Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 6)

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 6)

Author
Discussion

Mrr T

6,827 posts

213 months

Sunday 17th November
quotequote all
zygalski said:
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?
A reasonable question. My degree included a significant element of statistics. I was asked some years ago by a friend for advise on a medical study which made headlines. I did not think I could help but when I realised the study was actually a statistical study which involved practices I felt where deeply flawed. From this I discovered that statistics was being used in ways which I felt where incorrect.

From this I picked up on the hockey stick controversy. So I read the various papers and the critics. I will admit I had forgotten about short centering so had to buy a text book.

I followed as others explained the statistical errors in the Mann et al and other reconstruction. My consern was always about the data sets. The more I looked the more I realised the that even the thermometer data was flawed. All proxy data must be treated with care. Proxy data for tempreture reconstruction are particular difficult because you need you need a proxy covering many centuries.

The whole basis of statistics require you to be able to randomly sample the population. The data sets for tempreture reconstruction simply are not random. That means the data may contain error you simply cannot measure.



LongQ

13,731 posts

181 months

Sunday 17th November
quotequote all
Gadgetmac said:
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.
Indeed it was amongst the handful of people who knew anything much about tree rings.

Less so by the masses. One would wonder if any politicians knew what a tree ring was and, if they did, that it might be used as a Proxy. Especially a proxy for attempts at temperature reconstruction for any purpose that might come to hand.

So, to the point.

Given how well know it was why would Mann choose to cover it up in his published graph with a somewhat unusual choice of graphics for a published article at the time?

These days such a thing would be explained away by too much sun or too little sun. Too wet or too dry.

Were these people not smart enough, at the time the HS was constructed, to come up with other plausible reasons that would add to their message rather than detract from it? So they literally hid the line displaying those numbers when they created the graph.

I guess the experts who had all the answers wanted to avoid anyone realising they did not have all of the answers but to do so in such a way as to be able to explain it just happened and was not intentional.

Something like the equivalent of a footballer's "Hand of God" moment.

Oh well, at least it looks like a political act rather than science so I suppose this is the correct thread on which to be discussing it.

zygalski

6,191 posts

93 months

Sunday 17th November
quotequote all
Remind us what the findings of the 8 enquiries in to Climategate were...

Were the scientists found to be guilty of misrepresenting the over all temperature data and trends from 1000 to 1990 as a result of excluding tree ring data from 1960 on?

Gadgetmac

6,695 posts

56 months

Sunday 17th November
quotequote all
zygalski said:
Remind us what the findings of the 8 enquiries in to Climategate were...

Were the scientists found to be guilty of misrepresenting the over all temperature data and trends from 1000 to 1990 as a result of excluding tree ring data from 1960 on?
Nobody had been able to say "They was trying to deceive everyone and here's why..." because when you look at the emails it's obvious they weren't.

Kawasicki

6,588 posts

183 months

Sunday 17th November
quotequote all
The whole “redefining the peer process to block papers” and “refusing foi requests for data” was just taken out of context.

It never happened.

Gadgetmac

6,695 posts

56 months

Sunday 17th November
quotequote all
Kawasicki said:
The whole “redefining the peer process to block papers” and “refusing foi requests for data” was just taken out of context.

It never happened.
laugh

Denier 101 I suppose.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: The entire report writing process of the IPCC is subjected to extensive and repeated review by experts as well as governments. Consequently, there is at every stage full opportunity for experts in the field to draw attention to any piece of literature and its basic findings that would ensure inclusion of a wide range of views. There is, therefore, no possibility of exclusion of any contrarian views, if they have been published in established journals or other publications which are peer reviewed.

The facts support this assertion. In one 2004 e-mail that’s come under much scrutiny, Jones wrote of two controversial papers that “Kevin and I will keep them out [of the IPCC report] somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” But both papers under discussion, Kalnay and Cai (2003) and McKitrick and Michaels (2004), were cited in one of the three working group reports from which the 2007 IPCC report is synthesized.


50 FOI requests a day. It happened and was orchestrated by one man on his blog. You wouldn’t be able to cope with one a month.

LongQ

13,731 posts

181 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
Gadgetmac said:
50 FOI requests a day. It happened and was orchestrated by one man on his blog. You wouldn’t be able to cope with one a month.
Nor could the University department involved despite it being something they are expected to response to on request.

Of course had they not lost the original data and could not remember where they got it from and had they followed recommended protocol and saved the work at a location from which others could download it without having to ask more than once they would not have had the apparent problem of the FOI request in the first place.

Are you paid to be an apologist for poor research practise and an inability to undertake the responsibilities that come with the job?

Do you think the FOI system is a complete waste of everyone's time? Would it help if the concept was abolished?

Should the sharing of academic "data", largely paid for by the public in the UK, be made entirely optional?

You write as if you are cutting and pasting justifications from an official answer (excuse) document. If you are paid for this sort of role I think you should explain your motivation.

Kawasicki

6,588 posts

183 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
The whole “redefining the peer process to block papers” and “refusing foi requests for data” was just taken out of context.

It never happened.
laugh

Denier 101 I suppose.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: The entire report writing process of the IPCC is subjected to extensive and repeated review by experts as well as governments. Consequently, there is at every stage full opportunity for experts in the field to draw attention to any piece of literature and its basic findings that would ensure inclusion of a wide range of views. There is, therefore, no possibility of exclusion of any contrarian views, if they have been published in established journals or other publications which are peer reviewed.

The facts support this assertion. In one 2004 e-mail that’s come under much scrutiny, Jones wrote of two controversial papers that “Kevin and I will keep them out [of the IPCC report] somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” But both papers under discussion, Kalnay and Cai (2003) and McKitrick and Michaels (2004), were cited in one of the three working group reports from which the 2007 IPCC report is synthesized.


50 FOI requests a day. It happened and was orchestrated by one man on his blog. You wouldn’t be able to cope with one a month.
Did you really just plagiarise?

dickymint

17,284 posts

206 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
rofl

jagnet

3,051 posts

150 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
hehe

dickymint

17,284 posts

206 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
Yesterday (15:57)

whistle

Gadgetmac

6,695 posts

56 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
LongQ said:
Gadgetmac said:
50 FOI requests a day. It happened and was orchestrated by one man on his blog. You wouldn’t be able to cope with one a month.
Nor could the University department involved despite it being something they are expected to response to on request.

Of course had they not lost the original data and could not remember where they got it from and had they followed recommended protocol and saved the work at a location from which others could download it without having to ask more than once they would not have had the apparent problem of the FOI request in the first place.

Are you paid to be an apologist for poor research practise and an inability to undertake the responsibilities that come with the job?

Do you think the FOI system is a complete waste of everyone's time? Would it help if the concept was abolished?

Should the sharing of academic "data", largely paid for by the public in the UK, be made entirely optional?

You write as if you are cutting and pasting justifications from an official answer (excuse) document. If you are paid for this sort of role I think you should explain your motivation.
Wow, it goes from 1 FOI request a week to 50 a day in a deliberate move to overwhelm and you think they have the personell to suddenly deal with that?

Do you think dealing with these requests is a one click of the mouse operation?

Plagatised from the documentary/media but true..

"Then Steve McIntyre, who worked in the fossil fuel industry, decided the graph was suspect and asked Phil Jones, the director of the CRU – a key contributor to the hockey stick study – to provide him with the data behind it. Prof Jones initially agreed (“He gave me much more than I was expecting,” noted McIntyre here). But, as the requests became more frequent, he stopped handing over data, because it wasn’t truly the CRU’s to give and he feared antagonising its suppliers. A stream of freedom of information requests followed, and even more when McIntyre mobilised his blog followers to apply en masse."

As for being paid...you need to look at your own scientists pay packets first. biggrin





Edited by Gadgetmac on Monday 18th November 09:40

Gadgetmac

6,695 posts

56 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
Kawasicki said:
Did you really just plagiarise?
Did you really just toss a straw man in? laugh

Love it. Your dear leader Turbobloke does it sometimes 5 or 6 times in one post almost daily and nothing...nada...zilch...

I do it once to answer a question and the rofl's flow.

Brilliant!

Was what was stated wrong?

Here, have one of these...

rofl

PRTVR

4,954 posts

169 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Did you really just plagiarise?
Did you really just toss a straw man in? laugh

Love it. Your dear leader Turbobloke does it sometimes 5 or 6 times in one post almost daily and nothing...nada...zilch...

I do it once to answer a question and the rofl's flow.

Brilliant!

Was what was stated wrong?

Here, have one of these...

rofl
You commented on other people doing it as if it was something wrong, then do it yourself,
do you see the difference?

El stovey

29,084 posts

211 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
PRTVR said:
You commented on other people doing it as if it was something wrong, then do it yourself,
do you see the difference?
I think it was me that commented about Robinessex doing it when he doesn’t provide links or quotation marks and tries to weave the plagiarised text into his own. I also commented about turbobloke changing click and paste texts to hide the source.


Gadgetmac

6,695 posts

56 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
PRTVR said:
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Did you really just plagiarise?
Did you really just toss a straw man in? laugh

Love it. Your dear leader Turbobloke does it sometimes 5 or 6 times in one post almost daily and nothing...nada...zilch...

I do it once to answer a question and the rofl's flow.

Brilliant!

Was what was stated wrong?

Here, have one of these...

rofl
You commented on other people doing it as if it was something wrong, then do it yourself,
do you see the difference?
Oh dear...wrong again...never mind.

PRTVR

4,954 posts

169 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
El stovey said:
PRTVR said:
You commented on other people doing it as if it was something wrong, then do it yourself,
do you see the difference?
I think it was me that commented about Robinessex doing it when he doesn’t provide links or quotation marks and tries to weave the plagiarised text into his own. I also commented about turbobloke changing click and paste texts to hide the source.
OK my mistake, my memory's not what it use to be.

wc98

9,260 posts

88 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
zygalski said:
Remind us what the findings of the 8 enquiries in to Climategate were...

Were the scientists found to be guilty of misrepresenting the over all temperature data and trends from 1000 to 1990 as a result of excluding tree ring data from 1960 on?
there were no enquiries at all. there were various hearings where some people had the chance to waffle their way through some easy questions, but no actual detailed enquiries into what was going on and certainly no exoneration of michael one tree liar mann. if the tree data was fit for purpose there would have been no need to splice the data. the fact is even the temp data the tree ring proxy data was spliced with was a load of ste.

anyone that says we know the average temp of the earth on a given day never mind for hundreds or thousands of years, or the far more important ocean heat content number is an out and out liar and charlatan. regardless the effect of the anthropogenic component of atmospheric co2, the numbers needed to begin doing actual science are not known.

Etypephil

724 posts

26 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
wc98 said:
there were no enquiries at all. there were various hearings where some people had the chance to waffle their way through some easy questions, but no actual detailed enquiries into what was going on and certainly no exoneration of michael one tree liar mann. if the tree data was fit for purpose there would have been no need to splice the data. the fact is even the temp data the tree ring proxy data was spliced with was a load of ste.

anyone that says we know the average temp of the earth on a given day never mind for hundreds or thousands of years, or the far more important ocean heat content number is an out and out liar and charlatan. regardless the effect of the anthropogenic component of atmospheric co2, the numbers needed to begin doing actual science are not known.
Don’t you realise that none of this matters? It’s the new religion don’t you know.

Gadgetmac

6,695 posts

56 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
wc98 said:
zygalski said:
Remind us what the findings of the 8 enquiries in to Climategate were...

Were the scientists found to be guilty of misrepresenting the over all temperature data and trends from 1000 to 1990 as a result of excluding tree ring data from 1960 on?
there were no enquiries at all. there were various hearings where some people had the chance to waffle their way through some easy questions, but no actual detailed enquiries into what was going on and certainly no exoneration of michael one tree liar mann. if the tree data was fit for purpose there would have been no need to splice the data. the fact is even the temp data the tree ring proxy data was spliced with was a load of ste.

anyone that says we know the average temp of the earth on a given day never mind for hundreds or thousands of years, or the far more important ocean heat content number is an out and out liar and charlatan. regardless the effect of the anthropogenic component of atmospheric co2, the numbers needed to begin doing actual science are not known.
Yes, that's right, there were no enquiries at all, people were just invited in for a cup of tea and a cake and a brief chat.

Or...

A Penn State University enquiry, made of of Penn State faculty unanimously concluded that there is no substance to any allegations of misconduct by Mann relating to his research.

To plagiarise/summarise:

On the question of research conduct, the committee found that Mann has identified the source of all data and wherever possible made the data publicly available; similarly, the committee found that although Mann was initially reluctant to release computer code and initial calculations, Mann switched to a simpler programming language in 2000 and has since been releasing all codes and “intermediate data.” If anything, the committee found that his behavior in this arena has exceeded evolving scientific standards. More broadly, the committee noted that Mann’s work has been independently verified by other scientists using publicly available data and has earned him honors within the field.

On the issue of reporting data, the committee looked at Mann’s record of publishing in peer-reviewed journals and his work with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and determined that such a record “would have been impossible” had he not met scientific standards for reporting data.

The committee did take issue with the fact that Mann at times shared unpublished scientific manuscripts with the belief that he had the implied consent of the authors to do so. Although Mann acted “in good faith,” the committee said “the best practice in this regard is to obtain express consent from the author before sharing an unpublished manuscript with third parties.”