Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Soon, Baliunus, de Freitas, Etal

Mike details of Project Blueprint can be found here


The Blueprint Project. A project that generated a Work Plan (or blueprint) for the development of Integrated Assessment Modelling (IAM) for climate change and related impacts, adaptations and mitigation strategies. This project was carried out on behalf of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, and involved collaborators from nine academic institutions in the UK.
Grant: £158,223 from Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research (1 Apr 2001 - 31 May 2002), PI: Dr J. Palutikof

The weird thing is, for a project that ended in 2002, that if you follow the link from the page The Blueprint Project. you get to this:


On 22 November 2011, further emails and documents apparently obtained illegally from CRU in 2009 were released onto the internet. Please see Media and Communications for UEA statements on this.

Following the earlier theft of data and emails from CRU in 2009, a number of inquiries and reviews were completed.
"the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact" (House of Commons Science and Technology Committee)
"we saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit" (Lord Oxburgh Science Assessment Panel)
"their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt" (Sir Muir Russell Independent Climate Change Emails Review)
"careful examination of the e-mails and their full context shows that the petitioners' claims are exaggerated and are not a material or reliable basis to question the validity and credibility of the body of [climate] science" (US Environmental Protection Agency)

Which does have the URL http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/projects/blueprint/

Dec 24, 2011 at 8:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

Glancing through this lengthy discussion what is apparent to me is that BBD doesn't understand why industry funds research, and the changes in how research has been carried out over the last 50 or so years. Principally, industry wants answers to questions of interest to itself. Formerly, it might have carried out the necessary research in its own labs. But given the developments in technology over the last half century, the questions have got more complex, more interdisciplinary, and much more expensive, to the point where Rolls Royce, say, cannot find its own answers to its own questions in its own labs. So it bungs a big cheque to, say, Purdue, or GIT, somewhere strong in aerospace, with the necessary facilities and cross-faculty expertise. And, as with advertising, RR is perfectly easy with the idea of much of its money being wasted, in that the researchers don't come up with an answer to a specific question, or come up with an answer which is not one RR was hoping for. If by chance the research provides a 'good' answer, maybe yippee for RR they can morph that research into money. In short the process, of industry funding research is customary and necessary, and the idea that the researchers job is to provide the 'right' answer for funders is to misunderstand both the process and the objectives of all parties. Frequently, the questions are so complex that the 'right' answer anyway does nothing more than open the door to another question.
It is, that said, possibly true in some less honest research areas, particularly where an outside regulator needs to be persuaded, that companies will fund multiple studies and trumpet the one(s) which are most close to their preferred answer. While there is corruption at the margin, there is no reason to suppose that marginal behaviours represent the norm.
So, implying that S&B manipulated their research to create the answer that their paymasters 'wanted' is to misunderstand practically everything.

Dec 31, 2011 at 12:38 PM | Unregistered Commenterbill

bill

From your comment it is evident that you do not understand the political lobbying process. Specifically, you will need to investigate the use Sen Inofe made of S&B03, along with other highly questionable studies.

At this stage, I really cannot be bothered to go on with this discussion, especially with a correspondent as ill-informed (and partisan) as you appear to be.

Dec 31, 2011 at 2:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD, I did say that organisations (and individuals) will trumpet research results that they most like. It doesn't at all follow from that that the researchers have created results in order to please. "big oil paid for it, inhofe trumpeted it, therefore S&B can't be taken seriously" is indeed the argument of the ill-informed and partisan.

Dec 31, 2011 at 4:02 PM | Unregistered Commenterbill

Mann and co decided that SB03 was specifically written for the Congressional hearing - which made it evil in their eyes. Don't they write papers specifically for their IPCC deadlines? Does that make them evil?

Every industry, or interested party, has the right to critically cross-examine the claims based on which their prospects could be impacted. When the polar bear is used by activists to shut down Arctic oil exploration, Soon looked into it. You can see what he found, for yourself. You can also see how the GCMs have become a tool for shutting down human progress. That's what climatologists are good for today - shutting down human progress.

Dec 31, 2011 at 4:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

Shub

When the polar bear is used by activists to shut down Arctic oil exploration, Soon looked into it. You can see what he found, for yourself.

Thanks for referencing another total distortion of the facts from Soon, Baliunas and chums. Oh look! Tim Ball was a co-author. Small world, isn't it?

The paper was of course, flawed and misleading in a way that cannot have been accidental. See here.

Dec 31, 2011 at 8:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

I've seen much more than what the crackpots at Realclimate have to say about this:

I found this on Realclimate ,about one of Soon's calculations:

None of the correlations showed an r2 > 0.24...

Ha! Ha! That is a slippery road to be going down, isn't it?

I feel like I am talking to a sockpuppet.

Dec 31, 2011 at 9:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

I feel like I am talking to a sockpuppet.

No, Shub. You are talking to me ;-)

Not a very convincing response. I mean what about the nitty-gritty:

Soon knew that the relevant data series for discussing the AO influence on Western Hudson Bay temperature (and by proxy, sea ice) was from Churchill and despite being reminded of the fact by the first set of reviewers, nonetheless continued to only show the AO connection to a site 1000 miles away, which had a much higher correlation without any discussion of whether this other data was at all relevant to Churchill or the bears nearby.

Good to see that you are being frank about where you stand though: credentialled climate scientists are the 'crackpots' and Shub is the custodian of the true knowledge.

Dec 31, 2011 at 10:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Soon gives his reasons. I remember catching it in a video sometime back.

'credentialed scientists' - is that like the barbers of yore getting a license and calling themselves hairdressers?

Dec 31, 2011 at 10:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

BBD
I take it you're not suggesting that using the threat to polar bears as a means of stopping oil drilling in the Arctic was scientifically correct, are you?
I mean, given the actual state of the polar bear population, WWF (et al) were in fact lying, were they not? They were tugging at people's heartstrings with a completely false tale to pursue an aim that they would not have succeeded in obtaining by legitimate means. Yes?

Jan 1, 2012 at 10:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

MJ

Exactly what 'lies' are you referring to? In order to answer your question I need to see a few examples of the 'completely false tales' you have in mind.

Jan 2, 2012 at 12:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

As Soon points out, the polar bear population as of date is the highest that has been recorded, and this is agreed upon by all parties concerned.

Does WWF tell you this?

Jan 2, 2012 at 2:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterShub

BBD
Stop being naive. It doesn't suit you.
Or do you believe that polar bears actually are an endangered species?

Jan 2, 2012 at 9:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

MJ

Just answer the question. Or this exchange is over.

Jan 2, 2012 at 3:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Another typical BBD non-response.
Never reply to anyone's post without demanding cross referenced citations for every word.
You're not interested in discussion, are you? Only in dragging your correspondents into a bottomless pit of "he said, she said".
And when asked a direct question; evade, evade, evade.
Two simple questions — no need for anything in the way of reseach or peer review or citations or published papers: was WWF's use of alleged threats to the survival of the polar bear in a bid to prevent oil exploration based on sound science or not? Do you believe that polar bears are an endangered species.
And if you don't want to answer that question then that's fine by me. Everyone will know that you daren't because you already know the answer and you don't want to go where it might lead.

Jan 2, 2012 at 3:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

MJ

I reject your above comment. You need to stop p*ssing around and stand up for what you said. Now answer the question, please:

Exactly what 'lies' are you referring to? In order to answer your question I need to see a few examples of the 'completely false tales' you have in mind.

Jan 2, 2012 at 4:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

MJ

And when asked a direct question; evade, evade, evade.

I literally cannot believe how little self-awareness this demonstrates. Not to mention HONESTY.

I have answered more questions on this and many, many other threads at BH than you. And everybody who reads these exchanges knows that this is true.

You are seriously pushing it today.

Jan 2, 2012 at 4:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

In order to answer your question I need to see a few examples of the 'completely false tales' you have in mind.
No, you don't. You just need to anwer the questions. When WWF used the alleged threat to polar bears as their argument against oil exploration was this based on sound science? Do you believe that polar bears are a threatened species?
You don't need examples of anything. You just want people to go running around endlessly chasing after references (which you probably will reject anyway — just as you are busy doing over at the 'Poisoning the Well' thread) either because it satisfies your ego or, more probably in this case, because you would rather the answer was something different from what it is.
As I said, stop being naive.
Also offensive. You don't answer questions; you go into long discursive lectures on why you are right and everyone else is wrong, and then criticise them for a lack of self-awareness and honesty.

Jan 2, 2012 at 6:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

Evade, evade, evade.

Exactly what 'lies' are you referring to? In order to answer your question I need to see a few examples of the 'completely false tales' you have in mind.

I don't know WTF the WWF is supposed to have said. I'm not clairvoyant.

Back up your assertion or withdraw it.

Jan 2, 2012 at 6:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Of course you know.
The evidence is your postings of Dec 31 at 8.46pm and 10.16pm.
Either you know what you were referring to and the reason behind it or you were talking through your backside. I'm just trying to establish which.
So ...
When WWF used the alleged threat to polar bears as their argument against oil exploration was this based on sound science? Do you believe that polar bears are a threatened species?
If you can't (or won't) answer the questions I shall assume you are talking through your backside.

Jan 2, 2012 at 6:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

And I shall assume the same of you, since you clearly cannot - or will not - clarify what it is you are calling lies and fairytales.

My guess is you haven't got a clue what the WWF actually said either.

It's beyond amusing that you and others have spent this thread vehemently claiming that Soon and Baliunas are independent and the oil funding and 'think tank' links mean nothing, blah, blah, blah.

And here are your heroes busily churning out pseudoscience - in furtherance of the interests of the fossil fuel industry... ;-)

Did you miss that?

Shame you won't play the game and tell me exactly what it is that the WWF is supposed to have said that was lies and 'completely false tales'.

What are you worried about? Afraid it might be a trap ;-)

Jan 2, 2012 at 7:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Yeah, yeah!
Like I said, all you had to do was answer the questions.
But, no.

Jan 2, 2012 at 9:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

MJ

Steven Amstrup, who seems to be something of an expert, says:

Q: Why all the fuss about polar bears? Aren't polar bear populations booming?

A: I should begin my response by saying I don't know any source for the claim that polar bears are not threatened but, in fact, are booming. There is no evidence anywhere that polar bear populations are "booming." The best studied populations are known to be in trouble and several of the lesser known populations are thought to be in trouble due to the continuing loss of their sea ice habitat.

[...]

Those who have claimed that polar bear populations are booming are simply making up information. It is not clear to me why they would do so, but they apparently feel that if they tell a big enough lie often enough and loud enough that it will seem like truth to some people. The sad fact is, though, that these lies are a distraction from the need to address the threats polar bears face as a result of global warming. Even sadder is that the warming that threatens the future existence of polar bears also is a direct threat to humans and the rest of life on Earth.

More about the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group findings:

As of May 2008, the U.S listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. In Canada, polar bears are listed as a Species of Special Concern. Russia also considers the polar bear a species of concern.

What’s happening? Today, scientists have concluded that the threat to polar bears is ecological change in the Arctic from global warming. Polar bears depend on sea ice for hunting, breeding, and in some cases, denning. Summer ice loss in the Arctic now equals an area the size of Alaska, Texas, and the state of Washington combined.

Polar bears range from Russia to Alaska, from Canada to Greenland, and onto Norway's Svalbard archipelago. Biologists estimate there are 20,000 to 25,000 bears. About 60% of those live in Canada.

At the 2009 meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations* of polar bears:

8 are declining.
3 are stable.
1 is increasing.

By comparison, in 2005:

5 were declining.
5 were stable.
2 were increasing.

*Insufficient data to determine the fate of the other 7 populations

Results from long-term studies show:

- Canada's Western Hudson Bay population: 22% decline since the early 1980s, directly related to earlier ice break-up on Hudson Bay.

- Southern Beaufort Sea population along the northern coast of Alaska and western Canada: decline in cub survival rates and in the weight and skull size of adult males; similar observations made in Western Hudson Bay prior to its population drop.

- Baffin Bay population, shared by Greenland and Canada: at risk from both significant sea ice loss and substantial over-harvesting.

- Chukchi Sea population, shared by Russia and the United States: declining due to illegal harvest in Russia and one of the highest rates of sea ice loss in the Arctic.

Of course it's all lies.

Jan 2, 2012 at 9:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Is this some kind of a joke? It is the claims of Amstrup and Stirling, among others, that is being questioned. How can you quote the same people in support of their claims?

Jan 2, 2012 at 10:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

Because they have evidence to back them up.

I thought we'd established that Dyck et al. was highly problematic.

And you are quoting it in support of... itself.

Jan 2, 2012 at 10:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD