Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Of course Phule, Chiloe's publications are readily available for all to see. I was rather keen for him to present it and his funding sources on his own. It seems he's a veritable one man army of AGW and environmental issues publications. Takes quite a bit of coin to finance such industry. Hell, I think it would be fair to surmise that his grant machine has seen over a generation of his grad students minted with Masters and PHD's, as well plenty of loose coin left over. Would be interesting to see the list of donors he is doing totally independent fact based science reporting for.
Chiloe???
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lawrence_Hamilton/publications
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
97 percent
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Who is this newcomer to the thread
Sketch.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Chiloe???
Pretty much all of rick's rant against me is a fantasy, but that's how he rolls.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Sketch.
Coy as ever.
Let's see who casts the first personal insult, because you know its coming....
Does that count?
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
Casts?
Coming?
There have already been plenty.
Have you met my newest bestest buddy, Mr. K-man?
I'm still interested in seeing if/when someone will answer my question about funding specifically for denier efforts. Since asking the question, a bunch of links and rhetoric and stuff has been posted. But the subject of my query has not been addressed. Today's a new day. Hope springs eternal.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
Expenditures,.....Look at that closely.
Research ,less than 3b.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
Still doesn't come close to the gov't funding of billions to prove the science.
English ,is hard .
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 6, 2015 - 09:28am PT
|
I'm still interested in seeing if/when someone will answer my question about funding specifically for denier efforts.
The actual dollar amount is not possible to determine because, as has been mentioned, much of the money put into the effort to discredit the findings of climate scientists is dark money, it is not attached to a budget that you can simply look up (like the amount that the US spends on different line items).
That said, the Heartland Institute, from which many denier talking points come, gets plenty of dough to press forward the denier message. Here's an excerpt from SourceWatch (note the section under which the excerpt falls):
Leaked documents
An anonymous donor called "Heartland Insider" released documents in February 2012 of the Heartland Institute's budget, fundraising plan, and Climate Strategy for 2012.
The 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy states that the Institute got $200,000 in 2011 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation, and nearly a million from an anonymous donor. Goals of the organization included:
 working with David E. Wojick on "providing [K-12 school] curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain - two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science";
"sponsor[ing] the NIPCC [Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change] to undermine the official United Nation's IPCC [International Panel on Climate Change] reports" including paying "a team of writers $388,000 in 2011 to work on a series of editions of Climate Change Reconsidered"; and
funding climate change deniers Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 a month), James Taylor who has written a lot about Climategate through his Forbes blog, and Anthony Watts ($90,000 for 2012) to challenge "warmist science essays that counter our own," including funding "external networks (such as WUWT [Watts Up With That?] and other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts)."[25]
Then there is this on Heartland from Wikipedia:
Funding
The Heartland Institute does not disclose its funding sources. According to its brochures, Heartland receives money from approximately 5,000 individuals and organizations, and no single corporate entity donates more than 5% of the operating budget,[62] although the figure for individual donors can be much higher, with a single anonymous donor providing $4.6 million in 2008, and $979,000 in 2011, accounting for 20% of Heartland's overall budget, according to reports of a leaked fundraising plan.[63] Heartland states that it does not accept government funds and does not conduct contract research for special-interest groups.[64]
While the actual dollar amount does not come close to the billions spent on actual climate research, comparing these two figures is like comparing what it takes to develop and produce a car to the amount it takes to advertise that same car. Essentially, promoting a false message is much easier than researching and proving something as difficult to understand as the climate.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 6, 2015 - 09:38am PT
|
Coming?
There have already been plenty.
Yes, I said that it "looks like they hooked you pretty good, EdwardT." That is quite the personal insult, now isn't it.
Have you met my newest bestest buddy, Mr. K-man?
I certainly hope that is not a threat, but I can't figure out what else it could mean.
EDIT:
This new comer to our thread is polite.
EdwardT has a funny posting history. A couple of posts in early 2010, then nothing until recently. Mostly on poly-tard threads, nothing on climbing. While he is "polite," he has a very subtle passive aggressive approach, reminiscent of someone who recently got banned. Perhaps they are from the same organization?
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
Have you met my newest bestest buddy, Mr. K-man?
I certainly hope that is not a threat, but I can't figure out what else it could mean.
I'm not even sure how you might consider it a threat.
EDIT:
This new comer to our thread is polite.
EdwardT has a funny posting history. A couple of posts in early 2010, then nothing until recently. Mostly on poly-tard threads, nothing on climbing. While he is "polite," he has a very subtle passive aggressive approach, reminiscent of someone who recently got banned. Perhaps they are from the same organization?
Now, you're researching my posts.
I'm a little verklempt.
I'm feeling good about my newest and bestest BFF.
Edit:
Thanks for your effort on funding specifically for denier efforts. It looks like those deniers may receive a couple of million each year.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
In science prediction is important because when it is done quantitatively, it tests the assumptions of the prediction. The point is to find which assumptions are incorrect if the predictions fail. So contrary to the noise around here, failed predictions are not an indication of poor science (how this is used in policy debates is an important issue, however).
The paper that EdwardT references is readily available online without having to refer to any blog links:
http://www.agci.org/events/2008/DecadalPrediction/PDFs/smith_etal_2007.pdf
Science 317 796 (2007)
Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model
Doug M. Smith, Stephen Cusack, Andrew W. Colman, Chris K. Folland, Glen R. Harris, James M. Murphy
Previous climate model projections of climate change accounted for external forcing from natural and anthropogenic sources but did not attempt to predict internally generated natural variability. We present a new modeling system that predicts both internal variability and externally forced changes and hence forecasts surface temperature with substantially improved skill throughout a decade, both globally and in many regions. Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.
It is very likely that the climate will warm over the coming century in response to changes in radiative forcing arising from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols (1). There is, however, particular interest in the coming decade, which represents a key planning horizon for infrastructure upgrades, insurance, energy policy, and business development. On this time scale, climate could be dominated by internal variability (2) arising from unforced natural changes in the climate system such as El Niño, fluctuations in the thermohaline circulation, and anomalies of ocean heat content. This could lead to short-term changes, especially regionally, that are quite different from the mean warming (3–5) expected over the next century in response to anthropogenic forcing. Idealized studies (6–12) show that some aspects of internal variability could be predictable several years in advance, but actual predictive skill assessed against real observations has not previously been reported beyond a few seasons (13).
The abstract presents the strongest "predictions" of the paper and the first paragraph is introductory to the science issues addressed in the paper. From the abstract:
1) "Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years."
2) "...climate will continue to warm..."
3) "at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record"
the most quantitative statement there is 3), which we can assess from the "warmest year" debate that was engaged in previously. There a probabilistic analysis of what a "warmest year" means has already been discussed. Now that the 2014 ranking is in we find:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2014/2014-global-temperature
it seems that only 3 out of the 10 years from 2004 to 2014 exceeded the 1998 temperature. The difference in the 2004 to 2014 temperatures if you just take the difference, is slightly more than 0.1ºC (which is warming) and the observations of the past decade indicate that the internal variability has offset the anthropogenic global warming signal. The actual prediction statement was:
"...predict further warming during the coming decade, with the year 2014 predicted to be 0.30° ± 0.21°C [5 to 95% confidence interval (CI)] warmer than the observed value for 2004."
which includes the observed 0.1ºC difference (note that the confidence interval is generally used as exactly that, and 2014 is within the interval, constituting a successful prediction).
The paper uses a then new model,
"Decadal Climate Prediction System (DePreSys), based on the Hadley Centre Coupled Model, version 3 (HadCM3) (17), a dynamical global climate model (GCM). DePreSys (18) takes into account the observed state of the atmosphere and ocean in order to predict internal variability, together with plausible changes in anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases and aerosol concentrations (19) and projected changes in solar irradiance and volcanic aerosol (20)."
The point being that the precision of the model, and its accuracy, were demonstrated to be sufficiently good to test it against the various observables, here the surface temperature time series.
Looking at the statement of the "DePreSys" it is attempting to predict the internal variability, and using "plausible changes" in: anthropogenic sources of GHGs and aerosols, solar irradiance and volcanic aerosols.
These "plausible changes" are important to decadal prediction, and the plausible scenarios can be checked against the "actual" changes later. Papers such as this one are short, but Science provides a place for "supplemental material" relevant to the papers to be presented... for this one you can find it at:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2007/08/07/317.5839.796.DC1/Smith.SOM.pdf
They point out the difficulty in volcanic aerosol scenarios, and that has been identified as a component in the observed recent surface temperature anomaly. Another interesting point found in the supplemental material hints at the current science investigations:
"In future we would ideally use the same climatological period for the atmosphere and ocean, since any inconsistencies in observed atmosphere and ocean anomalies are likely to degrade the DePreSys forecasts. However, we expect this to have a minor impact, since the component of predictability on interannual to decadal timescales associated with internal variability is likely to be dominated by initial conditions in the ocean."
The decadal variability of the ocean is where most of the scrutiny is being focused. It should be noted that we're talking about model predictions that are short term (10 years) and smaller than the expected interannual variability of 0.2ºC, so that the predictions can be challenged by the observations. THAT"S THE WHOLE POINT of making accurate predictions.
What we learn from this "failure to predict" has to do about the initial scientific assumptions, and the ability to make predictions accurate and precise enough to be subject to observational test.
Step away from the "failure" and you see that the models are very accurate. As the models are understood through the observational testing, they are made better. This is in part by making the approximations used in the models better, but also in identifying phenomena that are important at the level of the model/observation accuracy which may not have been included previously. This failure to include phenomena is a result of the phenomena not previously being a small part of the model accuracy.
This is also a common methodology, especially in complicated systems, where their are a hierarchy of effects, the hierarchy established by how large an effect each has on the model prediction and its variability. As the big effects are understood (and the accuracy of the prediction improves) the uncertainty of the smaller effects become more and more important. They then become the subject of improved understanding, and subsequent improvement of model accuracy.
So if you are scoring... lets look at the predictions:
1) "Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years."
this was true, the time period was not correctly predicted
2) "predict further warming during the coming decade, with the year 2014 predicted to be 0.30° ± 0.21°C [5 to 95% confidence interval (CI)] warmer than the observed value for 2004"
this was true
3) "at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record"
this was not true, only 2 of the 6 years exceeded 1998 (the then warmest year on record, we still have four more years to see how this plays out, anyone betting?).
[EDIT] changed per monolith's comment below.
the article has 464 citations according to Google Scholar (type in the title there), which are an interesting read in terms of assessing the predictions.
see, for instance: DECADAL CLIMATE PREDICTION
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
A fantastical rant Chiloe? Well I suppose your right that it was a fantasy on my part to consider the possibility that you'd be transparent in disclosure about attaching the sources of grant funding to studies.
So let's try it another way. Let's just say that in theory that your consistent track record in finding anthro causation in percieved environmental crisis is attractive to funders that start with the premise that anthro causation is a foregone conclusion and funding of studies is a vehicle for advancing a predetermined agenda of choice for remedy. Well, have you ever for a moment entertained the idea , that given your ideology and the way your choice of study topics and treatment of data and statistics almost always validate the central premise of anthro causation ,that you are in a most fortunate position of easily tapping a readily available longterm funding stream consistent with your ideology, no strike ideology and substitute the findings of your practice of science. Wouldn't it be a tradgedy if these funding sources dried up and you were then forced to either accept greatly reduced funding or search out the science study du jour and establish your place in it?
I ask you this Chiloe because there are others, myself included, that just might intuit a conflict of interest in your defense of the failings of CAGW. By ignoring request for disclosure you just might be giving legs to others opinions that your representations here are heavily tainted by preservation of self interest.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
rick you can construct a conspiracy theory to fit the situation, but that doesn't make the conspiracy theory true...
...you have no information so support your allegations at all. You have a disagreement between your view and Chiloe's, and you have turned that one point into "proof," which is ludicrous.
Maybe you should just argue Chiloe on the points of his scientific presentations here... oh, I forgot, you don't have the capability to understand what those are... and so you resort to ad hominem arguments to make your point.
Not worth a lot of attention, but it's the only thing you've got, the only thing you're capable of...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
...if Chiloe's science is demonstrably false it doesn't matter who funds him... if it is correct it's the same.
The point is you can look at what the results are and conclude that it's good science.
That's not a diversion, the diversion is to allege that funding sources somehow predetermine the science outcome. That would be a foolish thing to do when so many scientists can check your work and find your mistakes. And the allegation is unsupported in any case.
You could check the work, too, in principle if you had any capability... which you do not.
If you look at the papers, they very likely provide a funding attribution acknowledgement, you could determine the funding sources yourselves (but once again, that's not so interesting to you, you'd rather be loud than be right), much easier to provide innuendo.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
God dammit Eddie, get back in your hidey hole practicing offwidths or whatever and don't let that hand that seems to have a life of its own hit any of the wrong buttons.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
A fantastical rant Chiloe?
Yes, that's how you roll.
So let's try it another way.
Nope, this "another way" is your fantasy too, unhinged from reality before you get a quarter of the way through your next sentence.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 6, 2015 - 12:19pm PT
|
Have you met my newest bestest buddy, Mr. K-man?
Ah, I see now. You were not addressing me, you were calling me your bestest buddy.
Wow, you are in need of some real friends.
Now, you're researching my posts.
No EdwardT, no. You have no reason to feel verklempt. I was trying to get a handle on who you are, nothing to do with me being interested in your posts.
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
but it's the only thing you've got, the only thing you're capable of..
Come on now, Ed. I hear tell he tacks up a mean piece of siding.
One climbing related aspect to these abnormally warm years...the season sucks! I need cold temps for my few remaining projects. I've waited around for a decent weather window for a couple of them for multiple years now. It just seems wrong that I am looking at the Tram bouldering guide in Feb, because everything lower is out of condition...in Feb! Fer faksake, I should be getting prime conditions in JT this time of year.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!