Comments on: Here We Go Again, More Cherry Picking by the CCSP http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4923 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: The Government’s New Climate Report: Shading Science for Alarmism — MasterResource http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4923&cpage=1#comment-14153 The Government’s New Climate Report: Shading Science for Alarmism — MasterResource Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:24:40 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4923#comment-14153 [...] (of course associated by the CCSP with anthropogenic climate change). At his blog, Roger repeatedly pointed out, in great detail, the shortcomings of the CCSP [...] [...] (of course associated by the CCSP with anthropogenic climate change). At his blog, Roger repeatedly pointed out, in great detail, the shortcomings of the CCSP [...]

]]> By: Gary http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4923&cpage=1#comment-11775 Gary Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:39:49 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4923#comment-11775 What about this statement from NOAA? News release from NOAA : Subject: NOAA: Increased Hurricane Losses Due to More People, Wealth Along Coastlines, Not Stronger Storms FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - February 21, 2008*** NEWS FROM NOAA *** NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON, DC Contact: Dennis Feltgen, NOAA 305-229-4404Increased Hurricane Losses Due to More People, Wealth Along Coastlines, Not Stronger Storms, New Study Says A team of scientists have found that the economic damages from hurricanes have increased in the U.S. over time due to greater population, infrastructure, and wealth on the U.S. coastlines, and not to any spike in the number or intensity of hurricanes. “We found that although some decades were quieter and less damaging in the U.S. and others had more land-falling hurricanes and more damage, the economic costs of land-falling hurricanes have steadily increased over time,” said Chris Landsea, one of the researchers as well as the science and operations officer at NOAA’s National Hurricane Center in Miami. “There is nothing in the U.S. hurricane damage record that indicates global warming has caused a significant increase in destruction along our coasts.” Link to paper: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2476-2008.02.pdf What about this statement from NOAA?

News release from NOAA :
Subject: NOAA: Increased Hurricane Losses Due to More People, Wealth Along Coastlines, Not Stronger Storms
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – February 21, 2008*** NEWS FROM NOAA ***
NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON, DC
Contact: Dennis Feltgen, NOAA 305-229-4404Increased Hurricane Losses Due to More People,
Wealth Along Coastlines, Not Stronger Storms, New Study Says
A team of scientists have found that the economic damages from hurricanes have increased in the U.S. over time due to greater population, infrastructure, and wealth on the U.S. coastlines, and not to any spike in the number or intensity of hurricanes.

“We found that although some decades were quieter and less damaging in the U.S. and others had more land-falling hurricanes and more damage, the economic costs of land-falling hurricanes have steadily increased over time,” said Chris Landsea, one of the researchers as well as the science and operations officer at NOAA’s National Hurricane Center in Miami. “There is nothing in the U.S. hurricane damage record that indicates global warming has caused a significant increase in destruction along our coasts.”
Link to paper:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2476-2008.02.pdf

]]> By: docpine http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4923&cpage=1#comment-11768 docpine Tue, 03 Feb 2009 14:48:37 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4923#comment-11768 Roger, Just so you know this goes on in other fields where the policy the science supports has become politicized; you sound mildly (or more) surprised You could argue that because this field is so important to the planet, we should have higher standards. I would tend to agree with that. But left to the laissez faire model of scientific discourse this tends to be what you get. Good question for grad student : take some controversies that have political ramifications and see if there is variation in the rigor of scientific discourse .. what are the characteristics of those controversies, fewer disciplines involved, fewer large egos per unit of data, some kind of self-appointed quality arbiters? Just a thought. Roger,
Just so you know this goes on in other fields where the policy the science supports has become politicized; you sound mildly (or more) surprised You could argue that because this field is so important to the planet, we should have higher standards. I would tend to agree with that. But left to the laissez faire model of scientific discourse this tends to be what you get. Good question for grad student : take some controversies that have political ramifications and see if there is variation in the rigor of scientific discourse .. what are the characteristics of those controversies, fewer disciplines involved, fewer large egos per unit of data, some kind of self-appointed quality arbiters? Just a thought.

]]> By: jae http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4923&cpage=1#comment-11763 jae Tue, 03 Feb 2009 03:44:30 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4923#comment-11763 All I have to say is: If there is anyone out there that can read even 10 pages of the CCSP reports without puking, he has definintely not reached the mental status of Homo Sapiens. I dare say that there is not one junior high school class in the USA that could not point out the poor logic and lies in that report. It really is that bad, in my opinion. Shame on all who worked on it and all who believe in it! All I have to say is: If there is anyone out there that can read even 10 pages of the CCSP reports without puking, he has definintely not reached the mental status of Homo Sapiens. I dare say that there is not one junior high school class in the USA that could not point out the poor logic and lies in that report. It really is that bad, in my opinion. Shame on all who worked on it and all who believe in it!

]]> By: Sylvain http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4923&cpage=1#comment-11762 Sylvain Tue, 03 Feb 2009 02:38:18 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4923#comment-11762 Roger you are right. This kind of paper makes me proud to be called a denier. Why in hell should i believe people that obviously want to push their agenda down my throat. Roger you are right.

This kind of paper makes me proud to be called a denier. Why in hell should i believe people that obviously want to push their agenda down my throat.

]]> By: EDaniel http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4923&cpage=1#comment-11761 EDaniel Mon, 02 Feb 2009 22:26:15 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4923#comment-11761 Unfortunately, knowing the actual state of the situation involves work at the nitty-gritty, feet-in-the-mud level. The people (politicians) making the decisions never get down to the nitty-gritty. Superficial emotional appeals. almost always ignoring the facts, seem to be as deep as they go. A reason that an independent regulatory agency, of which there are numerous examples in other areas that impact public health and safety, is needed. I have suggested that a Carbon Regulatory Agency, along the lines of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (among others). An Independent organization that has the power to ask hard questions and demand deep analysis of all aspects of the problem. I continue to fear that the poor, those who can least afford it, will be the victims of public policy based on emotions ( and political pay-off ). As the situation now stands there is no-one who can be held accountable for bad decisions. Consider the Ethanol debacle; politicians lied, people died. Unfortunately, knowing the actual state of the situation involves work at the nitty-gritty, feet-in-the-mud level.

The people (politicians) making the decisions never get down to the nitty-gritty. Superficial emotional appeals. almost always ignoring the facts, seem to be as deep as they go.

A reason that an independent regulatory agency, of which there are numerous examples in other areas that impact public health and safety, is needed. I have suggested that a Carbon Regulatory Agency, along the lines of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (among others). An Independent organization that has the power to ask hard questions and demand deep analysis of all aspects of the problem.

I continue to fear that the poor, those who can least afford it, will be the victims of public policy based on emotions ( and political pay-off ). As the situation now stands there is no-one who can be held accountable for bad decisions. Consider the Ethanol debacle; politicians lied, people died.

]]> By: stan http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4923&cpage=1#comment-11759 stan Mon, 02 Feb 2009 21:56:46 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4923#comment-11759 "How can anyone trust the climate science community as long as such shenanigans are allowed to take place?" Add these shenanigans to the very, very long list of other shenanigans. In the end, the argument doesn't even come down to the science. It comes down to credibility, integrity, trustworthiness. People who don't honestly report the state of the literature, don't bother replicating others' work, don't provide transparency, impede honest efforts at audit, and demonize all who disagree should NOT be trusted. They aren't trust--worthy. Society serves as a type of jury on these issues. If the expert witnesses for one side of the case demonstrate that their testimony lacks credibility, that testimony is properly disregarded. Those witnesses are disregarded (for all purposes) because their integrity has been impeached conclusively. “How can anyone trust the climate science community as long as such shenanigans are allowed to take place?”

Add these shenanigans to the very, very long list of other shenanigans.

In the end, the argument doesn’t even come down to the science. It comes down to credibility, integrity, trustworthiness. People who don’t honestly report the state of the literature, don’t bother replicating others’ work, don’t provide transparency, impede honest efforts at audit, and demonize all who disagree should NOT be trusted. They aren’t trust–worthy.

Society serves as a type of jury on these issues. If the expert witnesses for one side of the case demonstrate that their testimony lacks credibility, that testimony is properly disregarded. Those witnesses are disregarded (for all purposes) because their integrity has been impeached conclusively.

]]>