Climategate independently proven to be a storm in a tea cup
Discussion
Has there been any whitewash splashing around recently?
Is there anything political happening?
Anybody would think the political parties had made a big deal of non-existent manmade-up warming, yet they're all so scared of the public's grip on reality that it hasn't featured at all, they must have forgotten telling us it's a bigger threat than terrorism and soon we'll all be living on a small patch of remaining ice, together with a few remaining polar bears, at the north pole.
Is there anything political happening?
Anybody would think the political parties had made a big deal of non-existent manmade-up warming, yet they're all so scared of the public's grip on reality that it hasn't featured at all, they must have forgotten telling us it's a bigger threat than terrorism and soon we'll all be living on a small patch of remaining ice, together with a few remaining polar bears, at the north pole.
ludo said:
Diderot said:
ludo said:
Diderot said:
Oh and I nearly forgot, you still haven't answered the question. But in the meantime, I'll add another to the list: if you can tell us what the significance of the 30 year trend is, can you establish its cause?
so you STILL don't understand. "statistical significant" just means that the trend is sufficiently steep that we can be sure it isn't just an effect of short term variability. If you actually bothered to read my posts, you would have got that by now. Whether the trend represents a significant problem is an economic/political question. As to attribution, CO2 is the best explanation, it as volcanic and solar forcings can't explain it.Have you at least got the point that the trend is independent of the baseline? At least then we would have made some progress.
You're tying yourself in knots again Ludo. You cannot separate out the science from the economics and politics; they are inextricably intertwined.
Why is CO2 the 'best' explanation (oh and before you trot out that occam's razor get-out-clause meme) you'll have to do better than that.
And how can you - or anyone else - be 'sure' that short term variability isn't effecting the insignificant trend? Simple answer is you cannot. Define short term. Define the significance of such a term?
Maybe you should give that advice to Phil Jones at the CRU. Oh wait...ludo said:
Diderot said:
Oh and I nearly forgot, you still haven't answered the question. But in the meantime, I'll add another to the list: if you can tell us what the significance of the 30 year trend is, can you establish its cause?
so you STILL don't understand. "statistical significant" just means that the trend is sufficiently steep that we can be sure it isn't just an effect of short term variability. If you actually bothered to read my posts, you would have got that by now. Whether the trend represents a significant problem is an economic/political question. As to attribution, CO2 is the best explanation, it as volcanic and solar forcings can't explain it.Have you at least got the point that the trend is independent of the baseline? At least then we would have made some progress.
It's totally non-sensical!
How can you have 'statistical significant'?
Is it meant to read 'statistical significance'?
And as for the end of the last sentence,
'it as volcanic and solar forcings can't explain it.'
WTF does that mean!!?
ludo said:
1. Yes, they are manipulated and adjusted by climate skeptics. Do you think they are going to manipulate and adjust them in a way that supports a pro-AGW conclusion?
2. All datasets have to be manupulated and adjusted if there are known issues and discontinuities, such as changing satelites or instruments in satelites, so that objection is a little absurd.
3. We are talking about the UAH data, not surface temperature.
4. Right, so just because satelites don't last forever, you are going to disregard the data they produce?
5. Right, it seems to me that your objection is solely that the raw data from the satelite needs adjustments to be made for known problems? Adjustments made by climate-sceptics who would hardly be in on the IPCC conspiracy to fudge the data?
5. first the fifth point, as a summary. You are still focussed just on UAH and the idea that pro-warming data has come from supposed sceptics. I was referring, as a reason for my nervousness about believing in all the (various!) satellite sourced data/ arguments to adjustments made, necessarily, by all teams. Unless they/ you can prove that the form of adjustment is scientifically/ mathematically accurate and valid then I'll have doubts. There has been a lot of focus by warmists on adjusted data and models/ simulations - at least some of which we know enough about to be justifiably sceptical. I'd be more convinced if they had enough raw data, collected fairly, and unsullied, to argue the case. They haven't and don't.2. All datasets have to be manupulated and adjusted if there are known issues and discontinuities, such as changing satelites or instruments in satelites, so that objection is a little absurd.
3. We are talking about the UAH data, not surface temperature.
4. Right, so just because satelites don't last forever, you are going to disregard the data they produce?
5. Right, it seems to me that your objection is solely that the raw data from the satelite needs adjustments to be made for known problems? Adjustments made by climate-sceptics who would hardly be in on the IPCC conspiracy to fudge the data?
1. So back to your first; no I don't but I had already said that my doubts about satellite data/ satellite backed suppositions related to more than UAH and does include work by non-sceptics using satellite data, as I'm sure you know.
2. Your second point is as absurd as your accusation of absurdity. You missed the clear inference that, as above, I am wary of any data that has to be adjusted unless I know the adjustments were done correctly/ accurately and without bias. This is not true of some data reports where there is clear evidence of codging. It wan't an objection - certainly not against UAH - it was the general point that adjustment is prone to inaccuracy or worse (tampering) so I would be unwilling to set my life course and economic decisions on the basis of arguments built on 'adjustments', unless as above, again, they were demonstrably sound. Raw data would be more convincing etc. but what there is isn't reliable enough to build a sufficiently convincing case on.
3. I was referring again to the attempts to correlate surface temperatures (taken or posited, including for your trends) with satellite data. Particularly to the attempts to justify claims made on the basis of the very dubious collection and use of surface temperatures by suggesting that satellite measurements - of different things made in different ways, including the 'adjustments' - prove the use of and claims through the surface temperatures recorded were correct! We've seen some stuff that looks suspiciously like trying to make 'reality' fit the hypothesis/ models. So I wasn't just talking about UAH even though you'd like to limit me to this.
4. That is silly. I've already said why I would be wary of some claims based on satellite measurements. I never went so far as to say I would disregard all satellite derived data, just that I don't think all of it used can be demonstrated to be sound or straight. Excessive or incompetent or corrupt adjustment and computer based 'correlation' could be one source of error/ bias.
Additionally, even if the various figures derived - including those from UAH - were accurate the trend and claims of future temperatures they/ you quote wouldn't worry me so much that I'd be willing to do the damage the IPCC, UN and HMG are set to do to try to find a limiter.
ludo said:
so you STILL don't understand. "statistical significant" just means that the trend is sufficiently steep that we can be sure it isn't just an effect of short term variability. If you actually bothered to read my posts, you would have got that by now. Whether the trend represents a significant problem is an economic/political question . As to attribution, CO2 is the best explanation, it as volcanic and solar forcings can't explain it.Have you at least got the point that the trend is independent of the baseline? At least then we would have made some progress.
Jasandjules said:
ludo said:
so you STILL don't understand. "statistical significant" just means that the trend is sufficiently steep that we can be sure it isn't just an effect of short term variability. If you actually bothered to read my posts, you would have got that by now. Whether the trend represents a significant problem is an economic/political question . As to attribution, CO2 is the best explanation, it as volcanic and solar forcings can't explain it.Have you at least got the point that the trend is independent of the baseline? At least then we would have made some progress.
"As to attribution, CO2 is the best explanation, it as volcanic and solar forcings can't explain it."
Again, solar can explain 'it' when alongside other natural forcings.
The only way solar cannot explain it is to:
- consider unamplified TSI, when 5x to 7x amplification is known (Shaviv 2008)
- consider TSI (irradiance) alone as the solar forcing, when eruptivity operates vis CRF and auroral oval mechanisms
- cherry pick the start and end periods of a consideration of recent solar forcing
- ignore solar-to-climate lagtime
- use temperature data for the comparison which is contaminated with UHIE and LULC and then subjected to torture in order for it to confess
Which, oddly enough, represents the exact position which is being referred to in the claim that solar cannot explain 'it'.
Then the fantasy really kicks in as carbon dioxide can explain precisely nothing. There is no visible causal signal from human carbon dioxide to climate in global temperature data. No such signal has ever been published or posted.
In summary, carbon dioxide can explain nothing whereas together with ENSO and volcanism, solar forcing can explain everything on the timescales being considered. Given that solar inputs and ocean-atmosphere cycles drive climate and have driven it for millions and billions of years with various feedbacks on top, this is not a surprise.
Jasandjules' comment about politics driving science can only partly explain this curious state of affairs where reality is inverted and straight-faced claims are made to a fictional world where only brassneck can articulate such claims. Economics and politics have no hold over nature and can only look back on it.
We may be seeing more of this:"scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence" (Hulme)
Truth cannot be traded, on here or anywhere else, it can only be recognised or perverted. Repeated assertions of terminological inexactitudes can only suggest that the Hulme approach is being implemented.
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 18th April 08:35
Jasandjules said:
ludo said:
so you STILL don't understand. "statistical significant" just means that the trend is sufficiently steep that we can be sure it isn't just an effect of short term variability. If you actually bothered to read my posts, you would have got that by now. Whether the trend represents a significant problem is an economic/political question . As to attribution, CO2 is the best explanation, it as volcanic and solar forcings can't explain it.Have you at least got the point that the trend is independent of the baseline? At least then we would have made some progress.
1. Whether there is a trend at all - this is where statistical significance comes in
and
2. What the likely consequences of this trend will be - this is where the modelling comes in.
The economic and political question then becomes what, if anything, should be done.
Somewhatfoolish said:
Jasandjules said:
ludo said:
so you STILL don't understand. "statistical significant" just means that the trend is sufficiently steep that we can be sure it isn't just an effect of short term variability. If you actually bothered to read my posts, you would have got that by now. Whether the trend represents a significant problem is an economic/political question . As to attribution, CO2 is the best explanation, it as volcanic and solar forcings can't explain it.Have you at least got the point that the trend is independent of the baseline? At least then we would have made some progress.
1. Whether there is a trend at all - this is where statistical significance comes in
and
2. What the likely consequences of this trend will be - this is where the modelling comes in.
The economic and political question then becomes what, if anything, should be done.
3) To demonstrate the link between man made CO2 emissions and Climate Change. How's that going?
odyssey2200 said:
We have been waiting for an answer to that one for well over a year now!
We didn't have long to wait for the wash of the white.
"Lord Oxburgh himself is linked to various commercial interests which make money from climate change, from wind farms to carbon trading. None of the panel he worked with on his report were climate “sceptics”; and one, Dr Kerry Emanuel, is an outspoken advocate of man-made global warming. Even so, it was surprising to see just how superficial their inquiry turned out to be, based on two brief visits to the CRU and on reading 11 scientific papers produced by the research unit in the past 24 years, chosen in consultation with the Royal Society (which is itself fanatical in promotion of warming orthodoxy)."
Click
One of the comments, due to 'Amerloque': "AGW is a scientific, intellectual, political, financial and moral scam."
Somewhatfoolish said:
Jasandjules said:
ludo said:
so you STILL don't understand. "statistical significant" just means that the trend is sufficiently steep that we can be sure it isn't just an effect of short term variability. If you actually bothered to read my posts, you would have got that by now. Whether the trend represents a significant problem is an economic/political question . As to attribution, CO2 is the best explanation, it as volcanic and solar forcings can't explain it.Have you at least got the point that the trend is independent of the baseline? At least then we would have made some progress.
1. Whether there is a trend at all - this is where statistical significance comes in
and
2. What the likely consequences of this trend will be - this is where the modelling comes in.
The economic and political question then becomes what, if anything, should be done.
The reality is that the politicians have always been driving this scam from the earliest days; and as I've said many times before they couldn't give a toss about what the science says as long as they can control it. Hence, the absurd statement 'the science is settled', which roughly translated means: scientists bought buy us have been able to manipulate the data to show what we want it to show, now bend over, lube up, because we're going to be shafting you silly for your tax dollars.
You imagine it's about saving the world from an increase in temperature of 1 or 2 degrees C? Don't make me laugh. Of course it's not. It's about oil and gas, political and economic control of energy in general, it's about buttf
king all those problematic producers of oil/gas (OPEC, Malaysia, ex-USSR etc) and especially rendering the Middle east medieval, keeping the third world countries in bare feet and dependent on handouts, arresting the growth of the developing countries wherever and however possible, feathering nests and lining pockets and creating a world gubbermint via a new and seriously punitive tax regime. It is, in essence, a neo-marxist, redistribution of wealth scam from start to finish. The laughable thing is that advocacy groups and NGOs like Greenpeas, Fiends of the Earth and WWF believe they're driving the agenda; they are deluding themselves too. They've been bought and are being used like the scientists and they will, when they're no longer useful, be tossed aside. Thankfully, mother nature seems to be having other ideas...
Diderot said:
Somewhatfoolish said:
Jasandjules said:
ludo said:
so you STILL don't understand. "statistical significant" just means that the trend is sufficiently steep that we can be sure it isn't just an effect of short term variability. If you actually bothered to read my posts, you would have got that by now. Whether the trend represents a significant problem is an economic/political question . As to attribution, CO2 is the best explanation, it as volcanic and solar forcings can't explain it.Have you at least got the point that the trend is independent of the baseline? At least then we would have made some progress.
1. Whether there is a trend at all - this is where statistical significance comes in
and
2. What the likely consequences of this trend will be - this is where the modelling comes in.
The economic and political question then becomes what, if anything, should be done.
The reality is that the politicians have always been driving this scam from the earliest days; and as I've said many times before they couldn't give a toss about what the science says as long as they can control it. Hence, the absurd statement 'the science is settled', which roughly translated means: scientists bought buy us have been able to manipulate the data to show what we want it to show, now bend over, lube up, because we're going to be shafting you silly for your tax dollars.
You imagine it's about saving the world from an increase in temperature of 1 or 2 degrees C? Don't make me laugh. Of course it's not. It's about oil and gas, political and economic control of energy in general, it's about buttf
king all those problematic producers of oil/gas (OPEC, Malaysia, ex-USSR etc) and especially rendering the Middle east medieval, keeping the third world countries in bare feet and dependent on handouts, arresting the growth of the developing countries wherever and however possible, feathering nests and lining pockets and creating a world gubbermint via a new and seriously punitive tax regime. It is, in essence, a neo-marxist, redistribution of wealth scam from start to finish. The laughable thing is that advocacy groups and NGOs like Greenpeas, Fiends of the Earth and WWF believe they're driving the agenda; they are deluding themselves too. They've been bought and are being used like the scientists and they will, when they're no longer useful, be tossed aside. Thankfully, mother nature seems to be having other ideas...
Attacking the science? That sounds a tad uncouth.
The science of manmadeup warming is simply extremely weak to the point of collapse, with no human signal visible in (etc) and inadequate modelling used in its place, plus covert admissions between its strongest public advocates that it cannot explain even what's not there, there's nothing to 'attack'.
Anybody with a suitable grip on the science and a disinterested approach can see there's nothing there to 'attack', what gets 'attacked' therefore is indeed the politics as politics is all there is of MMUGW, a smash and grab raid on an uninformed and propagandised public for tax and control, hiding behind a figleaf of tortured data and an ideological flag of convenience.
The science of manmadeup warming is simply extremely weak to the point of collapse, with no human signal visible in (etc) and inadequate modelling used in its place, plus covert admissions between its strongest public advocates that it cannot explain even what's not there, there's nothing to 'attack'.
Anybody with a suitable grip on the science and a disinterested approach can see there's nothing there to 'attack', what gets 'attacked' therefore is indeed the politics as politics is all there is of MMUGW, a smash and grab raid on an uninformed and propagandised public for tax and control, hiding behind a figleaf of tortured data and an ideological flag of convenience.
Somewhatfoolish said:
Diderot said:
Somewhatfoolish said:
Jasandjules said:
ludo said:
so you STILL don't understand. "statistical significant" just means that the trend is sufficiently steep that we can be sure it isn't just an effect of short term variability. If you actually bothered to read my posts, you would have got that by now. Whether the trend represents a significant problem is an economic/political question . As to attribution, CO2 is the best explanation, it as volcanic and solar forcings can't explain it.Have you at least got the point that the trend is independent of the baseline? At least then we would have made some progress.
1. Whether there is a trend at all - this is where statistical significance comes in
and
2. What the likely consequences of this trend will be - this is where the modelling comes in.
The economic and political question then becomes what, if anything, should be done.
The reality is that the politicians have always been driving this scam from the earliest days; and as I've said many times before they couldn't give a toss about what the science says as long as they can control it. Hence, the absurd statement 'the science is settled', which roughly translated means: scientists bought buy us have been able to manipulate the data to show what we want it to show, now bend over, lube up, because we're going to be shafting you silly for your tax dollars.
You imagine it's about saving the world from an increase in temperature of 1 or 2 degrees C? Don't make me laugh. Of course it's not. It's about oil and gas, political and economic control of energy in general, it's about buttf
king all those problematic producers of oil/gas (OPEC, Malaysia, ex-USSR etc) and especially rendering the Middle east medieval, keeping the third world countries in bare feet and dependent on handouts, arresting the growth of the developing countries wherever and however possible, feathering nests and lining pockets and creating a world gubbermint via a new and seriously punitive tax regime. It is, in essence, a neo-marxist, redistribution of wealth scam from start to finish. The laughable thing is that advocacy groups and NGOs like Greenpeas, Fiends of the Earth and WWF believe they're driving the agenda; they are deluding themselves too. They've been bought and are being used like the scientists and they will, when they're no longer useful, be tossed aside. Thankfully, mother nature seems to be having other ideas...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff