Climategate independently proven to be a storm in a tea cup
Discussion
ludo said:
s2art said:
ludo said:
Yes, uncritically accepting papers like Essenhigh (that should set s2art off) when they are easily demonstrated to be incorrect.
LOL! Then why havent you done so? Much easier to demonstrate the IPCC assumptions to be incorrect by just examining the atmospheric isotope profile.Somewhatfoolish said:
It's quite clear from an internet search that there's a huge controversy about whether evolution happened or god created the heavens and earth 6000 years ago. Oh, and the British Royal Family - Germans, Shape Shifting Lizards, or both?
Irrelevant.Creationists and Icke are not claiming a consensus.
Their beliefs aren't hurting anyone. They aren't forcing Laws, and rules onto all of us based on those beliefs.
They aren't forcing us to pay money towards their lizard gods either.
But, when you start making it public policy, tax people based on these ideas, and restrict trade based onthose ideas, then you damn well better have proof/ good reason.
Both creationists, and Pro-AGW supporters apply here.....as neither have 'Proof beyond reasonable doubt' that theirs beliefs are right. The difference being, creationists aren't forcing their beliefs on anyone else...where as the AGW camp is.
s2art said:
AFAICT it was a 3 week effort that produced a 5 page report, looked at a handful of papers and didnt interview any of the critics who pointed out flaws.
Basically they didnt do much and any conclusion lacks all credibility.
Again what are you basing that on? You've already proven you have very little understanding of the scientific process.Basically they didnt do much and any conclusion lacks all credibility.
I am a research auditor (although in a different capacity) and I can tell you that six people working for three weeks on a research team is very thorough indeed. By contrast we only get a couple of days at a time to interview international trial teams and we don't miss much.
Let's also not forget these men are especially trained in this subject area, and despite the bias you scream about Lord Oxbridge, the chap did review evidence for the MoD. He is very highly regarded even by Shell.
In terms of bias... The credible scientific community believes MMGW is true with very few exceptions. How do you then go on to find an impartial scientists? It is like asking evolutionary biologists to pretend evolution didn't happen for a moment to ensure they're not biased when examining fossils (or whatever it is they do).
Also is it any surprise that the same scientists, who believe MMGW is true, then chose to invest in it?
Strikes me as more common sense than bias.
Spiritual_Beggar said:
Both creationists, and Pro-AGW supporters apply here.....as neither have 'Proof beyond reasonable doubt' that theirs beliefs are right. The difference being, creationists aren't forcing their beliefs on anyone else...where as the AGW camp is.
Who are you to decide when doubt is still reasonable? Are you a figurehead in idustry? A prolific statistician? An unheard of master of science who has reviewed all the MMGW evidence and can point out why we are all foolish? If so why have you not published a paper to this end? The scientific method is always open to doubts. But if you can undermine the evidence then do so. Simply denying it exists is an affront to common sense.
G_T said:
s2art said:
AFAICT it was a 3 week effort that produced a 5 page report, looked at a handful of papers and didnt interview any of the critics who pointed out flaws.
Basically they didnt do much and any conclusion lacks all credibility.
Again what are you basing that on? You've already proven you have very little understanding of the scientific process.Basically they didnt do much and any conclusion lacks all credibility.
I am a research auditor (although in a different capacity) and I can tell you that six people working for three weeks on a research team is very thorough indeed. By contrast we only get a couple of days at a time to interview international trial teams and we don't miss much.
Let's also not forget these men are especially trained in this subject area, and despite the bias you scream about Lord Oxbridge, the chap did review evidence for the MoD. He is very highly regarded even by Shell.
In terms of bias... The credible scientific community believes MMGW is true with very few exceptions. How do you then go on to find an impartial scientists? It is like asking evolutionary biologists to pretend evolution didn't happen for a moment to ensure they're not biased when examining fossils (or whatever it is they do).
Also is it any surprise that the same scientists, who believe MMGW is true, then chose to invest in it?
Strikes me as more common sense than bias.
Whats even funnier is that you think 3 weeks and a handful of papers is sufficient to determine what the situation is. Do you know how many papers have been generated in the past couple of decades by CRU?
I cannot put it better than;
'LONDON, 14 April 2010 – The Global Warming Policy Foundation regrets that the Oxburgh Panel has been rushed and therefore extremely superficial. The body of the report is hardly five pages long. The Panel should have taken more time to arrive at more balanced and more trustworthy conclusions as there was no need to rush the inquiry.
The Panel worked by interviewing and questioning staff members of CRU, but failed to interview critical researchers who have been working in the same field for many years. The Panel even ignored, as it admits, to properly[ review their written evidence.
We welcome the acknowledgement by the Panel that the Urban Heat Island effect on surface temperatures records in and around large cities is important but poorly understood. We also welcome the admission that the IPCC ignored the expressions of uncertainty in CRU papers.
We also note, in the context of the long-term temperature record, its comment that “the potential for misleading results arising from selection bias is very great in this area. It is regrettable that so few professional statisticians have been involved in this work.”
In general, the report is being politely kind to CRU, but in essence rather critical of the disorganised and amateurish use of statistics. It is hardly an endorsement of the quality of the research being carried out at what is supposed to be the world’s leading unit which has received so much government funding.
Given the huge economic and social implications, one would expect that an independent audit would be more rigorous and more even-handed than the Oxburgh panel.
– end'
BTW I am still waiting for you to tell us what the Essenhigh paper says about the rise attributed to emissions. Dont worry, I am not holding my breath.
G_T said:
s2art said:
AFAICT it was a 3 week effort that produced a 5 page report, looked at a handful of papers and didnt interview any of the critics who pointed out flaws.
Basically they didnt do much and any conclusion lacks all credibility.
Again what are you basing that on? You've already proven you have very little understanding of the scientific process.Basically they didnt do much and any conclusion lacks all credibility.
G_T said:
I am a research auditor (although in a different capacity) and I can tell you that six people working for three weeks on a research team is very thorough indeed. By contrast we only get a couple of days at a time to interview international trial teams and we don't miss much.
Irrelevant. You forgot to mention that the audit team in question ought to be led, apparently, by somebody with various vested interests, and populated by placemen. Which I'm sure yours isn't.G_T said:
Let's also not forget these men are especially trained in this subject area, and despite the bias you scream about Lord Oxbridge, the chap did review evidence for the MoD. He is very highly regarded even by Shell.
He needs Monbiot's approval as well surely. G_T said:
In terms of bias... The credible scientific community believes MMGW is true with very few exceptions. How do you then go on to find an impartial scientists? It is like asking evolutionary biologists to pretend evolution didn't happen for a moment to ensure they're not biased when examining fossils (or whatever it is they do).
Credible - to whom? The biased and uninformed plus vested interests? This use of the word is in itself a positioning opinion satement within a remark purporting to be disinterested and factual.G_T said:
Also is it any surprise that the same scientists, who believe MMGW is true, then chose to invest in it?
Strikes me as more common sense than bias.
Strikes me that if scientists 'believe' in anything they are practising religion not science.Strikes me as more common sense than bias.
G_T said:
Spiritual_Beggar said:
Both creationists, and Pro-AGW supporters apply here.....as neither have 'Proof beyond reasonable doubt' that theirs beliefs are right. The difference being, creationists aren't forcing their beliefs on anyone else...where as the AGW camp is.
Who are you to decide when doubt is still reasonable? Are you a figurehead in idustry? A prolific statistician? An unheard of master of science who has reviewed all the MMGW evidence and can point out why we are all foolish? If so why have you not published a paper to this end? G_T said:
The scientific method is always open to doubts. But if you can undermine the evidence then do so. Simply denying it exists is an affront to common sense.
Simply asserting it exists is fantasy, post up a visible human signal in global climate temperature data with established cause and effect to antrhopogenic carbon dioxide.As there isn't such a signal to see or analyse nobody can post it.
So doubt is understating the case. There is no basis for any MMUGW credibility whatsoever, as for those laypersons and 'scientists' who - as you put it - believe, they do so for a variety of well-rehearsed reasons that are no surprise to anybody.
s2art said:
LOL! Thats twice now you have demonstrated that you have no idea what 'proven' means. Keep it up.
Whats even funnier is that you think 3 weeks and a handful of papers is sufficient to determine what the situation is. Do you know how many papers have been generated in the past couple of decades by CRU?
BTW I am still waiting for you to tell us what the Essenhigh paper says about the rise attributed to emissions. Dont worry, I am not holding my breath.
So the basis of your claim is newspaper pundits? Right. Well as I said it's more than enough time and the subsequent publications are irrelevent in the context. The six leading scientists have also put their reputations on the line to say that their audit was adequate. I would trust them more than some news reporter.Whats even funnier is that you think 3 weeks and a handful of papers is sufficient to determine what the situation is. Do you know how many papers have been generated in the past couple of decades by CRU?
BTW I am still waiting for you to tell us what the Essenhigh paper says about the rise attributed to emissions. Dont worry, I am not holding my breath.
I know full well what "proven" means in the eyes of science. It would seem that you've adopted the more philosophical sense of the word where only mathematicians and priests can give you the proof you desire.
I'm afraid I cannot recall neither your point or the question about Essenhigh but given the circular nature of all your "science based arguements", it has undoubtedly only already been "covered in the other thread" by the MMGW brigade. If however you are still arguing that the closing statement of the abstract conflicts with the content of the paper, as Ludo points out, you remain mistaken or deluded.
G_T said:
Spiritual_Beggar said:
Both creationists, and Pro-AGW supporters apply here.....as neither have 'Proof beyond reasonable doubt' that theirs beliefs are right. The difference being, creationists aren't forcing their beliefs on anyone else...where as the AGW camp is.
Who are you to decide when doubt is still reasonable? Are you a figurehead in idustry? A prolific statistician? An unheard of master of science who has reviewed all the MMGW evidence and can point out why we are all foolish? If so why have you not published a paper to this end? The scientific method is always open to doubts. But if you can undermine the evidence then do so. Simply denying it exists is an affront to common sense.
There is not one single report out there that can show the slightest bit of evidence why Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the DIRECT CAUSE of an increasing global temperature.
There is not one single report out there that can show the slightest bit of evidence that Natural causes are not behind any current changing climate!
Until such direct links can be shown, everything Pro-AGW believe is nothing more than Speculation. Since no Direct Link can be shown, and since other theories still have not been disproved, then a 'reasonable doubt' remains.
The fact that no agreement in Nohopenhagen was reached just proves that a lot of poeple still doubt the validity of the IPCC and Pro-AGW camp's claims.
Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Thursday 15th April 16:59
turbobloke said:
G_T said:
Spiritual_Beggar said:
Both creationists, and Pro-AGW supporters apply here.....as neither have 'Proof beyond reasonable doubt' that theirs beliefs are right. The difference being, creationists aren't forcing their beliefs on anyone else...where as the AGW camp is.
Who are you to decide when doubt is still reasonable? Are you a figurehead in idustry? A prolific statistician? An unheard of master of science who has reviewed all the MMGW evidence and can point out why we are all foolish? If so why have you not published a paper to this end? G_T said:
The scientific method is always open to doubts. But if you can undermine the evidence then do so. Simply denying it exists is an affront to common sense.
Simply asserting it exists is fantasy, post up a visible human signal in global climate temperature data with established cause and effect to antrhopogenic carbon dioxide.As there isn't such a signal to see or analyse nobody can post it.
So doubt is understating the case. There is no basis for any MMUGW credibility whatsoever, as for those laypersons and 'scientists' who - as you put it - believe, they do so for a variety of well-rehearsed reasons that are no surprise to anybody.
1) Whilst the 1998 hockeystick was not correct we both know numerous studies were then performed in it's place. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
references here; http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stic...
2) I'm not suggesting you have to take anything on good faith. The findings of the IPCC report outline the state of the evidence despite it's numerous errors.
In terms of your "human signal", that's an oversimplification isn't it? But again the state of the evidence is in the IPCC report. You "signal" is there.
Spiritual_Beggar said:
I'm sorry mate, but the burden of proof rests with the accuser!
There is not one single report out there that can show the slightest bit of evidence why Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the DIRECT CAUSE of an increasing global temperature.
You're right it does.There is not one single report out there that can show the slightest bit of evidence why Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the DIRECT CAUSE of an increasing global temperature.
That's why the IPCC published their report.
You are now denying the evidence exists. So you are the accuser. So provide your proof?
G_T said:
s2art said:
LOL! Thats twice now you have demonstrated that you have no idea what 'proven' means. Keep it up.
Whats even funnier is that you think 3 weeks and a handful of papers is sufficient to determine what the situation is. Do you know how many papers have been generated in the past couple of decades by CRU?
BTW I am still waiting for you to tell us what the Essenhigh paper says about the rise attributed to emissions. Dont worry, I am not holding my breath.
So the basis of your claim is newspaper pundits? Right. Well as I said it's more than enough time and the subsequent publications are irrelevent in the context. The six leading scientists have also put their reputations on the line to say that their audit was adequate. I would trust them more than some news reporter.Whats even funnier is that you think 3 weeks and a handful of papers is sufficient to determine what the situation is. Do you know how many papers have been generated in the past couple of decades by CRU?
BTW I am still waiting for you to tell us what the Essenhigh paper says about the rise attributed to emissions. Dont worry, I am not holding my breath.
I know full well what "proven" means in the eyes of science. It would seem that you've adopted the more philosophical sense of the word where only mathematicians and priests can give you the proof you desire.
I'm afraid I cannot recall neither your point or the question about Essenhigh but given the circular nature of all your "science based arguements", it has undoubtedly only already been "covered in the other thread" by the MMGW brigade. If however you are still arguing that the closing statement of the abstract conflicts with the content of the paper, as Ludo points out, you remain mistaken or deluded.
Re the Paper. Try reading the actual paper rather than just the abstract. You might be enlightened.
If you dont like the so-called pundits then perhaps you could point out where they are wrong. Alternatively you could read;
http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/14/oxburghs-trick-...
The Oxburgh report ” is a flimsy and embarrassing 5-pages.
They did not interview me (nor, to my knowledge, any other CRU critics or targets). The committee was announced on March 22 and their “report” is dated April 12 – three weeks end to end – less time than even the Parliamentary Committee. They took no evidence. Their list of references is 11 CRU papers, five on tree rings, six on CRUTEM. Notably missing from the “sample” are their 1000-year reconstructions: Jones et al 1998, Mann and Jones 2003, Jones and Mann 2004, etc.)
They did not discuss specifically discuss or report on any of the incidents of arbitrary adjustment (“bodging”), cherry picking and deletion of adverse data, mentioned in my submissions to the Science and Technology Committee and the Muir Russell Committee. I’ll report on these issues later in the day as they’ll take a little time to review. First, let’s observe Oxburgh’s trick to hide the “trick”
Click on the link if you want to educate yourself.
Oh and BTW, just in case you think Steve is a 'pundit'
'Prof Hand praised the blogger Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit for uncovering the fact that inappropriate methods were used which could produce misleading results.'
Edited by s2art on Thursday 15th April 17:12
Edited by s2art on Thursday 15th April 17:12
G_T said:
Spiritual_Beggar said:
I'm sorry mate, but the burden of proof rests with the accuser!
There is not one single report out there that can show the slightest bit of evidence why Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the DIRECT CAUSE of an increasing global temperature.
You're right it does.There is not one single report out there that can show the slightest bit of evidence why Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the DIRECT CAUSE of an increasing global temperature.
That's why the IPCC published their report.
You are now denying the evidence exists. So you are the accuser. So provide your proof?
The AGW camp, however, say that MAN is soley responsible for increasing temperatures, and that nothing else is effecting the climate. Yet they cannot prove that! So yes, I do deny 'direct evidence' exists........because it doesn't!
The IPCC have made an 'Assumption' in their report, yet they cannot 'PROVE' it.
Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Thursday 15th April 17:06
Spiritual_Beggar said:
G_T said:
Spiritual_Beggar said:
I'm sorry mate, but the burden of proof rests with the accuser!
There is not one single report out there that can show the slightest bit of evidence why Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the DIRECT CAUSE of an increasing global temperature.
You're right it does.There is not one single report out there that can show the slightest bit of evidence why Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the DIRECT CAUSE of an increasing global temperature.
That's why the IPCC published their report.
You are now denying the evidence exists. So you are the accuser. So provide your proof?
The AGW camp, however, say that MAN is soley responsible for increasing temperatures, and that nothing else is effecting the climate. Yet they cannot prove that! So yes, I do deny 'direct evidence' exists........because it doesn't!
Simple trick for any true believer to post it up if it does, that elusive visible human signal in global climate data with established cause and effect to anthropogenic carbon dioxide (that doesn't exist) so all there is to see in return is yet more puerile antagonistic propagandist wibbling.
Whose consumption is it intended for? Who benefits when nobody except the existing small number of believers does anything except laugh out loud at the rapidly rising tide of propaganda - unlike sea level
turbobloke said:
G_T said:
The scientific method is always open to doubts. But if you can undermine the evidence then do so. Simply denying it exists is an affront to common sense.
Simply asserting it exists is fantasy, post up a visible human signal in global climate temperature data with established cause and effect to antrhopogenic carbon dioxide.How many times has it been answered?
I'm getting heartily sick of seeing apparently sane people spouting on about "consensus" and "the vast majority of scientists" when they obviously haven't a clue what they are talking about and won't do any of their own research.
I feel myself getting very close to using an ad hominem.
TB, I admire your restraint.
Don
--
cs02rm0 said:
That's pretty unpleasant.
But not unexpected.Edited by cs02rm0 on Thursday 15th April 17:27
The 'deniers' will be made into the next set of extremists...it'll take time but its all set up for nastiness. Its a bit like the beginning of christianity. The 'unbelievers' will be made to suffer regardless of the fact that the way the climate issue has been looked at is despicable from a scientific standpoint.
coanda said:
cs02rm0 said:
That's pretty unpleasant.
But not unexpected.Edited by cs02rm0 on Thursday 15th April 17:27
The 'deniers' will be made into the next set of extremists...it'll take time but its all set up for nastiness. Its a bit like the beginning of christianity. The 'unbelievers' will be made to suffer regardless of the fact that the way the climate issue has been looked at is despicable from a scientific standpoint.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff