CRU Inquiry (Investigation) in the UK (ethical, lawyers, doctor, best)
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 pointed out the issue with the graphs (same data there) and I also showed you the methodology that is required to achieve an upturn due to the problems with smoothing. The data to which he uses is listed on his site. Could you point to this "special data" to which shows McIntyre's data to be incorrect?
No, McIntyre did. You want me to argue with McIntyre. You are not providing anything.
He's done it on multiple occasions. He accused the IPCC of "cherry-picking" the Yamal Tree-Ring data on his blog, and then later comes back and states that he wasn't accusing them of this.
He's done it on multiple occasions. He accused the IPCC of "cherry-picking" the Yamal Tree-Ring data on his blog, and then later comes back and states that he wasn't accusing them of this.
As to your "evidence". Hear me plain. You are asking me to scour the internet and find someone that refutes McIntyre's data. Straight up. You know it. I know it. Unless I am a climate scientist involved in the process there's no other way. Likewise, you stand by McIntyre. Probably anything I provide, you are going to cite McIntyre's response to it (if he has one yet, and I"m sure if he doesn't yet, he will...)
This is a war of who cites who and isn't productive.
"But look at the data!!!"
Sh!+, am I to guess that you soak up McIntyre's data and when he makes an "assumption" as he claims at times that you just go with it?
Look, I don't mind saying that the hockey stick is jacked up and incorrect.
Essentially through ALL of the bluster and years of work that is all McIntyre has done.
If the hockey stick was all there was? Maybe I'd be more inclined to let my guard down.
Your position is invalid. Your claims are unsupported even by your own sources. You know why you can't easily present a rebuttal to my information or answer my specific questions? It is because the reasoning used by those implicated and the explanations given by those politically defending it are not dealing with the content itself. They are using vague references to their claims and applying excuse based reasoning that requires "trust" of the giver to accept the reasoning.
Look at each of your above responses. You make unsupported generalized claims, then evade any requirement of support to validate your argument. You then go on to proclaim more unsupported accusations and then attempt to redirect the argument into another area with a red herring that uses an unsupported common sense fallacy to assume your position is correct.
Stay on topic, answer to your claims or retract them and take a neutral position on the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler
Let me be clear that I really don't give a frog's fat arse what you say you will and won't accept. I throw a graph up from climateskeptic and it's immediately discounted. You throw one up from McIntyre and "won't accept" anything short of a calculus equation from me that proves the data wrong....
I concur, the hockey stick is suspect. I don't have a problem with that conclusion. You good now?
Again, I don't believe I was specifically in that discussion. If I had been, I would have pointed out the specifics as to why it is invalid and used supporting information that details as to why. I have no obligations to defend you, nor am I required to clean up any lacking positions from other posters. That is an issue you need to take up with them as they were the ones making the statement.
Our issue is above as has been detailed. Now you can attend to the debate or as I said, retract your unsupported claims and take a neutral stance. Not supporting your claims simply makes you a libelous poster spreading misinformation be it out of political bias or simple ignorance. The reasoning itself for such is not as important to me as the claim being made.
No, McIntyre did. You want me to argue with McIntyre. You are not providing anything.
I want you to point out where he did, otherwise you are making generalized claims without being specific. If it is as you say, then it should be fairly easy for you to point this out. Your refusal to point it out is suspicious as it is suggests that you either do not know enough about what you claim or that you are deviously trying to argue a point.
Your continued attempt to argue that it would not be discussing with me, but arguing with him is a fallacy. You are evading supporting your argument and an unsupported claim in the face of a supported one is just political diatribe.
McIntyre also presented some dubious technical analysis, purporting to show various techniques of “cherrypicking†among paleoclimatologists, and even spliced the UAH satellite temperature data onto the Moberg reconstruction to show that recent temperatures were not much warmer than the medieval warm period and that recent trends were modest (remember this was early 2005, before application of important corrections later that year).
McIntyre later denies that he was accusing anyone of "cherrypicking" btw..
I want you to point out where he did, otherwise you are making generalized claims without being specific. If it is as you say, then it should be fairly easy for you to point this out. Your refusal to point it out is suspicious as it is suggests that you either do not know enough about what you claim or that you are deviously trying to argue a point.
Your continued attempt to argue that it would not be discussing with me, but arguing with him is a fallacy. You are evading supporting your argument and an unsupported claim in the face of a supported one is just political diatribe.
For starters, McIntyre discards the need to adjust the Yamal Data to account for the fact that trees in their latter life stages, by their very nature, have smaller tree-rings.
This is at the very CORE of his problems with Briffa's data.
In para. 7 he refers to tree ring data. This has a close relationship to temperature, except in the later years of a tree's life, when rings are stretched thinner, and therefore produce a false impression of colder climate. Dendrochronologists therefore have to make an adjustment to the data to allow for this fact.
(and here we go citing and citing.... fun, fun... )
McIntyre later denies that he was accusing anyone of "cherrypicking" btw..
Like your approach, he does not substantiate any of his assumptions. He collects certain facts and then implies intent and summarizes motive without validating his claim.
In none of that "story" does he actually verify the claim you quoted. He accuses McIntyre of cherry picking, yet does not show where he does in order to support his mention.
The article is an assassination piece, a political pecie designed to lessen the findings of the Wegman report. He suggests that the Wegman report was designed as apolitical ploy and never once looks at the science discussed past making unfounded accusations that it is wrong.
to be more specific on his reasoning process, here is his evidence to claim that the wegman report was a collusion.
these are his conclusions:
Quote:
Not only was the original Barton-Whitfield investigation (in the form of intimidating letters) inspired by the allegations of “climate science auditor†Steve McIntyre, but the defining impetus seems to have been a little known Cooler Heads Coalition-Marshall Institute sponsored presentation by McIntyre and sidekick economist Ross McKitrick in Washington barely a month beforehand.
Energy and Commerce Committee Republican staffer Peter Spencer played a key but hitherto undisclosed role in the investigation and the subsequent Wegman panel report, and apparently acted as the main source and gatekeeper of climate science information for the panel.
Steve McIntyre was in communication with the Wegman panel, at least concerning technical questions around replication of his work. The full extent of McIntyre’s communications or meetings with Spencer or other staffers, as well as Wegman panelists, is still unknown. However, the record shows there were at least two intriguing opportunities for face-to-face meetings in Washington during the Wegman panel’s mandate.
His conclusions are based on taking key facts and organizing them in a manner to imply that there is collusion. He doesn't support his position, simply grabs information that could fit his conclusion and then proclaims it is evidence to it. His "dubious" claim isn't even properly supported. He doesn't point out in the report what is wrong, or explain the context of the issue. He simply makes an accusation, mentions some vague reference and then goes on with his accusations.
This is exactly what you are doing. You are making generalized claims and finding any information that might piece together what it is you "want" it to mean.
When I actually present you with the "so called" dubious material, you can't even point out what it is that is wrong.
Again, you are showing that you have a lack of understanding on the issue.
Your source does not prove your cheery picking case, it simply accuses of it.
I want you to point out where he did, otherwise you are making generalized claims without being specific. .
By saying "McIntyre did" I'm referring to you passing on his work as your own....
"I already pointed out." "I showed you the methodology."... is what you said.
No, YOU didn't do any of it.
My issue is with McIntyre. You wish me to either show specifically where his science is wrong, OR completely trust that what he says is true...
I can only do that through citing others who disagree with him.
"Argue the science!!!" ???
Many have already done so with McIntyre and many have concluded that in some respects he is oblivious to how the scientific community functions and arrives at certain numbers or conclusions.
Yet we are to take McIntyre's numbers and formulas at face value?
You go ahead. I have better things to do than take one man's word against the majority of the scientific community who is obviously out to fool us all into thinking that the Earth is getting warmer...
I'm done being baited with this, "If you don't show me this, then you are wrong..." crap. I will continue to believe as I do. There's more than a damned hockey stick here.
Beyond that, you wish to keep politics out of this, yet my last citing is an attempt to show you that, indeed, even the great Steve McIntyre is tangled up in the politics (and playing it too it seems)... How can that aspect be discarded?
Last edited by Rhett_Butler; 03-05-2010 at 08:04 AM..
For starters, McIntyre discards the need to adjust the Yamal Data to account for the fact that trees in their latter life stages, by their very nature, have smaller tree-rings.
This is at the very CORE of his problems with Briffa's data.
(and here we go citing and citing.... fun, fun... )
*chuckle*
And as he said, it has no scientific basis for such an adjustment.
here is the reasoning your cite uses:
Quote:
In para. 7 he refers to tree ring data. This has a close relationship to temperature, except in the later years of a tree's life, when rings are stretched thinner, and therefore produce a false impression of colder climate. Dendrochronologists therefore have to make an adjustment to the data to allow for this fact.
Why do they do this? And it is an assumption that that it is a false impression. This is a divergence in their data. That is, they can not explain why it does, they simply assume it is a "false impression". They can not explain the divergence, so they simply "adjust" it to fit their hypothesis.
That is not a valid scientific basis for making an adjustment. It also fails to note that Briffa noted this problem and yet the reviewers did not object, simply passed it through.
Your rebuttal does not provide a proper scientific reasoning for ignoring the divergence.
Why do they do this? And it is an assumption that that it is a false impression. This is a divergence in their data. That is, they can not explain why it does, they simply assume it is a "false impression". They can not explain the divergence, so they simply "adjust" it to fit their hypothesis.
That is not a valid scientific basis for making an adjustment. It also fails to note that Briffa noted this problem and yet the reviewers did not object, simply passed it through.
Your rebuttal does not provide a proper scientific reasoning for ignoring the divergence.
You have CLEARLY not been listening to me. This is now evident.
Yes, due to the unexplained divergence, the data is suspect. There is an unexplained divergence. The CRU is at fault for using it up until the divergence and discarding it after 1960.
However, McIntyre is no more correct in going ahead and USING the suspect data in his new calculations. It's obvious that, since it says what HE wants it to say, that he believes it's okay to use the data with the unexplained divergences included when in fact the entirety of that data set should be entirely thrown out.
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.
)
