En snøball i helvete

[zulusierragolf]

Fakta, nyansering og kontekst trives like godt i dette debatt-forumet som en snøball i helvete.
Men for hva det er verdt så har The Guardian prøvd å sette noen av epostene inn i en sammenheng.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/24/leaked-climate-science-emails

[Jostemikk]

Ikke vær så selvkritisk nå, Zulu. Det du skriver om her har vi heldigvis svært lite av, og dine bidrag skal vi nok klare å leve med.

[zulusierragolf]

Men Jostemikk, når flere aktører på dette forumet leser andres eposter, tolker dem på en bestemt måte og trekker konklusjoner UTEN å snakke med dem som skrev epostene opprinnelig - hva skal vi omtale det som?

Jeg synes ikke en slik fremgangsmåte er rederlig.

Jeg synes en rederlig fremgangsmåte ser omtrent slik ut:

1. Lese epostene - det er viktig historisk materiale noe av det.
2. Hvis man mener at noe er kritikkverdig bør man ta seg tid til å formulere en presis anklage.
3. Be de som skrev eposten om en forklaring i henhold til anklagen.
4. Og siden anklager og dommer ikke skal være en og samme person - be en uhildet tredjepart om en granskning eller dom.

Hvis du mener det er noe galt med denne framgangsmåte - kan du forklare hva som er galt?

[Josik]

Jeg sitter og leser litt fra RC og synes denne er ganske beskrivende og veldig morsom:

178
Gary Hemminger says:
24 Nov 2011 at 2:32 AM

Is this a site devoted to science or PR? Evidently some of the scientists that are key in the global warming "cause" as they call it believe this site is a PR site. If this site is about science, then why do you try to downplay anything that appears to refute the "cause?"

[Response: Our 'cause' is for good science and accurate information to triumph over fear, uncertainty and doubt. We downplay nonsense, we downplay mis-information, and we try and promote clarity, context and what scientists are actually saying instead of playing up to absurd conspiracy theories, wishful thinking and hysteria. No apologies for that. - gavin]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/11/two-year-old-turkey/comment-page-4/#comment-220019

Det er for øvrig flere kritiske meninger som kommer igjennom, og gavin bortforklarer og tåkelegger dem alle sammen.....

Her er en til som gavin bruker mange ord på:

187
Chris says:
24 Nov 2011 at 5:14 AM

I have read many of the posts and comments on WUWT and I have read the post and comments here with respect to the latest "release" of, what are being dubbed, "Climategate 2.0" emails.

When I read WUWT comments I am left thinking that they seem to be making valid points – when I read RC comments on the same topic I am left floundering.

In essence, as a layman, I am left trying to judge the quality of each sides arguments – and it is impossible for me to draw a conclusion on certain specifics.

In short, it appears to me that the main thrust of the "WUWT" argument is that the "consensus" often only exists because contrariwise points of view were suppressed and/or ignored.

As an example, the work, methodology and logic that went into the "Hockey Stick" graph is questioned – if not ridiculed – by the WUWT camp. They cite quotes from people within the "team" that appear to also question the validity and methodology.

To cut through this, can you tell me if the Hockey Stick graph is still accepted (by the contributors to RealClimate) as being a fair representation of the scientific consensus?

[Response: The original MBH graph was made in 1998 - some 13 years ago. At the time it was a ground-breaking work in that it used multiple proxies to come up with approximations not just to the mean temperature changes through time, but also the spatial patterns. Subsequent work has tried different approaches, used more data, checked methods against 'pseudo-proxy' networks derived from climate models, fixed errors etc., but all of those papers don't really come up with reconstructions that are radically different (see here for instance). So the original work is no longer state of the art, but the big picture conclusion - that current temperatures and rates of temperature rise are unusual, and likely unprecedented in the last 1000 years or so, is still supported. MBH was not perfect, but it wasn't faked. - gavin]

With respect to extreme weather events, the WUWT position is that there is no evidence of recent increases in extreme weather events such as Hurricanes and Typhoons at all – let alone as a result of AGW. What is the scientific consensus position?

[Response: "Extreme events" aren't just one thing. The factors controlling hurricane intensity, or cyclone number, or a heat wave, or a drought or a cold snap, or a flood are all different and may well be different again depending on where you are (see here for a discussion). For some extremes, there is good evidence that they have been changing, and support from models for a link to global warming (heat waves, rainfall intensity are both up, cold snaps are down), while for others the data is ambiguous and model support less strong (impacts on hurricanes or tornadoes say). For some effects, the expected change to date is too small to definitely come out of the noise, even if the impact would be larger and more significant in the future (for instance changes in hurricane intensity). New work in the fractional attribution of single events (like the Texas drought, European heat wave in 2003, Moscow heat wave in 2010 etc.) shows some promise, and is indicating that the odds of such extremes are shifting in predictable ways - but this is still cutting edge science. - gavin]


Ro, ro, ro din båt, ta din åre fatt........

[zulusierragolf]

Å ro sin båt gir god trim - men HVA er GALT  med det som Gavin svarer? Han gir et (litt mer) utfyllende svar og nyanserer problemstillinger på det som for meg virker som oppriktige spørsmål. Jeg tenker at det er bra, og langt bedre enn å gi kategoriske svar.