Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records 41

[zdas04]

There is a 53 minute presentation at Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records from Steve Goddard (who starts by describing his qualifications which seem to be rock solid) that shows many high quality examples of how dramatically the climate data has been modified. One interesting observation is that approximately 50% of U.S. weather stations have been taken out of service in the last 30 years (primarily rural) and the data is "estimated" based on the remaining stations which are primarily urban (and most have been "corrected" for heat island effects). His data shows clearly exactly how the climate data has been manipulated (always in the same direction). It is worth 53 minutes to see if your credibility button gets pushed.

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[rb1957]

@FR, no I think the "take" is things would be much worse if it wasn't for the solar cooling (ie the decrease in solar energy)

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[rconnor]

Maui,

I completely agree peer-review is not perfect but that’s a far cry from supporting the level of corruption that zdas04 is purporting. Furthermore, I’d argue that the level of scrutiny applied to climate science papers by the skeptic community is much more than anything seen in other fields. Just look at the amount of FOI request are launched at climate institutions/scientists. The fact that this scrutiny has not lead to many significant retractions or important contrarian papers is telling of one of two things – (1) the grand conspiracy of the mainstream camp oppressing contrarian voices and faking data is massive, global and has lasted for >50 years or (2) the opposing voices just aren’t that accurate or important.

It’s hard to believe there is any grand conspiracy to oppress contrarian papers because contrarian papers do get published. As I’ve stated before, “For example, Lewis 2013 was included and impactful in AR5. McIntyre and McKitrick 2003 and 2005 were included and discussed in AR4. So have papers from Spencer, Christy and Lindzen, etc. been referenced in various IPCC reports. Lindzen, Tol, Christy, etc. have all been lead authors on various chapters or various IPCC reports. If and where they are valid, papers and scientists that go against the main stream view are published, referenced and discussed by the scientific community”. The problem for the contrarian position is that their arguments just aren’t that strong to change the mainstream position. The problem for the “skeptic” position is that their arguments just aren’t that accurate to get published in the first place.

What I also find hard to believe about the conspiracy is the motive. You have some that claim that money is the motive (eating at the grant trough). But this doesn’t appear that well supported as the average climate scientist earns $70,770/year. Conversely, Willie Soon, a notable climate change contrarian, received an additional $1.25 million in funding from various groups (and we needn’t go into the ethical or professional issues related to Soon referring to these papers as “deliverables” while failing to disclose any conflicts of interest) while holding a position at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. It seems that there is quite a bit of industry and think tank support for a relatively small set of contrarian scientists. If they are “in it for the money”, I’d argue they’d be better off being a contrarian.

Another motivation might be prestige. Many academics and researchers enter the field to be the one to uncover that big, Kuhnian-level revolutionary discovery. This, to me, is much more likely as the money in academia is poor. However, this motivation would, again, directly counter the conspiracy as one would be much more motivated to find THE paper that disproves the current notion of climate science. Conversely, the prestige around being the one to find the 348,281 paper that demonstrates that the other 348,280 papers were pretty accurate is not nearly as appealing. You see this motivation in this thread – the Galileo Gambit, emphasized by zdas04’s signature, is so prevalent in the “skeptic” camp. The desire to be the second coming of Galileo AND protect your ideological view on the role of government and the free-market, hot darn, that’s got to be appealing! (and I think it clouds their, otherwise good, judgment.)

The prestige motivator, that is much stronger on the contrarian side than on the mainstream side, also works against the idea that groupthink would be causing the vast majority of academics and academic institutions to agree with the mainstream view. Groupthink is likely a factor but the motivation to prove the “group” wrong is one of the single strongest drivers in academia. It’s actually a nice self-correcting aspect of academia. The fact that the quality of evidence attacking the mainstream thinking is so poor (and usually unpublished) is more likely evidence that the mainstream thinking, even if there is some groupthink involved, is accurate. Remember, groupthink doesn't necessarily mean the groups thinking is wrong.

So yes, peer-review isn’t perfect and groupthink exists. However, that doesn’t even come close to supporting the massive conspiracy zdas04 requires to support his view on temperature data. If anything, the current state of academia would encourage more contrarian viewpoints. The fact that we see so few, and fewer still of good quality, is much more likely because the viewpoint is weak or inaccurate, not that it is suppressed by a global conspiracy that has no support.

(FoxRox, off topic but it seems like a genuine question which I’ve already wrote about, so I’ll direct you to those comments – see here at 7 Oct 15 22:02 (under section 1) c) Solar) or at 12 Nov 15 20:35 (first paragraph). And yes, the projections are based off models, however a check can be done by comparing the impact of solar activity over the recent past. Solar activity has been slumping since ~1970, all while global temperatures have warmed. Also, nights are warming faster than days and the stratosphere is cooling while the surface is warming. These are all things that you’d expect from greenhouse warming but are completely counter to solar activity.

Regarding the impact of cosmic rays, which GregLocock insinuated haven’t been studied, see my reply here at 12 May 14 12:53 (under GCR/Solar Activity) where I highlight four papers that indicate there is no evidence that GCR’s significantly impact climate.

The “take”, in my opinion, isn’t that it would be “much worse”, it's that it might be slightly warmer (~hundredth(s) of a degree) if it weren’t for the decrease in solar activity.

I like this quote by Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert regarding the hypothesis that solar activity is causing the recent change in climate, “That’s a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one.” Seeing as solar activity has had a small impact on recent changes I think it’s very unlikely that a grand solar minimum, even a perpetual one, will be more influential than greenhouse gas warming.)

 

[rconnor]

snarkysparky (and zdas04),

You can also have a look at Clear Code Project which attempted to recreate GISTEMP code from scratch in Python. This isn't a review of the methods (as they are trying to emulate the GISTEMP analysis methods) but it does check that there is no "black box" fudging going on in the code. They were able to reproduce almost the exact same results as GISTEMP. Their code is open for anyone to investigate.

You can also look at Anderson et al 2012 (video explanation here) which examines 173 different data sets using natural temperature sensitive proxies(corals, ice cores, speleothems, lake and ocean sediments, and historical documents) to produce a temperature reconstruction and compares that against modern ground based temperature data sets. The results show a strong match, increasing the consilience of the evidence and adding yet another independent method that zdas04 has to claim is faked to show a warming planet (that makes (1) temperature data, (2) ice extent/volume data, (3) ocean heat content data, (4) glacial mass data, (5) sea level data, (6) humidity data and (7) natural temperature proxy data).

 

[cranky108]

"an additional $1.25 million in funding from various groups" are you implying that money was a paycheck? More likely it was used for funding of the team and work done, as very few climate scientists work alone (I would think).
Grants may be hard to find on the business side as few businesses can see a profit. Government can justify grants with little importance to value.

However, without data being presented it does leave one to suspect something might be amiss.
Without data being presented, how would the granter know the work was actually done, and not just a payoff?

 

[rconnor]

No, I was not implying the money was in the form of paychecks (or going into his pocket); it was funding for research. If I was implying that the money went into his pocket I would have said "he was paid...".

My point was that there is lots of money available for a small set of contrarians and I’d argue the money is perhaps better for contrarians then those with the mainstream view. What can definitely be said is the whole “money grubbing scientists selling their integrity for a slice of the sweet, sweet climate change money” scenario makes no sense as (1) the money for climate scientists is poor (~$70,770 on average) and (2) there is plenty of money available for contrarians.

 

[zdas04]

OK, how about we knock off the irrelevancies? Explain why the Heat Wave of the 1930's and the cooling period from 1930 to 1980 was very visible in NOAA and NASA graphs generated before 2000 and those events are missing from the 2015 data. Just explain the methodology that modifies 80 year old data significantly downward. How does the historical record change from one agenda to the next? Whether the presenter in the video has adequate qualifications or not (and LANL, Sandia, NCRC, and Congress have all found his qualifications adequate, but he's just a Geologist, Electrical Engineer, and programmer so you can discount him if you want), the historical records that he shows are real. The current graphs OF THE SAME TIME PERIODS are real. Significant data trends are missing from the current published graphs. Why?

Rconnor,
The Anderson paper is a perfect example of what is wrong with the AGW agenda. He takes 173 datasets that were all created from proxies that have a tenuous link to temperature and all require huge amounts of processing against hundreds of assumptions to convert the proxy into a temperature. All of these assumptions and all of these programs were developed by people who have a personal financial interest in NOT answering the key question "is there anything else that could have caused the observed proxy value?". Amazing that they all match isn't it? No "conspiracy of science" is required here, just "informed self interest" on the part of the scientists. Remove the bias created by the funding mechanism and anyone would find these proxy efforts to be amazingly creative theoretical work. With the bias created by the funding mechanism it is simply a body of self-fulfilling prophecies. The same proxy data run against a slightly different set of assumptions would reach different conclusions.

The Clear Code project is interesting. Did you notice that Canada (3.85 million square miles of area) has about 100 stations? Something like 300,000 square miles is represented by each station. That sure is a big area to consider universally homogeneous.

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[IRstuff]

"3.85 million square miles of area) has about 100 stations? Something like 300,000 square miles is represented by each station. That sure is a big area to consider universally homogeneous."

Perhaps herein lies a problem. 3.85 million sq.mi/100 stations = 38,500 sq.mi/station. Someone must be using those special non-AGW calculators.

Geller, on chart 26, is titled "What Is Going On Here? Figure 2 Doesn’t Match Figure 1" Yet, Figure 1 is a graph of "Annual Heat Wave Index", while Figure 2 is titled "Area of the Contiguous 48 States with Unusually Hot Summer Temperatures" As described on the EPA website that these graphs were obtained, "Heat Index," notes "An index value of 0.2 (for example) could mean that 20 percent of the country experienced one heat wave, 10 percent of the country experienced two heat waves, or some other combination of frequency and area resulted in this value." So, there is not necessarily any obvious correlation between Figures 1 and 2, and to claim that they must belies any credibility the author might have had, based on his credentials of "Software Development Of Climate And Weather Models For NCAR" He claims that he's spent 10 years analyzing data archives, yet, he willy nilly compares two graphs that are not even graphing the same thing, otherwise, they would be the same graph, without bothering to show even one iota of explanation why the underlying data is incorrect. By his own descriptions, he should have been able to show that the area component of Figure 1 doesn't match Figure 2's. Now, that would have been something really meaningful, but he didn't, so that's a perfect example of what is wrong with the anti-AGW agenda, where things are just thrown against the wall to see what sticks, by making a powerful accusation that's completely baseless without the actual analysis.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[zdas04]

Ya' got me. Trivial calculations should never be treated trivially. I did a calculation incorrectly and now my whole position is invalid. Gimme a break. The point remains the same. Each station defines an area that would be between the area of South Carolina and the area of West Virginia. Far too big to be treated as a homogeneous unit. Especially when the stations are clustered along the U.S./Canada border and around cities. The stations north of Edmonton are probably closer to the 300,000 sq miles I mentioned (it is very hard to identify this fact since the Environment Canada list includes almost 1,000 stations that haven't been in service this century).

The rest of your post is simply condemning the entire talk because you don't understand his point on a particular slide. Sleazy tactic. Where is the 1930's heat wave in any contemporary dataset you care to use? Where is the 1940-1980 cooling in any contemporary dataset you care to use? These were in the data set at one time and are not there now. They were broadly reported in both the mainstream media and the scientific literature. Copies of those publications are still available. A paper published by Hanson in 1996 with a graph that clearly shows these two clearly identifiable multi-year trends does not match papers published by NOAA and NASA today that purport to use the same dataset that Hanson used in the last century.

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[rconnor]

zdas04,

(NOTE: When I wrote this I assumed you were talking about global temperatures, which would be relevant. After reading IRstuff’s response, it sounds like you might be talking about US data only, which is only 2% of the surface of the planet. If you want to claim global warming is fake, you better be talking about global temperature data sets. If you’re not, then (1) IRstuff has already covered that (and you can read Hausfather et al 2016, linked above, or more info here) and (2) you better explain the relevancy of small adjustments to 2% of the surface compared to global temperature data.)

During WWII, sea surface temperatures went from being taken by buckets to hull intake of ships. Buckets read cool compared to hull intake (and vise versa). After WWII, buckets took back up a bit of the share but slowly declined as hull intake and, later, buoys took over. See here for a graphical representation of the distribution (from Kennedy et al. 2011).

The transition from buckets to hull intake requires homogenization, as they give two different values for the same water. As we are concerned with relative anomalies, you can either adjust buckets to match hulls or hulls to match buckets. The former was chosen but they could have adjusted buckets to hulls but, as we are talking about trends in anomalies, there is no real difference (other than it’s more accurate to adjust to hulls than to adjust to buckets) as it would have purely shifted the data and baseline down by the same amount, keeping anomalies the same. This meant that the “bucket adjustments” warmed pre-1940 data. This decreases the 20th century warming trend. See this graph from Kevin Cowtan (York University) that indicates the amount of adjustments over time and this graph from Kennedy et al 2011 which illustrates the difference between the pre (red) and post (black) adjustment data.

How does the historical record change from one agenda to the next?

“Skeptics” see these adjustments (that reduces the warming trend) as “manipulation” to fake warming (by reducing it???) but, in reality, they are improvements on the data sets that incorporates better information, data and techniques. The methods are discussed in peer-reviewed literature. Different data sets use different methods. They all tell the same story.

Amazing that they all match isn't it?

You take multiple different data sources, apply the appropriate, well documented, peer-reviewed methods to each to produce a temperature proxy. Yes, they contain inaccuracies but they agree with all other different data sources. This is consilience of evidence. However, conspiracy theorist might take it as evidence that the conspiracy as bigger than they thought.

So zdas04, I’ve addressed your concern, now will you address mine? If you think that temperature data sets have faked all the warming, then how come ice extent/volume data shows decreasing ice (indicating warming), ocean heat content data shows increasing OHC (indicating warming), glacial mass data shows decreasing mass (indicating warming), sea level data shows rising sea level (indicating warming), humidity data shows increasing humidity (indicating warming) and natural temperature proxy data shows warming (indicating warming). Even a temperature data set specifically designed by skeptics to correct all the “manipulation” actually ended up proving the warming was, indeed, real.

How do you explain all this? Is it all faked? How come no one has been able to produce a “real” data set that shows the “real” lack of warming? Seriously, you need a massive, unprecedented (certainly in the scientific community) conspiracy of data manipulation, scientific malpractice and oppression of contrarian viewpoints to hand wave all this away. So, again, your conspiracy is not just relevant to your point, it’s a requirement for your point.

 

[davefitz]

The recent CERN findings re: cloud seeding by aerosols from trees and related cloud forming effects amplified by cosmic particles further confirms Svensmark's hypothesis, and will eventually force changes in the computer models that had exaggerated the impact of CO2 on climate. There also seems to be large variations in how the media discuss these results , based on the language in use.

For example, for the difference between how the English language media deals with these new findings vs german media see <

http://notrickszone.com/2016/05/30/...ngthen-svensmarks-cosmic-ray-climate-theory>.

So, in addition to modeling variances and personal attachments to different conclusions ( that border on religiosity) , there are also differences associated with language and cultural differences.

I would guess that the required changes in the models that will be needed to be made in recognition of the CERN results will lead to a reduction of the impact of CO2 on climate by a factor of 3, and I also have the opinion that hysterical propaganda related to AGW / ACC serves as a useful proxy for changing consumer habits that would be needed to avert a separate crisis, related to rapid consumption of limited fossil fuels ( similar to "peak oil")

"In this bright future, you can't forget your past..." Bob Marley

 

[IRstuff]

"The rest of your post is simply condemning the entire talk because you don't understand his point on a particular slide."

I understand his point perfectly, which is to claim that two somewhat related graphs are supposed to 100% ("match") correlated. I suggest that you read the NOAA webpage and try to come up with a meaningful way that those two graphs should be identically correlated.

" Where is the 1930's heat wave in any contemporary dataset you care to use?"
It's right there is Heller's chart 26, which is published on the NOAA webpage that Heller got it from. So, how is it that NOAA is supposedly hiding or manipulating the data when it's published on their webpage?

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[rconnor]

Davefitz,

Again, off-topic but I suppose this is an attempt to disprove my statements made to FoxRox, which it does not. So obviously some clarification is needed.

The research does not validate Svensmark’s hypothesis – the research says that GCRs appear to impact clouds but it does not even come close to saying that GCRs drive climate. Svensmark’s hypothesis doesn’t track observations and GCRs are still far too weak a forcing to impact climate to the rate we’ve seen. Furthermore, Svensmark’s hypothesis has been predicting cooling for a while now. Svensmark stated in Sept 2009, “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” (source WUWT). In reality, GISTEMP Temperature in Sept 2009 – 0.69 deg C (or 0.64 deg C for 2009). GISTEMP Temperature in 2016 (up to June) – 1.10 deg C. (source).
[image

https://s32.postimg.org/muxkl7b0l/2009_to_2016.jpg

]
(GISTEMP Data for past 30 years with a trend line from Sept 2009 to Present)

His hypothesis doesn't just slightly over/under estimate the cooling, he gets the bloody sign wrong!

 

[seaaggie]

We may be missing the real point. The question is not whether there are trends in the data. The world has to have warming and cooling trends. There are too many variables. As an example, I once saw a NOAA paper that concluded that the cyclical nature of space dust could result in 30% of observed global temperature changes. The real question is how much of todays global temperature fluctuation is man made and unnatural. If I was a person who believed that the ends justify the means (and I am not), I would observe the natural trend taking place, and skew the data in a way that exaggerates mans contribution or visa versa depending on your position. Of course this can be done on a massive scale. Just look at liberal vs conservative philosophy trends. People are constantly accepting only data that supports their position, up to and including firing people who disagree. After a few decades, the subset of people with a particular mindset can tip the scales on an international level. It does not require a conspiracy, just a vested interest in a particular outcome and plenty of like minded grant support.
If the world is warming consistent with natural tendencies, we may waste our time and treasure trying to stop it. If mankind is in fact exacerbating the warming unnaturally, we may be too late. Unfortunately, its hard to tell who to trust. Rarely do I see a discussion separating out the natural from the unnatural and why. And then, there is the additional frustration regarding those who imply that nothing is happening. Global warming does not have to be manmade to be a problem. If there is a much warmer future, we better determine how to deal with it. And another thing, when did we just decide that its OK to pollute the atmosphere. There are some who act like we have some kind of right to pollute and dump whatever we want to as long as it "employs people".
Back to the original post, changing the data locations, or as were mentioned in other posts, relying on single data points from too large an area, or adjusting the data based on measurement methods, unfortunately lend themselves by their very nature to subconscious and intentional skewing. There is much more passion and financial motivation for skewing in the direction of man made global warming. The fact that the man caused portion happens to coincide when the most significant upwards temperature change would naturally appear provides a perfect opportunity for the aforementioned involuntary of cynical data skewing. And finally, the hyperbole that we heard in the 1990's is also an indicator of possible data "coaxing". Much of the US was supposed to be underwater by 2014 (a la John Kerry). The ocean laps at the same location on a rock that I have been fishing off of for almost 30 years, at all different tide stages.

This has become really annoying.
Thanks for letting me vent.



Thanks,
Mark

 

[ornerynorsk]

It appears that everything is going to be just fine - Keep Calm and Carry On, eh!

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/201...planetary-carbon-release-valve/9661469539726/

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[ornerynorsk]

Oh, and here are a couple of gems from Pieter Tans, the scientists in charge of NOAA's Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network, taken from this article:

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/201...outh-Pole/2651466169382/?st_rec=9661469539726

Quote exhibit A: "Researchers say CO2 levels haven't been this high at the South Pole in 400 million years." (Implying that CO2 levels, have, in fact, been this high prior to man's influence)

Quote Exhibit B: "We know from abundant and solid evidence that the CO2 increase is caused entirely by human activities," Tans added. (a rather tacit affirmation to the contrary of previous quote)

Hmmmmmm, I wonder why there is doubt regarding the veracity of all of this "data". I find it utterly hilarious.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[IRstuff]

"Hmmmmmm, I wonder why there is doubt regarding the veracity of all of this "data". I find it utterly hilarious."

Sure, if you want to misinterpret everything. No one has said the CO2 levels weren't as high or even much higher. The issue is that a) no humans were alive then, but it was bloody hot, and b) the natural processes that drove those prior increases took tens of thousands of years to happen, while this rise took less than 200 years. That's essentially a step function rise in geological terms (see below), and the mechanisms that could possibly compensate for that rise take hundreds of thousands of years to kick in. Step functions are generally to be avoided in anything but a digital system, which is not the earth, so such a drastic rise in such a short time scale could create effects that might not have even happened in previous rises.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[zdas04]

IRStuff,
What exactly is that chart representing? Are you saying that the size of the atmosphere has changed and is more than 15 times larger today than it was then? The story that ornerynorsk shared was talking about the ppm of CO2 was higher during that event. Your graph is really confusing.

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[ornerynorsk]

I couldn't find the 200 year mark on your graph, and the temperature hasn't risen 14 degrees. It's a prediction, not history, you're speaking in past tense as if it had happened already.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[rconnor]

Seaggie,

The real question is how much of todays global temperature fluctuation is man made and unnatural.

That’s a completely different topic and has already discussed. Search the last thread for where I talk about the argument “it’s natural” or “it’s changed before” (at 11 Jul 16 17:31, 12 Jul 16 15:48).

It does not require a conspiracy, just a vested interest in a particular outcome and plenty of like minded grant support.

Claiming purposeful data manipulation to suite a specific narrative is a very serious allegation. Claiming purposeful data manipulation by the thousands of scientists that work on numerous different data sets, all of which, independently, tell the same story, supported by dozens of different international institutions, peer-reviewed journals and governments and systematic suppression of any dissenting voices (all of which is a foundational requirement of the position that “all the warming is faked”) is a conspiracy theory.

But let’s talk about groupthink for a second. Firstly, groupthink could explain why most scientists agree that there is warming, granted, as it could with any prevailing scientific theory. Groupthink cannot explain an international conspiracy to manipulate data and the suppression of contrarian voices in peer-reviewed paper and scientific/academic institutions. Furthermore, groupthink applies to both groups in the debate – the mainstream view and the contrarian view. The question is, which group is more likely to be adversely influenced by groupthink, such that they’d agree with something that is not (or is less likely) true. Let’s start by reviewing the composition of both groups:

Mainstream view - International community of professional scientists (including many card carrying Republicans like Richard Alley), from dozens of different countries (including ones as ideologically different as US and Russia and China) and from dozens of different institutions (ranging from those “anti-human” eco “zealots” at the Department of Defense to NASA to large and small universities to The Russian Federation’s National Security Strategy (see point 23)).

Contrarian view - A much smaller group of contrarians, almost exclusively with a small government/libertarian/free-market enthusiast mentality, working for right-wing think tanks, writing right-wing blogs. Even those contrarians that work in (neutral) university institutions almost always partake in right-wing think tanks or right-wing blogs (Spencer, Curry, Pielke, etc.).

Which group would be more impacted by groupthink? Which one would be more ideologically motivated to hold a particular view on the science (regardless of the science)?

So yes, I think groupthink is likely a factor. However, it’s a little difficult to accuse the first group of groupthink while not acknowledging the much more obvious groupthink in the second group. The mono-ideologically identity of contrarians and the “convenient” opinion that the science, that leads to outcomes counter to their ideology, is all wrong is about as obvious an example of groupthink as imaginable. Furthermore, groupthink cannot be used to justify a belief that “all the warming is faked”.

There is much more passion and financial motivation for skewing in the direction of man made global warming.

Utter nonsense. See above. You think that skewing data as to hurt the oil industry is something that Russia would do (see above, Russian’s meteorological institute also shows warming)? You don’t think there is a “financial motivation” behind Koch and Exxon funding “skeptic” think tanks? You don’t think there is “passion” behind libertarian think tanks producing “research” that goes against the science?

You, and other “skeptics”, seem to think that Greenpeace or the Sierra Club invented climate science. They didn’t. They may repeat the science and, often, exaggerate it (hence why I never reference them) but climate science stands independent from environmentalist groups. The theory resulted in the culmination of thousands of peer reviewed papers in the best journals we have, produced by the best scientific institutions we have.

On the contrary, climate change “skepticisms” (such as “all the warming is faked”, “the greenhouse effect isn’t real”, “CO2 increases are natural”, “it’s changed before) is produced in libertarian think tanks and echoed by like minded blog sites. Almost every single contrarian group/think tank I can think of shares the exact same, painfully obvious, ideological opposition to climate change science.

Now, there is true, valid and appreciated contrarian viewpoints. It may not stand the tests of scientific scrutiny over time but it has some value and, if nothing else, still provides good questions for investigation. But that is already well incorporated into the scientific viewpoint (for example, see the impact Lewis et al 2013 had on the sensitivity range in IPCC AR5).

Ornerynorsk,

I really shouldn’t bother but did you even read the last few sentences of the piece you referenced (as an attempt to say, “it’s no big deal!”)? Let me repeat them to you, “the process won't happen quickly or soon enough to stave off the more devastating consequences of global warming. "If the PETM is any guide, it will take tens of thousands of years," Penman said.” Talk about an own goal!

Your second post might be even worse. You seem to think the statement, “Researchers say CO2 levels haven't been this high at the South Pole in 400 million years", as evidence that current CO2 levels are no big deal. This has to be a joke. Tell me, what were human civilizations and human agricultural practices like 400 million years ago? Oh, humans hadn’t even evolved yet, you say! Tell me, what happened the last time CO2 levels spiked over geological short time scales (thousands of years)? Oh, a mass extinction, you say! Tell me, was the rate of rise in CO2 and temperature during those mass extinction events faster than the rate of rise in CO2 and temperature seen today? Oh, they were actually orders of magnitude slower than today, you say! Well, I guess that’s another own goal for you.

Thanks for playing.

 

[seaaggie]

rconnor,
Thanks for you thoughtful reply. I am about 90% sure that the world is warming. My concern is that the minute I find a good story, someone refutes it.

Regarding "group think". Keep in mind that the scientific community accepted Aristotle's Spontaneous Generation theory for over a thousand years.

I'll have to address the rest later.

Thanks,
Mark