Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I already did, go back and read, but then you may find it boring. Or, what you really meant to ask was "Go back and detail everything he said word for word so I can find an inconsistency in your explanation compared to this so that I can say you don't know what you are talking about."
Again, not interested. Run along.
You did? You quoted him and printed his articles. I want your own paraphrase. I want you to back up your contention that you "understand his interpretation of the data."
So, you don't think that a Mathematician is qualified to respond to metamathematical models and representations of data? You do realize that the point of contention is that McIntyre says and shows that the data doesn't add up. He is questioning completely within his field. In fact, I would say he is more qualified to work the math than Hansen. That would be my opinion though. Another thing, read McIntyre's Bio again, he has experience with earth science and if you feel so inclined, you can look at all the qualifications of the authors of the IPCC report to see that there are many there that ALSO are not climatologist.
Also, McIntyre has dealt with the other NASA scientist as well and on a personal level, they admit he was a loner there, that few people liked him and that he was obsessed with his global warming goals from day one. Also, as I said and have shown, Hansen's models (Mathematical Models) are seen to be evident in more than his own work. That is, McIntyre has shown evidence of Hansen's models popping up in the other various works, works to which the IPCC says "doesn't effect the data", yet McIntyre has shown this is not the case.
That aside, again you are trying to build a case on "qualifications", poorly I might add and it leads to nothing more than attempt to discredit the information so contesting the data itself is unneeded. I hope you know that is a common political tactic, whether that was your intention or not.
As for page 36, I will go look at that and come back and edit a response.
these are mathematical physics models, for example. steve mcintyre studied math as an undergrad, and has been doing a lot of other things since, while you are pitting him in an arena with people that spend careers looking into what we're talking about from a math/physics standpoint, for exmple. so, i do not know that steve mcintyre has the knowledge of mathematical physics to judge as much as he might have to judge to say anything like "we cannot say that humans are causing this or that, or that this or that is happening". in fact, all i've seen is that he looked at one area of it all, found an issue with it, and in the end does not disagree that the hockey stick is real.
"Also, McIntyre has dealt with the other NASA scientist as well and on a personal level, they admit he was a loner there, that few people liked him and that he was obsessed with his global warming goals from day one. Also, as I said and have shown, Hansen's models (Mathematical Models) are seen to be evident in more than his own work. That is, McIntyre has shown evidence of Hansen's models popping up in the other various works, works to which the IPCC says "doesn't effect the data", yet McIntyre has shown this is not the case."
He hasn't "shown" it's not the case, he's "STATED" it's not the case and given what he considers to be an argument "showing" it's not the case, but it won't be necessarily "shown" it's not the case until other people of similar expertise pore over his work and VERIFY that it's not the case.
Okay?
Look, I'm going to prove that the world is flat:
If a = 2 & 2323 + 324324 and the world contains 13 selleons of simeiele then you can therefore add the complex infiltration mechanism,
1111 + 232323 = a b c e f,
The sqare root of a being pi + 32.3434, smoothing 3 times, it can be discerned that the roundness equation, x +##### 2222 gere, placed within an infinitely-looped if-then equation, therefore reaching the apex of the hyperbole and therefore proving that the world is flat.
Discredit that, why donthca.
Nomander with his twisted logic again. Get the square in the circle Nomander. Push, boy, push!
in all fairness, while it might seem nomander's just being a PITA (pain in the... to some) contrarian (that i don't disagree might be "cluttering" somewhat, at least insofar as the approach to the debate that does need to happen), he's asking questions that some others ask, so it doesn't hurt to set the record straight.
Apart from Nomander's ramblings and in all seriousness - the discussions I have come across show the IPCC to be objective and relevant scientists doing their best to have their work peer reviewed and cross checked. It is my understanding government can only comment on the results, not impact them in any way.
I have read some posts stating the IPCC actually has had their findings manipulated by governments, making their results thus potentially biased. Does anybody have any legitimate sources that point to this at all? That would be interesting to review.
The Summary for Policy Makers (not the actual report) is written partially by government officials, but it's also pored over by the scientists and authors to make sure it coincides with the findings in the report.
these are mathematical physics models, for example. steve mcintyre studied math as an undergrad, and has been doing a lot of other things since, while you are pitting him in an arena with people that spend careers looking into what we're talking about from a math/physics standpoint, for exmple. so, i do not know that steve mcintyre has the knowledge of mathematical physics to judge as much as he might have to judge to say anything like "we cannot say that humans are causing this or that, or that this or that is happening". in fact, all i've seen is that he looked at one area of it all, found an issue with it, and in the end does not disagree that the hockey stick is real.
What level of math do you have an understanding of? The reason I ask is because you seem to have a misunderstanding of the math used in physics and that of which a mathematician studies. The both study the same (Edit: Actually mathematics studies even further than the physicist). In fact, a mathematician is responsible for much progress in physics.
For instance, there have been points in history where new mathematics have had to been developed to further explain physics. Calculus being one of them. A mathematician knows all that a physicist does in terms of math, they are a specialized field of all that is math while the physicist only studies math that is needed to aid them in their studies. Again, He is more than qualified to deal with this.
Further, for instance in surface reconstructions, it is merely taking the data from instruments and then using various mathematical principals to evaluate the results which then are used by the field specialist to determine something from the data.
McIntyre is running the math and showing lots of inconsistencies in what Hansen claims the math is showing. If you would just please look at some of the examples I have given you, you would understand what I am talking about. You are arguing points that are ignorant of the actual issues.
Apart from Nomander's ramblings and in all seriousness - the discussions I have come across show the IPCC to be objective and relevant scientists doing their best to have their work peer reviewed and cross checked. It is my understanding government can only comment on the results, not impact them in any way.
I have read some posts stating the IPCC actually has had their findings manipulated by governments, making their results thus potentially biased. Does anybody have any legitimate sources that point to this at all? That would be interesting to review.
in all fairness, nothing is immune from people's perspectives. and their cultures affect their perspectives. the attempt is obviously made to eliminate as much as that as possible in something as, well, intergovernmental, interdisciplinary, and reviewed as the IPCC assessments. the IPCC falls underthe auspices of the UN. so, could there be some influence there? perhaps, though i've seen nothing sweepingly suspect there, and again, there are LOTS of people contributing to this and signing off, with careers on the line to a significant extent. not to mention that the IPCC is not the only panel on the block. there are many others that come to similar conclusions. the ACIA (arctic climate impact assessment), the american met. society, various geophysical unions, etc. take a lok here, e.g.. Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia note that most of these are american, so coming from public organizations in a country that has been especially inhospitable to "human induced climate change" perspectives, certainly in the more public arenas...
I've heard that the only major scientific organization in America that hasn't come out and agreed with the consensus is the Institute of Petroleum Geologists, or whatever they're called... that one seems sort of easy to figure out, though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
