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.
Actually, most of us here commend each other for having the strength to even lower ourselves to your level to discuss. That is, we see your arguments as the standard uninformed internet mouth piece and one who can not even understand why their positions are invalid.
You know nothing about the science.
Due to your approach and method of debate, it is obvious you do not know what a proper logical argument is.
In short sir, we view your responses as a joke and we keep replying because your attempts to defend your poor position is all that is needed to show anyone who is unfamiliar with the topic just how sad the AGW support is.
Keep posting, you are winning people to the other side without them spending any effort.
Prattle on Mr. Wizard, prove my points some more.
I forgot I was peaking with the all knowing scientist himself. fact is I have shown you information you choose to ignore and instead listen to bloggers as your source. You are just another victim of right wing propaganda machine. You want so bad to be right that you ignore reality and in attempt to win try to insult people.
wow an investigation into one of your 4 arguments. Note the area stating it will not in anyway evaluate the science of climate change.
The quantity is irrelevant, it's what they will be looking at that is important:
Quote:
"engaged in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities."
I'll translate it for you, that means they will looking to see if his research is fraudulent. If found to be true his career is over and he'll become a footnote in the history books. It's quite serious Organick.
Remember when you said this "i only read to the copyright part and give up."
Well golly gee there Mr. Wizard, maybe that is part of your problem? You have an attention deficiency problem because he answers to this very thing. Read it again there space case.
You can post the NOAA as proof, but they are in question. So, when two entities are in dispute, we look at the facts and ignore claims of authority. So in your case, remove you nose from the arse of the NOAA and actually look at the findings. Mmmkay?
Quote:
Originally Posted by organick
this might also help you understand him but doubtful. especially since you ignored the source info i already provided
oh yeah still waiting for you to adress that thread I gave you twice now. I imagine i'll continue to wait
I did adress a few points in it, you failed to respond. until you can pay attention long enough to a few key points, excuse me if I don't waste a bunch of time (as I have on you in the past) linking detailed commentary on your "evidence" only to have you run off in hiding from the thread. Answer to the comments I made concerning it and we can go from there.
Here is the fact, YOU WON'T. Why? Because you have no idea what you are talking about past cut and pasting.
I forgot I was peaking with the all knowing scientist himself. fact is I have shown you information you choose to ignore and instead listen to bloggers as your source. You are just another victim of right wing propaganda machine. You want so bad to be right that you ignore reality and in attempt to win try to insult people.
You showed me, I responded, you ignored, then you went off on your typical BS attacking pattern.
Seriously, give it up you really are making yourself look stupid.
It was, I responded to an attack, but then I did more than my attacker, I brought it back to reality and asked them if they were going to discuss the facts of the issue.
Are you really this obtuse?
Do you get paid to troll boards for AGW? It sure seems like it.
Remember when you said this "i only read to the copyright part and give up."
Well golly gee there Mr. Wizard, maybe that is part of your problem? You have an attention deficiency problem because he answers to this very thing. Read it again there space case.
You can post the NOAA as proof, but they are in question. So, when two entities are in dispute, we look at the facts and ignore claims of authority. So in your case, remove you nose from the arse of the NOAA and actually look at the findings. Mmmkay?
I don;t see any facts there, it is simply an attack piece.
of course you dont see anything ....it disagrees with your bloggers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
I did adress a few points in it, you failed to respond. until you can pay attention long enough to a few key points, excuse me if I don't waste a bunch of time (as I have on you in the past) linking detailed commentary on your "evidence" only to have you run off in hiding from the thread. Answer to the comments I made concerning it and we can go from there.
Here is the fact, YOU WON'T. Why? Because you have no idea what you are talking about past cut and pasting.
Here is a dunce hat, go to the corner.
You are such a big man with your child like comments .....grow up would you. Oh I am sorry did i somehow offend your little denier mentor. Can't you com up with anything better than your little insults.
Oh I replied to a few points...really where? really the thread have five links and one had a 100 page report.
Keep denying like the right wing puppet you are and try to name call to make people who post science you ignore lose credibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
You showed me, I responded, you ignored, then you went off on your typical BS attacking pattern.
Seriously, give it up you really are making yourself look stupid.
You responded by deflecting and ignoring the science I showed you. If you are so damn smart do like you say and put up or shut up. Address the thread, show everyone what is so wrong with it....or hasn't that been addressed on the blogs yet. You shouldn't call people stupid when you yourself do stupid things. Just please stop acting and looking stupid. the only people who believe you are your right wing neocon moron buddies on here who can only respond with....fraud, al gore, socialism, communism, al gore, blogs blah blah blah. try getting some actual credible scientists to support you. Not watts, Mc Intyre, lindzen etc etc.
It was, I responded to an attack, but then I did more than my attacker, I brought it back to reality and asked them if they were going to discuss the facts of the issue.
Are you really this obtuse?
Do you get paid to troll boards for AGW? It sure seems like it.
oh boo hoo. whats the matter it bothers you that you can't just come on here and spew crap around from bloggers when people have science...you hate real science don't you where does your info come from? oh wait i know.....be sure to read the last part
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal," concluded a report by 600 scientists from governments, academia, green groups and businesses in 40 countries. Worse, there was now at least a 90 percent likelihood that the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels is causing longer droughts, more flood-causing downpours and worse heat waves, way up from earlier studies. Those who doubt the reality of human-caused climate change have spent decades disputing that. But Boxer figured that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered." As she left a meeting with the head of the international climate panel, however, a staffer had some news for her. A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. "I realized," says Boxer, "there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."
Yet they only excuse the problems with the stations by claiming they "account for it".
The problem is, they do not detail what it is they account for. Remember, this is the problem in the field at the moment and why your key researchers and "organizations" are getting a kick to the head at the moment.
They do not explain "how" by displaying their methodlogy, they simply claim they do account for it and then expect you to appeal to their authority.
Lets look at the problems with it "averaging out".
First off, Watts has not done specific analysis, this is why his paper simply asks the question concerning the network. He is waiting for a more definitive sample (its up to 83% now) before he does analysis and publishes.
Now there are many out there that have done analysis at varying stages, but as Watt's points out, these varying stages are not in his opinoin ready for such a task.
That aside, let us go with the problems Watt's brings up.
This is a typical position, one also that Hansen took when he was being questioned about his methodology, and we all know what happened to Hansen's work right? The errors in his methodology led to his conclusions being removed and the 1934 date being put back at the top of the list for the warmest year.
What Watts is talking about is the homogenization process used to establish these trends. He goes on to explain the problem with their process.
Quote:
Here’s a way to visualize the homogenization/FILNET process. Think of it like measuring water pollution. Here’s a simple visual table of CRN station quality ratings and what they might look like as water pollution turbidity levels, rated as 1 to 5 from best to worst turbidity:
In homogenization the data is weighted against the nearby neighbors within a radius. And so a station might start out as a “1” data wise, might end up getting polluted with the data of nearby stations and end up as a new value, say weighted at “2.5”. Even single stations can affect many other stations in the GISS and NOAA data homogenization methods carried out on US surface temperature data here and here.
In the map above, applying a homogenization smoothing, weighting stations by distance nearby the stations with question marks, what would you imagine the values (of turbidity) of them would be? And, how close would these two values be for the east coast station in question and the west coast station in question? Each would be closer to a smoothed center average value based on the neighboring stations.
As you can see, there is a major problem with influence of neighboring stations having an effect on the overall assessment. Your report doesn't deal with this in any extent, it simply glosses over this issue. Remember, it all "averages out", simply trust them without them explaining "why".
Quote:
The best way to compare the effect of siting between groups of stations is to use the “raw” data, before it has passed through the multitude of adjustments that NCDC performs. However NCDC is apparently using homogenized data. So instead of comparing apples and oranges (poor sited -vs- well sited stations) they essentially just compare apples (Granny Smith -vs- Golden delicious) of which there is little visual difference beyond a slight color change.
We saw this demonstrated in the ghost authored Talking Points Memo issued by NCDC in June 09 in this graph:
Referencing the above graph, Steve McIntyre suggested in his essay on the subject:
The red graphic for the “full data set” had, using the preferred terminology of climate science, a “remarkable similarity” to the NOAA 48 data set that I’d previously compared to the corresponding GISS data set here (which showed a strong trend of NOAA relative to GISS). Here’s a replot of that data – there are some key telltales evidencing that this has a common provenance to the red series in the Talking Points graphic.
So they are using the raw data and comparing it to the the NOAA adjusted data and there are problems showing up.
Also note the following. Remember earlier I stated people were doing analysis of his work too early? That is, Watts did not agree with using such a small sampling as it was too unreliable to get an accurate finding?
Well...
Quote:
As for the Menne et all 2010 paper itself, I’m rather disturbed by their use of preliminary data at 43%, especially since I warned them that the dataset they had lifted from my website (placed for volunteers to track what had been surveyed, never intended for analysis) had not been quality controlled at the time. Plus there are really not enough good stations with enough spatial distribution at that sample size. They used it anyway, and amazingly, conducted their own secondary survey of those stations, comparing it to my non-quality controlled data, implying that my 43% data wasn’t up to par. Well of course it wasn’t! I told them about it and why it wasn’t. We had to resurvey and re-rate a number of stations from early in the project.
Your NOAA talking point and Menne et all 2010 paper uses a poor data set to come to a conclusion of those who are researching the methodology of the NOAA's findings. I can think of no better way to attempt to discredit any who might question than to take incomplete data and use it as a means to claim them wrong.
Then again, this is what your heroes base their entire premise of AGW on, so it is not a surprise they would think incomplete data is acceptable in this assessment.
Watts is close to publishing and when he does we will see the truth of the issue in the process. That is, providing your thug scientists aren't strong arming the peer review process to which they have already been shown to be guilty of.
Ok, All I discussed is the science, your turn Mr. Wizard, care to comment or is cut and paste and personal attack your one trick show?
would you let an amateur do surgery on you? fix your electric, help your sick kid? then why do you base everything you have off a non credentialed weather man blogger who claims thousands of scientists are wrong?
please read below and see that the info you claim mann was altering has been supported by other studies. this is clearly a right wing political agenda for you as it is all deniers. this is a waste of my time. I cite science you cite a weatherman blogger???? that guy is your new king because he supports a false claim you all want so badly to be true. Again the human race will suffer because of it.
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.
