• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

MJP said:
Exactly how is playing on the fears of children brilliant?  As a marketing concept it borders on unethical by preying on those that may not have the logical reasoning that most adults have.  I usually prefer to engage a target audience in meaningful debate/argument about why support for my cause is worth it.  Not run around like chicken little pretending the sky is falling unless you give me money.

I agree.  Here's more:  Suzuki green like the Grinch

If you buy something at the site, you won't actually get anything in the mail, not even a crumb too small for a mouse. The Reindeer Water Wings ($19.99 made from bio-based foam) and Magic Sleigh Pontoons ($99 made from 100% recycled Aluminum) are "symbolic gifts" that will earn you an e-card in your inbox.
 

 
Redeye said:
That's brilliant. I love it - sending it around to a people I know, a great way to get more people involved in the discussion, and funny too.

Well, well . . .  doesn't that say it all.
 
MJP said:
Wow.  Sent a complaint into Advertising Standards Canada. http://www.adstandards.com/en/Standards/consumerSubmission.asp  If they get a myriad of complaints it will make things tough for David Suzuki and his advocacy slush fund.

Dear Mr. <deleted>,

Advertising Standards Canada (ASC) received your letter expressing concern about the above-referenced advertising.

We are currently reviewing the advertisement under the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards (Code). We will advise you shortly of the results of our review.

In the meantime, for information about the Code and the complaint handling procedure, please visit www.adstandards.com.

Yours sincerely,

Amy Kedrosky
National Standards Coordinator
amy.kedrosky@adstandards.com                   
 
GAP said:
:+1:  same contact name also

Same here

For those interested here are the Ad Councils rules regarding advertising to children.

2. Advertising to Children

Advertising that is directed to children must not exploit their credulity, lack of experience or their sense of loyalty, and must not present information or illustrations that might result in their physical, emotional or moral harm.

Child-directed advertising in the broadcast media is separately regulated by the Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children, also administered by ASC. Advertising to children in Quebec is prohibited by the Quebec Consumer Protection Act.
13. Advertising to Minors

Products prohibited from sale to minors must not be advertised in such a way as to appeal particularly to persons under legal age, and people featured in advertisements for such products must be, and clearly seen to be, adults under the law.
14. Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals

It is recognized that advertisements may be distasteful without necessarily conflicting with the provisions of this clause 14; and the fact that a particular product or service may be offensive to some people is not sufficient grounds for objecting to an advertisement for that product or service.

Advertisements shall not:

(a) condone any form of personal discrimination, including that based upon race, national origin, religion, sex or age;

(b) appear in a realistic manner to exploit, condone or incite violence; nor appear to condone, or directly encourage, bullying; nor directly encourage, or exhibit obvious indifference to, unlawful behaviour;

(c) demean, denigrate or disparage any identifiable person, group of persons, firm, organization, industrial or commercial activity, profession, product or service or attempt to bring it or them into public contempt or ridicule;

(d) undermine human dignity; or display obvious indifference to, or encourage, gratuitously and without merit, conduct or attitudes that offend the standards of public decency prevailing among a significant segment of the population.
 
Personally, I'm cheering for global warming. December 1st and I'm still riding the Harley.  ;D
 
Journeyman said:
Personally, I'm cheering for global warming. December 1st and I'm still riding the Harley.  ;D

Climate is gonna change regardless of what we do. So sit back and enjoy the ride.  8)
 
Journeyman said:
Personally, I'm cheering for global warming. December 1st and I'm still riding the Harley.  ;D

My wife, recovering Liberal that she is, agrees with you.
 
Journeyman said:
Personally, I'm cheering for global warming. December 1st and I'm still riding the Harley.  ;D

There was a guy filling up his H-D Switchback in Sackville, NB on the way home from Gagetown this weekend. I almost wish my bike wasn't in storage.
 
Oh Boy !

A Two-fer

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/12/tale-of-two-fantasies.html

 
Move along, nothing to see here:

http://www.dailytech.com/Climatologists+Trade+Tips+on+Destroying+Evidence+Evangelizing+Warming/article23368.htm

Climatologists Trade Tips on Destroying Evidence, Evangelizing Warming
Jason Mick (Blog) - November 25, 2011 5:12 PM

Penn State researcher and his CRU/IPCC colleague treated AGW like a religious "cause" despite warnings from peers

Anthropogenic global warming is a fascinating hypothesis that mankind may be able to systematically increase the Earth's temperature in the long term by burning deposits of hydrocarbon fuels.  But the key thing to note is that despite the intriguing premise, little definitive information has been determined in this field even as politicization runs rife.  In fact, researchers are still struggling to explain why warming has stalled in the last decade even as levels of carbon dioxide -- supposedly the most important greenhouse gas have rose.

I. Climatologists "Pull an Enron", Shred the Evidence

The recent University of California, Berkley "BEST" study -- perhaps the most comprehensive climate change investigation to date -- was blasted by AGW proponents.  They were upset that the study -- funded in part by the charity of a major oil entrepreneur -- highlighted the fact that temperatures had flat lined over the past decade, and were more upset still that the study suggested that other factors like sea currents could have driven the warming that occurred in the 1960s-1990s.

But newly reportedly leaked emails reveal that accusations of bias are perhaps a bit of projection.  The new emails include discussions that sound as shocking or more so as the infamous "Climategate" emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU).

The new emails revisit embattled climate researcher-cum-AGW evangelist Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

In one email Professor Jones explains to researchers how to best hide their work to prevent anyone from being able to replicate it and find errors:

I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.  Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden.  I've discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.

Of course Phil Jones and his supporters will likely claim that the emails were taken out of context of some larger more appropriate discussion.  But as a researcher it's pretty damning to make comments that even would seem to imply that you were engaging in trying to suppress peer review of questionable data -- academic fraud.

Particularly trouble is the phrase "cover yourself", which suggest a conspiratorial, political undertone to what is supposed to be a transparent field of research.

The emails contain outright requests for the destruction of professional communications regarding research in an effort to cover up public scrutiny of public flaws.  The leaks add yet another humiliating scandal to Pennsylvania State University as they implicate prominent Penn State climatologist Michael Mann even more directly than the last release. 

Writes the Professor Jones to Professor Mann:

Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?  Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Some professors and experts even tried to reach out to Professor Mann, warning him of the danger of turning science into religion by purposefully ignoring evidence.  Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office writes:

Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary.  I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

Even Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research who was implicated in the first CRU email scandal for suggesting the removal of an editor who allowed peer-reviewed skeptical studies to be published, seemed to agree on this extreme instance:

Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.

The IPCC did eventually change the draft somewhat -- perhaps due to this feedback -- but critics say it still did far too much cherry picking of its sources.

II. Forget Science: You're Either For the Cause, Or You're Against It

In a later email, Professor Mann implies AGW advocacy is a political/pseudo-religious "cause" and that those who question it on scientific merits are enemies of the "cause".  He writes, "I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause."

Ironically, Professor Curry appears to be the only one behaving like a true scientist.  The emails neglect the forgotten truth that the distinguished Georgia Institute of Technology began as a believed in man-made global warming, publishing a notable 2005 study published in the prestigious Science journal investigating the potential correlation between hurricanes and man-made temperature increases.

The study earned scathing criticism from warming skeptics, but rather than treat her work as religious dogma, she carefully considered the criticism.  Supported by her co-author, she personally met with some prominent critics and considered their claims.  After all, she recalls in a Scientific American interview, "We were generally aware of these problems when we wrote the paper, but the critics argued that these issues were much more significant than we had acknowledged."

Soon she began to blog for AGW a skeptical blog run by Roger Pielke, Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, and Climate Audit, run by statistician Steve McIntyre.  She began blogging hoping to convince skeptics of the merits of AGW theory via an open discussion.  But in time she found herself increasingly troubled by the lack of transparency and conclusive evidence on such an important topic.  She singles out the IPCC as a particularly guilty party, accusing it of outright "corruption."

Given the released emails it's hard to argue with that assessment.  Writes Jonathan Overpeck, lead coordinating author of the IPCC's most recent climate assessment:

The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.

Aside from destroying evidence and ostracizing colleagues, the emails also reveal another sign of dogma and the antithesis of science -- ignorance.  In one email Phil Jones admits he has no idea how to perform the basic statistical analysis that forms the basis of one of his past claims, writing:

I keep on seeing people saying this same stupid thing. I'm not adept enough (totally inept) with excel to do this now as no-one who knows how to is here.

What you have to do is to take the numbers in column C (the years) and then those in D (the anomalies for each year), plot them and then work out the linear trend. The slope is upwards. I had someone do this in early 2006, and the trend was upwards then. It will be now. Trend won't be statistically significant, but the trend is up.


III. When in Doubt, Deny

Already AGW advocates are jumping to the defense of the researchers implicated in the scandal.  Writes Mother Jones' Kate Sheppard:

Rather than smearing scientists, reporters might want to try some actual reporting.

The new round of hacked emails from climate scientists floating around the internet hasn't generated the same buzz as the last iteration—at least not yet. But in certain circles, it's playing out much like the first batch of emails did in 2009. In addition to the tranche of emails, the poster included a list of "greatest hits"—short quotes from the emails taken out of their context that are intended to paint scientists as scheming or lying. The entire batch was quickly posted in searchable format on another site.

But such critical reports have thus far failed to actually provide virtually any such contextual explanations, despite their suggestion that they must exist.  Further, the critics of the email publication are ignoring the fact that there are certain types of things that researchers should know to never say -- such as making comments that even sound like suggesting the destruction of academic evidence.

The reports also ignore the fact that while it's easy to accuse the media, the oil industry, et al. for a mass conspiracy to silence anthropogenic global warming advocates, there's just as compelling a cause for AGW proponents to conspire to silence their critics in a dogmatic, non-scientific fashion.

Such an approach not only guarantees researchers lucrative research grants, it guarantees their political allies potential billions of dollars in windfalls in "carbon credits" and other AGW-inspired wealth redistribution schemes.  Al Gore in particular has made close to a billion dollars based on his evangelizing AGW in lectures, film; via carbon credit investments; and by pushing the government to funnel money to his high-risk "green energy" investments in the name of fighting AGW.

You can download a torrent of the emails here.
 
Another surprise for the alarmists. Go to the link to watch the animation:

http://metanoodle.blogspot.com/2011/11/greenhouse-gas-surprise-re-set-your.html

Greenhouse gas surprise: Re-set your brain with new satellite data.

Were you thinking, like me, that CO2 fumes from industry in Burlington and Beijing defined greenhouse gas?  Think again.  Tides of CO2 follow the growing season, moving north and south on earth.  CO2 is disappearing from the atmosphere and being recreated about equally. Watch the 12 month animation of data from the first satellite dedicated to measuring greenhouse gas, the Japanese GOSAT.  The seasonal shifts both down and up are way bigger than industrial inputs, even over the heart of Europe. The gif animation shows up to 30 ppm variation annually.

There's mis-information about GOSAT which uses this screen capture on the right from Japanese TV.  Presented as proof that the industrial world is a net consumer, not emitter, of CO2, it's the July 2009 data when this happens to be largely true.  The correct information is this four season display below.  Japan's space agency has yet to release a chart of annual averages, the minimum for drawing conclusions..

An article linked by smalldeadanimals makes the striking point that maybe the "red" places should be paying reparations to the "green" places like Canada and Europe.  This chart on the left was used as the proof but it is data from only one week in April 2009 as the green tide of growth was moving north for the summer. The source chart with date and context is here.

I see a couple places that stay "in the red" pretty much year round. China and South East Asia and a patch near Houston and the Florida Everglades. They say you manage what you measure.  This is the first time the whole earth has been surveyed for CO2 from space. It's a bit soon to draw conclusions other than CO2 is made and consumed seasonally by vegetation.  How dangerous is this greenhouse gas to plants?  Watch Chickpea bulk up on CO2 supplement (2 minutes).
 
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/world/archives/2011/12/20111205-125825.html

OTTAWA - Federal Environment Minister Peter Kent has confirmed Canada will not be part of a second Kyoto Protocol to fight climate change.

"We believe that ultimately a new agreement that includes all of the world's major emitters (of greenhouse gases) in both the developing and the developed world is the only way to materially reduce annual mega-tonnage to the point we can work to prevent global warming hitting or exceeding two degrees," Kent said from the climate conference in Durban, South Africa.

So, when the Kyoto Protocol, which Canada signed in 1997, expires in 2012, Canada's participation in the agreement will also expire.

More on link.. The part I find funny:

"That is not the way to show leadership. Canada committed to the Kyoto Protocol, so they should respect Canada's word, respect Canada's commitment."

So keeping our word now matters to the NDP.. But when they debated the Afghan mission, it meant nothing?
 
Sythen said:
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/world/archives/2011/12/20111205-125825.html

More on link.. The part I find funny:

So keeping our word now matters to the NDP.. But when they debated the Afghan mission, it meant nothing?

We are keeping our word. When the current protocol is done in 2012, so are we.
 
Much of the so called modeling on which climate alarmism was based was presented as a "black box" take it or leave it approach. The raw data was hidden, manipulated or otherwise obscured (as the Climategate I and II email dumps made clear). Perhaps if this is a condition of taxpayer funded research, scams will be harder to pull off:

http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2011/12/08/essay-ways-prevent-scientific-misconduct

Cure for Scientific Misconduct
December 8, 2011 - 3:00am
By
Felicia B. LeClere

The most recent case of scientific fraud by Dutch social psychologist Diederik Stapel recalls the 2010 case against Harvard University of Marc Hauser, a well-respected researcher in human and animal cognition. In both cases, the focus was on access to and irregularities in handling of data. Stapel retained full control of the raw data, never allowing his students or colleagues to have access to data files.  In the case of Hauser, the scientific misconduct investigation found missing data files and unsupported scientific inference at the center of the accusations against him. Outright data fraud by Stapel and sloppy data management and inappropriate data use by Hauser underscore the critical role data transparency plays in preventing scientific misconduct.   

Recent developments at the National Science Foundation (and earlier this decade at the National Institutes of Health) suggest a solution — data-sharing requirements for all grant-funded projects and by all scientific journals. Such a requirement could prevent this type of fraud by quickly opening up research data to scrutiny by a wider community of scientists.

Stapel’s case is an extreme example and more likely possible in disciplines with substantially limited imperatives for data sharing and secondary data use.  The research traditions of psychology suggest that collecting your own data is the only sound scientific practice.  This tradition, less widely shared in other social sciences, encourages researchers to protect data from outsiders.  The potential for abuse is clear. 

According to published reports about Hauser, there were three instances in which the original data used in published articles could not be found. While
Hauser repeated two of those experiments and produced data that supported his papers, his poor handling of data cast a significant shadow of uncertainty and suspicion over his work.

Hauser’s behavior is rare, but not unheard of. In 2008, the latest year for which data are available, the Office of Research Integrity at the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services reported 17 closed institutional cases that included data falsification or fabrication. These cases involved research funded by the federal government, and included the manipulation or misinterpretation of research data rather than the violation of scientific ethics or institutional oversight.

In both Hauser and Stapel's cases, graduate students were the first to alert authorities to irregularities.  Rather than relying on other members of a researcher’s lab to come forward (an action that requires a great deal of personal and professional courage,) the new data sharing requirements at NSF and NIH have the potential to introduce long-term cultural changes in the conduct of science that may reduce the likelihood of misconduct based on data fabrication or falsification. The requirements were given teeth at NSF by the inclusion of new data management plans in the scored portion of the grant application.

NIH has since 2003 required all projects requesting more than $500,000 per year to include a data-sharing plan, and the NSF announced in January 2011 that it would require all grant requests to include data management plans. The NSF has an opportunity to reshape scientists' behavior by ensuring that the data-management plans are part of the peer review process and are evaluated for scientific merit.  Peer review is essential for data-management plans for two reasons. First and foremost, it creates an incentive for scientists to actually share data. The NIH initiatives have offered the carrot for data sharing — the NSF provides the stick. The second reason is that the plans will reflect the traditions, rules, and constraints of the relevant scientific fields.

Past attempts to force scientists to share data have met with substantial resistance because the legislation did not acknowledge the substantial differences in the structure, use, and nature of data across the social, behavioral and natural sciences, and the costs of preparing data. Data sharing legislation has often been code for, "We don’t like your results," or political cover for previously highly controversial issues such as global warming or the health effects of secondhand smoke. The peer review process, on the other hand, forces consistent standards for data sharing, which are now largely absent, and allow scientists to build and judge those standards.  "Witch hunts" disguised as data sharing would disappear. 

The intent of the data sharing initiatives at the NIH and currently at NSF has very little to do with controlling or policing scientific misconduct. These initiatives are meant to both advance science more rapidly and to make the funding of science more efficient. Nevertheless, there is a very real side benefit of explicit data sharing requirements: reducing the incidence of true fraud and the likelihood that data errors would be misinterpreted as fraud.
The requirement to make one’s data available in a timely and accessible manner will change incentives and behavior. First, of course, if the data sets are made available in a timely manner to researchers outside the immediate research team, other scientists can begin to scrutinize and replicate findings immediately. A community of scientists is the best police force one can possibly imagine. Secondly, those who contemplate fraud will be faced with the prospect of having to create and share fraudulent data as well as fraudulent findings.

As scientists, it is often easier for us to imagine where we want to go than how to get there.  Proponents of data sharing are often viewed as naïve scientific idealists, yet it seems an efficient and elegant solution to the many ongoing struggles to maintain the scientific infrastructure and the public’s trust in federally funded research. Every case of scientific fraud, particularly on such controversial issues such as the biological source of morality (which is part of Hauser’s research) or the sources of racial prejudice (in the case of Stapel) allows those suspicious of science and governments’ commitment to funding science to build a case in the public arena. Advances in technology have allowed the scientific community the opportunity to share data in a broad and scientifically valid manner, and in a way that would effectively counter those critics.

NIH and NSF have led the way toward more open access to scientific data.  It is now imperative that other grant funding agencies and scientific journals redouble their own efforts to force data, the raw materials of science, into the light of day well before problems arise.
Author's Bio

Felicia B. LeClere is a principal research scientist in the Public Health Department of NORC at the University of Chicago, where she works as research coordinator on multiple projects, including the National Immunization Survey and the National Children's Study.


Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2011/12/08/essay-ways-prevent-scientific-misconduct#ixzz1fzFEnM00
Inside Higher Ed
 
Back
Top