Yeah, yeah, you denier cultists have been telling each other that BS for years but you're as deluded now as you've always been.

LOL. Ah...you denier cultists and your delusions...LOL. So much of what you fervently believe is only 'real' in your imaginations and the fantasy world you've collectively created with the help of the fossil fuel industry's propaganda masters.

Here's a good explanation of this latest propaganda ploy regarding the comments of Andrew Lacis. Once again you've been duped by the spinners and professional deniers.

Quote-mining is never a good idea

by Unity
February 9, 2010 at 5:59 pm

One of the more common, and thoroughly, dislikeable practices associated with climate change ’skepticism’, creationism/intelligent design and with the peddling of other branches of pseudoscience, is that of quote-mining.

Quote-mining is the practice of scouring scientific papers and reports for quotes that can be readily presented out of context in support of the quote-miners preferred position or argument irrespective of whether those quotes provide a fair reflection of the actual contents of the paper. It’s actually a practice that recognised as a logic fallacy, not to mention a form of false attribution and it’s neither a clever nor a particularly honest practice for anyone to engage in.

Sadly, there’s currently a perfect illustration of the fallacious use of quote mining to be found at Devil’s Kitchen; one that relates – unsurprisingly – to one of the key chapters in the IPCC’s AR4 report on Climate Change.

The story here is that DKs been sold a major pup by Bishop Hill, who’s been rooting through the many review comments on the IPCC’s Working Group 1 (WG1) report, which deals with the scientific evidence for climate change, and turned up this seemingly d*mning comment made by NASA’s Andrew Lacis:

"There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community—instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted."

I’ve left the emphasis that DK added in situ so you can clearly see exactly what DK is reading into this comment, which relates to Executive Summary that begins Chapter 9 of the WG1 report, the chapter that most directly deals with, and presents the evidence for, anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) climate change.

To make matters seem even worse, for a ’skeptics’ point of view, the report that sets out the review comments note that Lacis’ comments were apparently rejected on the grounds the reports coordinating authors considered that the Executive Summary, which Lacis laid into in no uncertain terms, merely summarized the content of the chapter, all of which was based on peer-reviewed literature.

Lacis is not only a physicist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies but he’s also a colleague of James Hansen who’s work on climatology and climate modelling is a key facet of the evidence for anthropogenic climate change.

A comprehensive takedown of Chapter 9 is the ultimate prize that climate change deniers have been seeking since the publication of AR4, which explains why Bishop Hill describes Lacis’s comments as ‘breathtaking’ while suggesting, in his own post’s title, that Lacis has somehow eviscerated the entire chapter.

In following Bishop Hill’s lead, DK takes things a stage further by trying to link Lacis’s comment to recent discovery of errors arising from the use of ‘grey literature’ that have found in the wholly separate Working Group 2 (WG2), which deals with the impacts of climate change before tossing in the conspiracy card:

"This is how the “consensus” has been constructed—by posting sceptical comments down the memory-hole; by disappearing all but the most alarmist of opinions."

Sadly for both out intrepid ’sceptics’ nothing could be further from the truth.

One of the screamingly obvious problems with the interpretation that’s being placed Lacis’s comment is not only staring them in the face, DK actually went to the time and trouble of highlighting in bold text so everyone can see it.

“There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary”

Lacis is referring specifically to the contents of the chapter’s Executive Summary and only to the Executive Summary, not the contents of rest of the chapter.

Lacis is sticking his neck out and arguing, in very strong terms, that the report’s authors should stick firmly and unequivocally to presenting the scientific evidence and leave the politicking to the politicians, and if you take the time to read the Executive Summary that he was commenting on then its impossible not to agree with his opinion.

IPCC WG1 AR4 report, Chapter 9 – Executive Summary (First Order Draft) [PDF]

Lacis is essentially correct is his assessment of this Executive Summary, which contains a number of paragraphs that sound much more like a political manifesto than a serious scientific report. Although the essential scientific elements of the full chapter are in there, far too much space is given over, in this version, to statements of opinion rather than statements about the science, which is what actually matters.

What you will also notice, if you read the summary – or even if just pay attention to the link given above – are the words ‘First Order Draft’.

What Lacis is commenting on is the first draft of the chapter, and of its Executive Summary and what neither Bishop Hill or DK point out is that there is also a Second Order Draft of the same chapter that was, itself, subjected to review.

IPCC WG1 AR4 report, Chapter 9 – Executive Summary (Second Order Draft) [PDF]

The first thing you’ll notice is that the Executive Summary in the Second Order Draft is, at two pages, significantly shorter that the First Order Draft, which came in at three and half.

Look more closely and you also see that the revised Executive Summary is much tighter and sticks almost exclusively to presenting short summaries of the relevant scientific information and evidence contained the full chapter. Pretty much all of the politicised language and expressions of opinion that were in the first draft, and clearly offended Lacis’s sensibilities, have been discarded from the second draft.

The authors may have rejected Lacis’s comments on the first draft of the Executive Summary but they clear did address the main thrust of his criticism and produced a second draft that was much more in keeping with his expectations of what a summary of a scientific report should look like.

By the time we get to the finished report [PDF] then although a number of additions have been made to text of the Executive Summary, most of which express qualified opinions on the strength of the evidence contained in the full chaper, the substantive scientific content of the summary is pretty much as it was in the Second Order Draft.

(continued)

***
Liberal Conspiracy is a joint effort. © Copyright 2007 - 2010. All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

__________________
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it." --Noam Chomsky

(continued from previous post)

Quote-mining is never a good idea

by Unity
February 9, 2010 at 5:59 pm

(continued)

As for Lacis…

Well we know that he certainly reviewed the Second Order Draft of chapter 9 thank to the comment (9-707) you’ll see here [PDF], in which he suggests that full report should incorporate a reference to a 2005 paper by his GISS colleague, James Hansen. On the subject of the revised Executive Summary, Lacis had nothing whatsoever to say the second time around, which rather suggests that he was entirely happy with its content.

In fact, most of the comments directed at the Executive Summary on this occasion appear to have been submitted by a known climate change denier, Vincent Grey, and all were rejected because Grey provided no supporting reasoning for his suggested amendments, all of which were intended only to sabotage the chapter as a whole.

So, the only thing that Lacis actually eviscerated was a badly written Executive Summary of which none of the offending content made it to the final report. Its all very well complaining about things falling down the memory hole, but let’s not forget that some thing fall down for very good reasons, and the page and half of opinion that disappeared between the First and Second Order Drafts of chapter 9 as just such a case in point.

As someone who is now a published author, you might think that Bishop Hill would think twice before indulging in such a easily debunked piece of quote-mining, until you note that his book…

"...also covers the recent leak of the email archives of the Climatic Research Unit which has led to the resignation of its Director, Professor Phil Jones."

More quote-mining, then…

Oh, and he might want to mention to his publisher that Phil Jones hasn’t resigned.

He’s only temporarily stepped down as CRU director and may yet resume his post once Sir Muir Russell concludes his inquiry.

***
Liberal Conspiracy is a joint effort. © Copyright 2007 - 2010. All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

__________________
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it." --Noam Chomsky

can you link that paper to something other than a liberal blog, as you can see my link is from Harvard. I hate to say it but anyone could make up a pdf file and post it there saying whatever they want.

http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/...=11&zoomin.y=8

it might just be me but it looks like he thought the entire summary was a work of fiction

__________________
Global warming alarmists are watermelons - green on the outside, red (socialist) on the inside

global warming , is there anything it cannot do ? http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

peer reviewed studies and graphs of the Medieval Warming periods can be found at http://www.co2science.org/

IPCC AR4 can't be believed as there are to much un peer reviewed material in it.

Typical of anything run by the UN.

__________________

"I may make you feel, but I can't make you think." - Jethro Tull

Sorry, it is just you. Reading comprehension problems perhaps? Since Lacis's comment is specifically a comment on the 'Executive Summary', it is obvious that you are very confused. Since the material he criticized was deleted from the second draft, it is obvious that you've been duped again.

__________________
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it." --Noam Chomsky

To fanatics, perhaps it is. To objective observers, the op-ed pieces you've posted attacking the IPCC are a joke.

Case in point. The person is commenting on a draft of the Exec Summary paragraphs of Chapter 9 of WG1. Nice leap. Global warming denial is like the telephone game. One element gets distorted, and such a fabrication leads to another worse one.




Quote:
Originally Posted by gmb92

http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/2...tisan-support/


Are you kidding? It was done by Frank Luntz, a Republican. Should be one of your favorites.

Fossil fuel interests rule Washington. They outnumber green interests 8 to 1. So it's always in uphill climb.

Still, Inhofe declared it wouldn't pass House committee. It did. Inhofe declared it wouldn't pass the House. It did. Is he going to strike out looking?

Clean energy isn't quite as closely divided along party lines. Graham has already broken from his party.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/op...rrygraham.html

but there remain Democrats bought by fossil fuel interests. Should be interesting.

Still, progress on clean energy and low carbon solutions has been remarkable so far.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/1...ear-in-office/

Since you agree we should become less dependent on carbon-based energy, you should be thrilled.

__________________
"To the average American who’s struggling, we’re in some other stratosphere. We’re the party of Big Business and Big Oil and the rich." - Sen. Olympia Snowe (R)

Budget surplus inherited by Bush: $236 billion (CBO, 2000)
Budget deficit inherited by Obama: $1,667 billion (CBO projection, 3/2009)

well I can make a pdf file post it on a blog and you will agree with it as long as it suits your point of view then ? yet youdoubt one posted at Harvard College, that's your right livefree. I can see how you came about your political perspective

__________________
Global warming alarmists are watermelons - green on the outside, red (socialist) on the inside

global warming , is there anything it cannot do ? http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

peer reviewed studies and graphs of the Medieval Warming periods can be found at http://www.co2science.org/

Thanks, livefree. I suspected this also but didn't have the drafts in front of me to confirm it. Debunking some denialist garbage takes times. Good to see there are folks on the ball.

__________________
"To the average American who’s struggling, we’re in some other stratosphere. We’re the party of Big Business and Big Oil and the rich." - Sen. Olympia Snowe (R)

Budget surplus inherited by Bush: $236 billion (CBO, 2000)
Budget deficit inherited by Obama: $1,667 billion (CBO projection, 3/2009)

so his poll overrides several others that state the opposite just because it falls into your point of view? Like I said if it is so popular why don't they pass the bill? Dems still hold majorities in both houses as they have since 2006

__________________
Global warming alarmists are watermelons - green on the outside, red (socialist) on the inside

global warming , is there anything it cannot do ? http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

peer reviewed studies and graphs of the Medieval Warming periods can be found at http://www.co2science.org/

yeah anything that gets us off foreign oil and coal is good in my opinion .

On Graham, here is why he broke ranks

http://www.live5news.com/Global/story.asp?S=11559927

there's pork in them there bills LOL

__________________
Global warming alarmists are watermelons - green on the outside, red (socialist) on the inside

global warming , is there anything it cannot do ? http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

peer reviewed studies and graphs of the Medieval Warming periods can be found at http://www.co2science.org/