Climate Cat out of the Bag? Potentially dynamite revelations
Discussion
G_T said:
mondeoman said:
When the few bad apples are the ones at the top of the tree, the ones that supply the majority of the data for the modellers to work from and the data is shown to be, shall we say, compromised, then yes, a few bad apples can and have spolied the bunch.
But that doesn't reflect the state of the science does it?If numerous other parties concerned are drawing the same conclusions (and they are) the failings of one group becomes less relevant. The scientific method is not as interdepenent and flimsey as a lot of people here seem to think it is.
Conclusions drawn solely from "bad data" shouldn be revised though. But I think the counter-arguement here is that there weren't any.
I'm not certain of course, but that would explain the lack of coverage more so than a media blackout.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/a...
Oakey said:
G_T said:
Oakey said:
G_T said:
Einion Yrth said:
G_T said:
the biggest conspiracy in human history. Quite frankly I find the prospect of MMGW far less frightening.
What you do or do not find frightening is quite spectacularly irrelevant.You don't find it convenient then, that less than a week after this leak, Michael Mann has solved the MWP issue and the BBC are happily reporting this despite the fact Michael Mann's credibility has been called into question?
It's also very well timed in relation to Hopenfakem.s.m.h. said:
No-one has said exactly how much data is shared between the contributors to the IPCC.
I read somewhere the CRU were the largest and most influential of them all.
If they are found, as seems, to have been falsifying data for who-evers benefit, then all the data must be questioned.
Also the point of the same groups of people making up the peer review board, passing whatever they wanted as fact and ejecting those whose opinions did not suit.
The BBC may not see it as newsworthy, but 8million plus on Google search would indicate there's another reason for their lack of interest.
I think the emails won't be the most damning part. Once the data has been thoroughly examined, I think there will be some major problems. This as I understand, may take months , with Copenhagen in a few weeks I can't see that anyone without a vested interest in the whole carbon trading BS would be wanting to sign anything.
I've got the report in front of me and the list of contributing authors is a lot more diverse than that;I read somewhere the CRU were the largest and most influential of them all.
If they are found, as seems, to have been falsifying data for who-evers benefit, then all the data must be questioned.
Also the point of the same groups of people making up the peer review board, passing whatever they wanted as fact and ejecting those whose opinions did not suit.
The BBC may not see it as newsworthy, but 8million plus on Google search would indicate there's another reason for their lack of interest.
I think the emails won't be the most damning part. Once the data has been thoroughly examined, I think there will be some major problems. This as I understand, may take months , with Copenhagen in a few weeks I can't see that anyone without a vested interest in the whole carbon trading BS would be wanting to sign anything.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/a...
Granted that doesn't show the weight of individual contributions but if you cast your eye over the metodology you'll also see very little signs of a heavy reliance on their data.
G_T said:
mondeoman said:
When the few bad apples are the ones at the top of the tree, the ones that supply the majority of the data for the modellers to work from and the data is shown to be, shall we say, compromised, then yes, a few bad apples can and have spolied the bunch.
But that doesn't reflect the state of the science does it?If numerous other parties concerned are drawing the same conclusions (and they are) the failings of one group becomes less relevant. The scientific method is not as interdepenent and flimsey as a lot of people here seem to think it is.
Conclusions drawn solely from "bad data" shouldn be revised though. But I think the counter-arguement here is that there weren't any.
I'm not certain of course, but that would explain the lack of coverage more so than a media blackout.
G_T said:
s.m.h. said:
No-one has said exactly how much data is shared between the contributors to the IPCC.
I read somewhere the CRU were the largest and most influential of them all.
If they are found, as seems, to have been falsifying data for who-evers benefit, then all the data must be questioned.
Also the point of the same groups of people making up the peer review board, passing whatever they wanted as fact and ejecting those whose opinions did not suit.
The BBC may not see it as newsworthy, but 8million plus on Google search would indicate there's another reason for their lack of interest.
I think the emails won't be the most damning part. Once the data has been thoroughly examined, I think there will be some major problems. This as I understand, may take months , with Copenhagen in a few weeks I can't see that anyone without a vested interest in the whole carbon trading BS would be wanting to sign anything.
I've got the report in front of me and the list of contributing authors is a lot more diverse than that;I read somewhere the CRU were the largest and most influential of them all.
If they are found, as seems, to have been falsifying data for who-evers benefit, then all the data must be questioned.
Also the point of the same groups of people making up the peer review board, passing whatever they wanted as fact and ejecting those whose opinions did not suit.
The BBC may not see it as newsworthy, but 8million plus on Google search would indicate there's another reason for their lack of interest.
I think the emails won't be the most damning part. Once the data has been thoroughly examined, I think there will be some major problems. This as I understand, may take months , with Copenhagen in a few weeks I can't see that anyone without a vested interest in the whole carbon trading BS would be wanting to sign anything.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/a...
Granted that doesn't show the weight of individual contributions but if you cast your eye over the metodology you'll also see very little signs of a heavy reliance on their data.
Observations:
Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change
Coordinating Lead Authors:
Kevin E. Trenberth (USA), Philip D. Jones (UK)
and who are these two exactly - ahh yes, now I remember!
mondeoman said:
G_T said:
mondeoman said:
When the few bad apples are the ones at the top of the tree, the ones that supply the majority of the data for the modellers to work from and the data is shown to be, shall we say, compromised, then yes, a few bad apples can and have spolied the bunch.
But that doesn't reflect the state of the science does it?If numerous other parties concerned are drawing the same conclusions (and they are) the failings of one group becomes less relevant. The scientific method is not as interdepenent and flimsey as a lot of people here seem to think it is.
Conclusions drawn solely from "bad data" shouldn be revised though. But I think the counter-arguement here is that there weren't any.
I'm not certain of course, but that would explain the lack of coverage more so than a media blackout.
Decisions on policy should be, and I suspect are, based on the IPCC guidelines. If they were not then it begs the question why on Earth would they invest so heavily in an organisation they would subsequently ignore and then rely on single research institutions?
However the IPCC report uses some of the data that is allededly corrupt. But the report does not rely solely on the data. If you have read the report you will know this.
If this is not correct then please point me to the section that undermines the integrity of the document by using the CRU's data because from what I can see here no such section exists. Fact or fiction, it appears to be a well written referenced scientific report.
G_T said:
I've got the report in front of me and the list of contributing authors is a lot more diverse than that;
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/a...
Granted that doesn't show the weight of individual contributions but if you cast your eye over the metodology you'll also see very little signs of a heavy reliance on their data.
Perhaps not but the lines from the above; "By 1940 the adjustments were 0.4°C for the global average and approached 1°C in winter over the Gulf Stream and Kuroshio" because "The simulated decadal and longer-term variations of land surface air temperatures on global and continental scales were much better when the model was driven with adjusted than with unadjusted SSTs, providing strong support to the SST adjustments globally" looks more like result fixing than scientific enquiry......http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/a...
Granted that doesn't show the weight of individual contributions but if you cast your eye over the metodology you'll also see very little signs of a heavy reliance on their data.
and another gem from the above:
"Assessment of potential homogeneity problems in a network of 60 daily maximum and minimum temperature series, for Europe for the 20th century by Wijngaard et al. (2003), suggests that 94% of series should be classed as of doubtful homogeneity."
mondeoman said:
G_T said:
s.m.h. said:
No-one has said exactly how much data is shared between the contributors to the IPCC.
I read somewhere the CRU were the largest and most influential of them all.
If they are found, as seems, to have been falsifying data for who-evers benefit, then all the data must be questioned.
Also the point of the same groups of people making up the peer review board, passing whatever they wanted as fact and ejecting those whose opinions did not suit.
The BBC may not see it as newsworthy, but 8million plus on Google search would indicate there's another reason for their lack of interest.
I think the emails won't be the most damning part. Once the data has been thoroughly examined, I think there will be some major problems. This as I understand, may take months , with Copenhagen in a few weeks I can't see that anyone without a vested interest in the whole carbon trading BS would be wanting to sign anything.
I've got the report in front of me and the list of contributing authors is a lot more diverse than that;I read somewhere the CRU were the largest and most influential of them all.
If they are found, as seems, to have been falsifying data for who-evers benefit, then all the data must be questioned.
Also the point of the same groups of people making up the peer review board, passing whatever they wanted as fact and ejecting those whose opinions did not suit.
The BBC may not see it as newsworthy, but 8million plus on Google search would indicate there's another reason for their lack of interest.
I think the emails won't be the most damning part. Once the data has been thoroughly examined, I think there will be some major problems. This as I understand, may take months , with Copenhagen in a few weeks I can't see that anyone without a vested interest in the whole carbon trading BS would be wanting to sign anything.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/a...
Granted that doesn't show the weight of individual contributions but if you cast your eye over the metodology you'll also see very little signs of a heavy reliance on their data.
Observations:
Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change
Coordinating Lead Authors:
Kevin E. Trenberth (USA), Philip D. Jones (UK)
and who are these two exactly - ahh yes, now I remember!
The claim here is that by extension their poor data renders the whole document (and subsequently MMGW) to be false. I am simply asking you to show me where this is the case as it's not uncommon for literature reviews to rely on suspect references (although obviously they shouldn't!).
G_T said:
mondeoman said:
G_T said:
mondeoman said:
When the few bad apples are the ones at the top of the tree, the ones that supply the majority of the data for the modellers to work from and the data is shown to be, shall we say, compromised, then yes, a few bad apples can and have spolied the bunch.
But that doesn't reflect the state of the science does it?If numerous other parties concerned are drawing the same conclusions (and they are) the failings of one group becomes less relevant. The scientific method is not as interdepenent and flimsey as a lot of people here seem to think it is.
Conclusions drawn solely from "bad data" shouldn be revised though. But I think the counter-arguement here is that there weren't any.
I'm not certain of course, but that would explain the lack of coverage more so than a media blackout.
Decisions on policy should be, and I suspect are, based on the IPCC guidelines. If they were not then it begs the question why on Earth would they invest so heavily in an organisation they would subsequently ignore and then rely on single research institutions?
However the IPCC report uses some of the data that is allededly corrupt. But the report does not rely solely on the data. If you have read the report you will know this.
If this is not correct then please point me to the section that undermines the integrity of the document by using the CRU's data because from what I can see here no such section exists. Fact or fiction, it appears to be a well written referenced scientific report.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/
s2art said:
But, again, that only shows a flaw in the "surface trend data" and observations derived from that.In my limited understanding that is not the crux of the arguement. So if the overall conclusion is that MMGW is real, caused by rising CO2 etc. then that still stands?
You could of course argue that this is just one of many flaws in the evidence that renders the whole MMGW debate over. But that being the case I'm curious why this one event is "the straw that broke the camel's back" on the skeptics side?
G_T said:
However the IPCC report uses some of the data that is allededly corrupt. But the report does not rely solely on the data. If you have read the report you will know this.
If this is not correct then please point me to the section that undermines the integrity of the document by using the CRU's data because from what I can see here no such section exists. Fact or fiction, it appears to be a well written referenced scientific report.
G_T, TB alluded to this beforeIf this is not correct then please point me to the section that undermines the integrity of the document by using the CRU's data because from what I can see here no such section exists. Fact or fiction, it appears to be a well written referenced scientific report.
ludo said "no, I am pointing out that if you actually read the IPCC reports, you will find out that they don't rely on data/papers/models produced by the CRU, as they also use data/papers/models produced by other, often completely independent groups."
TB responded, "If you read IPCC reports you will be reading material based on three interdependent datasets of groundstation temperatures of which CRU-TAR ho ho is the pre-eminent example (example of a contaminated dataset with inflated imaginary warming that then gets explained using climate magic and airfix models)."
maybe he could elaborate....
G_T said:
s2art said:
But, again, that only shows a flaw in the "surface trend data" and observations derived from that.In my limited understanding that is not the crux of the arguement. So if the overall conclusion is that MMGW is real, caused by rising CO2 etc. then that still stands?
[n]You could of course argue that this is just one of many flaws in the evidence that renders the whole MMGW debate over.[/b] But that being the case I'm curious why this one event is "the straw that broke the camel's back" on the skeptics side?
I'd like to think that the majority of us don't think the debate is over; rather we'd like to think that it was about to start.
G_T said:
s2art said:
But, again, that only shows a flaw in the "surface trend data" and observations derived from that.In my limited understanding that is not the crux of the arguement. So if the overall conclusion is that MMGW is real, caused by rising CO2 etc. then that still stands?
You could of course argue that this is just one of many flaws in the evidence that renders the whole MMGW debate over. But that being the case I'm curious why this one event is "the straw that broke the camel's back" on the Realists side?
I was puzzled by the Question Time audience reaction to "Climategate" last night. At least 90% of the audience seemed totally convinced that MMGW is a clear and imminent threat.
Earlier, there was a one hour long phone-in on LBC, where the presenter expressed shock that *all* the callers were "sceptics". How could one random selection of the public be so different to another in their views?
A quick analysis of the comments on the BBC's website provides no help.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy...
Of the 156 comments posted between 23:06 last night and 9:56 this morning, 94 were about Climate change. This is 60.2%. This is odd, given that the BBC had not thought the issue important enough to allow a question on the issue.
Of these 94 comments, 59 (62.8%) did not believe in MMGW, 7 (4.3%) did not express an opinion, and 28 (29.8%) suggested that Climate Change is real or that something must be done about it.
These results strongly suggest that the studio audience were not a typical representative of the public at large. Coming so soon after the Nick Griffin farce, I can only conclude that audience manipulation is commonplace at the BBC.
Richard Dimbleby must be turning in his grave.
I no longer see that the BBC is in any shape or form "impartial", and sadly think that we can no longer afford a state broadcaster.
The raw dataset that I used in this research is available at the link posted above.
Don
--
Earlier, there was a one hour long phone-in on LBC, where the presenter expressed shock that *all* the callers were "sceptics". How could one random selection of the public be so different to another in their views?
A quick analysis of the comments on the BBC's website provides no help.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy...
Of the 156 comments posted between 23:06 last night and 9:56 this morning, 94 were about Climate change. This is 60.2%. This is odd, given that the BBC had not thought the issue important enough to allow a question on the issue.
Of these 94 comments, 59 (62.8%) did not believe in MMGW, 7 (4.3%) did not express an opinion, and 28 (29.8%) suggested that Climate Change is real or that something must be done about it.
These results strongly suggest that the studio audience were not a typical representative of the public at large. Coming so soon after the Nick Griffin farce, I can only conclude that audience manipulation is commonplace at the BBC.
Richard Dimbleby must be turning in his grave.
I no longer see that the BBC is in any shape or form "impartial", and sadly think that we can no longer afford a state broadcaster.
The raw dataset that I used in this research is available at the link posted above.
Don
--
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200911277503/energy-a...
link said:
You've got to feel almost sorry for Elizabeth May and George Monbiot. The leader of the Green Party and the prominent columnist and promoter of catastrophic climate change from Britain's Guardian are due, next Tuesday, to debate Danish academic Bjorn Lomborg and former British Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson in Toronto on climate change. In the latest Munk Debate, Messrs May and Monbiot will support the motion "Be it resolved climate change is mankind's defining crisis, and demands a commensurate response."
Wonder if that will be recorded, quite fancy watching the fall out on that one.B Oeuf said:
G_T said:
However the IPCC report uses some of the data that is allededly corrupt. But the report does not rely solely on the data. If you have read the report you will know this.
If this is not correct then please point me to the section that undermines the integrity of the document by using the CRU's data because from what I can see here no such section exists. Fact or fiction, it appears to be a well written referenced scientific report.
G_T, TB alluded to this beforeIf this is not correct then please point me to the section that undermines the integrity of the document by using the CRU's data because from what I can see here no such section exists. Fact or fiction, it appears to be a well written referenced scientific report.
ludo said "no, I am pointing out that if you actually read the IPCC reports, you will find out that they don't rely on data/papers/models produced by the CRU, as they also use data/papers/models produced by other, often completely independent groups."
TB responded, "If you read IPCC reports you will be reading material based on three interdependent datasets of groundstation temperatures of which CRU-TAR ho ho is the pre-eminent example (example of a contaminated dataset with inflated imaginary warming that then gets explained using climate magic and airfix models)."
maybe he could elaborate....
From where I'm sitting the GISS and NCDC data appear to support it but admittedly I'm still only on chapter 1 and I'm just flicking to and fro.
Still curious why "land based temperature trends" are so important as well. I would have thought the fact the data also appears to be complemented by the sea temperatures and other data sources would render this fraud business a moot point. As I said this doesn't appear to be crux of the MMGW arguement.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff