|
Post by magellan on Sept 29, 2009 16:39:29 GMT
magellan writes "And people wonder why there are skeptics of AGW?" I agree with everything you say. You started with a provocative post which was a challenge to the warmaholics who inhabit www.solarcycle24.com. I put up a second challenge which occurred at almost the same time. What has happened reminds me of Simon and Garfunkel, and The Sounds of Silence. Let me try and be even more provocative. My knowledge of many aspects of climate science is not very good, but what I do understand are numbers. Most of the numbers quoted by the warmaholics fall into one of three categories. 1. They are fraudulent. This is the point you are making with the Briffa numbers. 2. They are based on "science" that is just plain wrong. This is what I am pointing out with the "Hanno" data quoted in the latest propaganda (disguised as "science") from the IPCC. 3. They are simply unproven. This is what I try and point out all the time. There is practically no hard experimental data. What most of the numbers consist of, are the output of non-validated computer programs. Such numbers are the radiative forcing for a doubling of CO2; how much world temperatures rise by the effect of CO2 alone; the climate sensitivity, i.e. how much positive feedbacks amplify the claimed initial temperature rise due to an increase in CO2. When we get actual hard numbers, such as world temperature data , this data shows that world temperatures are simply not rising, as was predicted by the IPCC (temperatures may even be falling), and the warmaholics are scrambling to find excuses as to why not. And other examples. Are any of the warmaholics who use this board, who are capable of giving some sort of reply to the challenges you and I have put out? Agreed. BTW, for the benefit of socold, who has on multiple occasions claimed there is much supporting evidence for MBH98, see what affect the Yamal "data" (for lack of a better word) has contributed to the ubiquitous spaghetti graph I'm not sure about the rest of my fellow skeptics on this forum, but I think it's time to break out the bubbly. The Impact of Yamal on the Spaghetti Graphwww.climateaudit.org/?p=7229
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Sept 29, 2009 16:59:09 GMT
magellan writes "I'm not sure about the rest of my fellow skeptics on this forum, but I think it's time to break out the bubbly."
My advice is keep it on ice for the moment. The warmaholics have the most magnificent PR team that has ever been seen. I have seen nothing about this in the mainstream media. There will be a huge effort made to keep this quiet at least until after Copenhagen. Remember that no warmaholic has yet responded to our challenges. Let us see what, if anything, any of them say.
What I hope this does is to increase the pressure on the American Physical Society, and the American Chemical Society. Thes two august bodies are under pressure to reneg on their support for AGW; the APS particularly. If Prof. Will Happer wins, and the APS formally accepts his statement of what the APS says about AGW then I would agree with you, and have a real party.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 29, 2009 21:10:13 GMT
I don't understand the details in CA posts, it goes way over my head. So of course no comment on that kind of thing.
I can point out though that such detailed arguments will not get a response if they are confined to a blog, scientists are not paid to respond to blogs.
What CA needs to do to put the argument in the scientific forum is to publish their own temperature reconstruction of the past 1000 years using their own methodology.
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Sept 29, 2009 21:43:19 GMT
Socold you write: "What CA needs to do to put the argument in the scientific forum is to publish their own temperature reconstruction of the past 1000 years using their own methodology." Wrong. What CA did was to use all of the existing data, not a cherry picked subset, to do what should have been long time ago. Validated the original paper with the data. But since the data was not available until just days ago was it not possible. Now after many year of obstruction by the original writer is the raw data available and it it obvious that the peer reviewer did a poor job. The original "scientific" paper is junk science. This researcher work for CRU who is refusing to make public their raw temperature data for their claim of AGW. That make a lot of thinker believe that it is something special with this raw data as well. blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100011716/how-the-global-warming-industry-is-based-on-one-massive-lie/
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Sept 30, 2009 1:18:47 GMT
socold writes "I can point out though that such detailed arguments will not get a response if they are confined to a blog, scientists are not paid to respond to blogs."
What a load of garbage!!! Science and scientists respond to FACTS. Never mind how the facts are presented. Facts are facts. If organizations, like the American Physical Society, and the Royal Society, ignore what Steve McIntyre has reported, then they are behaving like the proverbial ostrich.
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Sept 30, 2009 1:33:52 GMT
McIntyre had already proved several years ago Mann's Hockey Stick to be flawed using statistical analysis because the charlatan refused to supply his data. Now that McIntyre was able to access the original data he has proven that it was worse than bad science - IT WAS FRAUD.
The problem for AGW proponents is that EVERYTHING they foist upon us must be viewed with 10,000 grains of salt. It is now incumbent upon them to prove beyond a doubt that what they believe is fact - an impossible task.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Sept 30, 2009 2:07:12 GMT
OK, I think that I'm ready to bite the bullet and try to understand the statistical arguments in the Hockey Stick. I've glanced at the Wegman Report. Are there some good pointers for where this is explained?
Thanks, hilbert
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 30, 2009 2:09:51 GMT
McIntyre had already proved several years ago Mann's Hockey Stick to be flawed using statistical analysis because the charlatan refused to supply his data. Now that McIntyre was able to access the original data he has proven that it was worse than bad science - IT WAS FRAUD. The problem for AGW proponents is that EVERYTHING they foist upon us must be viewed with 10,000 grains of salt. It is now incumbent upon them to prove beyond a doubt that what they believe is fact - an impossible task. What McKyntyre has found again is a terrible blow to science. His findings cement the realists view, but the cost in general to science is priceless. Now, who do you believe? By their demonstrations of total unreliability, the current doomsdayers have set science back to the dark ages concerning climate. What a huge huge mistake they have made. Not only lying to themselves, but to the world at large. And at some point when they actually have useful data, trends etc.....no one will listen as they are proven knaves.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 30, 2009 2:23:21 GMT
I don't understand the details in CA posts, it goes way over my head. So of course no comment on that kind of thing. I can point out though that such detailed arguments will not get a response if they are confined to a blog, scientists are not paid to respond to blogs. What CA needs to do to put the argument in the scientific forum is to publish their own temperature reconstruction of the past 1000 years using their own methodology. That's it? It seemed you knew quite a bit when posting the peerreviewedscience spaghetti graphs. It was published in the most prestigious "science" journals, how could it be wrong? We tried in vain to convince you why they were garbage then even without knowing about this cherry picking crap. What CA needs to do to put the argument in the scientific forum is to publish their own temperature reconstruction of the past 1000 years using their own methodology. I would suggest spending time away from your favorite AGW indoctrination blogs, but hey, like they say, you can lead a horse to water....... www.climateaudit.org/?p=2183I don't expect any concession from you and yours, but whether you admit it or not, this latest revelation from SM completely obliterates the hockey stick zombies that kept coming back to life. Would you say Mann's co-auther is responsible for a) a simple oversight b) confirmation bias (junk science) or c) purposeful deception (fraud)? RIP
|
|
|
Post by norman on Sept 30, 2009 2:44:01 GMT
What CA needs to do to put the argument in the scientific forum is to publish their own temperature reconstruction of the past 1000 years using their own methodology. The problem I have is that the individual who puts forth the hypotheses is expected to defend it by producing the data uopn which the hypoethesis is based, and then letting others reproduce the experimental outcome. This is not AGW or Anti-AGW, it is the scientific method. I am not a scientist, but even I can see that a sample of ten trees in the ring count for the critical period on which the hypothesis is based is at best problematic and at worst violative of the process on which science is based. Like some of the others, the fact that the conclusion based on such data was then used to justify a political agenda borders is intellectually dishonest and fraudulent.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 30, 2009 3:17:03 GMT
What CA needs to do to put the argument in the scientific forum is to publish their own temperature reconstruction of the past 1000 years using their own methodology. I am not sure how dense or blockheaded somebody can get but it seemed to me that the "merged" dataset was absolutely screaming to be considered as an alternative offering. Not allowing the internet to serve as a medium for scientific fora is kind of like some 60 year old middle accounting manager that refuses to learn how to use a computer. What it really is saying though is the NGOs spent many millions to corner the market on scientific publications and damned if they are going to allow some everyman upstart come to spoil the party. My idea of reforming the scientific publication/referencing problem was to address the issue not from a private control of publications and out of hand rejection of outside input - which is more likely to have opposite the desired effect; but instead via a standards body approach as implemented by a professional organization, for example say the AICPA and to a lesser degree by other professional organizations, combined with a governmental licensing authority that has the ability to withdraw licenses for not maintaining professional standards. . . .kind of an anti-tenure approach. An accountant/auditor that does not even have to have a degree (but usually has a BS or MS); is held to higher standards of sample selection than published PhDs. It would not seem to be asking for much. While there are a lot of difficult issues surrounding this. . . .a professional organization at the center would be especially qualified in dealing with those complexities.
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Sept 30, 2009 3:19:01 GMT
What CA needs to do to put the argument in the scientific forum is to publish their own temperature reconstruction of the past 1000 years using their own methodology. The problem I have is that the individual who puts forth the hypotheses is expected to defend it by producing the data upon which the hypoethesis is based, and then letting others reproduce the experimental outcome. This is not AGW or Anti-AGW, it is the scientific method. I am not a scientist, but even I can see that a sample of ten trees in the ring count for the critical period on which the hypothesis is based is at best problematic and at worst violative of the process on which science is based. Like some of the others, the fact that the conclusion based on such data was then used to justify a political agenda borders is intellectually dishonest and fraudulent. I believe it was fraud and I base that opinion on the fact that the data was not made available for other scientists to review. Not only was the data purposely sequestered, those that questioned the basis for Mann's conclusions were ridiculed and ostracized. This is a devastating revelation and though it will get no media attention (for now) real scientists around the world who have been suckered into the "consensus" will be sheepishly silent among their more common sensible peers for years to come.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 30, 2009 6:48:34 GMT
socold writes "I can point out though that such detailed arguments will not get a response if they are confined to a blog, scientists are not paid to respond to blogs." What a load of garbage!!! Science and scientists respond to FACTS. Never mind how the facts are presented. Facts are facts. If organizations, like the American Physical Society, and the Royal Society, ignore what Steve McIntyre has reported, then they are behaving like the proverbial ostrich. In an ideal world scientists would have a 100 hour days in which they would read an analyze all media and blog output and come up with detailed responses. In reality they don't. They read a few journals at most and therefore to get detailed arguments to the correct forum it needs to be published to a journal, end of story. A scientist could not justify spending hours let alone days going through an argument on CA and putting together a detailed response. How would they explain that? "How is your research going?" "Actually it isn't. For the last week I've been compiling a detailed reply to a blog you haven't heard of" "weren't you doing that last week?" "Yes there was another argument, seems the guy who runs the blog does it full time, so I am having to go full time answering the blogs questions" "umm you aren't being paid to do that...."
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 30, 2009 6:59:59 GMT
I am not sure how dense or blockheaded somebody can get but it seemed to me that the "merged" dataset was absolutely screaming to be considered as an alternative offering. Not allowing the internet to serve as a medium for scientific fora is kind of like some 60 year old middle accounting manager that refuses to learn how to use a computer. Blogs cannot currently serve the role of journals. Scientists have no obligation, and indeed there are good reasons why they shouldn't reply to random blog posts.
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Sept 30, 2009 7:01:38 GMT
It is not about CA Socold. It is about science. Or lack of good science.
Is it OK to cherry pick some threes and from that draw a "scientific" conclusion without decent peer review that we need to change our society? Is it OK to demand the entire world to invest huge amount of money and feel guilty because we produce CO2 when we breath.
I don't think it is.
|
|