|
Post by socold on Sept 30, 2009 7:15:42 GMT
That's it? It seemed you knew quite a bit when posting the peerreviewedscience spaghetti graphs. I provided a set of published reconstructions. I didn't claim to know the methodology or details of paleoclimatology necessary to understand a typical CA post. You failed to convince me because you were just citing CA articles which as I said I cannot analyze. I'd have to be an expert in paleoclimate methods to understand the arguments being made or to even be aware of any problems with those arguments. Therefore logically if there are problems, I wouldn't be able to see them. The problem is there is no critical review of the CA posts - something that is necessary for arguments that detailed. That's because scientists - the people who can critically review it - don't respond to blog posts as part of their job. Unless they are willing to spend their free time doing it, they won't do it. So citing CA posts as if they must be true because they are posted on CA (which must be what you expect because I've already explained I don't understand the details), sorry but I don't buy that line of argument.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 30, 2009 7:20:13 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. Ernst Beck also used all the existing data and accused scientists of using a cherrypicked subset. But he was wrong to do so because there were good reasons to exclude the subset, it wasn't cherrypicked out. I only know this because in that case a scientist responded after Beck managed to get his work published to a journal. How do we know in the case of the temperature reconstructions that there wasn't a good reason for the data selection? We don't and can't unless scientists involved respond. But they have no obligation to respond to something posted on a blog. Until I at least hear those scientists justifying or trying to justify the data selection this can go no further for me, a layperson. We just have an accusation on a blog, one which hasn't been reviewed (or "audited" lol).
|
|
|
Post by astrodragon on Sept 30, 2009 9:19:04 GMT
In any properly done science the report specifically names both the full data sets obtained, and the ones used, and explains why certain data was excluded. This is to allow the reasons for exclusion (or inclusion) to be analysed as part of the review process.
In this case, the people involed had deliberately hidden the data and the exclusions, and these came to light almost by accident..
So the word fraud does indeed come to mind. It certainly isnt science.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 30, 2009 12:24:06 GMT
In any properly done science the report specifically names both the full data sets obtained, and the ones used, and explains why certain data was excluded. This is to allow the reasons for exclusion (or inclusion) to be analysed as part of the review process. In this case, the people involved had deliberately hidden the data and the exclusions, and these came to light almost by accident.. So the word fraud does indeed come to mind. It certainly isn't science. What the AGW promoters have done is no different than what Lysenko did. And what has been found is the equivalent of finding the ink pen Lysenko used to fabricate spots on the frogs as evidence of induced evolution. www.ncc-1776.org/tle2009/tle534-20090830-04.html
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 30, 2009 13:19:33 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. Ernst Beck also used all the existing data and accused scientists of using a cherrypicked subset. But he was wrong to do so because there were good reasons to exclude the subset, it wasn't cherrypicked out. I only know this because in that case a scientist responded after Beck managed to get his work published to a journal. How do we know in the case of the temperature reconstructions that there wasn't a good reason for the data selection? We don't and can't unless scientists involved respond. But they have no obligation to respond to something posted on a blog. Until I at least hear those scientists justifying or trying to justify the data selection this can go no further for me, a layperson. We just have an accusation on a blog, one which hasn't been reviewed (or "audited" lol). What part of "Briffa refused to release the data" don't you understand? This has no resemblance to Beck. Mann did the same thing and it took a Congressional subpoena to force him to. He didn't even attend the hearing to defend his work. Have you ever looked beyond the hockey stick apologists musings? Under oath, Gerry North agreed with the Wegman assessment. Santer 08 did the same thing as well, and only after several FOIA requests was it released, and now we know why that "study" stopped at 1999. Then there is Steig 09, where his "study" made it to the cover of Nature depicting a pretty cherry red Antarctic. In that case it took several weeks and months to decipher his methods for replication, which was refused for public consumption. And now we know why that "study" is garbage too. And after several years of requests, Phil Jones too has refused to release data. Now he says the data is "lost". Have you read the formal fraud accusations against the China surface temperature records from way back in 1990? How many examples will it take before True Believers begin to ask questions? Also socold, with all due respect, for someone now claiming to be a lay person unable to understand the specifics of this situation, you sure seemed to do pretty well giving us lectures on the deeper aspects of AGW. The facts are staring you straight in the face; wishing they'd go away won't make it any better. I posted the Loehle 08 paper on paleo reconstructions not derived from tree rings, and not one of them agreed with the dendro papers from Mann et al. Your response was Loehle didn't publish in a "high impact" journal such as Nature. Well, he tried but was refused and never went to the editors. I wonder why. What you fail to realize is Loehle's paper was based on previous studies already published in other journals. The first version was critiqued at CA and resubmitted with corrections. When was the last time a pro-AGW paper was resubmitted after errors were discovered? I dare say NEVER. In fact, I'd like to see a list of pro-AGW papers that didn't make to publication Now we have Lindzen 09, which clearly exposes serious errors in climate model renditions of the behavior of atmospheric processes. Why do I keep bringing it up? Because Lindzen follows the scientific method. AGW on the other hand is entirely based on climate models which you have claimed contain all the relevant physics [as we understand it] necessary to simulate earth's weather/climate processes. Well guess what socold, Lindzen is presenting just a smidgen of climate model errors.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 30, 2009 14:01:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Sept 30, 2009 14:21:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Sept 30, 2009 14:44:44 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."
Very lame attempt to change the subject, but I'll bite - no, it's not necessary because it is a matter of review and verification. This is so typical of AGW believers who think themselves above contestation and therefore feel justified in not disclosing. And when they get caught, they yell bloody murder about how they were caught.
Mann has been weighed. Mann has been measured. Mann has been found fraudulent. Deal with it. Every other CO2 argument is now suspicious and will need to prove its credibility beyond "the models show . . .".
AGW is in real trouble and no amount of doublespeak will carry with true scientists who now have a great deal of ammo with which to take on the "consensus" like they never have before.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 30, 2009 17:01:04 GMT
This is growing exponentially throughout the blogosphere. Tom P tried to shoot down Steve M's analysis, but alas he failed. Nice try though. Read more at Lubos Motl's blog: Here you have it, an informal accusation of fraud. The gauntlet has been thrown down. Will the keepers of treemometer "science" file suit? ;D Beaten with hockey sticks: Yamal tree fraud by Briffa et al.motls.blogspot.com/2009/09/beaten-with-hockey-sticks-yamal-tree.htmlBut I think it is pretty obvious that pretty much all the relevant authors of the article must know that without any fabrication of the data, they don't get any hockey stick from the trees. It means that it can't be an innocent mistake and all of them, and not just Keith Briffa, are fraudsters who know very well what they're doing and why they're doing it. The next question is whether the society knows what it should be doing with such people. This isn't going away anytime soon folks. The genie's out of the bottle and heads are going to roll.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 30, 2009 19:26:22 GMT
Can someone summarize the proposed motive for fraud?
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Sept 30, 2009 19:48:48 GMT
Surely the next thing that really counts is what sort of a response are we going to get from CRU and Dr. Briffa. Has anyone any sort of contact that might be able to give us an idea as to if and when this might happen?
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Sept 30, 2009 19:56:33 GMT
socold writes "Can someone summarize the proposed motive for fraud?"
That one is easy. When the IPCC needed to produce some evidence that AGW was real, they did not have (and still dont have) any experimental data to support their claim that more CO2, on top of current levels, causes global temperatures to rise. There is all sorts of evidence that temperatures have varied as much or more than they are now doing, and the IPCC needed to claim that the recent warming spell was highly unusual. To do this they needed to make the MWP and LIA "disappear". Otherwise they could not "sell" their "snake oil". The hockey stick was the weapon of choice. But the data did not support the hockey stick. So the data had to be tortured until it confessed. That is the reason for the fraud.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 30, 2009 20:09:29 GMT
socold writes "Can someone summarize the proposed motive for fraud?" That one is easy. When the IPCC needed to produce some evidence that AGW was real, they did not have (and still dont have) any experimental data to support their claim that more CO2, on top of current levels, causes global temperatures to rise. There is all sorts of evidence that temperatures have varied as much or more than they are now doing, and the IPCC needed to claim that the recent warming spell was highly unusual. To do this they needed to make the MWP and LIA "disappear". Otherwise they could not "sell" their "snake oil". The hockey stick was the weapon of choice. But the data did not support the hockey stick. So the data had to be tortured until it confessed. That is the reason for the fraud. Are you saying these reconstructions don't show a MWP or LIA? The motive of "getting rid" of the MWP and LIA doesn't make sense, because these reconstructions haven't done that and show natural variation in the past. So what is the motive being proposed?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 30, 2009 21:49:53 GMT
Can someone summarize the proposed motive for fraud? Same motivation as for ecoterrorism.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 30, 2009 22:29:26 GMT
Can someone summarize the proposed motive for fraud? Same motivation as for ecoterrorism. Which is?
|
|