The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The Real Climategate Scandal (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9..24~25~26 [Next]
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20613 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
John than you so much for proving my point for me. Let me ask you something. Do you deny that the global warming crowd is a political movement? If so, then I guess there is really nothing else to say.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27157 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On 2010-08-01 19:04, Dannydoyle wrote:
John than you so much for proving my point for me. Let me ask you something. Do you deny that the global warming crowd is a political movement? If so, then I guess there is really nothing else to say.


Creighton warned about the sheeple getting stampeded by this issue years ago. He then wrote a pirate caper - just in case we have a posterity and get to explore psychohistory.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
John,

You ask why I don't find the arguments in the link you posted convincing. OK, let's start with those that Mr. Haydn kindly posted to this thread.

1) "Mistaken Assumption No. 4: Global mean trends are simple averages of all weather stations"

I have not assumed that. What I have said is that the historical surface station temperature records are unreliable. Therefore, no matter how you incorporate them into a model, no matter how apparently sophisticated, the results will be unreliable.

2) "Mistaken Assumption No. 5: Finding problems with individual station data somehow affects climate model projections."

Again, that mis-states the point. The point is not that any one individual station's data are bad, but that 80% of the surface stations in the database are by NOAA standards unreliable for historical data. The whole dataset is bad, not just an individual station's results.

And so on.

Look.

The United States is arguably the richest, most technologically advanced country in the world. And in the United States, when carefully and impartially examined, 80% of the weather stations are improperly sited and constructed, so that their temperature readings are unduly affected by artefact. Am I then supposed to believe that weather stations in Russia are somehow more reliable? Or in Mongolia? The more the actual data are examined, the worse they look in terms of quality and reliability.

Let alone the way that climate modelers add and subtract particular weather stations from their models.

And the extrapolated data from earlier eras, e.g. the tree ring data, are even worse. Surely you are aware of the problems in the influential Yamal tree ring data.

Again, I am not convinced that the current relatively warm climate is anything more than a pleasant interglacial. I am enjoying it!

Woland
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
I think the global warming crowd is basing a lot of their data on psychics.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
That would give new meaning to the term "cold reading."
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5023 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On 2010-08-01 15:13, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-07-30 18:45, Payne wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-07-30 16:25, Dannydoyle wrote:
Heidelberg Appeal. Authored in 1992 and signed by at least 4,000 scientists, including 72 Nobel Prize winners-all skeptics of man made global warming.

Also look at the Oregon Petition. This was eventually signed by 30,000 American scientists who "have formal training in the analysis of information in physical science". (Sort of what John claims huh?)

To save time, I guess they are all disgruntled right? All paid for by big business and have been paid for the opinion.


No, the signers of the so called "Oregon Petition" are mostly unknown. No checks have been done to validate the identities of any of the signers and the list sports the names of Ginger Spice, Hawkeye Pierce and Bozo the Clown.
The original petition was sent out under questionable and possibly fraudulent conditions to anyone holding any kind of academic degree. You could be a veterinarian and qualify to sign the original petition. It is doubtful that many qualified Climate Scientist signatures are actually on this document.

See more about this matter here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9mgT-xJNFA


I'm sure it's legit; ACORN handled the sign-ups.

Now, Andrew Breibart, there's a reliable source for you.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Woland, what about the notion that these heat islands are mathematically compensated in the models? Does that have no weight with you?

As for the Yamal tree ring data, I am aware that

1. The original data was gathered and analyzed by Hantemirov and Shiyatov. Their careful work was peer reviewed and published.

2. Hantemirov and Shiyatov's data was used by Keith Briffa in 2000. This paper was peer reviewed and published in 2000. You can read it here.

3. Steve McIntyre wrote an alleged rebuttal to Briffa's reconstruction. He did not seek peer review, but published it on the web here.

4. Briffa published an on-line non-peer reviewed response to McIntyre here.

Who are all these people?

*Hantemirov and Shiyatov are scientists from the Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology, Ural Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

*Briffa is a dendroclimatologist at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.

*McIntyre works mainly in the mining industry. He has a BSc in mathematics and a graduate degree (I can't find out what it is) in Philosophy, Politics and Economics.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2010-08-01 19:04, Dannydoyle wrote:
John than you so much for proving my point for me. Let me ask you something. Do you deny that the global warming crowd is a political movement? If so, then I guess there is really nothing else to say.


Your question is loaded. Let me answer it in an honest and straightforward way.

1. I believe that many political movements are informed by opinions on climate change. Yes, there are political groups that believe the science (some for good and some for bad reasons) and are trying to effect change. Yes there are political groups that do not believe the science (some for good and some for bad reasons) and are trying to effect change.

2. I believe that the science of global climate change is good science. This is evidenced by the continual challenges to findings and testing and restesting of models.

3. I'm not sure what you mean by the "global warming crowd". If you mean all people that believe the claims that human activity is having an effect on the global climate, then I do not believe that they are a single political group. And I do not believe that those who do not believe the science are a single political group.

Now tell me, why is this important to you?

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
John,

Briffa was one of the climatologists who engaged in a conspiracy to silence opposing views and conceal some of their own results ("hide the decline").

But for the sake of the argument, let me stipulate for the moment that the climate in the northern hemisphere has become warmer than it has been in the past 1,000 years.

You still haven't proven that human activity, specifically CO2 production from industrial processes, has anything to do with it.

And even if it did, what do you propose to do about it?

In order significantly to affect the climate, if the models you believe are correct, CO2 production worldwide would have to be cut to pre-1940 levels. Who reading these words would be able to get by on the energy use levels of 75 years ago? More importantly, could the world economy survive on such an energy starvation level?

Actually it's worse than that. Since the world's population in 1940 was roughly 1/3 of what it is today, the world would in effect have to go back to energy consumption levels of the pre-electrical, pre-industrial era in order to achieve the drastic CO2 reductions demanded by the climate models you believe.

Two things should be evident: (1) that to achieve such a reduction in CO2 production would condemn the world to a dark age of poverty, famine, and war. (Now since more than a few "environmentalists" are open advocates of human extinction, that may not be an undesirable outcome to them.) And (2) it just isn't going to happen. CO2 production in the United States is actually declining. But China, India, and Russia are not going to cripple themselves to please environmentalists in the west.

Finally, the majority of internationally prominent figures advocating drastic political measures to "save the world" have not shown in their own behavior the slightest evidence that they actually believe their own rhetoric is worth putting into personal action. Why should I do what they say, instead of what they do?

Woland
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2010-08-01 22:53, Woland wrote:
John,

Briffa was one of the climatologists who engaged in a conspiracy to silence opposing views and conceal some of their own results ("hide the decline").


He was accused of that. You may have noticed that an independent inquiry found no evidence of wrongdoing.

Quote:

But for the sake of the argument, let me stipulate for the moment that the climate in the northern hemisphere has become warmer than it has been in the past 1,000 years.

You still haven't proven that human activity, specifically CO2 production from industrial processes, has anything to do with it.

And even if it did, what do you propose to do about it?

In order significantly to affect the climate, if the models you believe are correct, CO2 production worldwide would have to be cut to pre-1940 levels. Who reading these words would be able to get by on the energy use levels of 75 years ago? More importantly, could the world economy survive on such an energy starvation level?

Actually it's worse than that. Since the world's population in 1940 was roughly 1/3 of what it is today, the world would in effect have to go back to energy consumption levels of the pre-electrical, pre-industrial era in order to achieve the drastic CO2 reductions demanded by the climate models you believe.

Two things should be evident: (1) that to achieve such a reduction in CO2 production would condemn the world to a dark age of poverty, famine, and war. (Now since more than a few "environmentalists" are open advocates of human extinction, that may not be an undesirable outcome to them.) And (2) it just isn't going to happen. CO2 production in the United States is actually declining. But China, India, and Russia are not going to cripple themselves to please environmentalists in the west.

Finally, the majority of internationally prominent figures advocating drastic political measures to "save the world" have not shown in their own behavior the slightest evidence that they actually believe their own rhetoric is worth putting into personal action. Why should I do what they say, instead of what they do?

Woland


Well you've made a number of assertions, but have provided no evidence. If you provide evidence I'll look at it.

But let's be honest Woland, you haven't provided compelling evidence for any of your earlier claims either. All you are doing is changing the topic every time the going gets tough.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
John,

The inquiry wasn't independent.

In my field, if I had done what their own emails documented, I would be banned for life, and quite possibly imprisoned.

Woland
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2010-08-01 22:53, Woland wrote:

And (2) it just isn't going to happen. CO2 production in the United States is actually declining. But China, India, and Russia are not going to cripple themselves to please environmentalists in the west.

Who says they have to cripple themselves?

Have you heard of this venture in China?

http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog......ld/7326/

http://www.chinasolarcity.cn/Html/dezhou/151533954.html

http://www.chinasolarcity.cn/Html/dezhou/index.html

Sure, it may not be easy to wean China off of less green energy sources, but it is making an effort. And in time, who knows.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2010-08-01 23:10, Woland wrote:
John,

The inquiry wasn't independent.

In my field, if I had done what their own emails documented, I would be banned for life, and quite possibly imprisoned.

Woland


Ok Woland, why wasn't the inquiry independent?
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16262 Posts

Profile of tommy
Woland

I hope you are not suggesting that the Al Gore documentary film Inconvenient Truth is a work of propaganda! Don’t you know all the believers climate science experts that seen the film said Gore accurately conveyed the science? Those expert climate scientists not only authenticated the Al Gore Incontinent Truth but applauded, praising it on high, to such an extent that Al Gore received a noble prize! The believers rely on and constantly cite those experts as their proof. Calling this film into question, calls into question the competency and honesty of the believers climate experts. Do you really think those climate scientists would endorse Inconvenient Truth if it was something that was littered with lies? How dare you!

:)
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27157 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On 2010-08-01 23:12, balducci wrote:...
Sure, it may not be easy to wean China off of less green energy sources, but it is making an effort. And in time, who knows.


Sure, it may not be easy to wean outsiders off such language and the thinking that provokes it but some appear to be making an effort. And in time, who knows?

We live in interesting times.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Tommy,

How could I have forgotten all that! I would never suggest any such thing! Smile

John,

The British parliamentary (Oxburgh) panel's 5 page report did not involve any significant evaluation of the evidence. Moreover, it has been recently revealed that the 11 papers that the panel reviewed were selected for Lord Oxburgh by . . . Phil Jones. And only representatives of the CRU were interviewed. This panel was as "blue ribbon" as a "blue ribbon" panel gets. And about as far from a thorough inquiry as it is possible to be.

Woland
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2010-08-01 23:59, Woland wrote:
Tommy,

How could I have forgotten all that! I would never suggest any such thing! Smile

John,

The British parliamentary (Oxburgh) panel's 5 page report did not involve any significant evaluation of the evidence. Moreover, it has been recently revealed that the 11 papers that the panel reviewed were selected for Lord Oxburgh by . . . Phil Jones. And only representatives of the CRU were interviewed. This panel was as "blue ribbon" as a "blue ribbon" panel gets. And about as far from a thorough inquiry as it is possible to be.

Woland


And the other panel?
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Payne
View Profile
Inner circle
Seattle
4572 Posts

Profile of Payne
Quote:
On 2010-08-01 12:50, Woland wrote:
John,

Thanks for your generous offer. I will present the sources upon which I base my comments in a stepwise fashion.

First, let's examine whether the historical surface temperature data is of any value.

In the pages of the following site, you will find the information showing that data from >70% of the surface stations in the United States is seriously flawed:

http://www.surfacestations.org/

1003 of the stations in the USHCN have been surveyed and photographed so far.

Please review and comment as you deem appropriate.

Woland


As the guys on Mythbusters say, This ones Busted

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20......her-data

http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-r......ord.html

After investigating the claims made by SurfaceStations.org it was discovered that the bias (yes there was one) was for cooler temperature readings, not warmer

But thanks for playing
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
Payne
View Profile
Inner circle
Seattle
4572 Posts

Profile of Payne
Quote:
On 2010-08-01 13:00, Woland wrote:
John,

For a demonstration of how the "hockey stick" was artefactually modeled, you might start with this recent exposition:

http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/30/make-......re-11591

Woland


Whoop's, another strike!

You might actually like to get your information from a site that features articles from peer reviewed writings of real climate researchers instead those based on the questionable and unsupported opinion pieces written by a semi retired mining engineer

Here are some of the more common misconceptions and myths about the so-called "Hockey Stick" Graph.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc......y-stick/
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Payne,

The articles you linked are based on analyses of partial data sets. Not convincing.

Selection of partial data is a major problem.

Woland
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The Real Climategate Scandal (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9..24~25~26 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.24 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL