In your face evidence of climate change

[ludo]

NHyde said:

ludo said:

NHyde said:

Very interesting article here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/...

....then deep in the text , see a scientist realising what his research is showing , panicing to preserve his funding

clearly you didn't read the article too closely then!

article said:

A preliminary study of 6,000 logbooks has produced results that raise questions about climate change theories.

...

Wheeler and his colleagues have since won European Union funding to extend this research to 1750.

Note that they have gained government funding after having published a paper that raises questions about climate change theories. So much for the conspiracy theory.

Yes ludo , I did read it properly, but not through your green lenses, he did win the funding, but he was now putting this in the public domain and doesn't want his true believer status brought in to question.

So the fact that governments reward an author of an article that raises questions about AGW by giving him funding is evidence that authors need to worry that publishing sceptic papers will limit their funding opportunites, that really is daft!

NHyde said:

How about commenting on the issues raised in the article for once

That individual events shouldn't be attributed to global warming is nothing new (ISTR this was a valid criticism of AIT). Likewise one shouldn't attribute individual events (e.g. the cooling over the last year) to global cooling either (as the sceptics often do). That point is a very good one, and most scientists would now agree with it.

I am slightly concerned about the idea of attributing numerical values to subjective descriptions of weather on the grounds that captains use language in a consistent way. How can they tell that the captains are using language in a consistent way if they don't have the ground truth? Still it is a good resource, and the govenment are clearly interested as the MetOffice and DEFRA are apparently funding a study of other log books.

[turbobloke]

ludo said:

Likewise one shouldn't attribute individual events (e.g. the cooling over the last year)

Eh?

You mean global cooling over the last 6 years (overall) it merely intensified in the last year as a result of a moderate La Nina event.

Getting forgetful in your old age or are we seeing a return to the True Belioever tactic of selctive reporting?

And - ffs - stop cowering behind the ad hominem whining and whingeing, you're beginning to post like a whipped puppy. If you don't believe in MMGWT, as there is no data in support of it, say so outright or you will deserve and get True Believer status - which after all is merely an apt decription not an insult like 'ludo is a cock' which would be ad hominem but isn't seen on here, from me at least. Just as 'climate realist' is apt for people who look at the data rather than expensive politically motivatedf computer GIGO, or 'climate denier' for the modellers who deny data such as golbal cooling for 6 years, or negative feedback for far longer. Which is where we came in.

[mybrainhurts]

turbobloke said:

'ludo is a cock'

Well constructed example of an insult. May I use it when I encounter a cock?

Given time, one is bound to crop up on this thread.

[nigelfr]

NHyde said:

Very interesting article here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/...

....then deep in the text , see a scientist realising what his research is showing , panicing to preserve his funding

Good article, definitely one in the eye(read the article , see the intended pun) for the "True Believers"

What the heck have you guys been smoking? You're seeing things that aren't there: I'm suspicious of your scientific credentials, but I assumed you could follow a text.

Let me break it down for you:
First quote "The ships’ logs have also shed light on extreme weather events such as hurricanes. It is commonly believed that hurricanes form in the eastern Atlantic and track westwards, so scientists were shocked in 2005 when Hurricane Vince instead moved northeast to hit southern Spain and Portugal.

Many interpreted this as a consequence of climate change; but Wheeler, along with colleagues at the University of Madrid, used old ships’ logs to show that this had also happened in 1842, when a hurricane followed the same trajectory into Andalusia. " Get it: they're talking about when Hurricane Vincent moved in an unusual direction: which was interpreted as being a consequence of climate change.

Still with me: good, try to hold on to this concept, because in the article there are 4 paragraphs of waffle then: "Wheeler makes clear he has no doubts about modern human-induced climate change. He said: “Global warming is a reality, but what our data shows is that climate science is complex and that it is wrong to take particular events and link them to CO2 emissions. These records will give us a much clearer picture of what is really happening."

Get it now: in this paragraph he explains that you can't tie particular events to C02 emissions. If that is too subtle for you, he means that the movement of Hurricane Vincent cannot be linked to CO2 emissions. That's it: anything else is totally between your ears.

Now I was not aware that the whole case for MMCC was based on Hurricane Vincent, so I'm at a loss to understand your jubilation. Is it because you're scraping the barrel to find the slightest hint that supports your case, or because you just don't understand?

And then come your familiar attacks on the integrity of scientists, where you accuse him of saying something to hold on to his funding. If he was scared of losing his funding, why did he go to the Press in the first place?

I'm only sorry I've been busy for a couple of days because I bet I've missed a few laughs.

[mybrainhurts]

Well done, Nigel, have a carrot...

[ludo]

nigelfr said:

NHyde said:

Very interesting article here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/...

....then deep in the text , see a scientist realising what his research is showing , panicing to preserve his funding

Good article, definitely one in the eye(read the article , see the intended pun) for the "True Believers"

What the heck have you guys been smoking? You're seeing things that aren't there: I'm suspicious of your scientific credentials, but I assumed you could follow a text.

Let me break it down for you:
First quote "The ships’ logs have also shed light on extreme weather events such as hurricanes. It is commonly believed that hurricanes form in the eastern Atlantic and track westwards, so scientists were shocked in 2005 when Hurricane Vince instead moved northeast to hit southern Spain and Portugal.

Many interpreted this as a consequence of climate change; but Wheeler, along with colleagues at the University of Madrid, used old ships’ logs to show that this had also happened in 1842, when a hurricane followed the same trajectory into Andalusia. " Get it: they're talking about when Hurricane Vincent moved in an unusual direction: which was interpreted as being a consequence of climate change.

Still with me: good, try to hold on to this concept, because in the article there are 4 paragraphs of waffle then: "Wheeler makes clear he has no doubts about modern human-induced climate change. He said: “Global warming is a reality, but what our data shows is that climate science is complex and that it is wrong to take particular events and link them to CO2 emissions. These records will give us a much clearer picture of what is really happening."

Get it now: in this paragraph he explains that you can't tie particular events to C02 emissions. If that is too subtle for you, he means that the movement of Hurricane Vincent cannot be linked to CO2 emissions. That's it: anything else is totally between your ears.

Now I was not aware that the whole case for MMCC was based on Hurricane Vincent, so I'm at a loss to understand your jubilation. Is it because you're scraping the barrel to find the slightest hint that supports your case, or because you just don't understand?

And then come your familiar attacks on the integrity of scientists, where you accuse him of saying something to hold on to his funding. If he was scared of losing his funding, why did he go to the Press in the first place?

I'm only sorry I've been busy for a couple of days because I bet I've missed a few laughs.

There is also the point that while the media like to explain individual events as being caused by AGW, the scientists generaly don't. From the FAQ from the Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis" of the IPCC Fourth Assesment Report:

FAQ Question 9.1 said:

Can Individual Extreme Events be Explained by Greenhouse Warming?

Changes in climate extremes are expected as the climate warms in response to increasing atmospheric geenhouse gases resulting from human activities, such as the use of fossil fuels. However, determining whether a specific single extreme event is due to a specific cause, such as increasing greenhouse gasses, is difficult, if not impossible, for two reasons: 1) extreme events are usually caused by a combination of factors and 2) a wide rage of extreme events is a normal occurrence even in an unchanging climate. Nevertheless, analysis of the warming observed over the last century suggests that the likelihood of some extreme events, such as heat waves, has increased due to greenhouse warming, and the likelihood of others, such as frost or extremely cold nights, has decreased.

ETA: Now let's compare that whith what Wheeler is saying:

Wheeler said:

it is wrong to take particular events and link them to CO2 emissions

Clearly as the IPCC is not saying that individual extreme events can be explained by CO2, it is a bit of a straw man.

Edited by ludo on Sunday 3rd August 14:12

[nigelfr]

turbobloke said:

nigelfr said:

Hey update. Schulte did get published in the end: you can find his paper here:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/p...

Check out his search method. Coud you do better?

Irrelevant.

His method was prescribed - he followed the methodology of Naomi Oreskes whose bungled litsearch he was updating. Which you knew but forgot to mention, right?

Got some catching up to do as TB, raised a point: yes in both cases the research was less than optimal : they did a literature search for articles that mentioned global CC. However, Oreskes's research at least had the merit of being via the Institute for Scientific Information ISI database. On the other hand, Schulte searched the , wait for it: PubliMed database: a medical database. Yes folks, that's doctors for you: they do know better than you and just about everyone else.


PS. Just for TB: you don't play chess do you, I can tell.

[turbobloke]

nigelfr said:

turbobloke said:

nigelfr said:

Hey update. Schulte did get published in the end: you can find his paper here:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/p...

Check out his search method. Coud you do better?

Irrelevant.

His method was prescribed - he followed the methodology of Naomi Oreskes whose bungled litsearch he was updating. Which you knew but forgot to mention, right?

Got some catching up to do as TB, raised a point: yes in both cases the research was less than optimal...they did a literature search for articles that mentioned global CC. However, Oreskes's research at least had the merit of being via the Institute for Scientific Information ISI database. On the other hand, Schulte searched the , wait for it: PubliMed database: a medical database. Yes folks, that's doctors for you: they do know better than you and just about everyone else.

PS. Just for TB: you don't play chess do you, I can tell.

Oh dear.

I have a copy of the Schulte paper and have actually read it.

The Schulte litsearch paper in Energy and Environment Vol 19 No 2 2008 said:

In the present study, Oreskes’ research was brought up to date by using the same search term on the same database to inspect abstracts of 539 papers published between 2004 and mid-February 2007.

Checkmate.

What you clearly also don't know or fail to remember is that Oreskes had to write in with an embarrassing correction as her first contribution told a lie (or, unfortunate error, call it what you wuill) as the search term she said she used wasn't the search term she used.

An embarrassed Oreskes and equally embarrassed scientific journal that shall remain nameless to prevent more blushes said:

CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS: Essays: “The scientific consensus on climate change” by N. Oreskes (3 Dec. 2004, p. 1686). The final sentence of the fifth paragraph should read “That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords ‘global climate change’ (9).” The keywords used were “global climate change,” not “climate change.”

[nigelfr]

I don't believe it, TB, you're right: he did in fact carry out two searches, one on the Pub Med database and one on the ISI database. Well done I stand corrected.

[ludo]

nigelfr said:

I don't believe it, TB, you're right: he did in fact carry out two searches, one on the Pub Med database and one on the ISI database. Well done I stand corrected.

Whether either Oreskes or Schulte had the background to properly assess the content of the papers remains debatable, unlike the paper I posted earlier that debunks the myth of a global cooling concensus in the seventies.

ETA: The myth was promulgated by the media (e.g. Newsweek), the study shows that the primary scientific litterature of the time showed no such consensus predicting global cooling existed, quite the opposite.

Edited by ludo on Sunday 3rd August 16:26

[nigelfr]

turbobloke said:

What you clearly also don't know or fail to remember is that Oreskes had to write in with an embarrassing correction as her first contribution told a lie (or, unfortunate error, call it what you wuill) as the search term she said she used wasn't the search term she used.

An embarrassed Oreskes and equally embarrassed scientific journal that shall remain nameless to prevent more blushes said:

CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS: Essays: “The scientific consensus on climate change” by N. Oreskes (3 Dec. 2004, p. 1686). The final sentence of the fifth paragraph should read “That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords ‘global climate change’ (9).” The keywords used were “global climate change,” not “climate change.”

[quote]

Humm, that bit in bold above looks suspicious: are you cut and pasting again, TB? It might be useful if you directed us to your sources:

[turbobloke]

ludo said:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006...

RealClimate said:

The ice age is coming, the sun’s zooming in / Engines stop running and the wheat is growing thin /A nuclear error, but I have no fear /’Cause London is drowning, and I live by the river (chorus from Londons Calling, by Strummer/Jones, 1979).

Of course nobody would be so dumb as to attempt to counter the claim that the global cooling consensus of the seventies was largely an invention of the media by quoting a Newsweek article.

Sure, that's why nobody did, that's why somebody said that the reporting of the time was intriguing in view of today's MMGWT junk science environnment

In the post referred to by ludocrous I said:

Reporting at the time is amusing in the context of today's febrile MMGWT junk science atmosphere

Not a mention of claiming to illustrate a consensus.

Hey ludo nigelfr will be along soon to tell you that you don't play chess

Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 3rd August 16:58

[turbobloke]

ludo said:

nigelfr said:

I don't believe it, TB, you're right: he did in fact carry out two searches, one on the Pub Med database and one on the ISI database. Well done I stand corrected.

Whether either Oreskes or Schulte had the background to properly assess the content of the papers remains debatable, unlike the paper I posted earlier that debunks the myth of a global cooling concensus in the seventies.

Crashed and burned again wtf are you drivelling on about, two searches? The published paper, which we were debating, had the results of a search of the same database as used by Oreskes in her original cock up. You claimed it wasn't, D'oh

Would you like to dispute some more stats on green taxes from a government website, after all, if we're debating government green taxes we really ought to use the government's definition of green taxes not yours or mine, just as when we're discussing Schulte's paper and I explain the methodology which you then dispute, we really ought to concern ourselves with the database he used for his litsearch in the E&E paper

You're on a roll here nigelfr

[turbobloke]

The ice age is coming, the sun’s zooming in
Engines stop running, the wheat is growing thin
A nuclear era, but I have no fear
’Cause London is drowning, and I live by the river

The Clash
“London Calling,”
1979

[ludo]

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/p...

Schulte said:

This prompted me to review the literature available on "climate change and health" via PubMed (url). The search found 787 articles of which ... blah blah blah

Edited by ludo on Sunday 3rd August 16:39

[ludo]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006...

RealClimate said:

The ice age is coming, the sun’s zooming in / Engines stop running and the wheat is growing thin /A nuclear error, but I have no fear /’Cause London is drowning, and I live by the river (chorus from Londons Calling, by Strummer/Jones, 1979).

Of course nobody would be so dumb as to attempt to counter the claim that the global cooling consensus of the seventies was largely an invention of the media by quoting a Newsweek article

[turbobloke]

ludo said:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/p...

Schulte said:

This prompted me to review the literature available on "climate change and health" via PubMed (url). The search found 787 articles of which ... blah blah blah

I already answered that, it's irrelevant if he looked in yellow pages and wrote about that too - the same reprint paper you have linked to says the same as the paper I have only a page or so further on:

In the present study, Oreskes’ research was brought up to date by using the same search term on the same database to inspect abstracts of 539 papers published between 2004 and mid-February 2007.

NB "In the present study..." not "I used Yelow Pages" or some other database mentioned in the preamble relating to his motivation for the actual study.

We were discussing HIS ACTUAL STUDY.

Replying to the n'th bit nonsense from nigelfr I said that when Schulte updated the Oreskes litsearch his approach was prescribed, to update Oreskes original bungling he had to use the same methodology as Oreskes.

And hey ho I was right, Schulte did indeed - in the energy and Environment paper - use the same database as Oreskes. If he looked at his shopping list for motivation or as a preamble, or visited fvckthedata.org to laugh at the latest hunour in computer gigo, so what? It's irrelevant as you (both) know.

If True believers want to play games at your level simply toddle off to your nearest comprehensive, mattikake will be your guide, losers.

[ludo]

turbobloke said:

ludo said:

nigelfr said:

I don't believe it, TB, you're right: he did in fact carry out two searches, one on the Pub Med database and one on the ISI database. Well done I stand corrected.

Whether either Oreskes or Schulte had the background to properly assess the content of the papers remains debatable, unlike the paper I posted earlier that debunks the myth of a global cooling concensus in the seventies.

Crashed and burned again wtf are you drivelling on about, two searches? The published paper, which we were debating, had the results of a search of the same database as used by Oreskes in her original cock up. You claimed it wasn't, D'oh

Obviously turbobloke has only read the abstract of the paper, othewise he would know that Schulte did indeed perform two searches, not one, as nigelfr correctly states.

Edited by ludo on Sunday 3rd August 16:59

[turbobloke]

ludo said:

turbobloke said:

ludo said:

nigelfr said:

I don't believe it, TB, you're right: he did in fact carry out two searches, one on the Pub Med database and one on the ISI database. Well done I stand corrected.

Whether either Oreskes or Schulte had the background to properly assess the content of the paperHey ludo nigelfr will be along soon to tell you that you don't play chess
s remains debatable, unlike the paper I posted earlier that debunks the myth of a global cooling concensus in the seventies.

Crashed and burned again wtf are you drivelling on about, two searches? The published paper, which we were debating, had the results of a search of the same database as used by Oreskes in her original cock up. You claimed it wasn't, D'oh

If you could get your quoting right that would help.

What i said there is exactly what I'm saying now.

It doesn't matter HOW MANY FG SEARCHES he carried out as a preamble, the one used for the ACTUAL FINDINGS in his PAPER was the database bungled by Oreskes.

Jeez you're meant to be an academic, how thick are you? UEA level or worse?

Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 3rd August 17:02

[turbobloke]

ludo said:

turbobloke said:

ludo said:

nigelfr said:

I don't believe it, TB, you're right: he did in fact carry out two searches, one on the Pub Med database and one on the ISI database. Well done I stand corrected.

Whether either Oreskes or Schulte had the background to properly assess the content of the papers remains debatable, unlike the paper I posted earlier that debunks the myth of a global cooling concensus in the seventies.

Crashed and burned again wtf are you drivelling on about, two searches? The published paper, which we were debating, had the results of a search of the same database as used by Oreskes in her original cock up. You claimed it wasn't, D'oh

Obviously turbobloke has only read the abstract of the paper, othewise he would know that Schulte did indeed perform two searches, not one, as nigelfr correctly states

Fopr the result in the actual study he used the same database as used by oreskes.

The paper shows the prelim search was part of a preamble.

I have the entire paper, and read it long before you and fellow true Believer Googled a reprint on the web.

Next.