Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)

[Gadgetmac]

Mrr T said:

Gadgetmac said:

That wasn’t the point though was it. It was about the raw data at the time creating a hockey stick. The same raw data which the sceptical scientists couldn’t help but also make a hockey stick out of.

You do understand the statistical technique Mann used to create the hockey stick?

You do understand that a sceptical team of scientists at Berkeley came to the same conclusion that the hockey stick was correct when they were given the same data?

[turbobloke]

The mayor of Venice has acknowledged that the future of the city is at risk due to climate change corruption which is causing water barrier delays.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10345964/venice-floo...

Then there's this...1825, 1966, good 'old' tax gas.

https://realclimatescience.com/2019/11/co2-is-so-f...

[Randy Winkman]

turbobloke said:

The mayor of Venice has acknowledged that the future of the city is at risk due to climate change corruption which is causing water barrier delays.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10345964/venice-floo...

Then there's this...1825, 1966, good 'old' tax gas.

https://realclimatescience.com/2019/11/co2-is-so-f...

At least your links are moving up market a bit.

[Mrr T]

Gadgetmac said:

If you have not seen the program how can you possibly comment on the “deletion of the graph which disagrees with your conclusion”.

It was clearly explained why it was removed and has been upheld by various enquiries as not being anti-science or anything else of a nefarious nature.

Watch the program - then comment - because at this point you clearly look like you do not have all of the facts. It’s still available on iPlayer.

I have not seen the program so tell me why did they delete one of the proxy which just happened to disagree with the others.

[Mrr T]

Gadgetmac said:

Mrr T said:

Gadgetmac said:

That wasn’t the point though was it. It was about the raw data at the time creating a hockey stick. The same raw data which the sceptical scientists couldn’t help but also make a hockey stick out of.

You do understand the statistical technique Mann used to create the hockey stick?

You do understand that a sceptical team of scientists at Berkeley came to the same conclusion that the hockey stick was correct when they were given the same data?

If you take the same data and apply the same technique you may get a hockey stick.

The problem with any reconstruction is the data. Proxy data is very limited and comes from very limited environments. The fact some proxies do not identify known temperature event could mean the event was localised or the proxy is not sensitive to such changes. If its the later then the data is not a proxy of temperature.

Thermometer data is better but 4/5 of the world has almost no readings. Even where there are reading again its largely confined to developed countries. Add to that changes in recording techniques and the local environment and you have a data set which has the potential for significant error.

Only since we have satellite data do we have a true record.

My stats lecturer explained the problem with an example. Let's say a Chinese child is studying stats and he want to estimate average height. This was the communist era so he has no idea of the world out side his town. He takes a random sample adjusting for age and sex. He calculates the high and the confidence interval and gives the teacher his results. He gets full marks but is wrong.

[Gandahar]

One for turbobloke....


My clemitis and hollihock in full bloom come November ...



To be fair the chili plant I left out has lost it's leaves and will be toast by next spring.

The chez Gandahar banana plantation is not too far off though.....

[Gandahar]

Mrr T said:

Gadgetmac said:

Mrr T said:

Gadgetmac said:

That wasn’t the point though was it. It was about the raw data at the time creating a hockey stick. The same raw data which the sceptical scientists couldn’t help but also make a hockey stick out of.

You do understand the statistical technique Mann used to create the hockey stick?

You do understand that a sceptical team of scientists at Berkeley came to the same conclusion that the hockey stick was correct when they were given the same data?

If you take the same data and apply the same technique you may get a hockey stick.

The problem with any reconstruction is the data. Proxy data is very limited and comes from very limited environments. The fact some proxies do not identify known temperature event could mean the event was localised or the proxy is not sensitive to such changes. If its the later then the data is not a proxy of temperature.

Thermometer data is better but 4/5 of the world has almost no readings. Even where there are reading again its largely confined to developed countries. Add to that changes in recording techniques and the local environment and you have a data set which has the potential for significant error.

Only since we have satellite data do we have a true record.

My stats lecturer explained the problem with an example. Let's say a Chinese child is studying stats and he want to estimate average height. This was the communist era so he has no idea of the world out side his town. He takes a random sample adjusting for age and sex. He calculates the high and the confidence interval and gives the teacher his results. He gets full marks but is wrong.

So statistically is the science right or wrong at this point in time?

[PRTVR]

https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/211876/west-...
Perhaps the largest onshore discovery of oil and gas in the UK, just when we are aiming for carbon neutral.
Oh well we can just sell it abroad.

[Gadgetmac]

Mrr T said:

Gadgetmac said:

Mrr T said:

Gadgetmac said:

That wasn’t the point though was it. It was about the raw data at the time creating a hockey stick. The same raw data which the sceptical scientists couldn’t help but also make a hockey stick out of.

You do understand the statistical technique Mann used to create the hockey stick?

You do understand that a sceptical team of scientists at Berkeley came to the same conclusion that the hockey stick was correct when they were given the same data?

If you take the same data and apply the same technique you may get a hockey stick.

The problem with any reconstruction is the data. Proxy data is very limited and comes from very limited environments. The fact some proxies do not identify known temperature event could mean the event was localised or the proxy is not sensitive to such changes. If its the later then the data is not a proxy of temperature.

Thermometer data is better but 4/5 of the world has almost no readings. Even where there are reading again its largely confined to developed countries. Add to that changes in recording techniques and the local environment and you have a data set which has the potential for significant error.

Only since we have satellite data do we have a true record.

My stats lecturer explained the problem with an example. Let's say a Chinese child is studying stats and he want to estimate average height. This was the communist era so he has no idea of the world out side his town. He takes a random sample adjusting for age and sex. He calculates the high and the confidence interval and gives the teacher his results. He gets full marks but is wrong.

Re: The emboldened bit above.

That is why the team decided to drop the proxy data (“hide the decline”) as it did not correlate with the actual known recorded temperatures from the late 60’s onwards. It was a perfectly valid scientific adjustment which 3 separate and independent investigations have confirmed.

Only the denial camp have tried to make out it was something more nefarious than that. And only the stupid-wing of the denial camp at that.

On your other comment, as I understand it using the raw data that was available at the time, it’s not a case of “you may get a hockey stick” it’s more a case of you cannot really fail to get a hockey stick. This was borne out by the Berkeley study.

Every email quoted has likewise, when taken in context, been shown to be perfectly innocent or valid.

It’s like me saying “I’d kill for a burger” and the following day the manager of the local McDonalds being murdered and me being prosecuted for it on the strength of my comment the day before.

[LongQ]

Gandahar said:

Mrr T said:

Gadgetmac said:

Mrr T said:

Gadgetmac said:

That wasn’t the point though was it. It was about the raw data at the time creating a hockey stick. The same raw data which the sceptical scientists couldn’t help but also make a hockey stick out of.

You do understand the statistical technique Mann used to create the hockey stick?

You do understand that a sceptical team of scientists at Berkeley came to the same conclusion that the hockey stick was correct when they were given the same data?

If you take the same data and apply the same technique you may get a hockey stick.

The problem with any reconstruction is the data. Proxy data is very limited and comes from very limited environments. The fact some proxies do not identify known temperature event could mean the event was localised or the proxy is not sensitive to such changes. If its the later then the data is not a proxy of temperature.

Thermometer data is better but 4/5 of the world has almost no readings. Even where there are reading again its largely confined to developed countries. Add to that changes in recording techniques and the local environment and you have a data set which has the potential for significant error.

Only since we have satellite data do we have a true record.

My stats lecturer explained the problem with an example. Let's say a Chinese child is studying stats and he want to estimate average height. This was the communist era so he has no idea of the world out side his town. He takes a random sample adjusting for age and sex. He calculates the high and the confidence interval and gives the teacher his results. He gets full marks but is wrong.

So statistically is the science right or wrong at this point in time?

"The Science", whatever that is, is never right or wrong.

It is, at best, "Best current understanding" or, perhaps more accurately in the age of computers and all that they create, "Best current understandingS".

Of course that then comes down to who is doing the "understanding" and what assumptions they are making about about all of the potential variables.

When there is no way at all of testing the process in a controlled laboratory environment it seems that it becomes entirely reasonable to assume almost anything could be correct and that in the end the various sources of data, whether or not used correctly and whether or not the sets selectred are really the best available, don't matter because the statistical techniques on which any numbers presented to politicians rely, always lead to teh same answers. Which are basically whatever they are designed to be.

That assumes, of course, that anyone who wants it can have access to the data sets derived from the original, pre-interpretation sets or even, better, the original data which in some cases, inconveniently and carelessly, has been 'lost' apparently.

Not that any of those concerns should matter of course.

Why should a TV program, years after the events it describes and timed to feed in the annual carbon burning boondoggle so urgently transferred to Spain at who knows what cost after poor old Chile found it was not able to absorb the visitor income, suddenly become such flagship for the fanclub?

Is it purely coincidence that this should appear just after the ER chaos has been tolerated? It's as if someone somewhere is trying to encourage the masses to move to 'emergency' belief systems for some reason.

Why would that be?

Have the attempts to restart the Coldwar fears by implicating Russia in everything not produced the desired results?

Probably not - and "Climate Change" is a far easier scare to promote to a wider audience if you can keep the momentum going. Any method will do.

Edited by LongQ on Sunday 17th November 13:43

[Gadgetmac]

LongQ said:

Gandahar said:

Mrr T said:

Gadgetmac said:

Mrr T said:

Gadgetmac said:

That wasn’t the point though was it. It was about the raw data at the time creating a hockey stick. The same raw data which the sceptical scientists couldn’t help but also make a hockey stick out of.

You do understand the statistical technique Mann used to create the hockey stick?

You do understand that a sceptical team of scientists at Berkeley came to the same conclusion that the hockey stick was correct when they were given the same data?

If you take the same data and apply the same technique you may get a hockey stick.

The problem with any reconstruction is the data. Proxy data is very limited and comes from very limited environments. The fact some proxies do not identify known temperature event could mean the event was localised or the proxy is not sensitive to such changes. If its the later then the data is not a proxy of temperature.

Thermometer data is better but 4/5 of the world has almost no readings. Even where there are reading again its largely confined to developed countries. Add to that changes in recording techniques and the local environment and you have a data set which has the potential for significant error.

Only since we have satellite data do we have a true record.

My stats lecturer explained the problem with an example. Let's say a Chinese child is studying stats and he want to estimate average height. This was the communist era so he has no idea of the world out side his town. He takes a random sample adjusting for age and sex. He calculates the high and the confidence interval and gives the teacher his results. He gets full marks but is wrong.

So statistically is the science right or wrong at this point in time?

"The Science", whatever that is, is never right or wrong.

It is, at best, "Best current understanding" or, perhaps more accurately in the age of computers and all that they create, "Best current understandingS.

Yes, but if for all practical purposes the science can be said to be “right”. After all if E didn’t = MC2 we’d be up st creek.

[turbobloke]

Reheating the Green New Deal Potus wannabe Sanders alongside AOC said:

This bill shows that we can address our climate and affordable housing crises by making public housing a model of efficiency, sustainability and resiliency.

That's some Bill, extending USA powers to housing in China, India, Russia et al in order to 'address' the climate non-crisis.

Without those three on board in particular, Sanders is peeing in the wind.while spunking tax dollars up the wall.

Greenblob s.o.p.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/14/ocasio-cortez-g...

[Gandahar]

The issue here is that for the science part global warming is a non trivial problem.

Rather like the ozone hole, however where as that got decided by scientists and nobody on forums or blogs complained, why are currently blogs and forums up in arms about science in regards to global warming?

The fact that it is mainly USA based internet posting up anti science global warming is probably telling in itself....

Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 17th November 13:40

[Gandahar]

LongQ said:

Gandahar said:

Mrr T said:

Gadgetmac said:

Mrr T said:

Gadgetmac said:

That wasn’t the point though was it. It was about the raw data at the time creating a hockey stick. The same raw data which the sceptical scientists couldn’t help but also make a hockey stick out of.

You do understand the statistical technique Mann used to create the hockey stick?

You do understand that a sceptical team of scientists at Berkeley came to the same conclusion that the hockey stick was correct when they were given the same data?

If you take the same data and apply the same technique you may get a hockey stick.

The problem with any reconstruction is the data. Proxy data is very limited and comes from very limited environments. The fact some proxies do not identify known temperature event could mean the event was localised or the proxy is not sensitive to such changes. If its the later then the data is not a proxy of temperature.

Thermometer data is better but 4/5 of the world has almost no readings. Even where there are reading again its largely confined to developed countries. Add to that changes in recording techniques and the local environment and you have a data set which has the potential for significant error.

Only since we have satellite data do we have a true record.

My stats lecturer explained the problem with an example. Let's say a Chinese child is studying stats and he want to estimate average height. This was the communist era so he has no idea of the world out side his town. He takes a random sample adjusting for age and sex. He calculates the high and the confidence interval and gives the teacher his results. He gets full marks but is wrong.

So statistically is the science right or wrong at this point in time?

"The Science", whatever that is, is never right or wrong.

It is, at best, "Best current understanding" or, perhaps more accurately in the age of computers and all that they create, "Best current understandingS.

I wasn't talking to you and I was asking for a mathematically statistical analysis from the other poster.

[Mrr T]

Gandahar said:

Mrr T said:

Gadgetmac said:

Mrr T said:

Gadgetmac said:

That wasn’t the point though was it. It was about the raw data at the time creating a hockey stick. The same raw data which the sceptical scientists couldn’t help but also make a hockey stick out of.

You do understand the statistical technique Mann used to create the hockey stick?

You do understand that a sceptical team of scientists at Berkeley came to the same conclusion that the hockey stick was correct when they were given the same data?

If you take the same data and apply the same technique you may get a hockey stick.

The problem with any reconstruction is the data. Proxy data is very limited and comes from very limited environments. The fact some proxies do not identify known temperature event could mean the event was localised or the proxy is not sensitive to such changes. If its the later then the data is not a proxy of temperature.

Thermometer data is better but 4/5 of the world has almost no readings. Even where there are reading again its largely confined to developed countries. Add to that changes in recording techniques and the local environment and you have a data set which has the potential for significant error.

Only since we have satellite data do we have a true record.

My stats lecturer explained the problem with an example. Let's say a Chinese child is studying stats and he want to estimate average height. This was the communist era so he has no idea of the world out side his town. He takes a random sample adjusting for age and sex. He calculates the high and the confidence interval and gives the teacher his results. He gets full marks but is wrong.

So statistically is the science right or wrong at this point in time?

If you mean do we have a meaningful tempreture reconstruction covering say 1k years. Then the answer is we have no idea. And while research continues I believe that it is unlikely to have solved that question in the near future.

Edited by Mrr T on Sunday 17th November 13:52

[zygalski]

Mrr T said:

If you mean do we have a meaningful tempreture reconstruction covering say 1k years. Then the answer is we have no idea. And while research continues I believe that it is unlikely to have solved that question in the near future.

Edited by Mrr T on Sunday 17th November 13:52

That's at odds with what climatologists are saying. It's not even what the Berkeley research shows, which was funded by fossil fuel interests.
Where did you get your info from & what qualifications do you have to make an assertion like that?

[Gadgetmac]

Gandahar said:

The issue here is that for the science part global warming is a non trivial problem.

Rather like the ozone hole, however where as that got decided by scientists and nobody on forums or blogs complained, why are currently blogs and forums up in arms about science in regards to global warming?

The fact that it is mainly USA based internet posting up anti science global warming is probably telling in itself....

Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 17th November 13:40

And who’s got the vested interest in promoting fossil fuel usage and hails from the good old US of A?

And splashes the cash on all sorts of anti AGW projects?

[Mrr T]

Gadgetmac said:

Re: The emboldened bit above.

That is why the team decided to drop the proxy data (“hide the decline”) as it did not correlate with the actual known recorded temperatures from the late 60’s onwards. It was a perfectly valid scientific adjustment which 3 separate and independent investigations have confirmed.

Only the denial camp have tried to make out it was something more nefarious than that. And only the stupid-wing of the denial camp at that.

It would be a good idea if you read up before posting. Mann et al used from memory 6 proxy data sets. One of the sets showed much lower temperatures than the others for early data it then tracked the others then from 1961 showed a steep decline which was not reflected in the thermometer record or the other proxy. Mann et al decided to delete the eliments of the proxy which did not match the other proxy data or the real tempreture. This is quite simply unacceptable in any statistical study.

Saying the data did not match the thermometer data is not the point. Some proxies did match the thermometer data and also the proxy data, part of which had been deleted, for a considerable period. The fact you have proxies which diverge against known data mean you have to question what the proxy means. The deleted proxy data also showed much lower earthly tempreture than the other proxy.

You cannot just delete data you do not like. You have to publish it and accept it raises question about the whole record.

I think you will find those who questioned Mann et al use of statistics know a lot more about statistics than Mann. After all they had studied statistic at university something Mann had not done.

[Gadgetmac]

Mrr T said:

Gadgetmac said:

Re: The emboldened bit above.

That is why the team decided to drop the proxy data (“hide the decline”) as it did not correlate with the actual known recorded temperatures from the late 60’s onwards. It was a perfectly valid scientific adjustment which 3 separate and independent investigations have confirmed.

Only the denial camp have tried to make out it was something more nefarious than that. And only the stupid-wing of the denial camp at that.

It would be a good idea if you read up before posting. Mann et al used from memory 6 proxy data sets. One of the sets showed much lower temperatures than the others for early data it then tracked the others then from 1961 showed a steep decline which was not reflected in the thermometer record or the other proxy. Mann et al decided to delete the eliments of the proxy which did not match the other proxy data or the real tempreture. This is quite simply unacceptable in any statistical study.

Saying the data did not match the thermometer data is not the point. Some proxies did match the thermometer data and also the proxy data, part of which had been deleted, for a considerable period. The fact you have proxies which diverge against known data mean you have to question what the proxy means. The deleted proxy data also showed much lower earthly tempreture than the other proxy.

You cannot just delete data you do not like. You have to publish it and accept it raises question about the whole record.

I think you will find those who questioned Mann et al use of statistics know a lot more about statistics than Mann. After all they had studied statistic at university something Mann had not done.

Well if you are going to invoke “those who questioned Mann’s use of statistics” you need to tell us who they are.

However, that doesn’t get us away from...

Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.

Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."

A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.

The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."

Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.

The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.

Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.

Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."

An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."

Now unless you are claiming to know more about the subject of climategate than those who investigated it then it’s clear that no impropriety has taken place. You also need to watch the program and tell us all where it is wrong.

[Gadgetmac]

Just to add:

The "decline" has been openly and publicly discussed since 1995

Skeptics like to portray "the decline" as a phenomena that climate scientists have tried to keep secret. In reality the divergence problem has been publicly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature since 1995 (Jacoby 1995). The IPCC discuss the decline in tree-ring growth openly both in the 2001 Third Assessment Report and in even more detail in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report.

The common misconception that scientists tried to hide a decline in global temperatures is false.

The decline in tree-ring growth is plainly discussed in the publicly available scientific literature. The divergence in tree-ring growth does not change the fact that we are currently observing many lines of evidence for global warming.