Obama Nation: Cap and Whoops! ("Climategate")

[SibbTigre]

...

I am aware most of what I said will be interpreted incorrectly and misrepresented. He's done that throughout the WMDs, Climate Change, and Palestine and Israel threads. He'd make an excellent politician, if he wasn't so critical of politics.

[jmervyn]

You missed a point I raised earlier, and one which was never answered. More affects tree rings than just temperature. This was always the problem with "proxy".

Oh, sorry, didn't realize you expected me to disagree. I don't, and there's plenty of problems associated with proxy data, particularly tree rings. In fact I believe it was on this forum that I linked yet another scandalous facet of the AGW practices, that being the use of a tiny, very flawed sample (rings from 12 trees referred to as the Yamal Briffa series) for representation of Asian historical temperatures, and that enlarging or revising the sample destroys the 'Hockey Stick' claim upon which nabbed and the CRU have planted their flag.

"Medieval Warming Period" was warmer than today?

I think you should go back and check some of the controversy, since indeed the term Warm is used interchangeably with Warming. Many paleoclimatologists <not> in the clique assert that the MWP was indeed warmer than today (Greenland being really green and agrarian, rather than just a skimpy shorelines, that kind of thing).

But again, this all goes back to the problem of using Proxy data. The degrees of error are just too great (which the smart people should have seen from the wildly different "results"). Now, the Medieval WARMING period may have lead to a warmer planet than today, but people really need to read the graphs properly. Especially when it's been labeled "Temperature CHANGE" not "Temperature".

Since when did you start trying to make my points for me? The entire AGW fright fantasy rests on the claims by the clique that not only is warming out of the norm, but that it is both human-centric and accelerating.

Which year was the mercury thermometer invented, and what year do records start?

Are you asking me as some sort of quiz, or is that what you are saying should be the start point? Even the records are spotty; one of the best sources were British naval records but they don't support the clique's claims. So they're discarded.

It's a relatively long term thing, which may work in tandem with the ice-caps disappearing. But the science is still way more complicated than people on the extremes want to admit.

No argument.

You are aware that the article you linked to is doing the "Well we can't see it so it ain't real" BS, and is extremely hostile (under the guise of "well I'm friendly really"), aren't you?

I'm pointing out that nabbed is using an incredibly arrogant, hostile, shallow source (this anonymous "Potholer" who claims to be a BBC writer) as the last word in credibility, which given his arrogant, hostile, shallow attitude is of no surprise. I'm always amused at the way that the same oh-so-tolerant people retreat to the abusive personal attacks they accuse others of using, when they have no way to defend their cause. Even more revealing is when, as nabbed has, they demand that others (you) cease speaking with those who disagree. Potholer is a nasty little piece of work, and it's quite revealing that he's got a crowd of Internet lemmings who apparently worship him.

Oh, and how am I interpreting what you said incorrectly or misrepresenting it? You seemed to have not really been contesting my position, at least in your recent posts (I'm not about to go back through the thread scouring 3-week-old statements). I mean, unless (like nabbed) you share the mentality Jones shows in the quote below:

Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

[Gorani]

OK, since this stalemate of who is the bigger moron and who can twist the words of others better, is kind of boring, what about commenting on this:

It seems to be a scientific fact, that the global temperature is rising in the last few decades (may it be because of human influence or not). With higher temperatures on a global perspective, more areas covered by snow and ice are melting & more water is evaporating into the atmosphere.

Should it be the responsibility of *enter your country's name here* government and its people to prepare for the changes that will result of the changes described above?

Yes, because....
No, because...

(write about 100 words )

[SibbTigre]

Oh, sorry, didn't realize you expected me to disagree. I don't, and there's plenty of problems associated with proxy data, particularly tree rings.

No, I was expecting you to move away from the mass media hype and accept that the email in question has had the myth about it discredited, even by your-very-self.

I'm enjoying watching you admit that the email isn't good evidence on its own (by you providing reasons tree-rings as proxys are not good ) and yet you constantly returning to it as "central to the conspiracy".

I think you should go back and check some of the controversy, since indeed the term Warm is used interchangeably with Warming.

Yet in every paper I've read, it's been the Medieval "WARMING" period. Magazine articles and politically motivated blogs simply don't count.

The entire AGW fright fantasy rests on the claims by the clique that not only is warming out of the norm, but that it is both human-centric and accelerating.

This is an example of sitting on one extreme. There are people who believe AGW but do not sit on that extreme.

It's also a good point for why the roaming average is used, rather than year on year. Statistics is a tricky subject, and can be used to show pretty much anything without meaning. The current cooling over the past couple of years is not sufficient to say GW (not AGW) has come to an end - We have to be careful, and I hate the extremists on both sides who refuse to look at the bigger picture.

Are you asking me as some sort of quiz, or is that what you are saying should be the start point? Even the records are spotty; one of the best sources were British naval records but they don't support the clique's claims. So they're discarded.

No, I'm trying to help you distinguish between actual records (as in, we measured and recorded it) and the calculated historical data. The Logs are, unfortunatly, calculated, despite the consistant language, and will have some degree of error to them.

NOTE - I am not saying the conclusions are wrong.

I'm pointing out that nabbed is using an incredibly arrogant, hostile, shallow source

Yes, and I'm pointing out you didn't help things using another arrogant, hostile, shallow source.

Oh, and how am I interpreting what you said incorrectly or misrepresenting it?

I mean, unless (like nabbed) you share the mentality Jones shows in the quote below:

...Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

Because to "try and find something wrong with it" is not a good way to approach science. Many people interpret that as the 2nd party having already decided something is wrong, so I can see his reasons for not releasing the data. However, the data should have been available anyway so it could be checked.

It's an honest point, surely. If you had data, would you release it to someone who was coming across as rather hostile to your position?

You bring up mentality, which is a very good point, then abandon it while trying to make a point?

[jmervyn]

I'm enjoying watching you admit that the email isn't good evidence on its own (by you providing reasons tree-rings as proxys are not good ) and yet you constantly returning to it as "central to the conspiracy".

For crying out loud, I'm not talking about the e-mails as being central to the conspiracy, but rather that they are what caused the public scandal. The conspiracy consists of the actions by Jones, Mann, and others, exemplified by the biased code and the refusal to comply with FoIA requests. The e-mails are the traces that evidence the skeptics' accusations about the nature of the conspiracy, such as the assertions by Jones on how to avoid compliance. How many times do I need to revisit the fact that I've never made the faulty assumptions that types like nabbed insist I have?

Yet in every paper I've read, it's been the Medieval "WARMING" period. Magazine articles and politically motivated blogs simply don't count.

Whatever. If you want to hang your hat on semantics, be my guest.

This is an example of sitting on one extreme. There are people who believe AGW but do not sit on that extreme.

Oh, sure, and that's not what I'm furious about. I'm furious about the pack of scoundrels from Copenhagen, whose premises are based on Jones' and Mann's falsifications.

Statistics is a tricky subject, and can be used to show pretty much anything without meaning.

Again, for all your claim that I'm in the wrong, you seem to be restating my own position.

No, I'm trying to help you distinguish between actual records (as in, we measured and recorded it) and the calculated historical data. The Logs are, unfortunatly, calculated, despite the consistant language, and will have some degree of error to them.

I doubt I need the help you believe you must provide here. What you refer to as the calculated data is at the heart of the problem for AGW theory based on paleoclimatology, particularly when the clique has already shown a penchant for overstatement and hyperbole.

Yes, and I'm pointing out you didn't help things using another arrogant, hostile, shallow source.

Well, he retracted his most recent long, insulting diatribe, so it seems you're wrong on that one.

No answer there, either?

Because to "try and find something wrong with it" is not a good way to approach science.

WHAT???!? It's the whole feckin' point of the scientific method! We might as well be postulating that angel's wings are the primary cause otherwise.

Many people interpret that as the 2nd party having already decided something is wrong, so I can see his reasons for not releasing the data. However, the data should have been available anyway so it could be checked.

I couldn't disagree more with the former, and his own actions were aimed to prevent the latter. That's why it is both a conspiracy and a scandal.

It's an honest point, surely. If you had data, would you release it to someone who was coming across as rather hostile to your position?

Hey, tell ya what, why don't we discuss your position in the context of the invasion of Iraq? Facts are supposed to be facts, and the clique has not only been shown to be trying to avoid disclosing them, but has been proven to be wildly wrong when they have had to disclose them.

You bring up mentality, which is a very good point, then abandon it while trying to make a point?

Explain? Jones' mentality is an explanation for his misconduct, not his misconduct. Unless we're going to define AGW fraud as hate crime.

[SibbTigre]

J, I wrote a long post in response.

Then I realised, you're doing it again.

I won't argue with you, when you're out to create confrontation.

[jmervyn]

J, I wrote a long post in response.

Then I realised, you're doing it again.

I won't argue with you, when you're out to create confrontation.

I actually would have preferred you defend your assertion that science is based on social consensus rather than investigative challenge. But whatever.

[SibbTigre]

I actually would have preferred you defend your assertion that science is based on social consensus rather than investigative challenge. But whatever.

Thank you for proving my point you misrepresent.

Scientific Method relies on presenting a hypothesis (which was arrived at using theory and previous observations), then testing its null-hypothesis (which is the opposing idea) to find evidence as to whether or not this new little bit of theory holds up.

Scientific Method is not looking at something, and using ignorance to 'disprove' it, which is what has been happening with the greater Climate Change (not just AGW) debate, and Evolution.

Very few, or rather none, of the articles or sites you've linked to, to show us just how wrong we are, actually delve into the "why" behind the 'trick' - thus their ignorance. They focus on the words 'trick' to 'hide the decline', without understanding 'why' science accepts that.

The most (I would say only real) damning thing in all the e-mails is where the author is talking about blocking the use of other peer-reviewed papers.

Now with you having agreed why the tree-ring proxy is poor, I'm sure you can understand why I say that e-mail, while it greatly affects the IPCC's conclusions (and their own fault for using such a small sample ), does not affect the greater Climate Change debate in anywhere newar the same way.

[jmervyn]

Scientific Method relies on presenting a hypothesis (which was arrived at using theory and previous observations), then testing its null-hypothesis (which is the opposing idea) to find evidence as to whether or not this new little bit of theory holds up.

Which is why I'm so amused that those claiming to be scientific aren't baying for the clique's blood. The clique has schemed at every opportunity to prevent testing of their hypotheses, on the simple basis that when they've slipped and been tested - their conclusions have been disproved. Spectacularly. By people who aren't even paleoclimatologists, but from other disciplines.

The clique has ensured that any peer review was only performed by those who would support it and them, and not look too closely at their methodology. This destroys the supposed credibility of the peer review process through exactly the same problem which I have previously argued with B.E. - that peer review is susceptible to groupthink and politics. Now, one could make a poor joke about paleoclimatologists not being good at math or computers, but it wouldn't work because of the reliance of their conclusions on both.

Scientific Method is not looking at something, and using ignorance to 'disprove' it, which is what has been happening with the greater Climate Change (not just AGW) debate, and Evolution.

Your assertions of ignorance are based on the assertions of the clique, rather than legitimate. It equates to defending the existence of NBC weaponry in Iraq based on statements by the Bush administration. There <are> and <were> such weapons, but they weren't of the quantity or status claimed by the Executive. Does this mean that there isn't ignorance on the side of the skeptics? Of course not. But that side is vastly outweighed by the ignorance on the side of the true believers - beautifully exemplified by yourself, with your beliefs about sacking cities and blackpowder cannon being responsible for the MWP.

Very few, or rather none, of the articles or sites you've linked to, to show us just how wrong we are, actually delve into the "why" behind the 'trick' - thus their ignorance. They focus on the words 'trick' to 'hide the decline', without understanding 'why' science accepts that.

I have tried quite hard to avoid citing multiple articles referring to the "trick", because as I've stated until I'm sick of you bringing it up, I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ARSE ABOUT THE 'TRICK' MEMO. The "smoking gun" here is the falsification inherent in the code and modeling, which I identified prior to 2007 on the Diii OTF (the original seems to be gone now).

The most (I would say only real) damning thing in all the e-mails is where the author is talking about blocking the use of other peer-reviewed papers.

Despite your unwillingness to address the completely damning code issue, that's still untrue. The e-mails referring to the attempts to avoid and subvert FoI are criminal in nature. Doubtless part of the reason the CRU has taken their FTP server offline (the one the mole posted the file on in the first place).

Now with you having agreed why the tree-ring proxy is poor, I'm sure you can understand why I say that e-mail, while it greatly affects the IPCC's conclusions (and their own fault for using such a small sample ), does not affect the greater Climate Change debate in anywhere newar the same way.

I understand your claim, but I don't mindlessly agree with it as you seem to expect me to. The studies contrived by the clique are at the root of so many other claims and data sets that one of two eventualities are going to be the outcome.

The honest eventuality would be egg on most AGW paleoclimatologist's faces as they have to publish corrections and retractions. This would be science operating as it is supposed to, because basing your work on others' flawed and dishonest work demands reexamination. But the likely eventuality, much as with Sir Cyril Burt's twin studies and already presaged by the incredibly corrupt claims of Pachauri and a couple of other IPCC outlets, is that the dishonesty will be deliberately ignored and groupthink will incorporate the CRU's claims much like the NBC Bush AWOL memos: as "Fake, but True".

[SibbTigre]

Which is why I'm so amused that those claiming to be scientific aren't baying for the clique's blood...

Considering how badly the 'cliques' repuations have already been tarnished, most scientists probably don't care further about the 'personal' consequnces.

As an individual, I doubt these people will be given anything other than lecturer positions in further jobs. Research posts will probably be closed to them now.

Your assertions of ignorance are based on the assertions of the clique, rather than legitimate.

Really? So am I to believe that every anon blogger and Journalist has at least a BSc in Palaeoclimatology now? I suspect not.

The huge majority of articles I've read (inlcuding ones you've posted or linked to) contain no science beyond pointing out the flaws (or incorrect statements) in the existing theory. Some actually go as far as providing the relevant scientific reasons, but none have outright disproved the existance of AGW (or indeed provided science to that effect), and most go on the "well, we've pointed out the flaws, so you know we're right" line of reasoning, which makes no scientific sense. To use your words, it's politics.

Since you claim(ed) to have a scientific background, this is something you should understand.

It equates to defending the existence of NBC weaponry in Iraq based on statements by the Bush administration. There <are> and <were> such weapons, but they weren't of the quantity or status claimed by the Executive. Does this mean that there isn't ignorance on the side of the skeptics? Of course not.

Half truth. There were bits of pieces of the weapons, and the facilities to build them. According to various sources (but I really don't know how true this is), there were launchers for missiles that didn't exist, and missiles for launchers that didn't exist. There were also missiles that didn't have the corresponding warheads, and warheads without corresponding missiles, apparantly.

Which to someone's who iss 20 years old, living in the UK, and not part of the social elite or farming communities, suggests that Iraq did indeed have "bits and pieces" of WMDs, but probably nothing that could have been used within a useful timescale.

Oddly, we still have the UK gvt going on the line "there weren't any" while the media for once seems a little better informed.

But that side is vastly outweighed by the ignorance on the side of the true believers - beautifully exemplified by yourself, with your beliefs about sacking cities and blackpowder cannon being responsible for the MWP.

Yet another case of misrepresentation on your part. And by this point, I'm convinced you're doing it on purpose. Stop doing Politics and start a proper debate.

I have tried quite hard to avoid citing multiple articles referring to the "trick", because as I've stated until I'm sick of you bringing it up, I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ARSE ABOUT THE 'TRICK' MEMO.

...
You're right, I don't care. I never cared. I couldn't give a rat's arse about the word "trick". In fact, the only part of that memo that I even think is relevant is the later part which talks about "hide the decline"....

Despite your unwillingness to address the completely damning code issue, that's still untrue. The e-mails referring to the attempts to avoid and subvert FoI are criminal in nature. Doubtless part of the reason the CRU has taken their FTP server offline (the one the mole posted the file on in the first place).

Unwillingness? I haven't even tried to discuss the intricate 'art' of computer or mathematical modelling, since I'm dealing with someone who still can't even get out the continual cycle of politics.

Unlike data, Ocean and Earth Scientists do tend to like to protect the code of their models. As for the potential criminal acts, that's a matter for the courts and any comments I make would be without the relevant knowledge or experience in the legal field. I suspect much the same as yours.

I understand your claim, but I don't mindlessly agree with it as you seem to expect me to. The studies contrived by the clique are at the root of so many other claims and data sets that one of two eventualities are going to be the outcome.

I never want someone to "mindlessly" agree with me. Yet I'm still surprised you still seem to think that the vast majority on research hinges on so few data sets.

The clique has ensured that any peer review was only performed by those who would support it and them, and not look too closely at their methodology. This destroys the supposed credibility of the peer review process through exactly the same problem which I have previously argued with B.E. - that peer review is susceptible to groupthink and politics.

...

The honest eventuality would be egg on most AGW paleoclimatologist's faces as they have to publish corrections and retractions. This would be science operating as it is supposed to, because basing your work on others' flawed and dishonest work demands reexamination.

I believe it was said pretty early on in the thread, Open Source >> Peer review. Luckily, the "Ocean and Earth" Sciences has been working towards adopting a "best of both" approach, and making most, if not all, of their data freely available (Certainly, the NOCS/University of Southampton School of Ocean and Earth Science uploads all its data, even that collected by students, to certain sites). However, Palaeoclimatology is another matter, where various institutions will doubtless be going over their own data again, but I seriously doubt that so many will be publishing "corrections" on the scale you predict.

And that's not mentioning that such a process is subject to the available data (and something tells me most of the older data will be processed, not raw) and will take time.

But the likely eventuality, much as with Sir Cyril Burt's twin studies and already presaged by the incredibly corrupt claims of Pachauri and a couple of other IPCC outlets, is that the dishonesty will be deliberately ignored and groupthink will incorporate the CRU's claims much like the NBC Bush AWOL memos: as "Fake, but True".

If that happens, it'll be a sad time to be a scientist.