Climategate independently proven to be a storm in a tea cup

[G_T]

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-c...

So the much awaited independent review not only frees the CRU of any wrong doing but points out the fact that they made a point of highlighting weaknesses in their statistical methods.

So as I understand it we have two ways to look at this;

1) The CRU is actually not perfect but have not fiddled data.
2) The independent review is also part of the largest scientific conspiracy in human history.

Please discuss.

[G_T]

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.

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.

[G_T]

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]

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.

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]

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?

Would that be a previous era paper reviewed by the Hockey Team?

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.

Ah turbobloke I missed you.

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.

[G_T]

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.

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]

turbobloke said:

Strikes me that if scientists 'believe' in anything they are practising religion not science.

Come on mate. Pick up a dictionary.

Belief; • noun 1 a feeling that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. 2 a firmly held opinion. 3 (belief in) trust or confidence in. 4 religious faith. - OED.

If you're feeling philosophical I do enjoy epistemology. "Beliefs" can, by definition (see above) be either "pan-rational" or "rational". (Even "justified" and "unjustified)". As such you need to believe something before it can be "known".

ETA:

Edited by G_T on Friday 16th April 13:21

[G_T]

esselte said:

I think Turba was correct...

Do you think, believe or know?

Google; "epistemology". I've added a picture to original to make it clearer.

[G_T]

Tangent Police said:

This topic is as irrelevant as anything.

What we are looking for is an actual link between methodology, data and the impact of anthropogenic emissions on global temperatures.

The data, methodology and conclusions should clearly speak for themselves and be statistically credible to be worthy of any sort of action.

The science has been done by the scientists. Unfortunately it has yet to filter through into pistonheads as we largely seem to ignorant to this fact and often lack the basic grasp of what the arguement even is.

In terms of the thread being irrelevent, it seems important to remind people that there is a wider world out there and it does not agree with these little blue boxes that we waste so much of lives typing in.

I believe it's fairly obvious that myself (and a majority) are not experts in this field. But I for one am amazed by the clarity in this subject field and the patience of many of those involved to make efforts to explain what is a complex theory.

By contast I can tell you for a concrete fact that none of the treatments we allow medics to treat our loved ones with when they're at their most vulnerable are half as well considered.

The bottom line is that data is available in a form you can understand and test for yourself if you have the expertise. Where it is not it is, again to the best of my knowledge, the reasons for this are clearly explained and there is no sign of any conspiracy beyond the alleged bias. This has been independently reviewed on numerous occasions.

If such a bias exists in this "independent process" then perhaps, this keen interest in demanding evidence (which I endorse) should also be used to back up the the claim that MMGW is the biggest conspiracy in human history? Because from what I have seen the odds lie very much in favour that MMGW is far more likely. Scientifically speaking this is the most we can ever hope for before we make our decisions.

Our resident statistician has even gracefully taken the time to explain the irrelevence of, as far as I can see, every vaguely credible data based arguement. He's even taken the time to reference papers. As ever I am very grateful. He has far more patience than I have.

[G_T]

Do you honestly believe overtly mocking my spelling or editing what I say in a facetious way adds any credibility to your argument?

Come on chaps. Grow up.

As for the "head scientist", firstly I've no idea what a "head scientist" is, secondly I fail to see the relevence of someone's qualifications if they have specialists within their group to ask specialist questions? Afterall I don't expect the administrator in my local garage to be a fully badged mechanic so long as they can ask a colleague should I require specialist information.

Thirdly if someone has a "vested interest" so much so that this whole MMGW is a lie then it is not enough to simply say "he will make money from MMGW". You must prove that this vested interest has interferred in their impartiality. Where is your proof?