|
Post by steve on Mar 15, 2011 12:01:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 15, 2011 10:53:58 GMT
1) Only in the febrile imagination of a few. You are confusing a vigorous debate on how best to present evidence to politicians with an attempt at subversion. There was no subversion because the IPCC graph was properly captioned and discussed. The ones who set up the IPCC are the politicians because they wanted to here the information. The politicians do not think that the international effort was subverted because the politicians are continuing to support the IPCC process almost as is. 2) You are using legalistic words to get people off the hook. It seems obvious to me that, for example Wegman is likely up to his neck in it and Lindzen is too clever to be that stupid. 3) My information management procedures apply to the information *I* hold, not the information held by others. I am absolutely entitled to write to whoever I like and ask them to delete emails, and I would do so if I thought that the emails did not legally need to be protected and could be misinterpreted. One of my information management procedures *requires* me to consider the reputation of my employer. If I were inadvertently involved in an inappropriate email chain about a competitor then it would be incumbent on me to delete the email if there were no legal reasons for keeping it. I don't think I would have panicked like Jones did though. 4) If it talks and walks like a witch hunt, it's a witch hunt. Cuccenilli has embarked on a McCarthyistic witch hunt. Stop defending the indefensible. Your desire to support the exact opposite of anything your opponent thinks is too transparent.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 15, 2011 10:24:16 GMT
AstroPoser777
The media quote the scientists who say things that suggest links between AGW and extreme weather events, and on the whole ignore the circumspect experts who would not make such a statement without statistical support.
Alternatively the sceptic media will pick up on a scientific finding that an event such as the Russian heatwave cannot statistically be attributed to AGW and crow about that (even though noone has made a strong claim that it was).
This is easy to do because just because an event does not disprove AGW (and may be consistent with *some* AGW predictions) does not mean that the event was predicted by AGW. If your son gets a rash on the body and the doctor says "That is consistent with the rubella epidemic that is going on" do you criticise your doctor when her further investigation shows that the rash is due to an allergy.
If you look only a bit more carefully you will find many many scientists who would not attribute any event to AGW without statistical evidence. The realclimate site is one such place, for example.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 14, 2011 17:47:55 GMT
No we don't. That is a complete lie.
That's complete rubbish. Only in your fantasy world does the IPCC process require that all communications between all scientists be recorded. It does not require that at all! Not even implicitly. The reality of report preparation is that the reports are written over a period of many months with, likely, many emails, phone conversations and meetings taking place, none of which need to be minuted to any agreed level of detail or otherwise formally recorded.
The name is obvious. And I think that giving a false testimony to congress and parliament using the authority of a distinguished academic career is more questionable than passing on an email request that someone takes the perfectly legal step of deleting an email that is not in the slightest bit dodgy and that is not required to be kept by any IPCC procedure.
And it's *me* who is playing no-to-double-standards game, not you. I'm not asking you to praise Mann. I'm asking you to apply common standards to your side. Why aren't you asking for email correspondence between Wegman, Inhofe, McIntyre, McKitrick etc. now that you know how the Wegman report was constructed (cobbled together)? Why aren't you questioning how such a huge allegation of conspiracy could grow yet has only managed to uncover, what? A 0.05C difference in the Hockey stick, a 0.01C difference in GISTEMP, and an inappropriately-constructed graph that nobody even looked at or commented about till ten years later.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 14, 2011 16:38:28 GMT
Of course Lysenko did not harm a fly, why he was just a 'biologist'. Comparing Lindzen with Lysenko seems unfair, but I'm pleased that you are at least trying to see it both ways. Actually, flies probably did very well out of Lysenko.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 14, 2011 15:19:38 GMT
Magellan, Comparing a climate scientist to a convicted armed robber who most people think is also a multiple murderer is the sort of nonsense I am talking about. I was sort of picturing more the Bernie Madoff type. . . .a far worse sort of person in my view than somebody who allegedly murdered two people in a jealous rage. A certain scientist selected some data out of a 20 year dataset to analyse and to show a result. There was no description of how the data was selected. The result was flogged across the blogosphere. The scientist has in the past given testimony to parliaments in both the UK and US. Another scientist set some rules for selecting from the same dataset. The rules resulted in selections of data sections that were largely the same as the first scientists, but some end points differed by a month. The result was the *opposite* of the first scientist showing that the original result was completely lacking in robustness. The prima facie case against this first scientist for committing crimes against science is *vastly* greater than that against Michael Mann. Why aren't we hearing calls for this first scientist to reveal his emails and his methods? Why is this scientist not being compared with Madoff? Why isn't this scientist's resignation being demanded - even by Joe Romm? Because climate scientists and climate bloggers are more civilised than sceptic bloggers, and because people who follow the science expect that others will follow the science, whereas many who follow the sceptics believe any old nonsense they read on the tinternet must be true if it accords with their desires. www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen-Choi-2009-low-climate-sensitivity.htmwww.skepticalscience.com/a-case-study-of-a-climate-scientist-skeptic.html
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 14, 2011 11:38:55 GMT
Magellan,
Comparing a climate scientist to a convicted armed robber who most people think is also a multiple murderer is the sort of nonsense I am talking about.
It strikes me that the story is partly or mostly fantasy given that the guy has stated he has no evidence to back his claims. Watts has picked yet another loon to suck up to. As Anthony wants to fire any public servant who uses their first amendment rights (hope I have the jargon right here), he has no scruples and no shame - that's the McCarthyist tendency. Noone is calling for Christy or Curry or Douglass to be sacked.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 14, 2011 11:24:00 GMT
spaceman, I know a little bit about magnetic fields. At this point I suggest that you calculate the change in current that would blow a transformer, then calculate the magnetic field change over the size of the electricity grid that would induce such a change in current within the grid.
It's self-defining. If your economic well-being depends on seasonal rains, and the rain belts move 100 km north, then that is unstable even if it is a small change. If you have built cities with effective infrastructure lifetime of a century or so that won't withstand a sea-level rise of one or two metres without significant investment, then that is unstable.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 13, 2011 19:15:39 GMT
spaceman,
The reason that your transformer blows is not because of the 0.001W of energy impacting directly on it. It is the large scale impact on the earth's magnetic field that disturbs the normal flows of current through the grid.
This seems like a lot of energy, but when you compare it with the sun's ability to keep earth 280 Kelvin warmer than it would otherwise be.
At the equator at noon, normal solar energy is about 1kW per square metre. How many kW would it take to blow a transformer? One? Ten? 100? All piddling amounts of energy on the scale of things.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 11, 2011 13:14:05 GMT
I believe the prediction for hurricanes is for stronger hurricanes, but not more hurricanes. Your link discusses ACE, but not frequency of strong hurricanes. The prediction is in the "likely" category, so it may be wrong, and we probably need more data and more warming to judge it fairly.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 11, 2011 11:21:46 GMT
I am not aware of claims that Christy was fudging the data.
I am aware that the data was for many years in deep disagreement with the models, which was used by Christy to undermine confidence in the models, and that it was not Spencer and Christy who found the main problem.
I am aware of suggestions that Christy and Spencer's coloured view of the situation affected their ability to evaluate the data properly.
I don't know if there is good evidence for incompetent data handling as Spencer and Christy hide their methods. Perhaps we need to evaluate all their emails over the last 20 years to decide.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 11, 2011 11:14:19 GMT
The moon's distance varies between 406 thousand and 356 thousand kilometres in its monthly orbit.
The up and coming perigee is 356,577 km which is, for example, 0.1% closer than the 3 or 4 closest perigees last year.
It is not yet at this close distance. At the moment (half way between perigee and apogee) it is at a very average distance from the earth, so the tidal stresses will be very average too.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 10, 2011 20:33:13 GMT
I agree with Steve
There's a lot of hypocrisy when Hansen is criticised for admittedly overblown rhetoric about criminal trials for coal execs while supporting criminal prosecutions of scientists on a highly dubious case, and when people like Watts go on about his tax dollars yet seems happy for this wasteful nonsense to fill lawyers' pockets.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 10, 2011 20:26:15 GMT
hairball, I did mean disinterested. I don't think how they will do bothers you. You say they'll get on fine and that justifies your "live as we please" attitude.
A bit of water is a better lubricant than ice which has been proven by acceleration of glaciers at the edges of Greenland. It seems that too much water negates its effect, so as Greenland warms the accelerating effect of water may gradually move to higher and colder glaciers while ceasing to be important low down. It'll be many centuries before the effect of global warming influences the mountains in the centre of East Antarctica though.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 10, 2011 18:05:25 GMT
When one is losing the argument the lesson seems to be to get the lawyers involved. Sickenly McCarthyistic. Hmm, the University of Virginia sure is spending a fortune on lawyers, but I think you're exaggerating Steve. I expect even McCarthy started with one victim in his sights. Every person now involved in writing the next IPCC report is a potential victim if they should say something inappropriate, sarcastic or politically inspired in any email, or anything that can remotely be misinterpreted. That is not an exaggeration. I assume that Cuccewotsisface is paying for his own lawyers. No?
|
|