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.
in AGW news, this is some very good (read long) reading on the subject that I have found very informative....written by a real physicist but in layman’s language.
Much like GuyNTexas thinks that climateskeptic is a bunch of charlatans, so too is my opinion of Steve McIntyre, upon which a LARGE portion of this is based....
Oh, so he reverse engineered the computer model being used and essentially devised his own...
or
"The hockey stick model is bad because we're simply guessing on average temps before we were actually able to physically read them, but anyway, here's OUR graph of what temperatures REALLY were back then."..
And Guy spoke of double-speak on the site that I offered up?
Anyway, I don't think we're going to agree here. I've seen NOTHING yet that convinces me that this is all much ado about nothing.... I don't believe YOUR scientists any more than you believe mine. Do you think, btw, that it's a coincidence that most that tend to be politically to the left think there's something to AGW and most that lean politically right think it's bunk??? IOW I think it's ALL a matter of people listening to what they choose to believe.
McIntyre, as I pointed out earlier, had a 30 year career in the fossil fuel industry, yet it's the IPCC that has the agenda?
Tough sell on me, sorry.... BUT, I'm not going to dismiss you as "stupid" or "not being able to count to ten" or anything of the sort. Obviously it's possible for two people to look at the same thing and see something different... Some of us get that...
Much like GuyNTexas thinks that climateskeptic is a bunch of charlatans, so too is my opinion of Steve McIntyre, upon which a LARGE portion of this is based....
Oh, so he reverse engineered the computer model being used and essentially devised his own...
or
"The hockey stick model is bad because we're simply guessing on average temps before we were actually able to physically read them, but anyway, here's OUR graph of what temperatures REALLY were back then."..
And Guy spoke of double-speak on the site that I offered up?
Anyway, I don't think we're going to agree here. I've seen NOTHING yet that convinces me that this is all much ado about nothing.... I don't believe YOUR scientists any more than you believe mine. Do you think, btw, that it's a coincidence that most that tend to be politically to the left think there's something to AGW and most that lean politically right think it's bunk??? IOW I think it's ALL a matter of people listening to what they choose to believe.
McIntyre, as I pointed out earlier, had a 30 year career in the fossil fuel industry, yet it's the IPCC that has the agenda?
Tough sell on me, sorry.... BUT, I'm not going to dismiss you as "stupid" or "not being able to count to ten" or anything of the sort. Obviously it's possible for two people to look at the same thing and see something different... Some of us get that...
I certainly do enjoy the discussion and agree that we can look at it differently.
I will stick with McIntyer and McKitric... .you can have Michael Mann! LOL!
Much like GuyNTexas thinks that climateskeptic is a bunch of charlatans, so too is my opinion of Steve McIntyre, upon which a LARGE portion of this is based....
Oh, so he reverse engineered the computer model being used and essentially devised his own...
or
"The hockey stick model is bad because we're simply guessing on average temps before we were actually able to physically read them, but anyway, here's OUR graph of what temperatures REALLY were back then."..
And Guy spoke of double-speak on the site that I offered up?
Anyway, I don't think we're going to agree here. I've seen NOTHING yet that convinces me that this is all much ado about nothing.... I don't believe YOUR scientists any more than you believe mine. Do you think, btw, that it's a coincidence that most that tend to be politically to the left think there's something to AGW and most that lean politically right think it's bunk??? IOW I think it's ALL a matter of people listening to what they choose to believe.
McIntyre, as I pointed out earlier, had a 30 year career in the fossil fuel industry, yet it's the IPCC that has the agenda?
Tough sell on me, sorry.... BUT, I'm not going to dismiss you as "stupid" or "not being able to count to ten" or anything of the sort. Obviously it's possible for two people to look at the same thing and see something different... Some of us get that...
Well, if we are evaluating who is more credible and we are using simple appeals to authority to establish this, I can see you wanting to hold to those being questioned.
Remember the problem with pointing to the character without dealing with the content. It is a very poor argument and to be honest, I am a little disappointed you would resort to it.
McIntyre has specifically shown the flaws in Mann's work. Look up the Wegman report and you will see the admission of his poor workings. The IPCC admitted to Mann's work being flawed, but claimed it didn't change the other research in the AR4 even though McIntyre consistently showed they were using Mann's applications in them.
NASA admitted the faults in Hansen's warmest year calculations and were forced to revise their sites claims (they issued the retraction and adjustments in a odd location on their site and it only stayed up for a short time). They also then continued to refer to Hansen's work (though putting in a very vague disclaimer that they were not using the parts that were incorrect) to suggest his same conclusions when in fact the records changed dramatically due to the adjustment. That is, the rankings changed a lot putting most of the high records back in the 1930's for the top 10 as well as placing 1934 back at the top.
He has found the errors with Briffa's work (Yamal) as well which was a strong driver for the use of dendrochronology being an accurate measure of climate and he also found the errors with the trick which is specifically shown to be an omission of the decline within two segments of the IPCC's report.
Your mention of his guess work concerning reconstructions is just the process he goes through when the researchers refuse to provide their method and data. So he is left with reconstructing using the raw data (which the researchers claim they use) and then following their claims in the research to reproduce their work. When he can not, he requests the information. If they refuse, he keeps trying to apply different approaches to consistently replicate their results. When he does and it consistently follows their results, he shows how they get their results and the errors to which they make in obtaining them.
This has been his method and it is responsible for the previous admissions of errors in the the research I mentioned.
None of the appeal to authority arguments matter. Notice how I do not post monetary contributions from companies and use them as a means to suggest bias or wrong doing even though I have excel sheets of donations from many companies that were within the data files of the email? The reason is because none of it is relevant to the science. The data and the methodology speaks for itself.
You claim McIntyre is wrong, by all means, please pick out some of his work and we can go over and and discuss where you think he has errors or is simply making wild claims. I refuse to discuss the issue generally as it only serves to allow for assumptive claims to be inserted to establish fallacious motive.
The proof is in the pudding as they say, let us sit down and have some?
This goes back and forth. Your scientists have an equal, IF NOT GREATER dog in this fight, so to claim it as one group that is "lying" versus another that is the "guardian of truth" is straight up bunk...
one comment on that Rhett, read closely the support they use to contest any arguments from the skeptics. Note that they use the IPCC's word as evidence (as you have noticed lately, they are being found pretty dirty on several issues). Also, concerning the emails as defense they quote those implicated or closely related to the issue as counter to the claims made.
Fact check in that assessment does not rely on facts as much as it does taking the word of someone as evidence.
This was a problem right when the emails came out and a lot of people were using factcheck.org as evidence that the emails were nothing or that specific issues concerning them were "out of context".
If you like, I can show you a very detailed example of the issue with "Mikes Nature Trick" being explained away as "A clever approach" (Gavin Schmidt) when in quantifiable fact it was a direct omission of the findings and we can easily see this by simply reviewing the IPCC's AR4, the review comments concerning the graphics used, the statements made in e-mails directly to McIntyre combined with the emails that correspond to comments concerning Macintyre in the leaked e-mails as well as reviewing the comments made during that time by the researchers and the comments made now.
Factcheck is misinformed on this issue. They have it wrong. That can be proven.
Well, if we are evaluating who is more credible and we are using simple appeals to authority to establish this, I can see you wanting to hold to those being questioned.
Remember the problem with pointing to the character without dealing with the content. It is a very poor argument and to be honest, I am a little disappointed you would resort to it.
For starters, McIntyre was pretty disingenuous in his interpretation of some of the hacked emails....
His explaination of the "Hide the decline" string of discussion showed omissions and deliberate attempts to mislead people into thinking that the scientists were referring to hiding a decline in 20th century temperatures, which is patently false.
One only need to read everything in context to see that they were referring to the divergence in the tree ring data.
So yes, let's have some pudding... McIntyre has a bit on his face as well and he has shown that he is not above that, which he claims to be the champion against. Namely misleading the public in the climate change discussion.
Also there's a nice letter from Ben Santer which explains what McIntyre, et al. are leaving out in their blogging diatribes.
Here's a portion of it..
Quote:
Originally Posted by realclimate
Unlike Mr. McIntyre, David Douglass and his colleagues (in their International Journal of Climatology paper) had used the freely available raw model data. With these raw datasets, Douglass et al. made intermediate calculations similar to the calculations we had performed. The results of their intermediate calculations were similar to our own intermediate results. The differences between what Douglass and colleagues had done and what my colleagues and I had done was not in the intermediate calculations – it was in the statistical tests each group had used to compare climate models with observations.
The punch-line of this story is that Mr. McIntyre’s Freedom of Information Act requests were completely unnecessary. In my opinion, they were frivolous. Mr. McIntyre already had access to all of the information necessary to check our calculations and our findings.
When I invited Mr. McIntyre to “audit” our entire study, including the intermediate calculations, and told him that all the data necessary to perform such an “audit” were freely available, he expressed moral outrage on his blog. I began to receive threatening emails. Complaints about my “stonewalling” behavior were sent to my superiors at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and at the U.S. Department of Energy.
A little over a month after receiving Mr. McIntyre’s Freedom of Information Act requests, I decided to release all of the intermediate calculations I had performed for our International Journal of Climatology paper. I made these datasets available to the entire scientific community. I did this because I wanted to continue with my scientific research. I did not want to spend all of my available time and energy responding to harassment incited by Mr. McIntyre’s blog.
Mr. Pearce does not mention that Mr. McIntyre had no need to file Freedom of Information Act requests, since Mr. McIntyre already had access to all of the raw climate model data we had used in our study (and to the methods we had used for performing intermediate calculations). Nor does Mr. Pearce mention the curious asymmetry in Mr. McIntyre’s “auditing”. To my knowledge, Mr. McIntyre – who purports to have considerable statistical expertise – has failed to “audit” the Douglass et al. paper, which contained serious statistical errors.
As the “Climategate” emails clearly show, there is a pattern of behavior here. My encounter with Mr. McIntyre’s use of FOIA requests for “audit” purposes is not an isolated event. In my opinion, Mr. McIntyre’s FOIA requests serve the purpose of initiating fishing expeditions, and are not being used for true scientific discovery.
Mr. McIntyre’s own words do not present a picture of a man engaged in purely dispassionate and objective scientific inquiry:
“But if Santer wants to try this kind of stunt, as I’ve said above, I’ve submitted FOI requests and we’ll see what they turn up. We’ll see what the journal policies require. I’ll also see what DOE and PCDMI administrators have to say. We’ll see if any of Santer’s buddies are obligated to produce the data. We’ll see if Santer ever sent any of the data to his buddies”
(Steven McIntyre; posting on his ClimateAudit blog; Nov. 21, 2008).
My research is subject to rigorous scrutiny. Mr. McIntyre’s blogging is not. He can issue FOIA requests at will. He is the master of his domain – the supreme, unchallenged ruler of the “ClimateAudit” universe. He is not a climate scientist, but he has the power to single-handedly destroy the reputations of exceptional men and women who have devoted their entire careers to the pursuit of climate science. Mr. McIntyre’s unchecked, extraordinary power is the real story of “Climategate”. I hope that someone has the courage to tell this story.
I wonder why you never see anyone who doesn't believe Global Warming is occurring do a study?
They never seem to do their own independent work. They just whine that other scientists won't let them see theirs...
Funding comes from industry and summarily dismissed as self-serving propaganda and from governments that are able to use the chicken little science to gain control over their constituents in a way they couldn't in the absence of a global crisis. Do the math...figure it out.
one comment on that Rhett, read closely the support they use to contest any arguments from the skeptics. Note that they use the IPCC's word as evidence (as you have noticed lately, they are being found pretty dirty on several issues). Also, concerning the emails as defense they quote those implicated or closely related to the issue as counter to the claims made.
Fact check in that assessment does not rely on facts as much as it does taking the word of someone as evidence.
This was a problem right when the emails came out and a lot of people were using factcheck.org as evidence that the emails were nothing or that specific issues concerning them were "out of context".
If you like, I can show you a very detailed example of the issue with "Mikes Nature Trick" being explained away as "A clever approach" (Gavin Schmidt) when in quantifiable fact it was a direct omission of the findings and we can easily see this by simply reviewing the IPCC's AR4, the review comments concerning the graphics used, the statements made in e-mails directly to McIntyre combined with the emails that correspond to comments concerning Macintyre in the leaked e-mails as well as reviewing the comments made during that time by the researchers and the comments made now.
Factcheck is misinformed on this issue. They have it wrong. That can be proven.
It was a divergence in the data.... The tree ring data became more or less irrelevent in the face of having actualy temperature readings to use for the period that the tree-ring divergence began, up to the present...
It begs an obvious question however that, if the tree ring data doesn't jive with measurable temperatures that we see when we compare them side-by-side, what does that mean about the tree-ring data in it's entirety?
It's a fair question, but it in NO way debunks arguments that support global warming.
Funding comes from industry and summarily dismissed as self-serving propaganda and from governments that are able to use the chicken little science to gain control over their constituents in a way they couldn't in the absence of a global crisis. Do the math...figure it out.
I've done the math and it's pretty simple math too...
It leads me to this question.
What do you think governments have to gain from paying a bunch of scientists to make sh!+ up to fool their population into believing that the Earth is getting warmer?
Do they care SO much about solar panels that they need to make stuff up to get everyone onboard so we can start making them en masse?
The math dictates that it would be SO much easier to just continue to collect the trillions in kickbacks that the fossil fuel industry provides and ride that gravy train until it (literally) runs out of fuel....
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.
