What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Science is Settled: GW is Conspiracy/Fraud (1 Viewer)

you seem to be the one missing the point. Humans have an infinitely insignificant effect on the climate of the earth. End of story.
Really? I seem to have missed the whole plot of the story.I'm sure that you have reams of unbiased and non-partisan data to tell it, though.
just do a google search for a graph or listing of avg global temps for the entire planets history. You will see, according to scientists, wild fluctuations over long periods of time, including but not limited to massive ice ages and world wide tropical conditions. Whatever warming we can measure the last 100 years (and even this is under dispute, as measuring abilities are far greater now than 100 yrs ago) is well within standard statistical deviation. To say that humans are causing the earth to warm out of control and that we need to redistribute the wealth of the world via the UN, have Al Gore writing poems about it, have the EPA determine that CO2 is a pollutant, presumably so they can regulate the #### out of us, have cap and trade schemes, green jobs schemes and carbon credit schemes, is quite frankly absurd.when you consider humans have only occupied the earth for a blip of the planets climate fluctuations, to say that global warming is due to human inducement is on its face absurd beyond comprehension. To take the further step of acting to reorgranize the economies of the world based on an absurd assumption is lunacy.
 
If anyone is interested here is a good article.

The misrepresentation of these emails is just another attack by the hard right.

 
If anyone is interested here is a good article.

The misrepresentation of these emails is just another attack by the hard right.
:ptts: Al Gore - the poster child for objective critique. He probably has more at stake with respect to AGW than anyone in the planet.
 
There was also a Y2K bug that was causing everything after 2000 to be .15 degrees Celsius higher. In light of these errors, don't you think it's reasonable that their data and algorithms are turned over to public scrutiny so that they can really be examined for any other potential errors? What is the basis for them refusing to disclose this?
Yes, this is likely unreasonable and in some cases prohibited. This is a argument that that the anti-AGW crowd should be allowed to go fishing. If you have actual evidence for your claim you don't need to go fishing.
 
If anyone is interested here is a good article.

The misrepresentation of these emails is just another attack by the hard right.
Oh, well if Gore says so it must be true. I wonder if he's found manbearpig yet.
If you are already jumping to discredit it, then it must be contain something you do not want to be heard.
Come on, it's Big Al. He not only loses prestige points (bad for a politician) but he also is heavily invested in a company set up to trade carbon credits. And he also likes attacking the hard right anyway. Surely you can find a more credible source than this.
 
If anyone is interested here is a good article.

The misrepresentation of these emails is just another attack by the hard right.
Oh, well if Gore says so it must be true. I wonder if he's found manbearpig yet.
If you are already jumping to discredit it, then it must be contain something you do not want to be heard.
Al Gore has already discredited himself enough, no need for us to pile on.that you would foist him up as some sort of authority says more about you than anything. That you would take the further position that the emails are being misrepresented by the "hard right" is a joke. Have you even read the emails>? I have, they speak for themselves. But since you seem to be interested in this story, here's a link so you can read them yourself.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/post-yo...-emaildocs-here

 
There was also a Y2K bug that was causing everything after 2000 to be .15 degrees Celsius higher. In light of these errors, don't you think it's reasonable that their data and algorithms are turned over to public scrutiny so that they can really be examined for any other potential errors? What is the basis for them refusing to disclose this?
Yes, this is likely unreasonable and in some cases prohibited. This is a argument that that the anti-AGW crowd should be allowed to go fishing. If you have actual evidence for your claim you don't need to go fishing.
So you think that if we are funding research with public money and the results of the research will affect publlic policy that the data and algorithms should not be subject to public scrutiny? You just want to blindly believe?
 
There was also a Y2K bug that was causing everything after 2000 to be .15 degrees Celsius higher. In light of these errors, don't you think it's reasonable that their data and algorithms are turned over to public scrutiny so that they can really be examined for any other potential errors? What is the basis for them refusing to disclose this?
Yes, this is likely unreasonable and in some cases prohibited. This is a argument that that the anti-AGW crowd should be allowed to go fishing. If you have actual evidence for your claim you don't need to go fishing.
So you think that if we are funding research with public money and the results of the research will affect publlic policy that the data and algorithms should not be subject to public scrutiny? You just want to blindly believe?
The data and algorithms are subject to public scrutiny. Dodds hasn't released the algorithms used for weekly projections and the manual tweaks he might make but I'm still completely capable of scrutinizing his published results. The GISS incident shows that the anti AGW side can scrutinizing data without fishing expeditions.
 
If the science is as certain, stable, and infallible as has been claimed, it can withstand public scrutiny. All of it - not just the outputs, but the nuts and bolts of the source code.

The public paid for it, so IMO the public has a right to fact-check it, debate it, question it's accuracy, test it's limitations and assumptions, and verify the results. Even the big oil companies deserve a shot to poke holes in it - if it's settled, no biggie, right?

Gore et al. compare AGW's certainty to gravity - I'm pretty sure Newton would be ok with Boeing trying to disprove it.

 
There was also a Y2K bug that was causing everything after 2000 to be .15 degrees Celsius higher. In light of these errors, don't you think it's reasonable that their data and algorithms are turned over to public scrutiny so that they can really be examined for any other potential errors? What is the basis for them refusing to disclose this?
Yes, this is likely unreasonable and in some cases prohibited. This is a argument that that the anti-AGW crowd should be allowed to go fishing. If you have actual evidence for your claim you don't need to go fishing.
So you think that if we are funding research with public money and the results of the research will affect publlic policy that the data and algorithms should not be subject to public scrutiny? You just want to blindly believe?
The data and algorithms are subject to public scrutiny. Dodds hasn't released the algorithms used for weekly projections and the manual tweaks he might make but I'm still completely capable of scrutinizing his published results. The GISS incident shows that the anti AGW side can scrutinizing data without fishing expeditions.
And Dodds is often wrong. And Doods prognostications don't affect the world economy (sorry Dave - your Stock strategy posts affect the economy more than your ffb projections).I'm not sure where you are coming from anymore. It sounds like first you argue against releasing data and algorithms because it would be an anti-AGW fishing expedition, then you say they are subject to public scrutiny (which they haven't been, BTW). Could you please clarify? Inquiring minds want to know.

And BTW, all published science shou;ld be open to public scrutiny, especially if paid for by public dollars. That fact that it has not been is what has gotten us here.

 
If the science is as certain, stable, and infallible as has been claimed, it can withstand public scrutiny. All of it - not just the outputs, but the nuts and bolts of the source code.The public paid for it, so IMO the public has a right to fact-check it, debate it, question it's accuracy, test it's limitations and assumptions, and verify the results. Even the big oil companies deserve a shot to poke holes in it - if it's settled, no biggie, right?Gore et al. compare AGW's certainty to gravity - I'm pretty sure Newton would be ok with Boeing trying to disprove it.
You support allowing inmates unlimited access to the courts also, correct? Because that is what you are demanding. It is not a reasonable request. If you believe that the AGW ideas are wrong come up with a better idea using science. Subscribe to some sources of data and do the work.
 
There was also a Y2K bug that was causing everything after 2000 to be .15 degrees Celsius higher. In light of these errors, don't you think it's reasonable that their data and algorithms are turned over to public scrutiny so that they can really be examined for any other potential errors? What is the basis for them refusing to disclose this?
Yes, this is likely unreasonable and in some cases prohibited. This is a argument that that the anti-AGW crowd should be allowed to go fishing. If you have actual evidence for your claim you don't need to go fishing.
So you think that if we are funding research with public money and the results of the research will affect publlic policy that the data and algorithms should not be subject to public scrutiny? You just want to blindly believe?
The data and algorithms are subject to public scrutiny. Dodds hasn't released the algorithms used for weekly projections and the manual tweaks he might make but I'm still completely capable of scrutinizing his published results. The GISS incident shows that the anti AGW side can scrutinizing data without fishing expeditions.
And Dodds is often wrong. And Doods prognostications don't affect the world economy (sorry Dave - your Stock strategy posts affect the economy more than your ffb projections).I'm not sure where you are coming from anymore. It sounds like first you argue against releasing data and algorithms because it would be an anti-AGW fishing expedition, then you say they are subject to public scrutiny (which they haven't been, BTW). Could you please clarify? Inquiring minds want to know.

And BTW, all published science shou;ld be open to public scrutiny, especially if paid for by public dollars. That fact that it has not been is what has gotten us here.
To understand his hesitancy...assume someone had information that Jesus was just hanging out for three days and faked his own death. Would that prove he isn't the son of god? No. Would it cause you to question it? Sure would. Those who have accepted the dogma of AGW no longer wish to question their faith, they would just rather believe.
 
Yes, this is likely unreasonable and in some cases prohibited. This is a argument that that the anti-AGW crowd should be allowed to go fishing. If you have actual evidence for your claim you don't need to go fishing.
So you think that if we are funding research with public money and the results of the research will affect publlic policy that the data and algorithms should not be subject to public scrutiny? You just want to blindly believe?
The data and algorithms are subject to public scrutiny. Dodds hasn't released the algorithms used for weekly projections and the manual tweaks he might make but I'm still completely capable of scrutinizing his published results. The GISS incident shows that the anti AGW side can scrutinizing data without fishing expeditions.
And Dodds is often wrong. And Doods prognostications don't affect the world economy (sorry Dave - your Stock strategy posts affect the economy more than your ffb projections).I'm not sure where you are coming from anymore. It sounds like first you argue against releasing data and algorithms because it would be an anti-AGW fishing expedition, then you say they are subject to public scrutiny (which they haven't been, BTW). Could you please clarify? Inquiring minds want to know.

And BTW, all published science shou;ld be open to public scrutiny, especially if paid for by public dollars. That fact that it has not been is what has gotten us here.
To understand his hesitancy...assume someone had information that Jesus was just hanging out for three days and faked his own death. Would that prove he isn't the son of god? No. Would it cause you to question it? Sure would. Those who have accepted the dogma of AGW no longer wish to question their faith, they would just rather believe.
I don't think I would have couched it in those terms, but there is a certain truth in what you are saying in both the scientific and lay community alike.
 
There was also a Y2K bug that was causing everything after 2000 to be .15 degrees Celsius higher. In light of these errors, don't you think it's reasonable that their data and algorithms are turned over to public scrutiny so that they can really be examined for any other potential errors? What is the basis for them refusing to disclose this?
Yes, this is likely unreasonable and in some cases prohibited. This is a argument that that the anti-AGW crowd should be allowed to go fishing. If you have actual evidence for your claim you don't need to go fishing.
So you think that if we are funding research with public money and the results of the research will affect publlic policy that the data and algorithms should not be subject to public scrutiny? You just want to blindly believe?
The data and algorithms are subject to public scrutiny. Dodds hasn't released the algorithms used for weekly projections and the manual tweaks he might make but I'm still completely capable of scrutinizing his published results. The GISS incident shows that the anti AGW side can scrutinizing data without fishing expeditions.
And Dodds is often wrong. And Doods prognostications don't affect the world economy (sorry Dave - your Stock strategy posts affect the economy more than your ffb projections).I'm not sure where you are coming from anymore. It sounds like first you argue against releasing data and algorithms because it would be an anti-AGW fishing expedition, then you say they are subject to public scrutiny (which they haven't been, BTW). Could you please clarify? Inquiring minds want to know.

And BTW, all published science shou;ld be open to public scrutiny, especially if paid for by public dollars. That fact that it has not been is what has gotten us here.
I'm not arguing against releasing anything. I'm arguing that you and I don't have a claim on data that was subscribed to even if our taxes were paying the subscription fees. You and I don't have a claim on closed source code even if we paid the consultants and contractors to develop it. I'm arguing that this is not a reasonable claim.How do you know that Dodds is often wrong? At the same time I'm arguing that the results can be verified. Someone said algorithms, but it is not the algorithms that are being questioned but the implementation of those algorithms. That can be tested without seeing the source code.

Finally, I'm arguing that all that is really wanted is ammunition to use. More crap. There will be bugs in the implementation, it is inevitable if for no other reason than rounding errors. Each one of these will be another a-ha moment of nonsense. All it will do is stop the only thing that can honestly "call into question" the science and that is science itself.

 
To understand his hesitancy...assume someone had information that Jesus was just hanging out for three days and faked his own death. Would that prove he isn't the son of god? No. Would it cause you to question it? Sure would. Those who have accepted the dogma of AGW no longer wish to question their faith, they would just rather believe.
I have accepted no dogma of anything here other than the simple belief that the only way the "dogma of AGW" can be discredited is through science. Sorry.
 
To understand his hesitancy...assume someone had information that Jesus was just hanging out for three days and faked his own death. Would that prove he isn't the son of god? No. Would it cause you to question it? Sure would. Those who have accepted the dogma of AGW no longer wish to question their faith, they would just rather believe.
I have accepted no dogma of anything here other than the simple belief that the only way the "dogma of AGW" can be discredited is through science. Sorry.
Yes. Quite sorry.
 
Yes, this is likely unreasonable and in some cases prohibited. This is a argument that that the anti-AGW crowd should be allowed to go fishing. If you have actual evidence for your claim you don't need to go fishing.
So you think that if we are funding research with public money and the results of the research will affect publlic policy that the data and algorithms should not be subject to public scrutiny? You just want to blindly believe?
The data and algorithms are subject to public scrutiny. Dodds hasn't released the algorithms used for weekly projections and the manual tweaks he might make but I'm still completely capable of scrutinizing his published results. The GISS incident shows that the anti AGW side can scrutinizing data without fishing expeditions.
And Dodds is often wrong. And Doods prognostications don't affect the world economy (sorry Dave - your Stock strategy posts affect the economy more than your ffb projections).I'm not sure where you are coming from anymore. It sounds like first you argue against releasing data and algorithms because it would be an anti-AGW fishing expedition, then you say they are subject to public scrutiny (which they haven't been, BTW). Could you please clarify? Inquiring minds want to know.

And BTW, all published science shou;ld be open to public scrutiny, especially if paid for by public dollars. That fact that it has not been is what has gotten us here.
I'm not arguing against releasing anything. I'm arguing that you and I don't have a claim on data that was subscribed to even if our taxes were paying the subscription fees. You and I don't have a claim on closed source code even if we paid the consultants and contractors to develop it. I'm arguing that this is not a reasonable claim.How do you know that Dodds is often wrong? At the same time I'm arguing that the results can be verified. Someone said algorithms, but it is not the algorithms that are being questioned but the implementation of those algorithms. That can be tested without seeing the source code.

Finally, I'm arguing that all that is really wanted is ammunition to use. More crap. There will be bugs in the implementation, it is inevitable if for no other reason than rounding errors. Each one of these will be another a-ha moment of nonsense. All it will do is stop the only thing that can honestly "call into question" the science and that is science itself.
If everything is public then science itself has the access necessary to call it into question. Good science can stand up to criticism. They should welcome it, not try to blackball skeptics.Dodds being often wrong should be easy to verify. Try it.

 
If the science is as certain, stable, and infallible as has been claimed, it can withstand public scrutiny. All of it - not just the outputs, but the nuts and bolts of the source code.The public paid for it, so IMO the public has a right to fact-check it, debate it, question it's accuracy, test it's limitations and assumptions, and verify the results. Even the big oil companies deserve a shot to poke holes in it - if it's settled, no biggie, right?Gore et al. compare AGW's certainty to gravity - I'm pretty sure Newton would be ok with Boeing trying to disprove it.
You support allowing inmates unlimited access to the courts also, correct? Because that is what you are demanding. It is not a reasonable request. If you believe that the AGW ideas are wrong come up with a better idea using science. Subscribe to some sources of data and do the work.
What you don't seem to understand is that the sources of data have been compromised though. f I am going to subscribe, I want to verify the accuracy of the data (or interpretations) that I am receiving.
 
If the science is as certain, stable, and infallible as has been claimed, it can withstand public scrutiny. All of it - not just the outputs, but the nuts and bolts of the source code.

The public paid for it, so IMO the public has a right to fact-check it, debate it, question it's accuracy, test it's limitations and assumptions, and verify the results. Even the big oil companies deserve a shot to poke holes in it - if it's settled, no biggie, right?

Gore et al. compare AGW's certainty to gravity - I'm pretty sure Newton would be ok with Boeing trying to disprove it.
You support allowing inmates unlimited access to the courts also, correct? Because that is what you are demanding. It is not a reasonable request. If you believe that the AGW ideas are wrong come up with a better idea using science. Subscribe to some sources of data and do the work.
What you don't seem to understand is that the sources of data have been compromised though. f I am going to subscribe, I want to verify the accuracy of the data (or interpretations) that I am receiving.
What are you even talking about. Data is held throughout the world by whole bunches of different scientists.
 
If the science is as certain, stable, and infallible as has been claimed, it can withstand public scrutiny. All of it - not just the outputs, but the nuts and bolts of the source code.

The public paid for it, so IMO the public has a right to fact-check it, debate it, question it's accuracy, test it's limitations and assumptions, and verify the results. Even the big oil companies deserve a shot to poke holes in it - if it's settled, no biggie, right?

Gore et al. compare AGW's certainty to gravity - I'm pretty sure Newton would be ok with Boeing trying to disprove it.
You support allowing inmates unlimited access to the courts also, correct? Because that is what you are demanding. It is not a reasonable request. If you believe that the AGW ideas are wrong come up with a better idea using science. Subscribe to some sources of data and do the work.
What you don't seem to understand is that the sources of data have been compromised though. f I am going to subscribe, I want to verify the accuracy of the data (or interpretations) that I am receiving.
What are you even talking about. Data is held throughout the world by whole bunches of different scientists.
You really haven't been following the debate have you?
 
If the science is as certain, stable, and infallible as has been claimed, it can withstand public scrutiny. All of it - not just the outputs, but the nuts and bolts of the source code.

The public paid for it, so IMO the public has a right to fact-check it, debate it, question it's accuracy, test it's limitations and assumptions, and verify the results. Even the big oil companies deserve a shot to poke holes in it - if it's settled, no biggie, right?

Gore et al. compare AGW's certainty to gravity - I'm pretty sure Newton would be ok with Boeing trying to disprove it.
You support allowing inmates unlimited access to the courts also, correct? Because that is what you are demanding. It is not a reasonable request. If you believe that the AGW ideas are wrong come up with a better idea using science. Subscribe to some sources of data and do the work.
What you don't seem to understand is that the sources of data have been compromised though. f I am going to subscribe, I want to verify the accuracy of the data (or interpretations) that I am receiving.
What are you even talking about. Data is held throughout the world by whole bunches of different scientists.
You really haven't been following the debate have you?
No...I've been following you're "argument"...there is a huge difference in saying the data has been compromised (which it hasn't been) versus arguing over the hypothesis and methods used in analyzing that data.
 
The probem as I understand it is that the "bad apples" controlled the data against which a lot of other data was calibrated. So the conclusions of a lot of honest research can be called into question as well.

You and I both know as well, that in building models, certain assumptions are used. If the assumptions used are wrong, the model is wrong. It appears that is what has happened and rather than being honest about it, certain scientists atrted massaging the data to fit the model.

I don't think there is a major conspiracy either, but I do know, as you do too, that scientists are all too human, have egos and often defend their pet theories emotionally as much as scientifically. It is entirely possible, IMO that a combination of factors has built a house of cards that is now tumbling down. Unfortunately, this doesn't put us in a scenario where AGW is discredited so much as it puts us in a scenario where certain scientists and institutions are, and the real answers are as unknown now as they were 30 years ago.
Translation: "I'm not really sure what's going on or what the overall effect is but I do know that we're now right back where we were in 1979." :thumbup:

"I may have never bought a live pig, used yuan as a currency, or ever been to Shanghai but I can tell you with certainty that if you were to buy one in a live market there today it would be between 25 and 30 yuan... and that you should have bought it last week when the guy at the one corner was trying to sell them for cheaper in order to cover a cash-flow problem he was having because his wife was sick."
You need to have your universal translator repaired or replaced. It isn't working well. Or maybe there is a disconnect between it and your reflex pathways.
What I said is completely fair.You acknowledge that you don't know the extent of the issue yet you declare definitely, "the real answers are as unknown now as they were 30 years ago." My guess is that people who actually work and research in the field would strenuously disagree.
That's not what I said at all. The calibrated and normalized data are compromised. The computer model is bad and isn't prognosticating actual events. The CRU has covered itt up. A significant part of the GW researchers use CRU resuklts for calibration of their own data (which generally are indirect measurements). The real answers are unknown as a result. So of course, we don't know what the answers are - which is exactly where we were in 1979.I don't see why you would have a problem with that logic. I can see where there would be a problem if I said: "The data are compromised, the computer modelling isn't working, CRU cooked the data, therefore AGW is completely disproved."
Why? Because the logic leaves out huge gaps of information. Most importantly, it leaves out (because you don't know and I don't know) how much sway the "compromised" data has and what net effect, if any, it has. You are leaping to the conclusion that all climate research is based off of this data and all research is suspect, putting us back an (arbitrary) 30 years. This is a categorical error. You admit yourself that you don't know much about this issue. Therefore you (and I) are thoroughly unqualified to make arbitrary and sweeping statements on the extent of the harm.That is why my analogy is perfectly fair and what you said is perfectly ridiculous.

 
What you don't seem to understand is that the sources of data have been compromised though. f I am going to subscribe, I want to verify the accuracy of the data (or interpretations) that I am receiving.
I'm not talking about the CRU, or NOAA, or GISS, or whatever sources of compiled data, I'm talking about the data that they subscribed to in order to build their databases. The data that you think they should be required to release despite the fact that some of it is not their's to release.
 
The data and algorithms are subject to public scrutiny. Dodds hasn't released the algorithms used for weekly projections and the manual tweaks he might make but I'm still completely capable of scrutinizing his published results. The GISS incident shows that the anti AGW side can scrutinizing data without fishing expeditions.
Here's what McIntyre wrote again:
Well, my estimate of the impact on the US temperature series was about 0.18-0.19 deg C., a little bit more than Ruedy’s 0.15 deg C. My estimate added a small negative offset going into 2000 to the positive offset of about 0.15-0.16 after 2000 – I suspect that Ruedy is not counting both parts, thereby slightly minimizing the impact. However, I think that you’ll agree that my estimate of the impact of the impact was pretty good, given that I don’t have access to their particular black box.

Needless to say, they were totally unresponsive to my request for source code. They shouldn’t be surprised if they get an FOI request. I’ll post some more after I chance to cross-check their reply.

As to the impact on NH and global data, I’ve noted long before this exchange that the non-US data in GHCN looks more problematic to me than the US data and it would be really nice if surfacestations.org starting getting some international feedback. Ruedy’s reply was copied to Hansen and to Gavin Schmidt. I’m not sure what business it is of Gavin’s other than his “private capacity” involvement in a prominent blog.

This entry was written by

Steve McIntyre, posted on Aug 6, 2007 at 9:19 PM, filed under NASA (Hansen), Surface Record. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave
Here's a quote from him at Wiki:
My original interest in GISS adjustment procedures was not an abstract interest, but a specific interest in whether GISS adjustment procedures were equal to the challenge of “fixing” bad data. If one views the above assessment as a type of limited software audit (limited by lack of access to source code and operating manuals), one can say firmly that the GISS software had not only failed to pick up and correct fictitious steps of up to 1 deg C, but that GISS actually introduced this error in the course of their programming. According to any reasonable audit standards, one would conclude that the GISS software had failed this particular test. While GISS can (and has) patched the particular error that I reported to them, their patching hardly proves the merit of the GISS (and [united States Historical Climate Network]) adjustment procedures. These need to be carefully examined.
It's false that they are releasing the source code and algorithms they use to massage the data. And the extent of his scrutiny is without a doubt limited in light of this. He was able to find the error, but even his estimates of the impact of the error on their numbers was off because of the fact that they won't give up the source code. What is the basis for this? And you don't find the emails regarding how they will respond to FOI requests troubling in light of this? And why is Gavin Schmidt so involved in the email chains for both of these places?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
you seem to be the one missing the point. Humans have an infinitely insignificant effect on the climate of the earth. End of story.
Really? I seem to have missed the whole plot of the story.I'm sure that you have reams of unbiased and non-partisan data to tell it, though.
just do a google search for a graph or listing of avg global temps for the entire planets history. You will see, according to scientists, wild fluctuations over long periods of time, including but not limited to massive ice ages and world wide tropical conditions. Whatever warming we can measure the last 100 years (and even this is under dispute, as measuring abilities are far greater now than 100 yrs ago) is well within standard statistical deviation. To say that humans are causing the earth to warm out of control and that we need to redistribute the wealth of the world via the UN, have Al Gore writing poems about it, have the EPA determine that CO2 is a pollutant, presumably so they can regulate the #### out of us, have cap and trade schemes, green jobs schemes and carbon credit schemes, is quite frankly absurd.when you consider humans have only occupied the earth for a blip of the planets climate fluctuations, to say that global warming is due to human inducement is on its face absurd beyond comprehension. To take the further step of acting to reorgranize the economies of the world based on an absurd assumption is lunacy.
The evidence you are trying to push does not support the hypothesis which you are trying to sell. Just because time is long does not mean that we don't have an effect on the part of it which we occupy. Really, you're asserting anti-rationality here. You're not positing any methodology at all; you're just saying, "Hey, temperatures vary! Look at the last 150 million years! There's no way we can effect that!" Unfortunately for you, the super-majority of scientific opinion disagrees with you.In short, you don't bring any evidence, just rhetoric.Epic FAIL.
 
Translation: "I'm not really sure what's going on or what the overall effect is but I do know that we're now right back where we were in 1979."

:thumbup:

"I may have never bought a live pig, used yuan as a currency, or ever been to Shanghai but I can tell you with certainty that if you were to buy one in a live market there today it would be between 25 and 30 yuan... and that you should have bought it last week when the guy at the one corner was trying to sell them for cheaper in order to cover a cash-flow problem he was having because his wife was sick."
You need to have your universal translator repaired or replaced. It isn't working well. Or maybe there is a disconnect between it and your reflex pathways.
What I said is completely fair.You acknowledge that you don't know the extent of the issue yet you declare definitely, "the real answers are as unknown now as they were 30 years ago." My guess is that people who actually work and research in the field would strenuously disagree.
That's not what I said at all. The calibrated and normalized data are compromised. The computer model is bad and isn't prognosticating actual events. The CRU has covered itt up. A significant part of the GW researchers use CRU resuklts for calibration of their own data (which generally are indirect measurements). The real answers are unknown as a result. So of course, we don't know what the answers are - which is exactly where we were in 1979.I don't see why you would have a problem with that logic. I can see where there would be a problem if I said: "The data are compromised, the computer modelling isn't working, CRU cooked the data, therefore AGW is completely disproved."
Why? Because the logic leaves out huge gaps of information. Most importantly, it leaves out (because you don't know and I don't know) how much sway the "compromised" data has and what net effect, if any, it has. You are leaping to the conclusion that all climate research is based off of this data and all research is suspect, putting us back an (arbitrary) 30 years. This is a categorical error. You admit yourself that you don't know much about this issue. Therefore you (and I) are thoroughly unqualified to make arbitrary and sweeping statements on the extent of the harm.That is why my analogy is perfectly fair and what you said is perfectly ridiculous.
There has been lost data (some of it impossible to retrieve), and even other climate scientists (including AGW acolytes) are saying that the modelling and the data are compromised and that the "sway" as you put it, is significant. And there is a difference between what I said (a significant number) and the word you tried to put in my mouth (all). very dishonest of you.
 
What you don't seem to understand is that the sources of data have been compromised though. f I am going to subscribe, I want to verify the accuracy of the data (or interpretations) that I am receiving.
I'm not talking about the CRU, or NOAA, or GISS, or whatever sources of compiled data, I'm talking about the data that they subscribed to in order to build their databases. The data that you think they should be required to release despite the fact that some of it is not their's to release.
That would take decades to compile and some of it is lost. I don't think you understand the amount of work involved here. If you did then you'd know how impossible your proposal to me would be.
 
There has been lost data (some of it impossible to retrieve), and even other climate scientists (including AGW acolytes) are saying that the modelling and the data are compromised and that the "sway" as you put it, is significant. And there is a difference between what I said (a significant number) and the word you tried to put in my mouth (all). very dishonest of you.
If you want to prove yourself right, then cite to reputable scientists saying that this completely and utterly sets climate research back 30 years.
 
There has been lost data (some of it impossible to retrieve), and even other climate scientists (including AGW acolytes) are saying that the modelling and the data are compromised and that the "sway" as you put it, is significant. And there is a difference between what I said (a significant number) and the word you tried to put in my mouth (all). very dishonest of you.
If you want to prove yourself right, then cite to reputable scientists saying that this completely and utterly sets climate research back 30 years.
Lots of citations to reputable scientists in this thread and also lots of references to how long it will take to duplicate the results going all the way back to raw data and rebuilding computer models, collecting data to see if the models work, etc. Not going to rehash for your benefit.
 
There is a reason the rest of the world bilks Americans out of billions of dollars every year through internet scams. Americans will believe anything and most are not capable of independent thought.

 
Here's another recent one from McIntyre's blog:

Mann: "Dirty Laundry" from MBH98-99

Gerald North, Dec 1, 2009 purporting to justify data refusals by the Team:

McIntyre entered the fray by asking for data from Mann and his coauthors in about 2000 [actually 2003, but who expects accuracy from climate scientists]. As I understand it they complied, but the more they complied the more he wanted. He began to make requests of others. He sometimes not only wanted data, but computer programs. When he could not figure out how the programs worked he wanted help. From what they tell me this became so irritating that they stopped answering his emails.

North is giving public credence to this increasingly popular meme among climate scientists. Virtually everything in North’s meme is untrue. Rather than provide a detailed rebuttal, let me suggest an another and far more plausible alternative. Mann and others didn’t want to give data to potential critics. Let me show an actual situation, one where the Climategate Letters provide much new information.

The Mann et al 1998-99 reconstruction had “steps” (grandiosely called “experiments” by Mann), but the results of the individual steps were never archived, only the splice of 11 steps. For statistical analysis, one needs to have the residuals, which we requested in 2003. Mann refused. At this point in 2003, contrary to North’s allegations, Mann hadn’t provided any source code, any computer programs nor any interpretations of computer programs. All that he had provided us was a URL on his FTP site for the proxy data supposedly used in MBH – a data set that he later claimed was the “wrong” data set and which he deleted in Nov 2003 and a new version of the MBH proxy data was made public. At the point that the residuals were refused, Mann hadn’t spent more than a few minutes responding to requests from us.

The MBH residual series crop up in the Climategate Letters. In July 2003, Mann had sent CRU the very data that he later refused to provide to us. (BTW Osborn also asked Mann for source code and interpretation of matters that he did not understand.) Mann made it very clear to Osborn that the residual series were provided in total confidence, that they were “dirty laundry” which he did not want to “fall into” the wrong hands.

Did Mann refuse to provide the residual series to us because answering our inquiries had taken up so much of his time that he stopped answering? Or was there some other reason?

Michael Mann to Tim Osborn, CRU, July 2003

Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks back to: AD 1000, AD 1400, AD 1600… You only want to look at the first column (year) and second column (residual) of the files. I can’t even remember what the other columns are! mike

p.s. I know I probably don’t need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on this, I’m providing these for your own personal use, since you’re a trusted colleague. So please don’t pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of “dirty laundry” one doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things…

McIntyre to Mann, December 2003 cc NSF

In MBH98 and MBH99, you refer to analyses of residuals carried out in these studies. Could you please provide me with (a) preferably, a FTP location for the residual series, together an FTP reference for the program generating the residuals; or, (b) in the absence of such FTP location, an email enclosing this information. Your analysis of these residuals was used to estimate confidence intervals in an influential scientific paper.

David Verardo Director, Paleoclimate Program, US National Science Foundation, Dec. 17, 2003 preemptively permitting Mann not to disclose his “dirty laundry”:

Dr. Mann and his other US colleagues are under no obligation to provide you with any additional data beyond the extensive data sets they have already made available. He is not required to provide you with computer programs, codes, etc. His research is published in the peer-reviewed literature which has passed muster with the editors of those journals and other scientists who have reviewed his manuscripts. You are free to your analysis of climate data and he is free to his.

McIntyre to Ziemelis of Nature, August 2004

we are writing to reiterate long-standing requests for data and results from MBH98, which we have already communicated on several occasions. You had stated that these requests would be resolved in the new SI, but unfortunately this is not the case. While you are undoubtedly weary of this correspondence, our original request for disclosure was reasonable and remains reasonable. It is only the unresponsiveness of the original authors that is placing a burden on you and your associates. Some of these items have been outstanding for 7 months. They were not attended to in the new SI and need to be dealt with promptly. … In particular, we still seek … the results of the 11 “experiments” referred to in MBH98, including: (b) the NH temperature reconstruction (11 series from the start of each calculation step to 1980); © the residuals (11 series from the start of each calculation step to 1980)… Since their claims of skill in reconstructing past climates depend on these “experiments” and their estimation of confidence intervals is based on the residual series, it is unnecessary to explain why these data are of interest. Again, we have repeatedly requested this data.

Ziemelis to McIntyre, Sept 2004

And with regard to the additional experimental results that you request, our view is that this too goes beyond an obligation on the part of the authors, given that the full listing of the source data and documentation of the procedures used to generate the final findings are provided in the corrected Supplementary Information. (This is the most that we would normally require of any author.)

This entry was written by

Steve McIntyre, posted on Dec 1, 2009 at 4:38 PM, filed under Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackba
Why are these guys so against releasing this stuff to reasonable requests? Stuff that is funded with taxpayer money?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
so we are clear, what exactly is invalid about my argument?
You don't have an argument. You do not offer counter statistics, you lack a focused thesis, and your lack of support makes your conclusion far less than sound.Moreover, validity is not a measure of discourse.
well here's an argument, and according to the scientists, its indisputable.over the course of 4.5 billion years the earth has been through periods of millions of years of significantly hotter and cooler weather than what we have experienced the last 2000 years, let alone the last 50 or last 20. in this light, the idea of global warming is a joke. We're fretting over 0.5 C over a century.
You clearly miss the point. The argument is not about whether or not the earth has risen and fallen in overall global temps over time, no one disputes that. The argument is that it is currently happening due to human influence. So again, you have no argument per se, you simply restate political rhetoric.
you seem to be the one missing the point. Humans have an infinitely insignificant effect on the climate of the earth. End of story.
So deforestation, pollution of our oceans, paving over wetlands, etc., etc., have no effect.Wow. Just, wow.
 
You don't have an argument. You do not offer counter statistics, you lack a focused thesis, and your lack of support makes your conclusion far less than sound.Moreover, validity is not a measure of discourse.
well here's an argument, and according to the scientists, its indisputable.over the course of 4.5 billion years the earth has been through periods of millions of years of significantly hotter and cooler weather than what we have experienced the last 2000 years, let alone the last 50 or last 20. in this light, the idea of global warming is a joke. We're fretting over 0.5 C over a century.
You clearly miss the point. The argument is not about whether or not the earth has risen and fallen in overall global temps over time, no one disputes that. The argument is that it is currently happening due to human influence. So again, you have no argument per se, you simply restate political rhetoric.
you seem to be the one missing the point. Humans have an infinitely insignificant effect on the climate of the earth. End of story.
So deforestation, pollution of our oceans, paving over wetlands, etc., etc., have no effect.Wow. Just, wow.
If you're going to counter, at least do so honestly. He didn't say no effect, he said an infinitely insignificant effect.
 
The data and algorithms are subject to public scrutiny. Dodds hasn't released the algorithms used for weekly projections and the manual tweaks he might make but I'm still completely capable of scrutinizing his published results. The GISS incident shows that the anti AGW side can scrutinizing data without fishing expeditions.
Here's what McIntyre wrote again:
Well, my estimate of the impact on the US temperature series was about 0.18-0.19 deg C., a little bit more than Ruedy’s 0.15 deg C. My estimate added a small negative offset going into 2000 to the positive offset of about 0.15-0.16 after 2000 – I suspect that Ruedy is not counting both parts, thereby slightly minimizing the impact. However, I think that you’ll agree that my estimate of the impact of the impact was pretty good, given that I don’t have access to their particular black box.

Needless to say, they were totally unresponsive to my request for source code. They shouldn’t be surprised if they get an FOI request. I’ll post some more after I chance to cross-check their reply.

As to the impact on NH and global data, I’ve noted long before this exchange that the non-US data in GHCN looks more problematic to me than the US data and it would be really nice if surfacestations.org starting getting some international feedback. Ruedy’s reply was copied to Hansen and to Gavin Schmidt. I’m not sure what business it is of Gavin’s other than his “private capacity” involvement in a prominent blog.

This entry was written by

Steve McIntyre, posted on Aug 6, 2007 at 9:19 PM, filed under NASA (Hansen), Surface Record. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave
Here's a quote from him at Wiki:
My original interest in GISS adjustment procedures was not an abstract interest, but a specific interest in whether GISS adjustment procedures were equal to the challenge of “fixing” bad data. If one views the above assessment as a type of limited software audit (limited by lack of access to source code and operating manuals), one can say firmly that the GISS software had not only failed to pick up and correct fictitious steps of up to 1 deg C, but that GISS actually introduced this error in the course of their programming. According to any reasonable audit standards, one would conclude that the GISS software had failed this particular test. While GISS can (and has) patched the particular error that I reported to them, their patching hardly proves the merit of the GISS (and [united States Historical Climate Network]) adjustment procedures. These need to be carefully examined.
It's false that they are releasing the source code and algorithms they use to massage the data. And the extent of his scrutiny is without a doubt limited in light of this. He was able to find the error, but even his estimates of the impact of the error on their numbers was off because of the fact that they won't give up the source code. What is the basis for this? And you don't find the emails regarding how they will respond to FOI requests troubling in light of this? And why is Gavin Schmidt so involved in the email chains for both of these places?
Nothing you quoted contradicts anything I have posted. Algorithms and source code are not the same things.
 
you seem to be the one missing the point. Humans have an infinitely insignificant effect on the climate of the earth. End of story.
Really? I seem to have missed the whole plot of the story.I'm sure that you have reams of unbiased and non-partisan data to tell it, though.
just do a google search for a graph or listing of avg global temps for the entire planets history. You will see, according to scientists, wild fluctuations over long periods of time, including but not limited to massive ice ages and world wide tropical conditions. Whatever warming we can measure the last 100 years (and even this is under dispute, as measuring abilities are far greater now than 100 yrs ago) is well within standard statistical deviation. To say that humans are causing the earth to warm out of control and that we need to redistribute the wealth of the world via the UN, have Al Gore writing poems about it, have the EPA determine that CO2 is a pollutant, presumably so they can regulate the #### out of us, have cap and trade schemes, green jobs schemes and carbon credit schemes, is quite frankly absurd.when you consider humans have only occupied the earth for a blip of the planets climate fluctuations, to say that global warming is due to human inducement is on its face absurd beyond comprehension. To take the further step of acting to reorgranize the economies of the world based on an absurd assumption is lunacy.
The evidence you are trying to push does not support the hypothesis which you are trying to sell. Just because time is long does not mean that we don't have an effect on the part of it which we occupy. Really, you're asserting anti-rationality here. You're not positing any methodology at all; you're just saying, "Hey, temperatures vary! Look at the last 150 million years! There's no way we can effect that!" Unfortunately for you, the super-majority of scientific opinion disagrees with you.In short, you don't bring any evidence, just rhetoric.

Epic FAIL.
i'm sorry you are ignorant of human history and I didn't realize you required me to post gobs of data to backup my factual claims.Maybe you can explain the idea of human induced global warming to the vikings that farmed in Greenland and the Romans that grew grapes in Northern England. Or you could check with the ancient Egyptians and blame them for causing the Nile river to change course due to their excessive human induced global warming. Oh snap, check that, all that #### happened before the invention of the internal combustion engine and way before there were 7 billion people on the planet. nevermind then.

you do realize that the planet has been much warmer since human history began correct? And so then you can explain to us how humans induced much worse global warming in the past, before there were billions of humans on earth spewing out CO2 via modern industrial processes.

 
If the science is as certain, stable, and infallible as has been claimed, it can withstand public scrutiny. All of it - not just the outputs, but the nuts and bolts of the source code.

The public paid for it, so IMO the public has a right to fact-check it, debate it, question it's accuracy, test it's limitations and assumptions, and verify the results. Even the big oil companies deserve a shot to poke holes in it - if it's settled, no biggie, right?

Gore et al. compare AGW's certainty to gravity - I'm pretty sure Newton would be ok with Boeing trying to disprove it.
You support allowing inmates unlimited access to the courts also, correct? Because that is what you are demanding. It is not a reasonable request. If you believe that the AGW ideas are wrong come up with a better idea using science. Subscribe to some sources of data and do the work.
What you don't seem to understand is that the sources of data have been compromised though. f I am going to subscribe, I want to verify the accuracy of the data (or interpretations) that I am receiving.
What are you even talking about. Data is held throughout the world by whole bunches of different scientists.
You really haven't been following the debate have you?
:lol: :bow: :hophead:
 
i'm sorry you are ignorant of human history and I didn't realize you required me to post gobs of data to backup my factual claims.

Maybe you can explain the idea of human induced global warming to the vikings that farmed in Greenland and the Romans that grew grapes in Northern England. Or you could check with the ancient Egyptians and blame them for causing the Nile river to change course due to their excessive human induced global warming. Oh snap, check that, all that #### happened before the invention of the internal combustion engine and way before there were 7 billion people on the planet. nevermind then.

you do realize that the planet has been much warmer since human history began correct? And so then you can explain to us how humans induced much worse global warming in the past, before there were billions of humans on earth spewing out CO2 via modern industrial processes.
Let me see if I can put what you're saying in terms that you can understand.There's a concept of water displacement (it's how Archimedes measured volume in the way-back when, but that's not important now). Every time you step in and out of a body of water, the water level moves up as your volume pushes the water aside. Now, it is completely and perfectly reasonable for a person to step into a tidal pool and push the water level up. Your argument boils down to: Tidal pools move up and down of their own accord. Every time the tide comes in, the tidal pool fills up, and it fills up to the top. Therefore it's stupid and unreasonable to say that a person stepping into the tidal pool could have any effect on its level.

At the end of the day, it is possible that there are both natural fluctuations in climate and fluctuations which are a result of man's presence on this planet. These two are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, 82% of scientists and 97% of climatologists think that temperatures are higher than they should be because of man's influence. Does that completely negate and dismiss natural cycles? No. What it is saying, rather, is that we are not in a natural cycle... or at least, the effect that we are seeing is not completely explainable because of natural factors.

Now... what does all this mean in practical terms? I don't really know. I don't even know if CO2 results in higher temperatures or it's the other way around. And, as I've said many many times in this thread, if the scientific wisdom was to change that man's actions were not warming the planet, I'm more than happy to sign onto that doctrine, too. But the current state of the world is:

* A vast majority of scientists believe that the Earth is warming beyond normal expectations; and

* This increase is due to human activity.

Once you start arguing with those 2 points, you're no longer arguing with me. You're no longer arguing with Al Gore. You're no longer arguing with anybody but the body of science. And that's just about where it ends.

 
And Dodds is often wrong. And Doods prognostications don't affect the world economy (sorry Dave - your Stock strategy posts affect the economy more than your ffb projections).I'm not sure where you are coming from anymore. It sounds like first you argue against releasing data and algorithms because it would be an anti-AGW fishing expedition, then you say they are subject to public scrutiny (which they haven't been, BTW). Could you please clarify? Inquiring minds want to know.And BTW, all published science shou;ld be open to public scrutiny, especially if paid for by public dollars. That fact that it has not been is what has gotten us here.
I'm not arguing against releasing anything. I'm arguing that you and I don't have a claim on data that was subscribed to even if our taxes were paying the subscription fees. You and I don't have a claim on closed source code even if we paid the consultants and contractors to develop it. I'm arguing that this is not a reasonable claim.How do you know that Dodds is often wrong? At the same time I'm arguing that the results can be verified. Someone said algorithms, but it is not the algorithms that are being questioned but the implementation of those algorithms. That can be tested without seeing the source code. Finally, I'm arguing that all that is really wanted is ammunition to use. More crap. There will be bugs in the implementation, it is inevitable if for no other reason than rounding errors. Each one of these will be another a-ha moment of nonsense. All it will do is stop the only thing that can honestly "call into question" the science and that is science itself.
Probably the best post in this thread.
 
A single volcanic eruption such as Mt St Helens can affect the worlds climate for a year or more

ie

Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines on June 15, 1991, and one month later Mt. Hudson in southern Chile also erupted. The Pinatubo eruption produced the largest sulfur oxide cloud this century. The combined aerosol plume of Mt. Pinatubo and Mt. Hudson diffused around the globe in a matter of months. The data collected after these eruptions show that mean world temperatures decreased by about 1 degree Centigrade over the subsequent two years. This cooling effect was welcomed by many scientists who saw it as a counter-balance to global warming.
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_...te_effects.htmland yet billions of people spewing out endless CO2 can only generate an 0.7 C increase on avg over 100 years?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/P...rming-Fig02.jpg

just think if only we'd spilled out 30% more crap the last 100 years, we could have matched the effect of two volcanoes

 
A single volcanic eruption such as Mt St Helens can affect the worlds climate for a year or more

ie

Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines on June 15, 1991, and one month later Mt. Hudson in southern Chile also erupted. The Pinatubo eruption produced the largest sulfur oxide cloud this century. The combined aerosol plume of Mt. Pinatubo and Mt. Hudson diffused around the globe in a matter of months. The data collected after these eruptions show that mean world temperatures decreased by about 1 degree Centigrade over the subsequent two years. This cooling effect was welcomed by many scientists who saw it as a counter-balance to global warming.
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_...te_effects.htmland yet billions of people spewing out endless CO2 can only generate an 0.7 C increase on avg over 100 years?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/P...rming-Fig02.jpg

just think if only we'd spilled out 30% more crap the last 100 years, we could have matched the effect of two volcanoes
:lmao:
 
A single volcanic eruption such as Mt St Helens can affect the worlds climate for a year or more

ie

Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines on June 15, 1991, and one month later Mt. Hudson in southern Chile also erupted. The Pinatubo eruption produced the largest sulfur oxide cloud this century. The combined aerosol plume of Mt. Pinatubo and Mt. Hudson diffused around the globe in a matter of months. The data collected after these eruptions show that mean world temperatures decreased by about 1 degree Centigrade over the subsequent two years. This cooling effect was welcomed by many scientists who saw it as a counter-balance to global warming.
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_...te_effects.htmland yet billions of people spewing out endless CO2 can only generate an 0.7 C increase on avg over 100 years?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/P...rming-Fig02.jpg

just think if only we'd spilled out 30% more crap the last 100 years, we could have matched the effect of two volcanoes
You know E. O. Wilson explained all of this ten years ago. Where were you?
 
Bonzai said:
No data was controlled, tampered with, massaged, or lost. Even if all the research at the CRU was deemed flawed, other institutions have independently replicated their work.
this is completely false.
Prove it.
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6936328.ece

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top