|
Post by icefisher on Nov 29, 2011 13:37:57 GMT
Once again can you point the way to an email that suggests a conspiracy to commit fraud? Or just more long winded rants about "see no evil". The title of this post is climategate 2.0 is it not?[/quote] Ah, so it isn't just plain fraud, it is conspiracy to commit fraud.
Without even thinking, there is 'Mikes Nature trick'. Again, what is the definition of fraud?
a : deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick
2 a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : impostor; also : one who defrauds : cheat b : one that is not what it seems or is represented to be
Take the blinders off. His 'Team' knew the hockey stick was junk, and even said so in this batch of emails. Yet, they, the fair and balanced scientists, remained silent. Ah the infamous hockey stick! Here is a team email after one of the team members replicated McIntyre's test of the Mannian procedures that produces hockey sticks out of random data. wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/climategate-2-email-briffa-replicates-mcintyre-mckitrick-produces-hockey-sticks-out-of-noise/Did the team pull back from Mann's Hockey Stick? Nope they continued to promote it. There are literally hundreds of emails surrounding this topic from the Hide the Decline to the Mannian statistics all the while the Team continued to attack things of value belonging to the public using a color of science that almost all men with ethical values has to recognize as fraudulent.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Nov 29, 2011 17:13:46 GMT
Icefisher/Magellan, Even the IPCC does not claim the "science is settled". This from their 4th statement.
In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. Global warming in this case is indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in average global temperatures over the last 100 years.
I think considering the science this is a pretty "fair and balanced" statement. "Very likely" does not mean the science is settled.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Nov 29, 2011 17:15:31 GMT
In addition "human actions" is more than just our burning of fossil fuels. Land usage is probably also a contributing factor.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 29, 2011 22:23:09 GMT
I think considering the science this is a pretty "fair and balanced" statement. "Very likely" does not mean the science is settled. Its good we have cleared up that infintessimal point! Lets face it glenkoks, there is appropriate behavior and inappropriate behavior related to the science of Climate Change. Going after editors of journals, back room manipulations at Universities, ignoring or oppressing minority opinions as opposed to opening a rational debate on the topics, hiding the decline, upside down proxies, non-random sampling, ginned up statistical procedures are all tools of the fraudster and in large part explain why the IPCC arrived at such an unreasonably high level of certainty when uncertainty is far much a bigger issue. p.s. you might want to consider reading the victims take on all this. wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/29/getting-the-right-kind-of-people-onboard/
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Nov 29, 2011 23:38:33 GMT
Icefisher I have read the so called "victims" take on all this. I also realize that minority opinions have to be based on good science or they will never see the light of day. Everyone has an opinion, but it has to have merit.
And once again I do not condone the inappropriate behavior. However, it does not disprove AGW or indicate a larger more dubious attempt to force a hidden agenda.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 30, 2011 1:36:34 GMT
Icefisher I have read the so called "victims" take on all this. I also realize that minority opinions have to be based on good science or they will never see the light of day. Everyone has an opinion, but it has to have merit. And once again I do not condone the inappropriate behavior. However, it does not disprove AGW or indicate a larger more dubious attempt to force a hidden agenda. glennkoks, what was the purpose of the hockey stick when first promoted and the subsequent "supportive" papers thereafter (they were all fashioned after Mann)? It was to remove the notion of a MWP and LIA (to a lesser degree) to give the appearance of sudden unprecedented warming in the last part of the 20th century, and that the only explanation was it must be man made. That was its sole purpose. You claim to have read up on all this, but I'm not so sure, or at least not in any detail. It is quite clear you haven't delved into these emails at all, but are simply parroting whatever is your favorite source, unnamed of course. Mann thinks he is the victim. Jones thinks he is the victim. All these motley crew members think THEY are the victims! Now I ask you, since you say you have determined the science to be of preponderous portions, what is the #1 basic part of the enhanced greenhouse effect that should be taking place in the tropical troposphere? What should be occurring? Remember, this is the "basic physics" we've been taught for the last 25 years. They also claimed to know what the climate sensitivity is, but did not, and this too is brought out in the emails. It is complete fraud what these shysters have been promoting. Also glennkoks, the use of "likely", "very likely" etc. is a complete scientific nonsense. It is not unlike Obama's "saved or created jobs" mantra.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 30, 2011 1:47:12 GMT
Icefisher I have read the so called "victims" take on all this. I also realize that minority opinions have to be based on good science or they will never see the light of day. Everyone has an opinion, but it has to have merit.
And once again I do not condone the inappropriate behavior. However, it does not disprove AGW or indicate a larger more dubious attempt to force a hidden agenda.
Clearly we are talking about good science here. Good science doesn't have to be certain in its implications. S&B produced a reasonable amount of evidence of a MWP and LIA; nothing certain but superior to the barf produced by Mike Mann. That fact is underlined and bolded by the response. Instead of arguing the points, attacks were launched on those perceived to not be toeing the line. Thats the classic approach when you have no argument.
But lets not go into who has the correct answer to climate science. The jury is clearly out on that. If you go there you are merely defending bad behavior because of a belief one is right and if bad behavior is condoned its going to get worse.
And you say its not larger. Larger than what? Do you have a number in mind? Obviously we are not talking about the whole world. . . .after all there are skeptics and most people don't care. Keep in mind it only takes two individuals to make for a conspiracy.
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Nov 30, 2011 1:47:21 GMT
The discredited Hockey-Stick had another purpose: to give credence to the otherwise incredible climate models. They can't imagine anything other than a Hockey-Stick because of their GIGO CO2 fetish.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 30, 2011 2:04:46 GMT
The discredited Hockey-Stick had another purpose: to give credence to the otherwise incredible climate models. They can't imagine anything other than a Hockey-Stick because of their GIGO CO2 fetish. There is no better chronology of the hockey stick than at CA. Perhaps one of the funniest moments I recall is when Mann (and others) used upside down sediment data as non-dendro evidence to support Mann's original hockey stick paper, and Steve McIntyre discovered it, then was later backed up by the original author LOL. The best part is both Nature and Science ("consensus" journals) kept passing this garbage like crap through a goose; the ubiquitous 'spaghetti graph'. Next we'll be told these same fair and balanced scientists weren't working in lock step with major news outlets and radical environmental groups to further the cause.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 30, 2011 2:55:34 GMT
The 'Team' tried to get yet another scientist fired. Long email thread here, the money quote is this IMO: wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/29/getting-the-right-kind-of-people-onboard/In this context, IPCC mounts a powerful case. But the case rests on two main foundations; the past climate has shown little variability and the climate models reflect the internal variability of the climate system. If either or both are shown to be weak or fallacious then the IPCC case is weakened or fails. That's it in a nutshell. The entire reason for the hockey stick and it's incestuous cousins was to eliminate past warming. So tell me glennkoks, do climate models reflect the internal variability of the climate system? Just so you know, "internal variability" is not limited to "global surface temperatures", for which the modelers have tuned for. Before claims are made that model results are outputs and not tuned to match whatever parameter they are modeling, I have loads of papers shooting that down completely. Clearly, climate models DO NOT reflect internal variability of the climate system, and the hockey stick is broken. See glennkoks, if you truly are of the consensus stripe, then the evidence must lead to a conclusion the MWP and LIA were both real and world wide events because prior to and after the hockey stick, there is multitudes more evidence supporting them over the Crown Jewel of AGW. "We have to get rid of the MWP"
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 1, 2011 14:20:38 GMT
New information on Mike's Nature trick. climateaudit.org/2011/12/01/hide-the-decline-plus/LOL! How can anyone defend such chicanery and not conclude the hockey stick was intended to deceive? It is FRAUD in its purest form. "Fair and balanced scientists".......BS.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Dec 2, 2011 17:14:51 GMT
When I was doing my astrophysics degree there was a bunch of scientists convinced that the universe was in a "steady state" and another bunch convinced that the universe had started in a "big bang".
Each side interpreted evidence to prove their position. Each side accused the other (at times) of being breathlessly stupid or border-line mendacious.
Whether you consider it more important because the whole world's economy supposedly depends on it or not, I don't see that you have evidence that Mann did anything more dishonest than believe very strongly that he was right and that people who thought he was wrong were dense or border-line mendacious to quote myself.
Putting that to one side, it would have been unscientific to leave the Lamb picture of an apparently warm MWP and not challenge a) whether it was correct and b) whether the warmth of the MWP compared with the temperatures now (40+ years after it was generated).
It is *definitely* dishonest to create a database of papers about medieval warmth and to pretend that the statistics about the number of papers is a proxy for temperature (cf CO2"science".com)
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 2, 2011 17:38:39 GMT
When I was doing my astrophysics degree there was a bunch of scientists convinced that the universe was in a "steady state" and another bunch convinced that the universe had started in a "big bang". Each side interpreted evidence to prove their position. Each side accused the other (at times) of being breathlessly stupid or border-line mendacious. Whether you consider it more important because the whole world's economy supposedly depends on it or not, I don't see that you have evidence that Mann did anything more dishonest than believe very strongly that he was right and that people who thought he was wrong were dense or border-line mendacious to quote myself. Putting that to one side, it would have been unscientific to leave the Lamb picture of an apparently warm MWP and not challenge a) whether it was correct and b) whether the warmth of the MWP compared with the temperatures now (40+ years after it was generated). It is *definitely* dishonest to create a database of papers about medieval warmth and to pretend that the statistics about the number of papers is a proxy for temperature (cf CO2"science".com) Members of cults don't see the corruption and lies of their leaders, even to the point of knowingly drinking poisoned Kool Aid ending their lives. You guys argued the "scientists" (aka the Team) were taken out of context in the first round of emails. Now you can't. We openly link to our sources, but you don't. Tell us how you are came to such a ludicrous conclusion because it is not by knowing the details and history of the hockey stick; you are simply parroting the excuses of others. This is real ugly, and even the most partisan biased pro-AGW in the media are conceding. Keep spinning much more and you'll take flight.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 2, 2011 19:11:49 GMT
When I was doing my astrophysics degree there was a bunch of scientists convinced that the universe was in a "steady state" and another bunch convinced that the universe had started in a "big bang". Each side interpreted evidence to prove their position. Each side accused the other (at times) of being breathlessly stupid or border-line mendacious. Whether you consider it more important because the whole world's economy supposedly depends on it or not, I don't see that you have evidence that Mann did anything more dishonest than believe very strongly that he was right and that people who thought he was wrong were dense or border-line mendacious to quote myself. Putting that to one side, it would have been unscientific to leave the Lamb picture of an apparently warm MWP and not challenge a) whether it was correct and b) whether the warmth of the MWP compared with the temperatures now (40+ years after it was generated). It is *definitely* dishonest to create a database of papers about medieval warmth and to pretend that the statistics about the number of papers is a proxy for temperature (cf CO2"science".com) Steve: The difference between Prof Mann and the astro fellers is that the astro fellers had no agenda per se. They were actually arguing the science as it was understood. Prof Mann was warned by botanists that tree ring proxies for temperature were not reliable, yet he insisted that they were. Another part of the equation, is that to try and prove AGW, you had to get rid of the MWP, the RWP etc. The models really do not hind cast that well at all, which indicates their ability to future cast is not reliable, and certainly not even likely.....66% confidence level. It boils down to the fact that a few think they have this figured out, and are blind to looking for what the actual causes etc really are. There should be nothing easier than hind casting as most of the parameters are known. What seems to be the major unknown is the levels of the following: 1. UV fluctuations. We are just beginning to learn about these, and they do have climatic implications. 2. Cr's. Still infant, but there is something here. 3. Clouds.....how many.....what level etc. I am sure there are more unknowns, at least to me as I am but a simple layman. I will say being a farmer, involved with production/growing etc, I knew the tree ring thing was a fake as soon as I read it the 1st time. Experience in the wilds does count. Climategate 2 is more important than climategate one as the details are much more conclusive. This is a mess, there is no other way to say it. I do hope as a consequence of this, that climate science once again becomes a science. The present state of doctrine is not acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Dec 3, 2011 1:50:48 GMT
|
|