organization report—contains
no data on human mortality due to excess heat or cold. In fact, the words "excess heat" and "excess cold" make no appearance in the WHO document; neither does the word "heat," and the word "cold" appears only once in a reference unrelated to death due to excess cold.
Lomborg's reference to the WHO document, which allegedly supports his claim that two hundred thousand people die each year in Europe from excess heat, reads in its entirety: "207,000, based on a simple average of the available cold and heat deaths per million, cautiously excluding London and using WHO’s estimate for Europe’s population of 878 million (WHO, 2004a:121).”
However, page 121 of the 2004 WHO report—The World Health Report 2004: Changing History— which is what this source references, lists no data on cold- and heatrelated deaths per million, or for cold- and heat-related deaths in any context.
Likewise, Lomborg's very next reference-to support his claim that 1.5 million Europeans die annually from excess cold - reads in its entirety: "1.48 million, estimated in the same way as total heat deaths."
Thus, Lomborg's references indicate that page 121 of the 2004 WHO report is the source of his estimates of annual heat- and cold-related deaths in Europe; however, this page in the WHO report lists no statistics for either cold- or heat-related deaths. Consequently, there is no apparent basis here or elsewhere in Cool It for Lomborg's claim that 1.5 million Europeans die annually from excess cold. [LD, p. 86, emphasis added]
Lomborg: "In fact, the text and first endnote in this section make it very clear where the figures are sourced from: “Based on the summary of the biggest European heat and cold study (Keatinge, et al., 2000, p. 672).” (p. 170).
In the UK edition of the book, there is even a figure with the numbers, with the further explanation: “estimated in the text, using Keatinge et al., 2000:672.” (p. 233, CIUK) Friel’s claim that I relied on a WHO document that does not support my case is astonishing and profoundly disingenuous.
I clearly used the WHO report solely to provide an estimate of Europe’s population (because WHO uses the standard geographical definition of Europe to the Ural Mountains).This is evident in the text that Friel himself quoted: “and using WHO’s estimate for Europe’s population of 878 million (WHO, 2004a:121).”
Finding this study on Google Scholar took me all of two seconds using the reference provided by Lomborg (in his book).
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/321/7262/670
The quote is confirmed by Google Books:
http://books.google.se/books?q=estimated+in+the+text,+using+Keatinge+et+al.,+2000:672&btnG=S%C3%B6k+i+b%C3%B6cker
In short, from this example, picked by you - not me, it plainly evident that is Friels honesty or literacy that should be in question, not Lomborgs. This is likely to be representative of the "debunking" in its entirety, going from what I have read of the rebuttal so far.
That someone perceives Lomborg as "Frothing" tells you quite a lot - they inhabit a dream world, parallel to ours. But such is the way of the Cult.
If ones argument is strong relative to public perception, one benefits from an open and honest argument.
If ones argument is weak relative to public perception, well... "Denialist conspiracy crusade lunatics" it is.
In short: The whole AGW hysteria is entirely reliant on the reputation cascade for operating. If they let up on the ostracism of dissenters, Gaia knows what will happen.
Of course the amount of money poured into climate research and carbon trading schemes - fields completely reliant on the steady production of ever scarier doomsday scenarios - receive far more cash than "Skeptics" will ever dream of seeing from Exxon.
Hell, the nemesis of the CRU boys is a Canadian retiree.
""AGW has been proven to be bogus!1!!1!!" Response: Fuck yeah, and the moon landing was a hoax; 9/11 was executed by Cheney; the holocaust is a fraud; and the sun is a motherfucka charriot of fire."
This illustrates the perils of arguing using allegories.
After reading about half of Lomborgs rebuttal, I think the more pertinent issue is "can Friel read"? Perhaps we can set up a literacy fund to help the good man get some remedial ed?
As for your assertion that "Lomborg paints himself a persecuted DaVinci":
1. As far as I know, he has never compared himself to DaVinci. I.e, you are making shit up.
and
2. He has had the pleasure of being convicted (and then aquitted) of the novel thought-crime of "unintentional dishonesty". Gotta love those cultists - they are at least an inventive bunch.
"Based on the fact that the numbers he used for deforestation were not applicable to the problem, aggregated over different collection methods, and completely irrelevant to the problem caused by deforestation: loss of habitat for endemic species."
The horror! "not applicable to the problem and aggregated over different collection methods" (in someones opinion)! This man should obviously be read of out polite society!
"So yes, we can ignore him. As for your statement "that global warming "scientists" were dishonest in their research", that's not true either. The closest thing that has been demonstrated is that some researchers are human and petty in their responses to other people's requests and research. That's a long way from demonstrating that EVERY researcher has faked his research."
Thats not the point - if secrecy, intolerance, conspiracy against dissenters and sheer dishonesty and sloppiness is frequent at the top levels of a discipline, then there is hardly any need for blanket deception for the results coming out of it to be unreliable. Especially when the discipline is largely concerned with the prediction of the distant future.
You do not "debunk", you ostracize. The main modus of debate of AGW proponents from day one has been moralistic, not empirical.
Hence the conversion of "skeptic" from badge of honor to a mark of shame, and the introduction of the "denier" label to further amp up the hysteric persecution of those who dont go with the program.
This also explains the skepticism of the general public. Joe Blow doesnt know his tree rings from his ice cores, but he sure knows what fanaticism looks like.
After all, how can one trust a science where "skepticism" is career death? The answer is simple: One cant. And as the tip of the iceberg is now visible for all to see - the remaining question is how much is hidden by the sea...
The above poster illustrates something very important:
Part of the reason one should be very skeptical of AGW alarmists is their rabies-like demeanor and aggression against all that they perceive as even the slightest heresy against their little modern day apocalypse cult.
Wider implication: Never trust the results in any discipline that is subject to a reputation cascade. (I.e, disciplines where even mild dissenters are ostracized)
"The NY Times is not left-wing. The Guardian is left-wing. Unless you're using the American definition of 'left' which is basically anyone who objects to bringing back the workhouses."
Yes, US conservatives are surely fighting hard to "bring back the workhouses". Care to mention any?
"In any given election, 99% of Americans vote for candidates who support large government spending on social projects, so I'm not sure how right-wing the population really is."
Ever heard of quantitative thinking? You should try it some time.
"Bear in mind the teabaggers are a very small group of Fox News astroturfers who had no problems with big government when a white president was giving blank cheques to the military."
Indeed - conservative support for the military is surely conditioned on the president being white.
On a side note, I've been thinking - now that you classy libs have moved political discourse a step forward by bringing sexual slurs to straight 'news' reporting with the teabag explosion, how should Fox et al keep the populist edge?
I say Liberals should henceforth be known as "buttfuckers". Further expansion is possible of course: "Liberal buttfuckers took it up the ass yesterday in Mass...", etc. etc.
Let me ask you, how the hell can you "quotemine" by publishing (as a rule) full emails (and data files)?
That are fully searchable (by the thousands) on the mutherfrigging internet?
"Quotemining" works in books, on TV, in magazines and documentaries. But it doesn't work when you are linking straight to the source.
In short, you need to come up with better bullshit excuses.
a) Your characterization of the released emails and data is... well, bullshit.
Corrupting peer review by blackballing 'unreliable' voices, conspiring to oust "troublesome" journal editors, keeping published papers out of the IPCC "even if we have to redefine what the peer-review litterature is", etc. is not "playing with scenarios".
Rigging your models to paper over huge flaws (I.e. tree rings not being good temperature proxies) is not "playing with scenarios".
Deleting data and programs rather than keeping them open for review, even when illegal, is not "playing with scenarios".
And the sheer incompetence on display in their modelling is most certainly not "playing with scenarios".
And so on.
Now, moving on to the issue of extrapolation: We don't know either way, but we can make educated guesses.
- We now know that some of the leading people in the field behave in a corrupt manner to reach their preordained conclusions.
- We have long known that the field has built up a perverse incentive structure, where holding "correct" views yields career advancement and public prestige, while holding "incorrect" views leads to career death and public ostracism.
Needless to say, good science is rarely produced under those conditions.
"Errrm ... because it's such god-damned good science ?"
Yes, clearly, as we can glimse from the data and correspondence released.
"It's entirely possible the models and theories are wrong. On the other hand if they're right, and there is not good evidence they're wrong, then waiting an arbitrary time to react results in an inability to react effectively."
That's the nifty thing about putting armageddon way into the future - you will never be held to account if (when) your prediction is wrong.
Of course, we also now know that some major names in the field were quite exasperated that their models had failed to predict recent climactic trends.
"All the debate from the non-climate change side is ad hominem. Al Gore flies a plane, scientists are in it for the money etc clap trap."
Bullshit. People like 'MM' are obviously doing very serious work. That is why the 'scientists' in the emails are obsessed with them, and why it is such a priority to them to make sure that Macintyre, et al don't get their hands on the data.
"Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real."
The corrupt culture of "science" (word used broadly) on display obviously most certainly undermines the case.
For a long time, climatology has been unique among the sciences, as it has faced a starkly politicized incentive structure for researchers.
Thanks to the emails, we now know beyond a doubt (among other things) that the entire process of peer review in the field (especially with regards to the critical IPCC reports) has been messed up on purpose by Jones, Mann, et al.