What global warming?

[Cornish Steve]

gosh, I bet they never tested that - cobblers

Then argue with MIT Technology Review (because I found a reference from 2004). Here is a quote:

Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.

But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

The paper goes on to explain, at a high level, the basic flaw in the model. It also points out at Nature magazine (mentioned in the leaked emails as very biased on this topic) refused to accept a submitted paper on this, even though it was accepted by referees, so the authors had to publish their work on the Web. Of course, this has opened them up to criticism because their work is not published in a scientific journal.

The author's final commentary, written in 2004, is quite prescient. He's an obvious believer in AGW, and here are his comments:

If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions. Suppose, for example, that future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend. (It could happen.) If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously--that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small--then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey. If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling.

A phony hockey stick is more dangerous than a broken one--if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution.

Incidentally, there was a time when I was actually a world expert on the Monte Carlo method, and it underlies much of the work documented in my PhD thesis. It seems that point #4 from my earlier post about the use of truly random numbers when modelling is very relevant.

 

[cjd]

Then argue with MIT Technology Review (because I found a reference from 2004). Here is a quote:

I wish you wouldn't keep cherry picking this stuff - it sends me off in all sorts of directions trying to find the full story.

There's a good summary of the hockey stick controversy here and it looks like the scientific process at work to me. I got as far as this bit and had to stop........

After a long process - in which the National Science Foundation supported Mann - the code was made publicly available [21]. It happened because Congress investigated after an article in the Wall Street Journal [22] detailed criticisms raised by McIntyre.[23] Congress was especially concerned about Mann’s reported refusal to provide data. In June 2005, Congress asked Mann to testify before a special subcommittee. The chairman of the committee (Joe Barton, a prominent global warming skeptic) wrote a letter to Mann requesting he provide his data, including his source code, archives of all data for all of Mann's scientific publications, identities of his present and past scientific collaborators, and details of all funding for any of Mann's ongoing or prior research, including all of the supporting forms and agreements.[22] The American Association for the Advancement of Science viewed this as "a search for some basis on which to discredit these particular scientists and findings, rather than a search for understanding."[24] When Mann complied, all of the data was available for McIntyre. Congress also requested that third party science panels review the criticisms by McIntyre and McKitrick. The Wegman Panel [25] and the National Academy of Sciences [26] both published reports. McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) claim that 7 of their 10 findings in 2003 have been largely confirmed by these reviews.[27] Nature reported it as "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph - But it criticizes the way the controversial climate result was used." [28]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

 

[Cornish Steve]

Cherry-picking? I quoted an AGW proponent writing for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the foremost scientific establishments in the world. You quoted from, let's guess, Wikipedia. Enough said.

After the leaked emails from last week, we'd do well to question the integrity of Nature magazine on this topic.

 

[cjd]

Cherry-picking? I quoted an AGW proponent writing for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the foremost scientific establishments in the world.

Yup, you cherry picked one part of the debate. The wiki tells the full story (that's why wikis are useful - you get the story plus the references). And it shows that the models where indeed flawed and it also shows whether it matters or not and what happened next. This is how science works - it's a good healthy debate.

I particularly liked " Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science"

and "McIntyre and McKitrick made various claims, including that Mann et al. used some data with the axes upside down. Mann et al. in reply say that McIntyre and McKitrick "raise no valid issues regarding our paper" and the "claim that “upside down” data were used is bizarre"

 

[Cornish Steve]

I particularly liked " Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science"

Having spent three years doing computer modelling of complex interacting systems, I can certainly confirm that method is crucially important. I remember spending a couple of weeks reading up on random numbers alone. When using methods such as Monte Carlo, you need trillions upon trillions of random numbers in sequence, and you must be able to prove that the sequence is always random. This is quite tough, and the mathematics is rigorous. At the time, I used what was called a NAG routine, but I had to understand the maths upon which it was built.

Also, as I mentioned, I once produced an intriguing graph that showed a peak in the specific heat of a certain system. This usually indicates a phase change. Reviewing this with a real expert in the field (he was actually a brilliant guy and perhaps the leading researcher in Wales at the time), he was at first very excited. But then we studied the data in detail, and the real cause of the peak became evident. In a particular number range, I was multiplying together a very large number by a very small number (we're talking about numbers accurate to very many decimal places). The rounding that occurred from doing this created a discontinuity.

One of the exciting things about modelling is that you really didn't know what to expect. Once, my model predicted particles in a complex system forming rings in no magnetic field, and these rings broke up in the presence of a field. With an electron microscope, I could confirm the first prediction - which was very satisfying. To confirm the second, I needed to do something creative - so in the lab I replicated the complex system using styrene as the solvent and converted it to polystyrene while applying a magnetic field (this locked the particles in place). Taking a slice of the resulting plastic, I could confirm the second prediction using an electron microscope.

Why am I writing all of this? Because it's really satisfying when experimental results confirm your model's predictions. In another area of my work, though, the predictions were not matched by real results. It's a real downer when you realise you must discard your model and many months of work. You also feel like you've let people down, although this is how science works and colleagues are understanding. What none of us would ever have done, though, is to adjust the model so it produces the desired outcomes without verifying all changes against certain baselines. Mann's research team didn't verify their model against obvious baselines, and there's really no excuse for that. It probably reveals the funding and political pressures under which he worked. Whereas fellow scientists may be forgiving when a model doesn't pan out, politicians and vested interest groups display no such understanding. I feel quite sorry for him now because, with Climategate, he's going to be at the centre of the storm.

One final comment: When, as a scientist, you make a breakthrough and earn yourself a reputation, it's all too easy to become enticed by success. When politicians the world over laud your work and abilities and governments pursue policies as a direct result of our work, it's OK to be proud - but it can degenerate into smugness. In such a situation, when you realise that there are problems with your model and, worse still, your widely publicised predictions are called into question, what do you do? Human nature says that you fight to defend your work regardless of its merits. It would take enormous courage under such circumstances to admit you made a mistake. I don't mean to question Mann's integrity here. Almost certainly, he made mistakes, and we all make mistakes, but the resulting public hoo-ha surrounding his hockey-stick made reversing his conclusions very very difficult - thanks to scientifically illiterate fools like Al Gore.

 

[cjd]

For what it's worth, you'll find similar but possibly more vitriolic, 'debates' between proponents of group selection versus individual selection in evolutionary theory discussions. (Your mate Dawkins hates group selection with a passion that only a spawn of the devil can, and also, for what it's worth, he's at least partly wrong - as all binary people always are).

The thing to remember is that this is good stuff and will, in the end, produce the best truth that we're capable of finding.

So at the moment I'm still unconvinced by both sides of the argument but the warming side is winning on points because it's got more evidence and support.

 

[Cornish Steve]

The best comment I've read on the CRU email revelations is the following:

"Mann made global warming is real. We've just been spelling it wrongly."

 

[Cornish Steve]

For what it's worth, you'll find similar but possibly more vitriolic, 'debates' between proponents of group selection versus individual selection in evolutionary theory discussions.

But trillions of pounds, the undermining of personal freedoms, overbearing taxes, and setting our economy back decades are not riding on the outcome of that particular debate.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Climategate continues to grow. Now a group in New Zealand claims their equivalent to the CRU has fiddled data in much the same way. The New Zealand National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research published the following graph, which appears to show a temperature increase from 1909 to 2008.

But the critics managed to get their hands on the raw data underlying this published graph and plotted it themselves - and here's the result.

Basically, in the original graph, someone adjusted the temperature readings at the turn of the 20th century to make it look like there was a period of cooling followed by consistent warming over the last 100 years - but this is not the case with the original data.

I wonder how many other examples are going to appear out of the woodwork.

 

[casado]

One question for cjd.....
Do you agree with the principle that every action that may have potential repercussions on the lives of other people should be accountable?
So, if the GW turns out to be a fiasco, either because, as it looks, doesn't have any scientific background or because regardless of the science there was nothing we could do about, people should be brought to justice and eventually imprisoned?

 

[Subbynet]

But trillions of pounds, the undermining of personal freedoms, overbearing taxes, and setting our economy back decades are not riding on the outcome of that particular debate.

You think that's this debate?

Where where you been since 2001? Since then the name of terror, the UK government has been literally terrorising the populace, undermining our personal freedoms, introduced stealth taxes by the busload, and turned our economy into a steaming pile of dog turd.

Climate change? bah humbug, your worrying about nothing! We've got bigger issues to deal with!

 

[casado]

For what it's worth, you'll find similar but possibly more vitriolic, 'debates' between proponents of group selection versus individual selection in evolutionary theory discussions. (Your mate Dawkins hates group selection with a passion that only a spawn of the devil can, and also, for what it's worth, he's at least partly wrong - as all binary people always are).

The thing to remember is that this is good stuff and will, in the end, produce the best truth that we're capable of finding.

So at the moment I'm still unconvinced by both sides of the argument but the warming side is winning on points because it's got more evidence and support.

Could you please quote us those evidence, running until now, 2008 or 2009, not stopping in 2000?
Please, because I just do not remember seeing those evidence.

The fact is that, in this debate that we are having, the two of us who have some scientific background are the ones who don't swallow, and that pattern, at least in my experience, talking to old colleagues, repeat itself.

As for the other debate, the computer code, I think is worth to remember that we are talking about science, not esoteric disciplines. I find it very odd that a pretended scientists resists to make the code he has used to produce result to the community. Peer reviewers can not vouch for what they do not know. Referees only can attest that what the paper says is supported by the claimed data/computations, but they do not have the means to repeat the research themselves, it is not their job. So, that a particular paper got the approval for publication doesn't mean that the code has not bugs, the research is honest, or that the authors tell the truth.
I can not think of a good reason why anyone would refuse to release the code, unless the code is relevant to industrial secrets, or it has something to hide. As an example, all code used at CERN, and many other research centers, by the researches is at one point put on line for anyone to download. Obviously, when there is a new piece of code for a particular research, they first use it to produce the papers, then release the code. Why wouldn't they? It is not like anyone will be selling desktop applications to model climate change.
That intellectual property argument is shocking to say the least. Scientific results are not valid unless they can be independently reproduced. If only you can see a certain thing, that thing that you see is not a scientific fact, a scientific fact could be that you are suffering from a delusion.

 

[StephenW]

There was a petition to get the code released, but the reply was predictably a weasel one:
Tuesday 10 November 2009
CRUsourcecodes - epetition response
http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page21266


Note the date of that petition. Now on the BBC website I see a claim the e-mails where already being circulated in October.

'Climategate' - What next?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/


"I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the worlds leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article 'whatever happened to global warming'. The e-mails released on the internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as l can see, they are authentic."

 

[Cornish Steve]

I can not think of a good reason why anyone would refuse to release the code, unless the code is relevant to industrial secrets, or it has something to hide. As an example, all code used at CERN, and many other research centers, by the researches is at one point put on line for anyone to download. Obviously, when there is a new piece of code for a particular research, they first use it to produce the papers, then release the code. Why wouldn't they? It is not like anyone will be selling desktop applications to model climate change.

This is a valid point. I included my code in my PhD thesis because I was encouraged to do so. In turn, my code was based on a model used by someone else who had made it available. The work of each of us was built on the work of others, and sharing code ensured we'd made no unintentional errors. This is how science is supposed to work.

 

[casado]

This is a valid point. I included my code in my PhD thesis because I was encouraged to do so. In turn, my code was based on a model used by someone else who had made it available. The work of each of us was built on the work of others, and sharing code ensured we'd made no unintentional errors. This is how science is supposed to work.

The code should not have any value except for convenience. Let me explain.
Given the fact that we are, supposedly talking about science, an the only proof of truth or validity is the reproducibility of the results, every published paper should contain enough information for anyone who reads the paper to reproduce the results: an exposition of the theory/model, assumptions, approximations, etc., that at the end should result in a set of equations one needs to solve. The numerical techniques used to solve it is irrelevant, since the result should not depend, obviously, on this. This information should be given in the body of the text or in the references (it may be the case that somebody else solved part of the problem and you say you are using his or her work for that part).

Releasing the code should be a matter of convenience to avoid others the trouble to type so many lines of code, which is something anyone could do, since it is already done. Also, in the open-source spirit, this way you allow other to check for bugs and make sure all things are okay.

Now, the issue. If some people is requesting the release of the code is because one or two things:
1.- This Mann et all, did not give enough information in their publications for anyone else to independently reproduce their result. In this case, their papers should not have been published in the first place, because it is not science since its validity can not be independently checked.
2.- Mann et all, did give enough information as to their theories/models for the results to be reproduced, but despite of it, nobody could reproduce the result. Then the papers are wrong and the research disproved.

So, the release of the code is something that should benefit the authors, assuming they really are scientists, because they would help then find out if they are right or not. Claiming intellectual property on a thing like this is shocking to say the least. Intellectual property of what exactly? Of coding the integral of a product of exponential functions?

To me this is the end of the "movement", the hockey stick movement.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Claiming intellectual property on a thing like this is shocking to say the least. Intellectual property of what exactly?

As I understand it, you can't patent software - although you can patent an algorithm on which the software is based (maybe an IP lawyer can correct me if I'm wrong). If something is funded by the government, however, it really should be made available - because taxpayers are paying for it. If the work is based on well-established mathematical models, there should be nothing to hide.

Indeed, I like the idea of making all the global warming software open source and publishing all raw data. In fact, I can't think of a single reason why this shouldn't happen. It would push back the frontiers of global warming research and ensure transparency.

 

[cjd]

One of the reasons given for not giving out the data was that the sceptics just wouldn't accept answers given and just keep coming back and back with more and more questions which eventually gets in the way of their work ( as they saw it). I understand the frustration.

But I think the point here is that if these institutions are doing work that affects public policy, they have to get used to sharing their data and being open about it.

But from what I've seen and heard so far, too, pretty much all the data is public - the sceptics just have to go get it and form their own conclusions and get it peer reviewed like everyone else.

I'm still unconvinced that any of these 'revelations' have made any difference to the science - it's just the system working quite well.

 

[cjd]

Could you please quote us those evidence, running until now, 2008 or 2009, not stopping in 2000?
Please, because I just do not remember seeing those evidence.

The evidence is a global scientific consensus which will take more than a few amateur forum posts to overturn - no matter how intriguing they are

I see that China joined the team today - now why would they do that I wonder?

If you need to see the list of concurring countries and organisations, you'll find it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

(warning: it's a long list)

 

[gessoandgold]

But, can so many scientists be wrong?

Why not? They have been hundreds of times in the past.

 

[casado]

The evidence is a global scientific consensus which will take more than a few amateur forum posts to overturn - no matter how intriguing they are

I see that China joined the team today - now why would they do that I wonder?

If you need to see the list of concurring countries and organisations, you'll find it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

(warning: it's a long list)

Sorry Sir, you and I don't speak the same language. A "consensus" has never been evidence of any thing.
There was a time where there was a consensus that the Earth was flat, and all the creatures were created by God, but that wasn't science.
We are talking about science, if you want to mess around, please find some one else who misses to take care of children.

 

[cjd]

Sorry Sir, you and I don't speak the same language.

Well at least we can agree on that

There was a time where there was a consensus that the Earth was flat, and all the creatures were created by God, but that wasn't science.

Correct the consensus was indeed not science it was religion

We are talking about science,

Correct again.

if you want to mess around, please find some one else who misses to take care of children.

You didn't read that before you posted did you?

 

[Dawg]

Warmers, in denial, deny deniers' claims.
Feh.

Jeebus, (or FSM), when even a warmist high priest, Moonbat, gives credence to the current fuss over the data it has to be an act of faith to blithely try and discredit and/or downgrade that furore.
Interesting how the force of, and need for, religion can strike even ardent rationalists.

 

[cjd]

Warmers, in denial, deny deniers' claims.
Feh.

Jeebus, (or FSM), when even a warmist high priest, Moonbat, gives credence to the current fuss over the data it has to be an act of faith to blithely try and discredit and/or downgrade that furore.
Interesting how the force of, and need for, religion can strike even ardent rationalists.

I'm in a surreal mood but that defies me

Personally, I've never actually taken much notice of the warming stuff - I've assumed that the science was by-and-large okish as it's tricky to con the whole world all of the time to agree to something that politically and economically is against all vested interests.

On top of that I'm happy with a resulting policy that means less pollution and waste and has bi-products that give us energy independence and sticks two fingers in the eyes of the oil industry.

Tragically, I think I must be agnostic; pro-tem.

 

[casado]

Well at least we can agree on that
Correct the consensus was indeed not science it was religion

Correct again.
You didn't read that before you posted did you?

Yes I did. You think too much of yourself. That everyone is entitle to their opinion and to express it, doesn't make it less of an idiot.
So far, you have been wasting our time. You can not express a scientific opinion because, regardless of what you may know or not know, you lack the basics: intellectual honesty. You mention evidences, when you are asked about evidence you come back with "consensus"

Consensus Con*sen"sus, n. [L. See Consent.]
Agreement; accord; consent.
[1913 Webster]

That traditional consensus of society which we call
public opinion. --Tylor.
[1913 Webster]

Evidence Ev"i*dence, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Evidenced; p. pr. &
vb. n. Evidencing.]
To render evident or clear; to prove; to evince; as, to
evidence a fact, or the guilt of an offender. --Milton.
[1913 Webster]

-- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

Evidence Ev"i*dence, n. [F. ['e]vidence, L. Evidentia. See
Evident.]
1. That which makes evident or manifest; that which
furnishes, or tends to furnish, proof; any mode of proof;
the ground of belief or judgement; as, the evidence of our
senses; evidence of the truth or falsehood of a statement.
[1913 Webster]

Faith is . . . the evidence of things not seen.
--Heb. xi. 1.
[1913 Webster]

O glorious trial of exceeding love
Illustrious evidence, example high. --Milton.
[1913 Webster]

2. One who bears witness. [R.] "Infamous and perjured
evidences." --Sir W. Scott.
[1913 Webster]

3. (Law) That which is legally submitted to competent
tribunal, as a means of ascertaining the truth of any
alleged matter of fact under investigation before it;
means of making proof; -- the latter, strictly speaking,
not being synonymous with evidence, but rather the effect
of it. --Greenleaf.
[1913 Webster]

Circumstantial evidence, evidence}, etc. See
under Circumstantial, Conclusive, etc.

Crown's evidence, evidence}, or Queen's evidence,
evidence for the crown, in English courts; equivalent to
state's evidence American courts. [Eng.]

State's evidence, for the government or the
people. [U. S. ]

To turn King's evidence turn Queen's evidence}, or To
turn State's evidence, confess a crime and give evidence
against one's accomplices.

Syn: Testimony; proof. See Testimony.
[1913 Webster]

Zelots of other religions have more integrity than you have.

 

Warmers, in denial, deny deniers' claims.
Feh.

Jeebus, (or FSM), when even a warmist high priest, Moonbat, gives credence to the current fuss over the data it has to be an act of faith to blithely try and discredit and/or downgrade that furore.
Interesting how the force of, and need for, religion can strike even ardent rationalists.

Sounds like there has been severe global warming in the Hastings area.?

Earl

 

[Dawg]

Sounds like there has been severe global warming in the Hastings area.?

Earl

You've been staring at goats again old chap. (It didn't help Gordon Brown and it won't help you).*


*Sad political pun. Someone might geddit.

 

[AndreyW]

There is a simple example how can everyone to help to avoid the global warming. This site shows Zero energy house in practice "envirociety.org" [SIZE=-1]that shows publical experience of creating and using of autonomous family rural house, which is maximal independent from external supply sources. [/SIZE]

 

[Dawg]

There is a simple example how can everyone to help to avoid the global warming. This site shows Zero energy house in practice "envirociety.org" [SIZE=-1]that shows publical experience of creating and using of autonomous family rural house, which is maximal independent from external supply sources. [/SIZE]

Is this spam or just Englishcide?

 

[cjd]

You mention evidences, when you are asked about evidence you come back with "consensus" ........
Zelots of other religions have more integrity than you have.

Sticks and stones......

I know it's really frustrating and terribly inconvenient and maybe a tad old fashioned but I tend to give more weight to scientists working on the subject than the opinions of business forum members.

So when I read this:

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
​

Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

......followed by the list of organisations and documents supporting it - I tend to regard it as fairly strong EVIDENCE.

And so you are not overly confused by this; I agree that just because pretty much the whole of the world's scientists and all of the available evidence supports the view, does not make it necessarily true. Just that anyone with no training in the matter would be irrational to simply 'believe' otherwise (Dawg).

 

[cjd]

Something to ponder.....

That hypothesis [that papers submitted on climate change may downplay objections] was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9). The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

And:

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686?paged=78

So apart from spirited conspiracy theories and prodding and poking around the edges by a few unsupported scientists, I'm still waiting for some real, peer reviewed and properly supported evidence against this rather amazingly improbable global agreement

 

[StephenW]

"Neutral observers in this war sometimes ask how it can be that the vast majority of the world's scientists seem to be in favour of AGW theory. "Peer-review" is why. Only a handful of scientists - 53 to be precise, not the much-touted 2,500 - were actually responsible for the doom-laden global-warming sections of the IPCC's reports. They were all part of this cosy, self-selecting, peer-review cabal - and many of them, of course, are implicated in the Climategate emails."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...-jr-doesnt-get-about-the-peer-review-process/

Take a look at the first video if you have time, good for a laugh.

 

[Dawg]

So apart from spirited conspiracy theories and prodding and poking around the edges by a few unsupported scientists, I'm still waiting for some real, peer reviewed and properly supported evidence against this rather amazingly improbable global agreement

By Jove I think he's got it!

That's what we are all waiting for. If the UEA's figures are suspected of being manipulated, and they form the core of the model on which all the IPCC forecasts are made, which are themselves at the very core of the debate, then we do need some peer reviewed, supportable evidence to point us one way or another.

 

[cjd]

"
Take a look at the first video if you have time, good for a laugh.

Always have time for a laugh.

A while back i read an article about climate change which ended up saying something like. "The trouble is, when I look at the kind of people that deny it they're always the kind whose other opinions I dislike too"

He was implying that in the US the climate change deniers are mostly the right wing republicans who also support the gun lobby, oil industry, state execution of criminals and tend to talk about personal freedom a lot and have fundamentalist christian 'values'.

"why do you hate freedom!?"

 

[casado]

Sticks and stones......

I know it's really frustrating and terribly inconvenient and maybe a tad old fashioned but I tend to give more weight to scientists working on the subject than the opinions of business forum members.

So when I read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

......followed by the list of organisations and documents supporting it - I tend to regard it as fairly strong EVIDENCE.

And so you are not overly confused by this; I agree that just because pretty much the whole of the world's scientists and all of the available evidence supports the view, does not make it necessarily true. Just that anyone with no training in the matter would be irrational to simply 'believe' otherwise (Dawg).

You know what? I don't give a s** what you give credibility to. You claim evidence, I ask you for the evidence and you do not provide any.
The world is made of 99.99% of followers like you who believe in many different things, who give credibility to many people, to Imans, priests and propagandists of all kinds, that doesn't change a thing.

 

[cjd]

You know what? I don't give a s** what you give credibility to. You claim evidence, I ask you for the evidence and you do not provide any.
The world is made of 99.99% of followers like you who believe in many different things, who give credibility to many people, to Imans, priests and propagandists of all kinds, that doesn't change a thing.

I suggest that you take two paracetamol and if your temperature doesn't fall back to a couple of degrees above normal by lunchtime, you call NHS Direct - 0845 4647

 

[Subbynet]

I suggest that you take two paracetamol and if your temperature doesn't fall back to a couple of degrees above normal by lunchtime, you call NHS Direct - 0845 4647

I suggest they give an allowance of a couple of degrees extra because of climate change, they will be feeling a bit hotter anyway...

oh wait..

 

[cjd]

If the UEA's figures are suspected of being manipulated, and they form the core of the model on which all the IPCC forecasts are made, which are themselves at the very core of the debate, then we do need some peer reviewed, supportable evidence to point us one way or another.

The leaked email which the anti-warming brigade are quoting as meaning that model has been frigged this says:

An excerpt from one November 1999 email authored by the head of the CRU, Phil Jones, reads, "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."[38][9][39] The RealClimate website, in their response to the CRU hack, characterizes the excerpt as follows:

If you're looking for conspiracy you can find it there I suppose, but this seems to me to be a more likely interpretation:

The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommended not using the post-1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.[40]

It's an interesting punch up, but I personally can't see anything much in what's been found so far, If this is the worst that can be found in over a thousand emails and documents - then it looks pretty bloody clean to me.


​

 

[casado]

I suggest that you take two paracetamol and if your temperature doesn't fall back to a couple of degrees above normal by lunchtime, you call NHS Direct - 0845 4647

I haven't taken any paracetamol, yet the temperature outside is freezing. Thank Good for global warming, I can only imagine how it would be like without it.
But it is good, that you have the confidence to get into a discussion on something that, by your own tacit admission, you know nothing about. Yet, you would have saved us a lot of time by saying that you believe in Mann, and what ever is said, your faith wouldn't falter. I told you I don't have a cause, but I forgot to take a note that you DO have a cause, that is to do promote your own faith. Talking to you is much like talking about the meaning of Good with a believer, there is not point in the discussion since, at the end, there is faith to fall back into, you would never pay the lost bets.
Nothing new. Who needs the truth as long as we have people who is "passionate" about all sort of things under a "strong leadership" (something on the lines Hitler use do advocate) that provides "robust plans" for the future? eh?
You could have been wittier and said that thanks to the members of the green church and your actions, Global Warming was avoided and thanks to all of you, we are shivering now.

 

[cjd]

I hope you never actually meet someone who believes firmly in global warming - you're at risk of spontaneous combustion.

I'm wasting my time I know, but you might try to take me at face value when I say that I'm still sceptical and agnostic about AGM.

(But as a layman looking in on this, it's very clear that the weight of evidence is pretty firmly on the side of the 'believer' and the other camp has a huge amount of work to do to overturn it.)

 

[casado]

I hope you never actually meet someone who believes firmly in global warming - you're at risk of spontaneous combustion.

That is the word "BELIEVE". I met people from the Opus Dei, and I had discussions about God, so, what would be the difference?

I'm wasting my time I know, but you might try to take me at face value when I say that I'm still sceptical and agnostic about AGM.

(But as a layman looking in on this, it's very clear that the weight of evidence is pretty firmly on the side of the 'believer' and the other camp has a huge amount of work to do to overturn it.)

I take you at face value, zero value as intellect. You certainly don't think of what you type, sure you don't read it.
If you are a layman, what are you doing in this discussion? what are you trying to accomplish? Yo said at the beginning that you believe in Mann, and that's it.
No, but you tried to play as you had brains, copying and pasting arguments from here and there and when you reach the point that someone ask you for the so called "evidences" you come up with the "consensus".
Probably, deep inside you there is an urge to feel that you win at something, and then join the rank of a fictitious competition, that you feel in this moment has a better chance of winning. Or simply feel the need to serve your master, who or whatever that master is, a person, a party or a "movement".
Sorry cjd, the only thing that counts here is the temperature, look outside and see if it is warmer than last year. That is the only evidence there can be, no other. There are no sides here, you will be as cold as I this winter and the next winter coming.