PDA

View Full Version : NSF Clears 'Climate-Gate' Scientist



Qtec
08-27-2011, 04:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">National Science Foundation Clears 'Climate-Gate' Scientist Of Any Misconduct

The National Science Foundation has cleared climatologist and Penn State professor Michael Mann of any misconduct in the "Climate-Gate" controversy, which became a lightning rod for climate change skeptics in 2009.

In a memo Tuesday, the NSF's Inspector General's office said that "the research in question was originally completed over 10 years ago. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Although the subject's data is still available and still the focus of significant critical examination, no direct evidence has been presented that indicates the subject fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified his results."</span>

"Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct," the review concludes, "as defined under the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation, we are closing this investigation with no further action."

The investigation centered around thousands of e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit in Great Britain, that showed scientists discussing how to keep research skeptical of climate change out of peer-review journals, among other things. Conservatives and climate skeptics latched onto the e-mails, using them as evidence that the idea of man-made climate change is not true. <u>The e-mails did not, in fact, undermine the broad consensus that climate change is occurring.</u> </div></div>

Q...... no conspiracy (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/national_science_foundation_clears_climate-gate_sc.php)

LWW
08-27-2011, 04:22 AM
Can you read?

Seriously?

First off ... this is somewhat akin to the Manson Family declating Charley to be innocent.

Second ... and here's where you were pimped ... it claims the e-mails didn't undermine the junk science of MMGW. Nobody claimed that it did. What it did was show that they were hiding reality and stifling actual scientific debate. How hard is it to have an overwhelming consensus under such circumstances. Again, this would be analogous to saying there was an overwhelming consensus of Kentucky Wildcat fans found at Rupp Arena basketball games.

cushioncrawler
08-27-2011, 08:14 AM
Denyists put their own ignorant slant on hiz wordage in hiz emails.
mac.

Soflasnapper
08-27-2011, 09:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can you read?

Seriously?

First off ... this is somewhat akin to the Manson Family declating Charley to be innocent.

Second ... and here's where you were pimped ... it claims the e-mails didn't undermine the junk science of MMGW. Nobody claimed that it did. What it did was show that they were hiding reality and stifling actual scientific debate. How hard is it to have an overwhelming consensus under such circumstances. Again, this would be analogous to saying there was an overwhelming consensus of Kentucky Wildcat fans found at Rupp Arena basketball games.
</div></div>

If the Manson family or the Kentucky Wildcats had AN INSPECTOR GENERAL, your analogies would be closer to valid. Not valid, of course, but closer.

The charges against Mann by his critics were the sum and total of the entire 'Climategate' charge, that the e-mails showed he'd presented a knowing fraud ("neat trick to hide the decline," etc.), and that the whole claimed 'consensus' was based on bad data that was hidden with such tricks.

OF COURSE, it was widely claimed that the stolen and then leaked e-mails COMPLETELY undermined AGW theories, showing it all to be an elaborate hoax and fraud. Even I, who watches very little Fox and hears but little of Rush, Hannity, Mark Levin, and other 'lights' of conservative hate radio, saw and heard all of them saying exactly this claim.

Your position that they didn't is flatly mistaken.

LWW
08-27-2011, 03:14 PM
You are probably a true believer in the hockey stick?

cushioncrawler
08-27-2011, 05:20 PM
Manson, i mean Mann, or whoever, that first drew the hockey-stick, sayd in that very same article that the hockey-stick needed further work.
He woz-iz and will allways be a true scientist.
A couple of (Indian??) scientists on the IPCC are liars but.
mac.

moblsv
08-27-2011, 05:23 PM
There is nothing wrong in the "trick" ... "to hide the decline" statements when viewed in context. "Tricks" are practices to glean valid data from noise and "hide the decline" can very easily mean hide the noisy "decline" data that has no cause and effect relevance. One analogy could be seen by looking at the law of "angle of reflection equals the angle of incidence" in pool. This is a fact! However, if this fact is inconvenient for a pool player who wants to get around another ball on a bank shot, the player can use the "trick" of spinning a cue ball, invoking rules of elastic collisions, to "hide the constant angle" to get around the annoying ball. This is backwards on the point of causing behavior vs. interpreting behavior, but the point is the same.

moblsv
08-27-2011, 05:43 PM
From:
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
Eighth Report of Session 2009–10

"what was meant by “hide the decline” was remove the effects of data known to be problematic in the sense that the data were known to be misleading. UEA made it clear in its written submission that:

CRU never sought to disguise this specific type of tree-ring “decline or divergence”. On the contrary, CRU has published a number of pioneering articles that illustrate, suggest reasons for, and discuss the implications of this interesting phenomenon.

reference: http://www.realclimate.org/docs/387.pdf

cushioncrawler
08-27-2011, 06:19 PM
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>There still lingered one little cloud-patch of superstition, arising mainly from the supposed fact that comets had really been followed by a marked rise in temperature.</span>
Even this poor basis for the belief that they might, after all, affect earthly affairs was swept away, and science won here another victory; for Arago, by thermometric records carefully kept at Paris from 1735 to 1781, proved that comets had produced no effect upon temperature. Among multitudes of similar examples he showed that, in some years when several comets appeared, the temperature was lower than in other years when few or none appeared. In 1737 there were two comets, and the weather was cool; in 1785 there was no comet, and the weather was hot; through the whole fifty years it was shown that comets were sometimes followed by hot weather, sometimes by cool, and that no rule was deducible. The victory of science was complete at every point.

But in this history there was one little exhibition so curious as to be worthy of notice, though its permanent effect upon thought was small. Whiston and Burnet, so devoted to what they considered sacred science, had determined that in some way comets must be instruments of Divine wrath. One of them maintained that the deluge was caused by the tail of a comet striking the earth; the other put forth the theory that comets are places of punishment for the damned - in fact, ``flying hells.'' The theories of Whiston and Burnet found wide acceptance also in Germany, mainly through the all-powerful mediation of Gottsched, so long, from his professor's chair at Leipsic, the dictator of orthodox thought, who not only wrote a brief tractate of his own upon the subject, but furnished a voluminous historical introduction to the more elaborate treatise of Heyn. In this book, which appeared at Leipsic in 1742, the agency of comets in the creation, the flood, and the final destruction of the world is fully proved. Both these theories were, however, soon discredited.

Perhaps the more interesting of them can best be met by another, which, if not fully established, appears much better based - namely, that in 1868 the earth passed directly through the tail of a comet, with no deluge, no sound of any wailings of the damned, with but slight appearances here and there, only to be detected by the keen sight of the meteorological or astronomical observer.

In our own country superstitious ideas regarding comets continued to have some little currency; but their life was short. The tendency shown by Cotton Mather, at the beginning of the eighteenth century, toward acknowledging the victory of science, was completed by the utterances of Winthrop, professor at Harvard, who in 1759 published two lectures on comets, in which he simply and clearly revealed the truth, never scoffing, but reasoning quietly and reverently. In one passage he says: ``To be thrown into a panic whenever a comet appears, on account of the ill effects which some few of them might possibly produce, if they were not under proper direction, betrays a weakness unbecoming a reasonable being.''

A happy influence in this respect was exercised on both continents by John Wesley. Tenaciously as he had held to the supposed scriptural view in so many other matters of science, in this he allowed his reason to prevail, accepted the demonstrations of Halley, and gloried in them.

cushioncrawler
08-27-2011, 06:31 PM
Climate Change and Bible Prophecy
Arguments are raging around the world as to the reality or otherwise of climate change. Is it really happening and more significantly, is man causing it?

Now I'm no scientist and so cannot weigh in to the debate from that angle. But I can provide a view from the Bible as one who reads and believes what it says. Climate change is real and Bible prophecy supports it. There is no doubt about it and regardless of the sceptics; this is not just a natural cycle of events.

The world is baffled at the events taking place in the weather, and yet it was foretold two thousand years ago in bible prophecy that this would happen.

Jesus said, "...there will be great earthquakes and in various places famines and pestilences..." (Luke 21:11) In the recent past there have been plagues of locusts and mice across sections of Australia. Earthquakes are being reported with alarming regularity in the news. The United States Geological Survey recorded 16,590 earthquakes in 1990 and this has risen to 31,777 in 2008.

Bible prophecy also says, "...upon the earth distress of nations in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and waves..." (Luke 21:25-26)

The frequency and magnitude of tsunamis are clear evidence of the roaring of the sea and waves. The Boxing Day tsunami in South-East Asia (2004) and the recent tsunamis in Fiji and Samoa were unparalleled disasters. Tsunamis have caused such anxiety amongst island and coastal dwellers that unprecedented efforts have gone into development of early warning systems.

In all of these matters the nations are perplexed as to what is causing these chaotic and dramatic shifts in weather. Governments are discussing climate change to an extent previously unheard of across a background of conflicting scientific experts on both sides. Arguments are raging about carbon footprints, emissions trading schemes and the like in attempts to try to do something about these events.

Which brings us to the question: what is causing these dramatic climatic events?

The answer: God. Bible prophecy stated that this would occur in the last days, along with other signs of the times. Signs such as nation rising against nation, kingdom against kingdom, wars, tumults and rumours of war, all of which point to the end times. These climatic changes were prophesied to herald the last days in preparation for the return of Christ.

Now if these things are signs from God, is there any likelihood that man can prevent these things occurring? Not a chance! If the hand of God is indeed behind these events, then man would have more chance of holding back the tide than trying to prevent these things from happening.

So should we be concerned about this? In short, no we should not. These are prophesied as events that must happen. Christians can actually take heart because these signs are telling us that the time of the Lord's return is soon. We can take comfort in the knowledge that as these things get worse, and they will, we know that the Lord is not far away.

But how bad will it get? Well I can't answer that but it will get worse than it is today. What we are seeing is just a beginning. However the Bible also tells us that when the Lord returns it will be like when God flooded the earth or when he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. He says that the people will eat and drink, marry and be given in marriage right up until the day the Lord returns (Luke 17:26-30). So this tells us that mankind will be doing all of the normal things they do right up until the end.

So is climate change a thing to fear? No. It is a necessary part of the process that God set in train thousands of years ago and from which he will save his people. He has told us two further things in the scriptures from which we can be encouraged. He says, "When these things begin to take place, look up and raise your heads because your redemption is drawing near." (Luke 21:28), and, "...when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates." (Matthew 24:33), so take heart and be prepared.

I hope that you found something here to help you or add to your own knowledge. If you have any questions, then please feel free to contact me.

Soflasnapper
08-28-2011, 09:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: moblsv</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is nothing wrong in the "trick" ... "to hide the decline" statements when viewed in context. "Tricks" are practices to glean valid data from noise and "hide the decline" can very easily mean hide the noisy "decline" data that has no cause and effect relevance. [...] </div></div>

I agree with this, and the rest that I elided. I only mention the language as it was the apparent fraud that the skeptics pointed to as evidence for their case, which was in error.

Your explanation is fine, and others have searched published literature and have shown other scientists discussing their own 'neat tricks' in exactly the same respect-- a novel or ingenious tactic that helps elucidate an underlying truth of the data, not as a ruse to hide the truth.

Soflasnapper
08-28-2011, 10:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are probably a true believer in the hockey stick? </div></div>

If understood as Mann presented it (including error bars for the various data), it has stood the test of time rather better than his critics are willing to admit, yes.

Others performed their own analysis in an attempt to show him wrong, and despite some differences with the smoothing algorithms he used, found a comparable graphical display of the various proxies over time.

LWW
08-28-2011, 11:02 AM
Don't you find it odd that a man with such a convincing hypothesis would refuse to release his sourcecode and datasets?

Soflasnapper
08-28-2011, 04:25 PM
The data were not proprietary to him and were available to any who wished to do the analysis, using whichever data and whatever analysis method they chose.

Using somewhat different data, Ljungqvist's recreation of the millenial proxies was a close fit to Mann et al. and Moberg et al.

Here's (http://www.skepticalscience.com/ljungqvist-broke-the-hockey-stick.htm) a discussion of same, with graphs and hostile commentary below in the comments.

Gayle in MD
08-30-2011, 10:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are probably a true believer in the hockey stick? </div></div>

If understood as Mann presented it (including error bars for the various data), it has stood the test of time rather better than his critics are willing to admit, yes.

Others performed their own analysis in an attempt to show him wrong, and despite some differences with the smoothing algorithms he used, found a comparable graphical display of the various proxies over time.

</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">it has stood the test of time rather better than his critics are willing to admit, yes.

</div></div>

Just as The Theory Of Evolution has stood the test of time, and it has been proven with the evolution of DNA science, but, as we well know, only the Grand Oil Party, denies The Theory Of Evolution, and the proven impact of human activity on the current climate changes, which do threaten the world, in many ways.

Alas, we still have to put up with the on-going phenomenon of Rw radical science deniers, who for either religious purposes, or because of all of the monmey spent by the Oil Corporations, probably the most corrupt people and least caring about human safety and health, spending millions upon millions to cover up the facts, or to mislead the public, on the devastating results of burning fosile fuels, which we have known for decades, has a dangerous impact on the health of the planet.

Religious RWers, just continue to move their line around, regardless of the resulting threats they leave to the planet that will be inherited by their own kids and grandkids, because their only concern, is to keep Repigs in office, so they can nickle and dime their way out of paying their taxes.

Now this is amusing, annd irritating, since they are always ready to get that Federal Money, handouts and subsidies, when they want or need them, not only in their private lives, but in their states, as well.

Hypocrites extraordinaire! They want our tax dollars, but they don't want to pay their taxes.

The Me Generation?

Bah bah bah. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif