|
Post by socold on Oct 31, 2009 15:48:01 GMT
In short you are backpeddling as all skeptics do when challenged on this front. First they claim it is fraud. Then when challenged they backpeddle and say "no they just misrepresented the science". When they can't even provide evidence for that, they backpeddle again to "they have just made a mistake". Then finally we find out the skeptics are just basing this on their own opinion. So much for the accusations of "fraud". Case in point: Can you provide any evidence that Hansen has fudged any data? A lot of people regularly claim this, I tend to ignore it because when push comes to shove all they can provide is something like "he made 1998 warmer than 1934" and when you get down to the details they don't even understand that issue, let alone can provide any evidence for it. Or the GCM claims of "fraud", when it get down to the details of that it turns out the skeptics simply don't believe GCMs. They have no evidence whatsoever that Hansen has committed fraud in climate models, it is just something they repeat as a sound byte. We have a whole thread dedicated to trying to slander Hansen and yet not one piece of firm evidence in many pages has been produced. The accusations of fraud are a set of ignorable childish tabloid gossip, purely reactionary in a bid to "create a stir". It's probably because skeptics need there to be fraud and grand conspiracies because without that they can't explain why the scientific community disagrees with them. OK SoCold here is an unvarnished not backing away set of statements The use of a statistical algorithm that always produces the desired result regardless of input data is either ignorance or fraud of which neither would be expected nor accepted in a senior academic The use of a statistically insignificant single outlier to drive the outcome of a report is either statistical ignorance or fraud of which neither would be expected nor accepted in a senior academic (not from even undergraduates!). The attempt to obscure input data on publication of a report is totally unprofessional and tends to support the conclusion that it is fraud not ignorance that we are witnessing. It also raises questions on the professionalism of the Journals involved - interestingly NOT the Royal Society who actually applied scientific rules (but only when prompted). The problem is that climate audit has a history of making strong initial claims and inferences and then backing down from them. So it isn't clear, unless you spend hours at CA every day, which claims are still being made and which are not. For example somehow the telegraph and register managed to interpret early climate audit posts about Briffa as evidence Briffa committed fraud. Climate Audit has opposed such a position and even terminated some of the earlier claims against Briffa. Therefore given that your above claims appear to be initial claims, how can you be sure climate audit is still pushing them? And if it isn't what are you basing them on now? For example is climate audit still complaining that Briffa deliberately didn't release data? Or is it now accepting the possibility that it wasn't his to give out? Why does McIntyre shy away from accusing scientists of fraud unless the evidence for fraud is underwhelming? As for those who don't shy away from accusing scientists of fraud, they are largely internet nobodies and mere gossip by anonymous identities on the Internet cannot harm anyones reputation, therefore it doesn't qualify as slander. You can only sue if you have grounds that the accusations have affected your reputation. The fact that scientists haven't sued over the many false claims is actually an indictment on the unimportance of skeptics making these claims. It's like last years promise by skeptics that they would sue Al Gore. What happened to that? Did they just decide not to bother or did they realize they had no grounds to sue? Not that I could care less about defending Al Gore's reputation, but it is funny to watch this kind of bluster collapse.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 31, 2009 15:55:56 GMT
Or there is no evidence to support accusations of fraud. I currently reviewing the "Hansen Lysenko" thread and compiling a summary of the accusations presented in that thread against Hansen. Lets see just how strong the case is..
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 31, 2009 16:07:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 31, 2009 17:06:23 GMT
Or there is no evidence to support accusations of fraud. I currently reviewing the "Hansen Lysenko" thread and compiling a summary of the accusations presented in that thread against Hansen. Lets see just how strong the case is.. SoCold I see your cognitive dissonance is still hurting.... and you fail to answer the real points made. you will be able to tell me the statistical significance of the thickness of tree rings on 10 trees I am sure and then go on to detail how a single tree can be statistically significant or even relied on to the extent it can be taken as a metric for the entire temperature of the Earth? That is before we proceed to whether what is being measured is a real proxy for what it claims. Then you will be able to say how it is that Mann's statistical algorithm and choice of proxies is real science and doctorate level computational statistics. If an undergrad had produced work like this it would have been thrown out. For professors to do so and then hide and massage their input data is unscientific and an academic disgrace. That is before we get onto the political ramifications.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 31, 2009 17:16:56 GMT
Or there is no evidence to support accusations of fraud. I currently reviewing the "Hansen Lysenko" thread and compiling a summary of the accusations presented in that thread against Hansen. Lets see just how strong the case is.. Socold: We both know that when you have government, be they right or wrong, supporting something it is very difficult to produce a case of slander or fraud. In England, when Margaret Thatcher needed to fullfil her need to be different, she started the co2 thing. She was also looking to build nuclear power plants as a cover for the British Nuclear bomb making industry. I don't think she had any idea that it would balloon as it has. It is very difficult to prove fraud. It is easy to prove that a pre-concieved notion can be proven by almost any statistic. That is where the problem of fraud lies. Change a slight variable in a statistical analysis, and you have a different outcome. One can point out poor statistical use, and even poor statistical structure. But that would only prove that the person didn't understand stats very well. Briffa, in my opinion, isn't fraudulant. He was trying to prove his notion and have aclaim by his fellow folks who also shared said notion. He accomplished this. The sad thing is that once his underlying data has been examined, that the folks who acalimed him still acalim him. That is the travesty in this, and once again, undercuts the "believeability" of research in this field. Time for a lot of "scientists" to fess up that they are wrong, that climate is changing, and that they are going to renew their energy in the understanding of why it is changing to produce results that are verifiable, useable, and practile in the real world. AS it stands now, climate scientists, at least in the US, rank right up there with politicians. That is NOT a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 31, 2009 18:27:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 31, 2009 18:36:18 GMT
Or there is no evidence to support accusations of fraud. I currently reviewing the "Hansen Lysenko" thread and compiling a summary of the accusations presented in that thread against Hansen. Lets see just how strong the case is.. SoCold I see your cognitive dissonance is still hurting.... and you fail to answer the real points made. you will be able to tell me the statistical significance of the thickness of tree rings on 10 trees I am sure and then go on to detail how a single tree can be statistically significant or even relied on to the extent it can be taken as a metric for the entire temperature of the Earth? That is before we proceed to whether what is being measured is a real proxy for what it claims. Sorry I am neither a statistician nor an expert on paleocliamte methods. And anyway I don't spend 2 hours a day on Climate Audit in order to understand what the current arguments. I believe all of those 3 are prerequisites for answering your questions.
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Oct 31, 2009 19:08:08 GMT
At the end of the first article to which you linked, there is a link to a video that captures the AGW approach perfectly. Here is a shortcut for those interested (some might think they are looking at family members): www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1owcncKCHg
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 31, 2009 19:28:57 GMT
And looking out the window (hopefully not to a bunch of monkeys) Imagine calibrating with a real temperature measurement. What a great idea, I wonder why the original study did not do that kind of diligence. "Guest post by Lucy Skywalker Let’s look closely and compare local thermometer records (GISS) with the Twelve Trees, upon whose treerings depend all the IPCC claims of “unprecedented recent temperature rise”. For my earlier Yamal work, see here and here. For the original Hockey Stick story, see here and here." wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/30/yamal-treering-proxy-temperature-reconstructions-dont-match-local-thermometer-records/
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 31, 2009 19:36:20 GMT
Again you are magnifying your ignorance. Please read up on PDO and how to read graphs. I suspect that single sentence is a bid to escape the discussion because you realize that the idea that the PDO has contributed to recent warming is not clear cut afterall. The PDO contributes ZERO to global warming or cooling. There are however, PDO cold and warm phases which if you'd bother to check, is a product of ENSO which does contribute to "global" warming. PDO represents a pattern of variability, not temperatures of SST. jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latestPDO INDEX
Updated standardized values for the PDO index, derived as the leading PC of monthly SST anomalies in the North Pacific Ocean, poleward of 20N. The monthly mean global average SST anomalies are removed to separate this pattern of variability from any "global warming" signal that may be present in the data.
Will you, steve or glc ever get to the point of realizing there is no direct evidence to support the CO2 AGW dogma? I've made specific threads requesting such evidence, where is it? BTW, here's some more observational evidence of what does contribute to assumed global warming on land surfaces, you know those AGW (caused by rising CO2 levels) heat waves.... pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/further-support-for-temperature-trends-associated-with-land-use-change-rosenzweig-et-al-2009-mitigating-new-york-citys-heat-island/
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 31, 2009 20:54:42 GMT
I suspect that single sentence is a bid to escape the discussion because you realize that the idea that the PDO has contributed to recent warming is not clear cut afterall. The PDO contributes ZERO to global warming or cooling. There are however, PDO cold and warm phases which if you'd bother to check, is a product of ENSO which does contribute to "global" warming. PDO represents a pattern of variability, not temperatures of SST. This just rephrases my point to: The trend of ENSO over the past 30 years is negative and so it's contribution to the warming trend is far from clear cut. If anything it may have contributed to cooling. We've provided the evidence in countless threads. And I guess this affects the satellite measurements and ocean measurements too...
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Oct 31, 2009 22:39:03 GMT
The AGW prediction that dangerous changes are coming to world climate due to CO2 is obviously, well proven, wrong. The true believers will keep yapping away that an apocalypse is coming, but even the leaders who ran on AGW platforms are easing away. We will see moves, as we should, for clean energy. But this has nothing to do with a climate crisis. Apocalyptic prophecies always fail.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 1, 2009 1:57:35 GMT
The PDO contributes ZERO to global warming or cooling. There are however, PDO cold and warm phases which if you'd bother to check, is a product of ENSO which does contribute to "global" warming. PDO represents a pattern of variability, not temperatures of SST. This just rephrases my point to: The trend of ENSO over the past 30 years is negative and so it's contribution to the warming trend is far from clear cut. If anything it may have contributed to cooling. We've provided the evidence in countless threads. And I guess this affects the satellite measurements and ocean measurements too... Again it is obvious you don't understand what ENSO is either. I'm doing your homework for you this time.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 1, 2009 6:11:33 GMT
This just rephrases my point to: The trend of ENSO over the past 30 years is negative and so it's contribution to the warming trend is far from clear cut. If anything it may have contributed to cooling. We've provided the evidence in countless threads. And I guess this affects the satellite measurements and ocean measurements too... Again it is obvious you don't understand what ENSO is either. I'm doing your homework for you this time. A graph that illustrates my point. Put a linear trend through it, you'll find it's negative.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 1, 2009 13:43:32 GMT
A graph that illustrates my point. Put a linear trend through it, you'll find it's negative. Why are you are surprised when you have a graph that doesn't show the 13 years of the PDO warm phase at the front end (1970 to 1982)and has 11 years of a PDO cool phase at the back end? (1998 to 2008). A linear trend is going to tip downwards. . . .but you have to have your head up your arse to not simply use your eyes and look at the graph and see that you have two trends, a strengthening warm phase followed by a cooling phase. The fact that the cool phase is on the back end is why it tips the way it is. Take the 11 years off and the line tips the other way.
|
|