Climategate?

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

The emails indicate wrong doing, manipulating data, which to date has not been denied, therefore it calls into question the Peer review and their work as a whole.

I’m pretty sure it has been denied, but anyway, where are the suggestions of data manipulation? And why is the entire peer review process now called into question (any more so than it previously was)?

robtri wrote: »

...can you show evidence that there has been no manipulation of data then??

You’ve made a claim, the onus is on you to support it.

robtri wrote: »

I am not going to reproduce what has already been put forward in this thread, from the excerts of the emails, you can read them all again if you wish...

You’ve made an accusation; either back it up with evidence, or withdraw it.

djpbarry

It's also worth pointing out that even if Prof. Jones is found guilty of wrongdoing (not complying with FOI requests, for example), that does not automatically invalidate all of the work that has taken place at the CRU.

ConsiderThis

djpbarry wrote: »

I have already stated on this thread that if a law has been broken, then the perpetrator should be punished. However, at this point, I do not have access to a sufficient level of information to determeine that any laws have been broken. Therefore, I must assume Prof. Jones to be innocent until proven otherwise. It seems that others have assumed guilt and are seeking evidence of same. You yourself have stated that you’d ‘like to see the truth’ and ‘the first step is to establish the facts’, yet at the same time you are seeking proof that something untoward has not taken place?
Where has this been suggested?

And you are free to assume that Prof Jones is innocent, as he may well be proven to be. It may be that you don't express surprise at his decision to resign, or "step down", or that anything in the emails gives concern to question anything.

I'm not so sure, so we must disagree.

djpbarry wrote: »

It's also worth pointing out that even if Prof. Jones is found guilty of wrongdoing (not complying with FOI requests, for example), that does not automatically invalidate all of the work that has taken place at the CRU.

It shows that he is dishonest and prepared to break the law to hide the evidence he says he has, from others. For me, I'd have to question why he was prepared to go to such lengths to do that. You may decide you don't want to question that. Its a matter for us all to decide for ourselves.

The BBC have opened up a debate on Climategate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8388485.stm

'Show Your Working': What 'ClimateGate' means


VIEWPOINT
Mike Hulme and Jerome Ravetz


The "ClimateGate" affair - the publication of e-mails and documents hacked or leaked from one of the world's leading climate research institutions - is being intensely debated on the web. But what does it imply for climate science? Here, Mike Hulme and Jerome Ravetz say it shows that we need a more concerted effort to explain and engage the public in understanding the processes and practices of science and scientists.

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m pretty sure it has been denied, but anyway, where are the suggestions of data manipulation? And why is the entire peer review process now called into question (any more so than it previously was)?

that sentance is totally contradictory.... you say there has been a denial of data manipulation... then ask for proof it has been called into question??? sorry but that doesn't make sense....
again, as i Said if it turns out there was wrong doing, then it would call into question the peer review that took place on this work and the work as a whole... if you cannot understand that I am sorry, I can't make it more clear.

djpbarry wrote: »

You’ve made a claim, the onus is on you to support it.
You’ve made an accusation; either back it up with evidence, or withdraw it.

I said these emails INDICATE wrong doing, not a claim of proof...
you said the data was good, which to me is a claim, so I asked you to back it up....

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

that sentance is totally contradictory.... you say there has been a denial of data manipulation... then ask for proof it has been called into question???

No, I’m saying that wrongdoing has been denied (as far as I’m aware), but I have yet to see anyone produce evidence of data manipulation within the emails.

robtri wrote: »

I said these emails INDICATE wrong doing, not a claim of proof...

I don’t believe I asked for proof. I did, however, ask for evidence. Last chance.

You may want to have a read of this prior to your next post.

auerillo

djpbarry wrote: »

No, I’m saying that wrongdoing has been denied (as far as I’m aware), but I have yet to see anyone produce evidence of data manipulation within the emails.
I don’t believe I asked for proof. I did, however, ask for evidence. Last chance.

You may want to have a read of this prior to your next post.

You think that that professor jones resigned without any evidence?

How about

"Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people."

or


From Phil Jones :

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

or

From Kevin Trenberth :

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

or


From Michael Mann :

Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations."

Do you dig that guy saying it's not about truth, but about plausible deniable accusations....wow.. or Professor Jones saying he wants to "hide the decline". Thats not proof of data manipulation, but it does appear to be evidence.

Macha

auerillo wrote: »

"Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people."

A bad attitude towards sceptics or dissenters? Yes. Proof/evidence of manipulation? No.

auerillo wrote: »

From Phil Jones :

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

This has been explained in this thread about seven times. It is not data manipulation.

auerillo wrote: »

From Kevin Trenberth :

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

The guy is lamenting that his equipment is not as good as he wants it to me. Proof/evidence of data manipulation? No.

auerillo wrote: »

From Michael Mann :
Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations."

This is very, very bad. Shocking that a scientist would say it at all.

zod

on a lighter note

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8

auerillo

taconnol wrote: »

A bad attitude towards sceptics or dissenters? Yes. Proof/evidence of manipulation? No.

.

"... don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people."

You may be right, or not. Neither of us know. I submit is as evidence that evidence appears to be concealed, which appears to be worrying.

taconnol wrote: »

This has been explained in this thread about seven times. It is not data manipulation.

"...hide the decline..."

Again, neither of us know if this is about data manipulation, so to claim, as you do, that it definitely is not about data manipulation, seems to be a guess. You might be right, but you might also be incorrect. We simply don't know.

taconnol wrote: »

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t... Our observing system is inadequate."

.

This seems to indicate that he thinks there is a lack of global warming, and is blamed on the system being inadequate. You may be right that the equipment is not as good as he wants it to be, but equally it might be that there is a lack of global warming, and the equipment is ok. We simply don't know.

I agree that it is shocking that a scientist such as Michael Mann should say "As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations. " should say , and think, that. Michael Mann, we should remember, is the man behind the infamous hockey stick graph. Critics of the graph say that the science behind it is not replicable, and when Mann was asked for his data, his response was that he had "he had forgotten the location" and said that his colleague, Scott Rutherford would locate the data. Rutherford then said that the information did not exist in any one location, and it transpired that the IPCC had never done due diligence on the data used to produce the hockey stick graph, and consequently it was used, by them, without independent evidence. We should remember that the hockey stick graph was the basis for claims that the 20th Century was the hottest on record.

Science should not be a consensus with everyone believing the hypothesis. Science should be transparent, verifiable, and reproducible. Science is based on proof which is replicable to anyone who wants to examine it. The evidence for the hockey stick graph is not universally accepted, and appears not to have been examined by the IPCC, or by a consensus other scientists.

bonkey

auerillo wrote: »

Do you dig that guy saying it's not about truth, but about plausible deniable accusations....wow..

Wow, indeed.

I have only one question...

he says that this is not about truth....but what, exactly, is the "this" that he is referring to?

Here's the post in question. Based on what is said there, I can see several interpretations of that comment which aren't damning in the slightest...and several which are.

Do we have the full exchange, or just this single mail/comment?

auerillo

bonkey wrote: »

Wow, indeed.

I have only one question...

he says that this is not about truth....but what, exactly, is the "this" that he is referring to?

Here's the post in question. Based on what is said there, I can see several interpretations of that comment which aren't damning in the slightest...and several which are.

Do we have the full exchange, or just this single mail/comment?

We simply don't know.

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

Michael Mann, we should remember, is the man behind the infamous hockey stick graph. Critics of the graph say that the science behind it is not replicable, and when Mann was asked for his data, his response was that he had "he had forgotten the location" and said that his colleague, Scott Rutherford would locate the data.

I am almost certain that Mann’s raw data and source code are in the public domain.

auerillo wrote: »

Rutherford then said that the information did not exist in any one location, and it transpired that the IPCC had never done due diligence on the data used to produce the hockey stick graph, and consequently it was used, by them, without independent evidence.

What do you mean by “independent evidence”?

auerillo wrote: »

Science is based on proof...

No it is not – science is based on evidence.

auerillo wrote: »

The evidence for the hockey stick graph is not universally accepted...

Nor is the theory of evolution.

auerillo wrote: »

We simply don't know.

Indeed we do not. So why the big hoo-ha? Because evidence is being sought to support pre-conceived conclusions, right?

auerillo

auerillo wrote: »

The evidence for the hockey stick graph is not universally accepted...

djpbarry wrote: »

Nor is the theory of evolution.

In fairness, that's not really a response.

It transpired that Mann's raw data came from tree rings, and was a small sample, and the data was only released in 2008 after years of being kept under wraps.

When, using the same data, a much larger sample was used, the results were the opposite from those produced from Mann's smaller sample, as can be seen here http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/rcs_chronologies_rev2.gif . Yet Mann simply ignores the results based on a larger sample from the same data which he used. He's never pointed out where it is in error, he just ignores it and clings to the results from his original smaller sample. Now we learn that his views are that "...this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations..." we can, perhaps, begin to understand why.

Science should be transparent, verifiable, and reproducible.

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

In fairness, that's not really a response.

Sure it is. I doubt there exists a scientific theory that is “universally accepted”. Why should that be used as an indicator?

auerillo wrote: »

It transpired that Mann's raw data came from tree rings...

What do you mean “transpired”? You’re implying that this was an unknown at the time of publication?

auerillo wrote: »

When, using the same data, a much larger sample was used, the results were the opposite from those produced from Mann's smaller sample, as can be seen here http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/rcs_chronologies_rev2.gif .

What are we looking at here and how is “the opposite” result of what Mann et al. produced?

auerillo wrote: »

Yet Mann simply ignores the results from a larger sample from the same data which he used. He's never pointed out where it is in error...

That’s not true. The error bars on multi-centennial temperature reconstructions are huge – the uncertainty associated with the results is common knowledge.

auerillo

djpbarry wrote: »

What are we looking at here and how is “the opposite” result of what Mann et al. produced?

Yes, from a larger sample from the same data.

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

Yes, from a larger sample from the same data.

That doesn't answer my question - how is it "the opposite" and how was it produced? What's the source?

gizmo555

djpbarry wrote: »

auerillo wrote: »

Science is based on proof which is replicable to anyone who wants to examine it.

No it is not – science is based on evidence.

proof n., adj., & v. -n. facts, evidence, argument, etc. establishing or helping to establish a fact.

Concise Oxford Dictionary, 8 ed.

Spare us the nitpicking semantics, will you?

auerillo

djpbarry wrote: »

That doesn't answer my question - how is it "the opposite" and how was it produced? What's the source?

Harvard scientists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas performed a survey of the existing scientific literature concerning the climate of the past 1,000 years and compiled evidence for and against the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. They found that overwhelmingly, within the scores of scientific articles that they reviewed, there was strong evidence to support the existence of these well-known climatic episodes that were largely absent from the “hockey stick” reconstruction, and appeared to have the effect of giving an inaccurate result"

McIntyre and McKitrick documented a number of errors in Mann's original procedure including inaccurate data descriptions, insufficient methodological details, data compilation errors, data handling mistakes, and questionable statistical techniques. They concluded that no individual mistake was likely sufficient enough in and of itself to throw into question the “hockey stick,” but taken together, the list of errors indicate a certain lack of rigour and attention to detail by the “hockey stick’s” creators.

Jan Esper and colleagues conclude that "... evidence that the “hockey stick” underestimates the true level of natural climate variation..."

Hans von Storch and colleagues in Science in late-2004. employed a methodology similar to Mann et al.’s, anc concluded that it underplays the importance of the LIA and MWP. Again, the von Storch finding adds further evidence that the handle of the “hockey stick” is too flat.

Anders Moberg and colleagues, in Nature Magazine, concludes after much examination that the handle of the “hockey stick” was found to be too flat.

It's probably unfair of me to say this, but your responses come over as not wanting to consider any evidence which disagrees with what you have decided to believe. That's understandable and a human trait, and something from which many of us suffer. however, consider that that very position has led Mann to conclude that "..this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations..."



Here are the references;

McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick, 2003. Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy database and Northern Hemispheric average temperature series. Energy & Environment,14, 751-771.

McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick, 2005. Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance. Geophysical Research Letters, 32, doi:10.1029/2004GL021750.

Moberg, A., et al., 2005. Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data. Nature, 433, 613-617.

Soon, W., and S. Baliunas, 2003. Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1,000 years. Climate Research, 23, 89–110.

Von Storch, H., et al., 2004. Reconstructing past climate from noisy data. Science, 306, 679-682.

Esper J., D.C. Frank, and J.S. Wilson, 2004. Climate reconstructions: Low-frequency ambition and high-frequency ratification. Eos, 85, 133,120.

Esper, J., E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber, 2002. Low frequency signals in long tree-ring chronologies for reconstructing past temperature variability, Science, 295, 2250-2253.

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

I don’t believe I asked for proof. I did, however, ask for evidence. Last chance.

You may want to have a read of this prior to your next post.

proff.... evidence... same thing...
I don't think I made a claim of wrong doing.... I said the emails indicated wrong doing...

You made the claim of no data manipulation.... and I have asked for proff of this... so far you have provided none.....
Therefore the onus is on you to show proof or face your own consequences....

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

proff.... evidence... same thing...
I don't think I made a claim of wrong doing.... I said the emails indicated wrong doing...

Yes you did say that. To be precise you stated:

robtri wrote: »

The emails indicate wrong doing, manipulating data...

You have been asked several times to point out where in the emails the manipulation of data has been indicated, or to put it another way, you have been asked to provide evidence of wrongdoing within the emails. Since you continue to refuse to do so, you leave me with no choice but to infract you.

robtri wrote: »

You made the claim of no data manipulation...

I don’t believe I did. I may have claimed that there is insufficient evidence to support an accusation of data manipulation, but that’s not the same thing.

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

Yes you did say that. To be precise you stated:

You have been asked several times to point out where in the emails the manipulation of data has been indicated, or to put it another way, you have been asked to provide evidence of wrongdoing within the emails. Since you continue to refuse to do so, you leave me with no choice but to infract you.
I don’t believe I did. I may have claimed that there is insufficient evidence to support an accusation of data manipulation, but that’s not the same thing.

actually you asked for proof or evidence of wrong doing.... I don't believe I said it as a claim.... I said INDICATED... not claimed or a stament of fact....

djpbarry

gizmo555 wrote: »

proof n., adj., & v. -n. facts, evidence, argument, etc. establishing or helping to establish a fact.

Concise Oxford Dictionary, 8 ed.

Spare us the nitpicking semantics, will you?

In the context of the debate on climate change, I don’t believe it is a semantic argument. The term ‘proof’ gets thrown around an awful lot by sceptics, when they know full well that it is impossible to prove the AGW theory, just as it is impossible to prove the theory of gravity, or the theory of quantum mechanics. All science is obviously based on observable evidence, but for some reason which escapes me, the bar which must be reached in climate science has been apparently set far higher than in other disciplines, so when terms such as “very likely” and “probably” are used in IPCC reports, they are seized upon by sceptics as evidence of a lack of scientific rigour. However, the field of quantum mechanics, for example, is based almost exclusively on probability, but I think we can all agree that it seems to work pretty well.

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

Harvard scientists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas performed a survey of the existing scientific literature concerning the climate of the past 1,000 years and compiled evidence for and against the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
...
It's probably unfair of me to say this, but your responses come over as not wanting to consider any evidence which disagrees with what you have decided to believe.

I’m not really sure where you’re going with this? I have never claimed the Mann’s reconstruction is 100% accurate – in fact, I have already stated that, in the original paper, the plot that was produced had a huge standard deviation (about +/- 0.3 degrees at the ‘widest’ point). The fact that someone else has performed similar analysis (but one that they consider to be more accurate) and produced a different result does not imply that Mann et al. have been in some way dishonest. It may suggest that Mann’s method can be improved upon (which applies to virtually all scientific publications), but that would assume that McIntyre & McKittrick’s method (for example) was the more accurate – is such a conclusion valid? There have also been several studies that have arrived at similar conclusions to Mann et al. It’s difficult to arrive at any sort of conclusion without examining in detail the statistical approaches used in each publication, which is well beyond the scope of this forum.

However, this is something of a moot point, because (a) tree-ring data is recognised as being unreliable and (b) as bonkey has already said, in the statement from the emails attributed to Mann that you have highlighted, we have no idea what “this” is referring to. You are merely speculating that he could be referring to this particular publication, but that’s something of a stab in the dark, isn’t it?

Has it occurred to anyone else that there is a distinct air of hypocrisy evident in this thread? The following statement was made early on in this thread (and the general sentiment has been repeated several times):

‘Proper science is about evaluating all available information and using all known methods to do these evaluations (including data that goes against the expected outcome) not "cherry picking" to ensure that the outcome of the research confirms your preferred conclusion.’

It seems to me that there are quite a few posters here who are guilty of precisely such a practice, i.e., “cherry-picking” a few select statements from these emails which appear to support their predetermined position.

bonkey

robtri wrote: »

I don't think I made a claim of wrong doing.... I said the emails indicated wrong doing...

The emails can be interpreted in a manner which would support the claim of wrong-doing.
They can also be interpreted in a manner which would not support the claim.

From that perspective, the emails do not necessarily indicate wrong-doing. They indicate the possibility that wrong-doing occurred but are, effectively, inconclusive.

Something which can reasonably support either hypothesis cannot be used as an argument to support one possibility over the other.

You made the claim of no data manipulation.... and I have asked for proff of this... so far you have provided none.....
Therefore the onus is on you to show proof or face your own consequences....

I believe that the claim was made of a lack of evidence supporting data manipulation, rather than a lack of data-manipulation.

These distinctions may seem pedantic, but I would argue that they're key to the issue.

IT may, ultimately, be more accurate to say that the emails are not inconsistent with the notion of data-manipulation.

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

actually you asked for proof or evidence of wrong doing.... I don't believe I said it as a claim.... I said INDICATED... not claimed or a stament of fact....

You claimed that the emails indicated wrong-doing and/or manipulation of data, but you have providing nothing to support this claim, despite being requested to do so on several occasions.

Now, back on-topic please.

auerillo

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m not really sure where you’re going with this? I have never claimed the Mann’s reconstruction is 100% accurate – in fact, I have already stated that, in the original paper, the plot that was produced had a huge standard deviation (about +/- 0.3 degrees at the ‘widest’ point). The fact that someone else has performed similar analysis (but one that they consider to be more accurate) and produced a different result does not imply that Mann et al. have been in some way dishonest. It may suggest that Mann’s method can be improved upon (which applies to virtually all scientific publications), but that would assume that McIntyre & McKittrick’s method (for example) was the more accurate – is such a conclusion valid? There have also been several studies that have arrived at similar conclusions to Mann et al. It’s difficult to arrive at any sort of conclusion without examining in detail the statistical approaches used in each publication, which is well beyond the scope of this forum.

However, this is something of a moot point, because (a) tree-ring data is recognised as being unreliable and (b) as bonkey has already said, in the statement from the emails attributed to Mann that you have highlighted, we have no idea what “this” is referring to. You are merely speculating that he could be referring to this particular publication, but that’s something of a stab in the dark, isn’t it?

Has it occurred to anyone else that there is a distinct air of hypocrisy evident in this thread? The following statement was made early on in this thread (and the general sentiment has been repeated several times):

‘Proper science is about evaluating all available information and using all known methods to do these evaluations (including data that goes against the expected outcome) not "cherry picking" to ensure that the outcome of the research confirms your preferred conclusion.’

It seems to me that there are quite a few posters here who are guilty of precisely such a practice, i.e., “cherry-picking” a few select statements from these emails which appear to support their predetermined position.

I'm not really interested in speculating about whether or not there are other posters here who are guilty of cherry picking, or whether or not it might occur to others whether or not there is an air of hypocrisy in some posts. I'm not even concerned to know where you, or anyone else, may be "going with this" (whatever that might mean)

I am interested in debate. I can't help noticing that you seem to quite often not respond to specific issues. For example, you asked for sources, and I went to some trouble to post them here http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63333730&postcount=220 for you, and your response is to ignore them. Why did you ask for sources? Why do you not, yourself, give sources for your "There have also been several studies that have arrived at similar conclusions to Mann et al", while at the same time threaten members that they have to produce evidence or be on a "last chance"?

I can't help noticing that you asked for evidence here http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63321564&postcount=207 and when I give some evidence here http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63323561&postcount=208 you don't make any response.

In another thread you asked for similarities between global warming and religions and, when a poster gave some, you closed the thread, without commenting on them!

I'm happy to debate and enjoy it, but have no interest in speculating about whether or not there are other posters here who are guilty of cherry picking, or whether or not it might occur to others whether or not there is an air of hypocrisy in some posts etc.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8394483.stm

UN body wants probe of climate e-mail row
Dr Pachauri described the row as a "serious issue" for climate research

The head of the UN's climate science body says claims that UK scientists manipulated data on global warming should be investigated.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said the matter could not be swept "under the carpet".

The allegations emerged after e-mails written and received by UK climate researchers appeared on the internet.

It looks like the issue will not go away, these emails will be investigated.

Edit: BTW there is another thread in AH that is open about "Climate Change or Global Warming as it used to be called" now Climategate that has an open agenda.

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

... I went to some trouble to post them here http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63333730&postcount=220 for you, and your response is to ignore them.

No I didn’t ignore them. In my last post I acknowledged the fact that other studies have produced different results to Mann et al., didn’t I? I also explained why I don’t think that’s the central issue here.

auerillo wrote: »

Why do you not, yourself, give sources for your "There have also been several studies that have arrived at similar conclusions to Mann et al"...

Because nobody has asked? I therefore (perhaps incorrectly) assumed that other posters were aware of the existence of such studies. But anyway, there’s a figure here from a New Scientist article that compares a few different results.

auerillo wrote: »

I can't help noticing that you asked for evidence here http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63321564&postcount=207 and when I give some evidence here http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63323561&postcount=208 you don't make any response.

No, I didn’t, but taconnol did. Would you like me to repeat taconnol’s post?

auerillo wrote: »

In another thread you asked for similarities between global warming and religions and, when a poster gave some, you closed the thread, without commenting on them!

Less of the discussion of forum moderation please.

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

by the wonderful potholer54.

Flamed Diving

Flamed Diving wrote: »

video

by the wonderful potholer54.

I suppose it was only a matter of time before the counterattack happened, unfortunately this video has depicted sceptics as cranks by carefully selecting youtube videos of some of the more excentric sceptics.

This link is another video that puts sceptics in a bad light (talk about shooting oneself in the foot)!

I would prefer to look at more imformative videos and charts that go beyond the type.

I found some temperature charts that are the result of several studies, some show rapid rises at the end of the 20th century, others do not, and they also show that the temperatures have been nearly as high 1000 years ago.

Note particularly that some of the results include "anthropogenic forcing", these are the ones that show a rapid rise!
Solar activity has shown to have a remarkable match on the chart as well on all the results.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig614.html

Flamed Diving

Deleted User wrote: »

I suppose it was only a matter of time before the counterattack happened, unfortunately this video has depicted sceptics as cranks by carefully selecting youtube videos of some of the more excentric sceptics.

This link is another video that puts sceptics in a bad light (talk about shooting oneself in the foot)!

I would prefer to look at more imformative videos and charts that go beyond the type.

I found some temperature charts that are the result of several studies, some show rapid rises at the end of the 20th century, others do not, and they also show that the temperatures have been nearly as high 1000 years ago.

Note particularly that some of the results include "anthropogenic forcing", these are the ones that show a rapid rise!
Solar activity has shown to have a remarkable match on the chart as well on all the results.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig614.html

This is all starting to get very 9/11-troof-y...

Hey, whatever happened to those guys?

Oh yeah...

Flamed Diving

Flamed Diving wrote: »

This is all starting to get very 9/11-troof-y...

Hey, whatever happened to those guys?

Oh yeah...

What's 911 got to do with anything! Look at the information, don't compare this to conspiratory theries.

Flamed Diving

Deleted User wrote: »

What's 911 got to do with anything! Look at the information, don't compare this to conspiratory theries.

Your, erm, critique of the video I presented was to point out that he used cranks (despite the fact that he uses them for mere comic relief and most importantly, they are using the same sources as the "non-crank" media) in the role of sceptics and you added nothing further. This is the type of tactic I would usually associate with a troofer. I felt that the videos author made some excellent points, if you could allow yourself to get over the comedy element in parts, you would see that too. I would recommend watching all six of his videos on the subject, because he tears into your friend Gore too.

jawlie

Flamed Diving wrote: »

...This is the type of tactic I would usually associate with a troofer... your friend Gore too.

This post made me laugh. Apart from using pejorative language, such as above, have you got a point you want to make?

Flamed Diving wrote: »

This is all starting to get very 9/11-troof-y...

Hey, whatever happened to those guys?

Oh yeah...

The above was your previous post, which also seems to obscure your point, assuming there is one.

Flamed Diving

jawlie wrote: »

This post made me laugh. Apart from using pejorative language, such as above, have you got a point you want to make?



The above was your previous post, which also seems to obscure your point, assuming there is one.

Jawlie, I think you need batteries for your sarcasm detector...

djpbarry

Can we put the handbags away please folks?

Could I also take this opportunity to remind everyone of this little snippet from the forum charter:

"Posting a link to a video (or anything else for that matter) does not constitute discussion. It's OK to link to a video, but it should be accompanied by a summary of its contents and arguments..."

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091205.html

Release of global-average temperature data
05 December 2009


The Met Office has announced plans to release, early next week, station temperature records for over one thousand of the stations that make up the global land surface temperature record.


This data is a subset of the full HadCRUT record of global temperatures, which is one of the global temperature records that have underpinned IPCC assessment reports and numerous scientific studies. The data subset will consist of a network of individual stations that has been designated by the World Meteorological Organisation for use in climate monitoring. The subset of stations is evenly distributed across the globe and provides a fair representation of changes in mean temperature on a global scale over land.

This subset is not a new global temperature record and it does not replace the HadCRUT, NASA GISS and NCDC global temperature records, all of which have been fully peer reviewed. We are confident this subset will show that global average land temperatures have risen over the last 150 years.


This subset release will continue the policy of putting as much of the station temperature record as possible into the public domain.


We intend that as soon as possible we will also publish the specific computer code that aggregates the individual station temperatures into the global land temperature record.


As soon as we have all permissions in place we will release the remaining station records - around 5000 in total - that make up the full land temperature record. We are dependant on international approvals to enable this final step and cannot guarantee that we will get permission from all data owners.


UEA fully supports the Met Office in making this data publicly available and is continuing to work with the Met Office to seek the necessary permission from national data owners to publish, as soon as possible as much of the data that we can gain permission for.

Will be interesting to see what others think of the raw data.

auerillo

It's interesting that this debate, both here and in the wider world, becomes so polarised.

So much so that those who have decided to believe in global warming seem unable to even contemplate that there may be something amiss.

Those of us who question (a pretty basic tenet of science) are accused of being a "deniers", much as, in earlier days, we might have been accused of heresy for daring to question an intolerant and all knowing church.

In my short life, I remember so many "scientists" telling us, with their serious faces on (and their grant applications and requests for more funding and all good copy for the News media who are always hungry for a good scare story), that we were entering a new ice age, HIV would mutate and we were all in danger of catching it, Bird 'flu, swine 'flu, SARS, acid rain, BSE, CJD, Nuclear holocaust etc etc. the list goes on. What we should learn from our experience is to examine and question what "scientists" tell us, rather than swallow it hook, line and sinker.

Even when other "scientists" make what appear to be valid arguments, they are dismissed as being compromised for some reason or other, although the same dismissers would never be even handed and suggest that, for example, Professor jones, who has received millions in funding (and enjoys a good lifestyle and ego massaging and much personal attention from world leaders and the UN) could be so compromised.

Here are some sample quotes from some people, and I'll bet that those who choose not to question will simply ignore them;

Professor John Curistie, lead author , IPCC; “I’ve often heard it said in the past that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue,and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well, I am one scientist, and there are many, who think that that is simply not true”…”we have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science”

Professor Philip Stott, Dept of BioGeograhpy, University of London; “The IPCC, like any UN body, is political. The final conclusions are politically driven”…” it’s become a great industry in itself, and if the whole global warming farrago collapsed, there’s be an awful lot of people out of jobs and looking for work”

Professor Paul reiter, IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris; This claim that the IPSS is the worlds top 1500 or 2500 scientists, you look at the bibliographies of the people and it simply isn’t true. There are quite a few non scientists.

Professor Richard Lindzen, IPCC & M.I.T: And to build the number up to 2000 or 2500 they have to start taking reviewers and government people and so on, anyone who ever came close to that, and none of them are asked to agree, and many of them disagree”…

…“People have decided you have to convince other people, that no scientist disagrees then you shouldn’t either. Whenever you hear that in science, that’s pure propaganda”

Patrick Moore, Co-founder, Greenpeace; “You see, I don’t even like to call it the environmental movement anymore, it’s a political activist movement, and they have become hugely influential at a global level”.

Dr Roy Spencer, Weather Satellite team Leader, NASA; “Climate scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding”

Nigel Calder, Former Editor, New Scientist; “I’ve seen the spitting fury at anyone who might disagree with them, which is not the scientific way”.



It would be great, but it seems impossible, to have some balance in the debate. Like many people I simply don't know if man is responsible for global warming. I certainly know that there are many respected scientists who say yes, and many others who say no.

While I am not impressed by the intolerance often shown by the "yes" side towards others who are not 100% convinced, that doesn't mean they are right or wrong. But I do know that, historically, intolerance has often been used to disguise and deflect from the evidence.

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

Those of us who question (a pretty basic tenet of science) are accused of being a "deniers"...

I would say that the label ‘denier’ is reserved for those who, for example, refuse to accept that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increasing, or that the global temperature is, on average, increasing.

auerillo wrote: »

In my short life, I remember so many "scientists" telling us, with their serious faces on ... that we were entering a new ice age, HIV would mutate and we were all in danger of catching it, Bird 'flu, swine 'flu, SARS, acid rain, BSE, CJD, Nuclear holocaust etc etc. ...

If anything, all that serves to remind us is that the media love sensationalism. Take the predictions of global cooling in the 70’s, for example; there were merely a handful of papers that discussed the possibility. The media then took the idea and ran with it – there was never any form of scientific consensus on the subject. In fact, one of the chief proponents, Stephen Schneider, quickly realised that he had underestimated the warming effect of CO2 and overestimated the effect of aerosols.

auerillo wrote: »

Even when other "scientists" make what appear to be valid arguments...

You’re being a little selective now. On the one hand you’re dismissing scientists in the media when they talk about swine flu, for example, but when a scientist has a ‘valid argument’ against the accepted view on climate change, that’s a different story.

auerillo wrote: »

I certainly know that there are many respected scientists who say yes, and many others who say no.

It doesn’t matter who says what. All that matters is the evidence that is presented.

auerillo wrote: »

While I am not impressed by the intolerance often shown by the "yes" side towards others who are not 100% convinced, that doesn't mean they are right or wrong. But I do know that, historically, intolerance has often been used to disguise and deflect from the evidence.

Intolerance? The notion that sceptics of climate change are in some way victimised is a touch laughable.

Anyways, how’s about we consider the evidence? I notice on the climate change poll that a number of posters have plumped for one of the ‘natural’ options. My question is, if climate change is ‘natural’, then what is the underlying physical explanation?

auerillo

The reason I am so reluctant to debate with you is that you have misinterpreted what I have said, then try to turn your misinterpretation of what I have said "against" the argument.

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re being a little selective now. On the one hand you’re dismissing scientists in the media when they talk about swine flu, for example, but when a scientist has a ‘valid argument’ against the accepted view on climate change, that’s a different story.

Example 1; I never said that I was dismissing scientists

djpbarry wrote: »

Intolerance? The notion that sceptics of climate change are in some way victimised is a touch laughable.

Example 2; I never said anyone was being victimised.

It seems more important for you to "win" the argument rather than enjoy the debate and consider any aspects other than those which flatter and agree with your own views.

I mentioned the quotes from various people because they are interesting, and you seem to choose to ignore the substance of what is said, and only respond by accusing me of being "selective". It's a shame you can't consider what is said and respond to that, rather than attack the poster and ignore the substance, which is so much more interesting.

djpbarry wrote: »

It doesn’t matter who says what. All that matters is the evidence that is presented.

So you say. But when I produce "evidence" in the form of quoting what many serious people have said, you ignore it on the grounds that you have decided that I am being "selective", and therefore it's ok to ignore it!

Discodog

djpbarry wrote: »

I would say that the label ‘denier’ is reserved for those who, for example, refuse to accept that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increasing, or that the global temperature is, on average, increasing.

It doesn’t matter who says what. All that matters is the evidence that is presented.
Intolerance? The notion that sceptics of climate change are in some way victimised is a touch laughable.

A denier may be someone who does not believe that Global Warming is man made.

As a former scientist I was taught that it is the interpretation of the evidence that matters.

It is clear that any denier is totally victimised. Try getting a job in the myriad of Global Warming Quangos if you have an open mind.

One of the key reasons why anyone should be sceptical is the tirade of abuse that greets deniers. Science is & must always be about listening to all opinions.

Climate Change has been allowed to become a huge rollercoaster. No one can afford dissent. Just imagine the World reaction if it was proved that man made CO2 was not effecting temperatures. No one would ever believe Science or Government again. Anyone who dares to speak against the flow will be victimised.

hiwayman

Perhaps ? there's some common ground here, for both sides of the argument.

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/12/06/moveover-climategate-heres-why-even-skeptics-should-support-the-climate-deal/

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

I never said that I was dismissing scientists

Not in so many words, no. To clarify, maybe you could provide an example of a scientist who had a ‘valid argument’ but who was dismissed “as being compromised”?

auerillo wrote: »

I never said anyone was being victimised.

Again, not in so many words, no, you didn’t. You did however suggest that the “Yes side” display “intolerance” towards those who question some aspect of climate change. Perhaps you could explain how said intolerance manifests itself (preferably with an example)?

auerillo wrote: »

I mentioned the quotes from various people because they are interesting, and you seem to choose to ignore the substance of what is said...

I ignored them because a quote taken in isolation is relatively meaningless, regardless of who is being quoted.

auerillo wrote: »

But when I produce "evidence" in the form of quoting what many serious people have said, you ignore it on the grounds that you have decided that I am being "selective", and therefore it's ok to ignore it!

It doesn’t matter who says what. All that matters is the evidence that is presented.

auerillo

Discodog wrote: »

A denier may be someone who does not believe that Global Warming is man made.

Climate Change has been allowed to become a huge rollercoaster. No one can afford dissent. Just imagine the World reaction if it was proved that man made CO2 was not effecting temperatures. No one would ever believe Science or Government again. Anyone who dares to speak against the flow will be victimised.

I'd go further and have heard " denier" abuse being hurled at those who are unsure, as opposed to certain that global warming is man made.

Nigel Calder, Former Editor, New Scientist; said “I’ve seen the spitting fury at anyone who might disagree with them, which is not the scientific way”.

In my view, this is counter productive as many are put off by bully boy tactics which do nothing other than arise suspicion that they are tactics used as a smokescreen.

djpbarry

Discodog wrote: »

It is clear that any denier is totally victimised.

Examples?

Discodog wrote: »

Try getting a job in the myriad of Global Warming Quangos if you have an open mind.

‘Quangos’ such as?

Discodog wrote: »

One of the key reasons why anyone should be sceptical is the tirade of abuse that greets deniers.

Examples?

Discodog wrote: »

Just imagine the World reaction if it was proved that man made CO2 was not effecting temperatures. No one would ever believe Science or Government again.

Hmmm. Given that such a discovery would most likely come from the scientific community...

e04bf099

djpbarry wrote: »

Examples?

Pat Kenny was abused on his own show. If you deny that then you are a denier;)

He was lambasted by his guest John Gibbons for even listening to a geologist that didn't agree with the polemic. Gibbons also told Pat that the Australian's book was school-boy science. Unfortunately, he hadn't bothered to read and critique the book because it was school-boy science. Apparently, you need experts to pick apart school-boy science. But surely by definition, it should be easy to disect and destroy school-boy science, in which case the experts would not even be needed.

And this idiot journalist then turned on Pat Kenny (of whom I am no fan) for having him on the radio at all. But surely if somebody is a charlatton that recieves credence unjustifiably, then the best thing is to have a public debate, in which one can present their arguments as the slop you presume them to be.

There is a perfect example that thousands of people are perfectly aware of.

djpbarry

e04bf099 wrote: »

There is a perfect example that thousands of people are perfectly aware of.

A perfect example of what exactly?

e04bf099

Do you answer every post with a question? I won't repeat myself. Read the thread over. You asked for an example of something and I gave you a prefectly obvious one.

auerillo

djpbarry wrote: »

Not in so many words...
Again, not in so many words...
I ignored them because a quote taken in isolation is relatively meaningless, regardless of who is being quoted.

"not in so many words" seems to agree that I didn't say it, and, obviously, I didn't mean it.

The people I quoted are repeated here;

auerillo wrote: »

Professor John Curistie, lead author , IPCC; “I’ve often heard it said in the past that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue,and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well, I am one scientist, and there are many, who think that that is simply not true”…”we have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science”

Professor Philip Stott, Dept of BioGeograhpy, University of London; “The IPCC, like any UN body, is political. The final conclusions are politically driven”…” it’s become a great industry in itself, and if the whole global warming farrago collapsed, there’s be an awful lot of people out of jobs and looking for work”

Professor Paul reiter, IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris; This claim that the IPSS is the worlds top 1500 or 2500 scientists, you look at the bibliographies of the people and it simply isn’t true. There are quite a few non scientists.

Professor Richard Lindzen, IPCC & M.I.T: And to build the number up to 2000 or 2500 they have to start taking reviewers and government people and so on, anyone who ever came close to that, and none of them are asked to agree, and many of them disagree”…

…“People have decided you have to convince other people, that no scientist disagrees then you shouldn’t either. Whenever you hear that in science, that’s pure propaganda”

Patrick Moore, Co-founder, Greenpeace; “You see, I don’t even like to call it the environmental movement anymore, it’s a political activist movement, and they have become hugely influential at a global level”.

Dr Roy Spencer, Weather Satellite team Leader, NASA; “Climate scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding”

Nigel Calder, Former Editor, New Scientist; “I’ve seen the spitting fury at anyone who might disagree with them, which is not the scientific way”.

You may decide they are quoted "out of context" and that I am being "selective" to avoid answering, or considering. Others may disagree.