Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 149

Thread: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

  1. #101
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    gooling?

    cahotic?

    sate well?

    Aren't you people using spell check facilities within your browsers?
    Perhaps they have a in built fear of hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia ?

    I agree non of your examples would identify sesquipedalian tendancies.

  2. #102
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    bedford
    Posts
    4,899
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    gooling?

    cahotic?

    sate well?

    Aren't you people using spell check facilities within your browsers?
    My first guess is no, but the matter awaits peer review.

    Lack of time prevents me from reading all of this thread, but one phrase did hit me "there was a spike in the 1940's"

    Wasn't there a world war around then with all sorts of unnatural gases being inserted into the atmossphere?

  3. #103
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    Nice article - I particularly liked this:

    The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new. In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.

    But Ooops!

    The article says, 'For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.'

    But of course the scientists say, 'The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly. It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).'

    This from an organization that can't even predict what the weather will really be like tomorrow.... 'Don't worry madam, there won't be a hurricane' The infamous words spoken by Michael Fish ahead of one of the worst storms to hit this country in over 200 years...

  4. #104
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubble View Post
    The way you are applying the scientific process of triangulation to this discussion is odd to say the least. By your understanding and logic what you seem to be saying is that it would be acceptable to redefine points on the temperature scale to make the ice-core data fit. After all, the measurement of temperature using a thermometer is just theory and so we can modify the theory if need be, right? For example, a climate scientist using ice-core data and by a process of triangulation establishes that the freezing point of water should be regarded as 280 on the Kelvin scale rather than 273.15. Are there any theories you're not prepared to modify via a process of triangulation to make the ice-core data fit?
    Huh? What I wrote was that you modify the theory to account for the data. If we know by modern temperature, the freezing point of water is 273.15 then if we find a discrepancy in the historic data, we would need to explain the discrepancy. You don't do that by disregarding any data - that was your approach, not mine. Funnily enough, most of the modern climate science doesn't throw data away because it's too hard.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubble View Post
    All ships and aircraft carry much more fuel than they need to allow for contingencies. Even if an airline captain receives predictions of a strong tail wind it would be gross negligence not to carry enough fuel for the exact opposite scenario. Similarly, stormy weather can prevent a ship docking for several days, they have allowances for this and they carry the fuel regardless of the forecast. Airliners are also able to dump fuel very quickly to lose weight if there are difficulties during take off and they are too far down the run way to stop safely. The dumping fuel scenario has been reported this year as has the running out of fuel situation. In the dumping case the pilot had problems with the flaps, in the running out of fuel case I strongly suspect that the pilot had applied insufficient contingencies (he was flying in a very remote area).
    Weather forecasts are included in the modelling for fuel loads. I know this because I've worked on projects that produced these models; the approach we used was pretty standard in the industry. This approach is adopted so that the overall costs are reduced.

  5. #105
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubble View Post
    Oh? Why not? Is it because it perfectly demonstrates how one bad scientist and publication can topple numerous follow on scientists and their publications? It's like a fan shaped domino topple. If the single domino at the centre falls down most of the rest will also fall.
    Well, it doesn't actually demonstrate anything of the sort.

    But separately, the answer is no, that's not why it's bad. It's bad because it proves the opposite of what you wish to advance: it shows that if someone produces results which are deceitful and fraudulent the scientific community as a whole will work out was has been happening, the fraudulent scientists will have a big career slump and the juggernaut of science will steamroller over the fraudulent results.

    If it didn't demonstrate that - you wouldn't know about, now would you?

  6. #106
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubble View Post
    I'll give you an example. Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that there is an optimum temperature for maximum tree growth rate? We know that above certain temperatures trees can start shedding leaves or even branches because they are not well adapted to such high temperatures. That would suggest that the relationship between tree growth and temperature is a parabola rather than a straight line. As soon as you have a parabola relationship there are at least two, perhaps very different temperatures that could've given the same tree ring growth measurement. So you see, it's not so simple.
    Well, do the science, or find someone who has already done so and proved your point. Otherwise, it's just so much useless speculation.

    Naturally, you sitting at home tapping away on your computer (or wherever you are) are just incredibly likely to have hit on the fatal flaw in the 'tree rings theory' that hasn't occurred to any scientist in the last 50 years...

  7. #107
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubble View Post
    An 'expert witness' on the subject of tree-rings?
    I prefer the Scottish legal system here as they have Innocent, Guilty, and the third choice of Not-Proven.
    What's funny about expert evidence? Have a look online at this to get an idea of the amount of expert evidence and the breadth of fields in which it is required.

    If you like, drill down through Environment/Agriculture>Forestry/Trees to see the different types of expert evidence that people need in respect of trees.

    I don't have any objections to the Scottish system though really, if the case against someone is so weak that there is a possibility of him/her actually being found innocent, one would hope that the prosecution would spot that and avoid the waste of money and court time...

  8. #108
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    and the Nazi AGW dont hold on to all power.
    Wow. A little strong, don't you think? Is anyone actually advocating the extermination of a race or a war involving millions of deaths?

  9. #109
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Wow. A little strong, don't you think? Is anyone actually advocating the extermination of a race or a war involving millions of deaths?
    I think the reference has been made a few times re Hitler youth and there are similarties (from the early 1930s).

    http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/1...te+Progress%29


    Put it this way I wouldnt go to the climate change sumit and walk around with a banner 'Global warming the myth' . I would be set up and beaten up or killed.

  10. #110
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Northeastern Parts
    Posts
    5,221
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    I think the reference has been made a few times re Hitler youth and there are similarties (from the early 1930s).

    http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/1...te+Progress%29


    Put it this way I wouldnt go to the climate change sumit and walk around with a banner 'Global warming the myth' . I would be set up and beaten up or killed.
    Um - did you actually read the article you linked to? I do not think it says what you think it says.
    According to the article, the accusation was levelled by a speaker for one of the climate change denial groups at a pro clean energy group.

    The students entered the event in small groups, joining a paltry audience of five conference attendees, who had come to hear climate denier Lord Christopher Monckton speak about the Copenhagen climate negotiations. After the first five minutes of the event, student representatives from SustainUS, the Sierra Student Coalition, the Cascade Climate Network, and other American youth NGOs displayed banners reading “Climate Disaster Ahead” and “Clean Energy Now.” After security agents at the event took the banners, the young attendees began a chant of “Real Americans for Prosperity are Americans for Clean Energy.”.....

    ...... As the protesters continued to chant, one of the AFP speakers, Lord Monckton, called the activists “crazed Hitler Youth” and “Nazis”....
    Would you like to try again?
    Last edited by straycat; 17th-December-2009 at 08:27 PM.

  11. #111
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    290
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    Huh? What I wrote was that you modify the theory to account for the data.


    Yes, and your apparent faith in the complete reliability of ice-core data analysis meant I couldn't help wondering whether you wanted to modify the theory of themometry to make it fit the ice-core data or the other way around. Maybe it would be easiest to modify both theories together to get the 'right' answer.

    Anyway, the main problem is that there just isn't enough absolute temperature data to fully support the theories. One of the plots you posted before showed data going back something like 400000 years! We only have absolute temperature records for 200 years max. Don't you think that's a little tenuous? How many times and in how many different ways have I now said as much?


    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    Funnily enough, most of the modern climate science doesn't throw data away because it's too hard.


    Correct; and a lot of the time it probably is too hard. However, that doesn't stop 'scientists' from massaging the data until it hurts. I was on the leaked emails website earlier and by chance the very first one I clicked on looked interesting.

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=12&filename=843161829.txt

    'I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material,
    but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk
    something out of that.'


    What 'tricks' did the researcher use? Were they similar to the tricks used by other researchers who have resorted to 'correcting' and selectively editing the data until it fits their agenda and objectives?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    Weather forecasts are included in the modelling for fuel loads. I know this because I've worked on projects that produced these models; the approach we used was pretty standard in the industry. This approach is adopted so that the overall costs are reduced.


    Clearly you're the expert. How much effect does the weather forecast actually have on the fuel mass loaded for a given flight on the day? Is it 0, +-1%, +-5%, or much higher?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Well, it doesn't actually demonstrate anything of the sort.
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post

    But separately, the answer is no, that's not why it's bad. It's bad because it proves the opposite of what you wish to advance: it shows that if someone produces results which are deceitful and fraudulent the scientific community as a whole will work out was has been happening, the fraudulent scientists will have a big career slump and the juggernaut of science will steamroller over the fraudulent results.

    If it didn't demonstrate that - you wouldn't know about, now would you?


    But that's the point I've been trying to make. Another demonstration could be imminent. It may come in the form of Prof. Phil Jones and his CRU team being flattened by the 'juggernaut of science' once all the facts are known.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Well, do the science, or find someone who has already done so and proved your point. Otherwise, it's just so much useless speculation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post

    Naturally, you sitting at home tapping away on your computer (or wherever you are) are just incredibly likely to have hit on the fatal flaw in the 'tree rings theory' that hasn't occurred to any scientist in the last 50 years...


    Sorry! I only intended it to be an example of the kind of complication that might give misleading results. If you want to know why there's so much fuss about the tree-ring studies then read this bit of text which has been found in the programming comments section of the computer code used to analyse tree-ring data:

    'Data4alps.pro: '"IMPORTANT NOTE: The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set this 'decline' has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring density variations, but have been modified to look more like the observed temperatures'

    Other computer programs used by climate change researchers have also been found to contain similar warnings and caveats regarding the way in which they process the data.

    What if there were also unexplained 'declines' in the tree rings from 1000s years ago they have been examining? Quite simply, they just have no way of knowing. Rolling a dice would be as much use as the results they generate. Instead of acknowledging that the tree ring method is flawed they are ignoring the problem and just carrying on regardless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    What's funny about expert evidence?
    What's funny is that it depends whether the method is any good or not. In the case of tree-ring and ice-core data I don't think it is very reliable. If the defence is good enough then the knowledge of the expert may be shown to be lacking.



  12. #112
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    I think the reference has been made a few times re Hitler youth and there are similarties (from the early 1930s).

    http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/1...te+Progress%29


    Put it this way I wouldnt go to the climate change sumit and walk around with a banner 'Global warming the myth' . I would be set up and beaten up or killed.
    If one (in this case, you - references to other people doing it is not justification) is going to make comparisons to the Nazis it must be for the right reason. Hundreds of organisations, pressure groups and so forth over the centuries have intimidated people, bullied them, beaten them up and even killed them. (Ever hear of the medieval apprentice riots in London?)

    But only a handful of examples exist of an organisation taking control of a country and coolly and deliberately set about shipping an entire race of people to camps where they were to be killed and/or worked to death. This is an important point to remember - this type of behaviour may well be on the bell-curve of human possibilities but it's really, really close to one end of it.

  13. #113
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Wow. A little strong, don't you think? Is anyone actually advocating the extermination of a race or a war involving millions of deaths?
    No need to advocate it, it's already happening...

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    ....we are spending billions of dollars a year on it on the basis that it might be a potential problem. And yet for a fact we KNOW that one third of the World's population does not have access to adequate sanitation facilities and that in excess of 1 billion people don't have access to clean drinking water. This means that over 5,000 children are dying EACH DAY from simple diarrhoeal diseases and almost 90% of those deaths are caused by inadequate water and sanitation.

    If you then add in that around 7.6 million people die of cancer each year you really have to stand back and ask: is it reasonoble to spend so much money on a threat that isn't even proven and on protecting a future problem that may well resolve itself anyway (assuming there is even a problem that exists that we can control in the first place) when we are fully aware of problems that currently exist and that kill millions upon millions of people each year that could be alleviated by a dramatic increase in funding...

    I'm sorry madam but your child has to die because Global tempreatures are cooling and we just have to spend another $500 billion dollars on stopping increases in man made CO2 in case they start to rise again... Ooops, sorry, brain tumour... can't deal with that we're concerned that the Wilkins Ice Shelf is still there when we said it was collapsing in 1999...

  14. #114
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubble View Post
    But that's the point I've been trying to make. Another demonstration could be imminent. It may come in the form of Prof. Phil Jones and his CRU team being flattened by the 'juggernaut of science' once all the facts are known.
    How can I put this so that it will come across?
    The climate data is coming from thousands of scientists in hundreds of disciplines. If there was anything so fraudulent coming from CRU as matches your cancer research example it would already have been challenged. In any event what must happen (if anything) is that the data/conclusions/theses that the CRU produced must be challenged by other data/conclusions/theses - not by right-wing US bloggers and media whack-jobs jumping out and shouting AHA! See? We were right all along.
    Sorry! I only intended it to be an example of the kind of complication that might give misleading results. If you want to know why there's so much fuss about the tree-ring studies then read this bit of text which has been found in the programming comments section of the computer code used to analyse tree-ring data.
    You hadn't mentioned before that this was a 'live topic', as it were; reading your post made it seem that it was something you picked on of your own motion.

    Difficult to know how to parse the text you quote because it is out of context; who is making the comments and who artificially modified the data?
    Other computer programs used by climate change researchers have also been found to contain similar warnings and caveats regarding the way in which they process the data.
    Well, if the data is accompanied by explanations and warnings showing the areas in which it is less reliable, what's the complaint? That scientists are doing not-straightforward things with data and then letting everyone know that? Or are you talking of 'comments' in programme code? As has been observed elsewhere you don't put caveats and warnings in programme code if you want to hide what you are doing - if you leave them out, chances are in hundreds of thousands of lines of code no-one will ever know.
    What if there were also unexplained 'declines' in the tree rings from 1000s years ago they have been examining? Quite simply, they just have no way of knowing. Rolling a dice would be as much use as the results they generate. Instead of acknowledging that the tree ring method is flawed they are ignoring the problem and just carrying on regardless.
    What is it with you and the 'what ifs'? The tree ring method is NOT flawed. What may be problematic is that the data it produces may conflict with other data and that's a problem if you are trying to iron out the complexities in order to be able to make more-or-less reliable predictions.

    Remember the way in which science works. First, you produce your 'null hypothesis' - the thing which will be true if your own thesis is incorrect. It is then necessary either to design an experiment or to determine what data is required. Then you try to use your data to show that the null hypothesis is incorrect. If you have designed your experiment well or identified the research data properly, in showing that the null hypothesis is wrong you have increased the probability that your thesis is correct. (If the design is bad, and you haven't spotted it yourself, other people - co-experimenters, senior researchers, other scientist - will point out the alternative possibilities that would account for the failure in the null hypothesis. Hence 'peer review'.) If you cannot show that the null hypothesis is wrong (and there are no weaknesses in your experimental design, etc.) you have falsified your own hypothesis.

    Here the basic, underlying null hypotheses would be two. First, there is no global warming. Second, if there is global warming it is due (entirely or mostly) to natural events and causes. Scientists will be involved in making small scale hypotheses within the larger framework and trying to determine what data can be helpful one way or the other.

    There is a natural problem with this which is that very few human beings can be wholly dispassionate in the procedure of reviewing their own hypothesis. That's why the findings of one scientist or one team of scientists must be carefully looked at by others and they will attempt to replicate the same findings. With climate change there is also the strong likelihood that different science disciplines can be used to confirm or falsify the same hypothesis.

    When a French research team claimed to have found proof that homeopathy worked, careful examination of the team's procedures revealed that one of the researchers whose job was to look for the tell-tale signature on particular photographs already knew to which of the two (pass/fail) categories the plates should have belonged. She was unconsciously seeing the results she hoped to see. As soon as she was asked to look at the same photographs without knowing the origin, the statistical blip disappeared.

    You cannot get over the fact that even if some questionable things went on at CRU and even if they are replicated elsewhere, if AGW is wrong then the vast majority of the scientists involved have to be criminally dishonest or criminally stupid. That's a LOT of scientists.
    What's funny is that it depends whether the method is any good or not. In the case of tree-ring and ice-core data I don't think it is very reliable. If the defence is good enough then the knowledge of the expert may be shown to be lacking.
    The tree ring and ice core data is extremely reliable, surely? The problems (big or small, whatever) are with a) its accuracy and b) its applicability, no? The quote you gave show that the researcher was concerned that tree ring data for a recent period appeared to conflict with other more direct climate data, and that's what's a-bothering him (oh-oop-de-doo...)

  15. #115
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    @ Bubble:

    Oh, and I just found this.

  16. #116
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Remember the way in which science works.... blah.. blah..
    Well, there's how sceince works and then there's how AGW science works... I found this article on tree rings very illuminating: here's a snippet..

    'I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent. The surface temperature data is a contaminated mess with a significant warm bias, and as I have detailed elsewhere the IPCC fabricated evidence in its 2007 report to cover up the problem. Climate models are in gross disagreement with observations, and the discrepancy is growing with each passing year.

    The often-hyped claim that the modern climate has departed from natural variability depended on flawed statistical methods and low-quality data. The IPCC review process, of which I was a member last time, is nothing at all like what the public has been told: Conflicts of interest are endemic, critical evidence is systematically ignored and there are no effective checks and balances against bias or distortion.

    I get exasperated with fellow academics, and others who ought to know better, who pile on to the supposed global warming consensus without bothering to investigate any of the glaring scientific discrepancies and procedural flaws. Over the coming few years, as the costs of global warming policies mount and the evidence of a crisis continues to collapse, perhaps it will become socially permissible for people to start thinking for themselves again. In the meantime I am grateful for those few independent thinkers, like Steve McIntyre, who continue to ask the right questions and insist on scientific standards of openness and transparency. - Ross McKitrick is a professor of environmental economics at the University of Guelph, and coauthor of Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming.'




    ...report that the Global Historical Climate Network dataset (GHCN) uses data from one single station to demonstrate a severe warming trend for the entire continent of Antarctica. Worse yet, this station is located on Antarctica's Palmer Peninsula, and the station itself is poorly sited--on the grounds of a major research station and hence subject to the equivalent of urban heat island (UHI) effects.


    And with regard to the 'adjusted' data..


    I am sorry, but there simply is no way that you can “accidentally” remove all series that show less of an upward trend, and settle for 18 of the most upward trending series (thus raising the warming / century by 3 degrees!). I don’t know how they do things with the GHCN dataset, or who is responsible for this, but just like New Zealand this is pretty damning evidence that all the “adjustments” are done to deliberately corrupt data to cause specific trends.


    Starting to look like a conspiracy to me Barry...

    Your problem is that you constantly cite that 1,000's of scientists all over the World are coming to the same conclusions and yet you are completely ignoring the fact that there is only a limited amount of researched data available - so if the data is corrupted the mistake (and mistaken conclusions) gets repeated over and over again.

    McKitrick's comment above says it all..

    I get exasperated with fellow academics, and others who ought to know better, who pile on to the supposed global warming consensus without bothering to investigate any of the glaring scientific discrepancies and procedural flaws. Over the coming few years, as the costs of global warming policies mount and the evidence of a crisis continues to collapse, perhaps it will become socially permissible for people to start thinking for themselves again.
    Last edited by Rocky; 18th-December-2009 at 11:41 AM.

  17. #117
    Registered User Jhutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Balham, S. London
    Posts
    855
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    I dont have anywhere near enough time at the moment to write much in this thread but i dont understand the above post. All that i have seen has said that the Antarctic Peninsula is warming but nowhere else is so that on the whole there is little evidence of warming in the Antarctic. So how has that article somehow come up with people saying the whole of the Antarctic is warming loads?

    In fact

    'It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic
    warming over the past 50 years averaged over each
    continent except Antarctica'

    from the IPCC report - doesnt seem there like anyone is using one station to show huge temperature rises

  18. #118
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jhutch View Post
    I dont have anywhere near enough time at the moment to write much in this thread but i dont understand the above post. All that i have seen has said that the Antarctic Peninsula is warming but nowhere else is so that on the whole there is little evidence of warming in the Antarctic. So how has that article somehow come up with people saying the whole of the Antarctic is warming loads?

    In fact

    'It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic
    warming over the past 50 years averaged over each
    continent except Antarctica'

    from the IPCC report - doesnt seem there like anyone is using one station to show huge temperature rises
    Well the article I posted is actually from 2009 whereas you are referring to the IPCC report from 2007, in addition you're ignoring the fact that we don't know how the IPCC would factor in altered or erroneous data to average and/or mean Global temperatures.

    They wouldn't do that though would they... I mean the IPCC are renowned for being totally above anything like manipulating data and research..

    'Over the next nine years, at least one paper per year appeared in prominent journals using Briffa's Yamal composite to support a hockey stick-like result. The IPCC relied on these studies to defend the Hockey Stick view, and since it had appointed Briffa himself to be the IPCC Lead Author for this topic, there was no chance it would question the Yamal data.

    Despite the fact that these papers appeared in top journals like Nature and Science, none of the journal reviewers or editors ever required Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve McIntyre's repeated requests for them to uphold their own data disclosure rules were ignored.

    Then in 2008 Briffa, Schweingruber and some colleagues published a paper using the Yamal series (again) in a journal called the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, which has very strict data sharing rules. Steve sent in his customary request for the data, and this time an editor stepped up to the plate, ordering the authors to release their data. A short while ago the data appeared on the internet. Steve could finally begin to unpack the Yamal composite.

    It turns out that many of the samples were taken from dead (partially fossilized) trees and they have no particular trend. The sharp uptrend in the late 20th century came from cores of 10 living trees alive as of 1990, and five living trees alive as of 1995. Based on scientific standards, this is too small a sample on which to produce a publication-grade proxy composite. The 18th and 19th century portion of the sample, for instance, contains at least 30 trees per year. But that portion doesn't show a warming spike. The only segment that does is the late 20th century, where the sample size collapses. Once again a dramatic hockey stick shape turns out to depend on the least reliable portion of a dataset.'

    So, the IPCC use tree ring data that supports their case, don't get it independently checked because Briffa won't release his raw data and then appoint him as the lead author on the subject knowing full well that his research won't be questioned by the panel...





  19. #119
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    290
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    The climate data is coming from thousands of scientists in hundreds of disciplines. If there was anything so fraudulent coming from CRU as matches your cancer research example it would already have been challenged.


    Is it the climate data that comes from 1000s of scientists? Or, only the publications that are based on the data? My take on this is that for years and years a select group of researchers has had priveleged access to global data, in its raw, as-collected state, and have been peer-reviewing each other. The emails and file attachments have finally been hacked/leaked and this is the first opportunity for a serious challenge. The challenge is happening right now!

    Also, as Rocky pointed out, there is only so much data available. Gathering data is a very expensive and time consuming activity. Hence, many researchers have re-used the same data time and again. The original researchers have total control over the original data. They can decide to release only the data that they used and hide the data they found didn’t fit. Although the publications may be coming from 1000s of scientists the raw data may be coming from far fewer than that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    not by right-wing US bloggers and media whack-jobs


    My understanding of this part of your post is that if someone happens to be politically-right-of-centre, American, and a blogger they automatically can’t hold a valid opinion. Are there any other characteristics that should automatically exclude people from a debate? How about we exclude everyone from this debate who fulfils this arbitrary set of conditions: aged over 43 years and 5 days, rides a camel, and wears turquoise lipstick?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Well, if the data is accompanied by explanations and warnings showing the areas in which it is less reliable, what's the complaint? That scientists are doing not-straightforward things with data and then letting everyone know that? Or are you talking of 'comments' in programme code? As has been observed elsewhere you don't put caveats and warnings in programme code if you want to hide what you are doing - if you leave them out, chances are in hundreds of thousands of lines of code no-one will ever know.


    Comment lines in programming code are normally written to avoid the situation where someone has to spend days looking at the code to determine exactly how it works. They are not for general consumption by all and sundry. To the best of my knowledge the leaking of the emails and attachments (including file Data4alps.pro) was the first time that it had become apparent that large amounts of data were being deliberately excluded specifically because the excluded data exposed a significant flaw in the theory. I don’t think the majority of readers of the publications produced using this computer code were aware of these fraudulent exclusions; until now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    What is it with you and the 'what ifs'?

    Sorry! I thought that’s what happens on discussion forums. I criticise your view, say ‘what if’, and post my view, with supporting evidence. Then you do the same to me. What needs changing?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    What may be problematic is that the data it produces may conflict with other data and that's a problem if you are trying to iron out the complexities in order to be able to make more-or-less reliable predictions.


    In my opinion what is problematical is that rather than trying to iron out the complexities by developing a new/better model they just excluded tree-ring data that didn’t fit the existing model and pushed out publications regardless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    You cannot get over the fact that even if some questionable things went on at CRU and even if they are replicated elsewhere, if AGW is wrong then the vast majority of the scientists involved have to be criminally dishonest or criminally stupid. That's a LOT of scientists.


    As I said above, if a small group can control access to data then it’s not so hard to distort an awful lot of research. That doesn’t necessarily make 1000s of scientists criminally dishonest; the scientists who receive data from others do so in good faith. They can only assume that the data they have been provided with is free from falsifications and omissions, unless they are told otherwise. As an example, consider, if you will, the fate of Ian Tomlinson. If no independent video footage had ever become available we’d probably believe an entirely different story from what we now know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    @ Bubble:
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post

    Oh, and I just found this.


    I think Rocky has already dealt with that one quite well.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    So, the IPCC use tree ring data that supports their case, don't get it independently checked because Briffa won't release his raw data and then appoint him as the lead author on the subject knowing full well that his research won't be questioned by the panel...


  20. #120
    Omnipresent Administrator Franck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    3,045
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    I'm not getting involved in the 'contest' here, but just saw this cartoon today, and thought of all of you
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Franck.

    There's an A.P.P. for that!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Change of username request
    By Kathleen in forum Forum technical problems / Questions / Suggestions..
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 26th-May-2008, 09:28 PM
  2. how do I change my user name
    By ray.ferreday@talk in forum Forum technical problems / Questions / Suggestions..
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 24th-April-2008, 02:11 PM
  3. SUNDAY HERALD - Change Your Life in 80 Ways
    By Sandy in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 22nd-January-2003, 12:29 AM
  4. Swing Sunday Xmas Party - change of venue
    By Lindsay in forum Social events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 16th-December-2002, 09:27 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •