Options

Climate Science Watch

I started a page on

Climate Science Watch

an organization that promotes integrity in the use of climate science in government. According to their website:

Climate Science Watch was initiated in 2005 after founder and director Rick Piltz went public about the Bush Administration’s political interference in the U.S. Climate Change Science Program’s climate change reports. White House censorship and misuse of climate change communication had undermined the scientific integrity of policymaking and contributed to a failure of preparedness to deal with the impacts of climate disruption. After his resignation from the federal program, Rick teamed up with the Government Accountability Project (GAP) in Washington, DC, the nation’s leading whistleblower protection and advocacy organization. Climate Science Watch is now a sponsored project of GAP.

CSW’s investigation, analysis, communication, and reform advocacy has combined the concerns that have driven it since 2005: protecting freedom of communication by federal scientists; combating the global warming denial machine; holding government accountable for using climate science with integrity; and the policy mission of climate change preparedness. We have brought stories to light and developed information and ideas that have prompted electronic and print media coverage in the U.S. and internationally. We have testifed before the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives and contributed to a successful legal challenge to the Bush Administration in federal court. We have served as a vehicle for communication by leading scientists, through original posts and interviews.

Comments

  • 1.

    This is political.

    Comment Source:This is political.
  • 2.

    Yeah, I realized that halfway through. Should I delete this entry?

    Comment Source:Yeah, I realized that halfway through. Should I delete this entry?
  • 3.

    From an earlier post,

    We'll ultimately have to assess the reliability and biases of organizations and people who provide data and plans...

    Comment Source:From an earlier post, > We'll ultimately have to assess the reliability and biases of organizations and people who provide data and plans...
  • 4.

    So, David, maybe you're suggesting that we keep the entry there, but point out the political leanings of this group?

    I put them on the wiki because "Climate Science Watch" sounds like a good thing. Then I noticed they have stuff attacking Sarah Palin, and while I also think that's a good thing, it's a different kind of thing, not what the name suggested.

    Comment Source:So, David, maybe you're suggesting that we keep the entry there, but point out the political leanings of this group? I put them on the wiki because "Climate Science Watch" sounds like a good thing. Then I noticed they have stuff attacking Sarah Palin, and while I also think that's a good thing, it's a <i>different kind</i> of thing, not what the name suggested.
  • 5.

    Suggestion and question: Maybe keep the entry, but point out examples of political statements that may be classified as propaganda instead of "scientific".

    I'm in the middle of reading Roy Spencer: "The Great Global Warming Blunder". This book has some important scientific points about climate models, observations and conclusions drawn from them, but (you'll guess that much from the title) also deliberatly some propaganda.

    How about stripping it from the propaganda and extract the scientific arguments?

    Comment Source:Suggestion and question: Maybe keep the entry, but point out examples of political statements that may be classified as propaganda instead of "scientific". I'm in the middle of reading Roy Spencer: "The Great Global Warming Blunder". This book has some important scientific points about climate models, observations and conclusions drawn from them, but (you'll guess that much from the title) also deliberatly some propaganda. How about stripping it from the propaganda and extract the scientific arguments?
  • 6.

    For books we can extract scientific points and focus on those while also pointing out the existence of "propaganda" - though it's probably wiser to use a word that doesn't make people so angry.

    This particular page is about an organization...

    Comment Source:For books we can extract scientific points and focus on those while also pointing out the existence of "propaganda" - though it's probably wiser to use a word that doesn't make people so angry. This particular page is about an organization...
  • 7.

    This particular page is about an organization...

    After a few minutes of reading several posts over there I'm inclined to vote for deleting the Azimuth page. It seems to be purely political.

    It continues to amuse me that standard bearers of objectivity and science are almost always those who concentrate on pure propagande :-) (Sorry, I'll refrain from using this word from now on).

    ...though it's probably wiser to use a word that doesn't make people so angry.

    The book I read contains statements like (from memory, not an exact quote):

    Most climate models fail short on include natural changes in cloud cover, because the IPCC climate modellers don't know anything about meteorology.

    The first part is worth investigating, the latter is, well, propaganda - what would be a better term for it?

    For books we can extract scientific points and focus on those...

    If I ever get 'round to write about climate models I will cite and mention scientific critisism of existing climate models by Roy Spencer, I think there a several interesting points - and I would likt to know the answers of climate scientists!

    Comment Source:<blockquote> <p> This particular page is about an organization... </p> </blockquote> After a few minutes of reading several posts over there I'm inclined to vote for deleting the Azimuth page. It seems to be <i>purely</i> political. It continues to amuse me that standard bearers of objectivity and science are almost always those who concentrate on pure propagande :-) (Sorry, I'll refrain from using this word from now on). <blockquote> <p> ...though it's probably wiser to use a word that doesn't make people so angry. </p> </blockquote> The book I read contains statements like (from memory, not an exact quote): <blockquote> <p> Most climate models fail short on include natural changes in cloud cover, because the IPCC climate modellers don't know anything about meteorology. </p> </blockquote> The first part is worth investigating, the latter is, well, propaganda - what would be a better term for it? <blockquote> <p> For books we can extract scientific points and focus on those... </p> </blockquote> If I ever get 'round to write about climate models I will cite and mention scientific critisism of existing climate models by Roy Spencer, I think there a several interesting points - and I would likt to know the answers of climate scientists!
  • 8.
    edited October 2010

    Okay, I'll try to delete this page, but it will only go away for real when Andrew is invoked.

    Most climate models fail short on include natural changes in cloud cover, because the IPCC climate modellers don't know anything about meteorology.

    That's pretty stupid. In fact as Nathan Urban pointed out in "week302", changes in cloud cover due to global warming are well-known to be the greatest cause of uncertainty in the climate feedback:

    Clouds are the next largest feedback, 0.18 to 1.18 W/m2/K. But as you can see, different models can predict very different cloud feedbacks. It is the largest feedback uncertainty.

    These numbers are from the IPCC report. If someone knows how to reduce this uncertainty, they should convince everyone else that they're right - not just say everyone else doesn't know anything about meteorology.

    Comment Source:Okay, I'll try to delete this page, but it will only go away for real when Andrew is invoked. >Most climate models fail short on include natural changes in cloud cover, because the IPCC climate modellers don't know anything about meteorology. That's pretty stupid. In fact as Nathan Urban pointed out in "week302", changes in cloud cover due to global warming are well-known to be the greatest cause of _uncertainty_ in the climate feedback: >Clouds are the next largest feedback, 0.18 to 1.18 W/m<sup>2</sup>/K. But as you can see, different models can predict very different cloud feedbacks. It is the largest feedback uncertainty. These numbers are from the IPCC report. If someone knows how to reduce this uncertainty, they should convince everyone else that they're right - not just say everyone else doesn't know anything about meteorology.
  • 9.
    edited October 2010

    These numbers are from the IPCC report.

    ...which gets us already started discussing the scientific criticism of Spencer - even if it is on a newbie level (which is appropriate for me anyway)...my plan is to transfer what Nathan said to the Climate models page and its companions and to address Spencer's criticism there.

    If someone knows how to reduce this uncertainty, they should convince everyone else that they're right - not just say everyone else doesn't know anything about meteorology.

    Hm, Spencer himself is kind of a "renowned scientist and meteorologist" and complains that his research is completely ignored by the IPCC and the whole climate research community - which gets us in the middle of an ongoing political debate, which I would like to dodge by pointing out where IMHO science ends and - ugh - propaganda begins. Calling it "propaganda" may insult people - and I suppose you are not suggesting to call people stupid instead :-) So what should I say?

    Comment Source:<blockquote> <p> These numbers are from the IPCC report. </p> </blockquote> ...which gets us already started discussing the <i>scientific</i> criticism of Spencer - even if it is on a newbie level (which is appropriate for me anyway)...my plan is to transfer what Nathan said to the [[Climate models]] page and its companions and to address Spencer's criticism there. <blockquote> <p> If someone knows how to reduce this uncertainty, they should convince everyone else that they're right - not just say everyone else doesn't know anything about meteorology. </p> </blockquote> Hm, Spencer himself is kind of a "renowned scientist and meteorologist" and complains that his research is completely ignored by the IPCC and the whole climate research community - which gets us in the middle of an ongoing <i>political</i> debate, which I would like to dodge by pointing out where IMHO science ends and - ugh - propaganda begins. Calling it "propaganda" may insult people - and I suppose you are not suggesting to call people stupid instead :-) So what should I say?
  • 10.
    edited October 2010

    "claims made without supporting evidence"?

    Comment Source:"claims made without supporting evidence"?
  • 11.

    Seems like a good idea. Although Mr. Spencer himself would respond "I listed all the good evidence in my book, and..."

    Oh well, if people want to get into an argument, they will anyhow. I'll do my best to make it happen elsewhere and not on Azimuth.

    BTW, our mutual aquaintance LM has written about Azimuth on his blog: I suppose we agree that the best way to handle this is to ignore it.

    Comment Source:Seems like a good idea. Although Mr. Spencer himself would respond "I listed all the good evidence in my book, and..." Oh well, if people want to get into an argument, they will anyhow. I'll do my best to make it happen elsewhere and not on Azimuth. BTW, our mutual aquaintance LM has written about Azimuth on his blog: I suppose we agree that the best way to handle this is to ignore it.
  • 12.

    I said years ago that while ignoring LM can be hard, it's always well worthwhile.

    Comment Source:I said years ago that while ignoring LM can be hard, it's always well worthwhile.
Sign In or Register to comment.