Climategate?

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

has anybody got a chart for global CO2 concentrations for the last 30 years or so??

The Keeling Curve is still the standard, as far as I know (open to correction).

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

The Keeling Curve is still the standard, as far as I know (open to correction).

While CO2 levels in the atmosphere are charted in linear fashion (because it is increasing that way) it presents the viewer with a more alarming image.

The effect CO2 has on warming for instance is a logarithmic one!

Example:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Logarithm.html

PatHawkins

Clive James is on the ball,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p6vln/A_Point_of_View_11_12_2009/

SLUSK

This is how the IPCC deals with journalists asking tough questions. A journalists ask Stanford's professor Stephen Schneider som tough questions about the leaked emails. They use security guards to throw the journalist out so he does not have to answer these tough questions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI&feature=player_embedded

Why are the people in the IPCC acting like this if they have nothing to hide?

auerillo

SLUSK wrote: »

This is how the IPCC deals with journalists asking tough questions. A journalists ask Stanford's professor Stephen Schneider som tough questions about the leaked emails. They use security guards to throw the journalist out so he does not have to answer these tough questions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI&feature=player_embedded

Why are the people in the IPCC acting like this if they have nothing to hide?

I'm astonished at the video. It's always possible to edit something to make it seem worse or put a different spin on it, but it seems to confirm what
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”.

Remember, also, Michael Mann said "... As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations..."

Akrasia

auerillo wrote: »

I'm astonished at the video. It's always possible to edit something to make it seem worse or put a different spin on it, but it seems to confirm what
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”.

Remember, also, Michael Mann said "... As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations..."

Just to let everyone know, the person ejected was Phelim Mcaleer, professional sh1tstirrer and director of blatant corporate propaganda

SLUSK

Akrasia wrote: »

Just to let everyone know, the person ejected was Phelim Mcaleer, professional sh1tstirrer and director of blatant corporate propaganda

Who cares who we was? Why couldn't the guy answer a straight question if they did not have anything to hide? This does not look good. It's all over the internet now and people can see how the IPCC is behaving...

Toiletroll

Not a bad debate...

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730

Mozart1986

Toiletroll wrote: »

Not a bad debate...

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730

That is brilliant, thanks very much. Thats exactly the kind of forum I was looking for. It was very informative.

Everyone should watch this video.

Akrasia

SLUSK wrote: »

Who cares who we was? Why couldn't the guy answer a straight question if they did not have anything to hide? This does not look good. It's all over the internet now and people can see how the IPCC is behaving...

The Scientist was answering his question, the security guards ejected him.

The denialists are making a huge deal about the fact that they were armed guards, It's pure propaganda, it's not like a swat team dragged him out, they were armed because they were protecting the U.N. It's not like they drew their guns on the man.

All this propaganda it's quite funny actually, on some denial blogs, you have faux outrage at the treatment of Mcaleer by the U.N. for not being alowed to speak (ask repetitive belligerant questions, refusing to sit down when the questions were answered until the security were forced to eject him) But right beside this attack on free speech, is another video of protesters being thrown out of a conference run by a libertarian think tank to oppose action on global warming. The denialists claim that the protesters being ejected from this conference were trying to stifle free speech, but when Phelim Mcaleer used an equally disruptive strategy to disrupt a conference, suddenly, he's the one who's being denied freedom of speech?

djpbarry

SLUSK wrote: »

Who cares who we was? Why couldn't the guy answer a straight question if they did not have anything to hide? This does not look good.

No it doesn’t look good, but it wasn’t edited to “look good”, was it?

Toiletroll wrote: »

Not a bad debate...

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730

A link to a 2-hour long video does not constitute discussion.

SLUSK

djpbarry wrote: »

No it doesn’t look good, but it wasn’t edited to “look good”, was it?

Just blame the editors for having an agenda... Seems like you are willing to say anything to defend these people.

Mozart1986

Akrasia wrote: »

The Scientist was answering his question, the security guards ejected him.

The denialists are making a huge deal about the fact that they were armed guards, It's pure propaganda, it's not like a swat team dragged him out, they were armed because they were protecting the U.N. It's not like they drew their guns on the man.

All this propaganda it's quite funny actually, on some denial blogs, you have faux outrage at the treatment of Mcaleer by the U.N. for not being alowed to speak (ask repetitive belligerant questions, refusing to sit down when the questions were answered until the security were forced to eject him) But right beside this attack on free speech, is another video of protesters being thrown out of a conference run by a libertarian think tank to oppose action on global warming. The denialists claim that the protesters being ejected from this conference were trying to stifle free speech, but when Phelim Mcaleer used an equally disruptive strategy to disrupt a conference, suddenly, he's the one who's being denied freedom of speech?

Wow, you are very partial. I am no libertarian, but if you are seriously comparing the disruption caused by that guy asking question and the 30 protesters that SHUT DOWN the broadcast of the libertarian meeting. It is nuts to think that someone could be that partial as to think they are even remotely comparable. One was just one guy, who was escorted out. The other was a large group of people who asked NO questions, they ambushed the meeting. I'm not surprised at them. I know plenty of dogmatic and violently anti-free speech "activists" in UCD. They have died out over the past few years, but I used to go to meetings with them in 1st & 2nd year. Those people are retards who re-inforce their own delusional sense of middle-class piety, putting humility and reason on the back-burner because, being cumbersome and time consuming, it that takes away from their "cause" and only serves to divide their religious sense of collectivism. And they ARE anti-free speech because libertarianism, while I don't agree with them personally, and other legitimate political groups have every right to organise and broadcast their manifestos.

auerillo

Akrasia wrote: »

The Scientist was answering his question, the security guards ejected him.

The denialists are making a huge deal about the fact that they were armed guards, It's pure propaganda, it's not like a swat team dragged him out, they were armed because they were protecting the U.N. It's not like they drew their guns on the man.

All this propaganda it's quite funny actually, on some denial blogs, you have faux outrage at the treatment of Mcaleer by the U.N. for not being alowed to speak (ask repetitive belligerant questions, refusing to sit down when the questions were answered until the security were forced to eject him) But right beside this attack on free speech, is another video of protesters being thrown out of a conference run by a libertarian think tank to oppose action on global warming. The denialists claim that the protesters being ejected from this conference were trying to stifle free speech, but when Phelim Mcaleer used an equally disruptive strategy to disrupt a conference, suddenly, he's the one who's being denied freedom of speech?

Are you not in the least worried that a journalist, asking a question, in what appears to be a calm and non heated situation, was ejected by security guards, simply for asking a question?

What else do you think he might have done that warranted his being ejected?

Is it enough that you judge him to be a "denialist"?

Remember, Michael Mann said "... As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations..."

meanwhile at Copenhagen:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8411898.stm

Negotiations at the UN climate summit have been suspended after developing countries withdrew their co-operation.

Some third world countries walk because it becomes increasingly clear that the objective of the West is to push ahead with a carbon trading scheme which will result in the West purchasing credits to allow them to continue to emit CO2 thus in one stroke hoarding most of the worlds fossil fuel supplies and eliminating potential economic competition from the developing world.

And we have people protesting in their thousands for this. Genius. Expect some token "green" projects in the west but nothing more than they would do to increase their energy security.

asdasd

The other option is to hand over the West's entire industrial capacity to the "global south".

As much as left wing journalists may want that, the politicans would probably be sensible enough to demur. Most of the growth in Carbon emissions is outside of the West. The populations in the West would be in decline without immigration ( and surely opposing that should be an issue for environmentalists. That is, each immigrant goes from a carbon footprint of the developing world, to one of the first world? ).

And even with immigration it would be easy enough to grow the West at about 2% a year, reducing carbon at 1-2% a year.

Wont matter because 90% of the growth in Carbon is from developing countries.

Mozart1986

That MIT debate was extremely useful to me. Thanks a lot for posting it. It a great way to get a feel for the academic feeling around climategate. As Ron said, its all a risk assessment. People who consider it a low risk issue tend to deflate their findings. Those who consider it a high risk issue tend to inflate their results to ram home the massage that we're all screwed. But its a complex issue and a disbelief in AGW is still a very legitimate scientific position, which I knew already, but its great to here them say it explicitly in an unedited forum that you where you can trust the information. There is always that issue underlying even the most thorough-going sceptic. As that engineer said at the end though "I'm just a simple engineer, but I like to think I still got 2 or 3 neurons up there... I'd like to see the data for myself... I think they should be scewered!"

I also appreciate what the scientific "consensus" consists in also. That is where the AGW proponents have their blind-spot. As that female political scientists said, people don't really know how science works, they just presume its a linear process. But its a fluid dinamic process and any kind of "consnesus" should always be dealt with sceptically. Its an extremely stupid argument to use polls if you can present any real evidence. Its the sceptics that are the ones who want the data, so they can be sure for themselves and not be pure passengers in a massive political movement. Proponents can't understand that the sceptical movement throughout the internet has nothing to do with exxon or coal companies and everything to do with self-determination and a will to force those authorities to publically justify their assertions about the damaging effects of human actions on the planet. Thats the main difference. Proponents are most likely right about the science. But sceptics are right morally. The proponents wish to shut down debate, because of the fear that they will lose control over it.

My point is that it is possible to deal with AGW and still have a thorough public debate. We do not need to be herd animals or children.

So, again, great post!

"I'm just a simple engineer, but I like to think I still got 2 or 3 neurons up there... I'd like to see the data for myself..[in response to being told the source data is gone!]. I think they should be scewered!"

This comment basically sums up how I feel about the whole "climate change" debate.
The fact that the source data has "disappeard" astounds me, surly there must have been more than one copy stored in more than one place!

Mozart1986

Deleted User wrote: »

This comment basically sums up how I feel about the whole "climate change" debate.
The fact that the source data has "disappeard" astounds me, surly there must have been more than one copy stored in more than one place!

Which is also amazing because they use another argument when they have the data but don't wish it to be put into public debate, to be picked apart.

On the one hand you have data being destroyed because they hadn't the computer technology in the 80s. And on another hand you have public institutions with rights to the data they collect with public funds. How does that make sense? Its not worth keeping at one time, but now its too valuable to give out. Public services running on market principles is a complete sham. We pay for that research, which then is used to change our life-styles (which I am not in principle against) and force new taxes upon us. It should be open to any tax-payer. That is a serious flaw in the system. How technocratic:mad:!!!

auerillo

I think its accepted by everyone, except those who are believers ( the "credulousists"??) that there is a lot of academic opinion which questions the evidence that climate change is mad made.

If you notice, their arguments here seem to be to attack the character of those who question, rather than their arguments, or else they just respond to argument with a question and avoid answering whatever the issue is being debated.

We have to remember that Michael Mann said "... As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations..., which gives us an insight into the frame of mind of him, and perhaps into his cohorts also. Also remember, prof Jones had to resign over the emails....what do these tell anyone who is an impartial onlooker? And these are the poeple who are both telling us that the original data is "lost" and who also appear to be conspiring to withhold it from a FOI request.

In fairness, they don't come over as very honest or truthful people.

syklops

Quote:
and it is clear in the code also released.
Is it? It might be clear (at a technical level) what the code is doing, but the reasons for it aren't enshrined in code. THey're alluded to in comments, but even then, we need to understand the context of the comment.

I disagree. You do not need to know the context of the comment. All you need to do is understand what the code does. And if what the code does is reduce values, then you have to start to wonder.

If I type 2 + 2 into a calculator and I get 3, then there is something wrong with the calculator. If I feed a number into their code, and when the program is finished that value is smaller than when I started it then there is something wrong.

Over the next few days I will go through the code, and try to decide in my own opinion does the code hide anything and will let you know. I know what you will say if I do find something, but I will post it anyway.

Mozart1986

auerillo wrote: »

We have to remember that Michael Mann said "... As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations..., which gives us an insight into the frame of mind of him, and perhaps into his cohorts also. Also remember, prof Jones had to resign over the emails....what do these tell anyone who is an impartial onlooker? And these are the poeple who are both telling us that the original data is "lost" and who also appear to be conspiring to withhold it from a FOI request.

In fairness, they don't come over as very honest or truthful people.

But don't brand every climate scientist with the same iron. There is also the incident in New Zealand where the head of another institution collecting data for GISS and co. is under investigation for manipulating the data and the results.

So the academic institutions must be more diligent and less trusting in the methods of data collection. The peer review process that examines the data collection and interpretating procedures needs to be examined itself. This is an open debate now in academic circles. It will be hard for academic proponents of AGW to argue that this isn't a major scandal. Most won't even try, but there will be a few that will stick their heads in the sand instead of dealing with it head on.

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

meanwhile at Copenhagen:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8411898.stm


Some third world countries walk because it becomes increasingly clear that the objective of the West is to push ahead with a carbon trading scheme which will result in the West purchasing credits to allow them to continue to emit CO2 thus in one stroke hoarding most of the worlds fossil fuel supplies and eliminating potential economic competition from the developing world.

And we have people protesting in their thousands for this. Genius. Expect some token "green" projects in the west but nothing more than they would do to increase their energy security.

The protestors are demonstrating for action on global warming. I doubt very many of them are demonstrating for Cap and Trade which is the right wing solution to a right wing problem.

The problem with the skeptic movement in general is that, while many of them have legitimate concerns that the governments of the world are going to use Global warming as an excuse to impose taxes or a new system of carbon trading which will in turn be co-opted by powerful interests to increase their own wealth and control, instead of putting their energy into vocally opposing the details of the proposed solutions, (and proposing solutions of their own) they spend enormous energy in trying to deny that the underlying problem of global warming is real.

I should never have to have the following conversation:
Me: "Why don't you believe in global warming?"
Skeptic "Because I am opposed to Carbon taxes"

Toiletroll

djpbarry wrote: »

No it doesn’t look good, but it wasn’t edited to “look good”, was it?
A link to a 2-hour long video does not constitute discussion.

It is trying to be impartial and I feel its good to see both sides like this and could improve or stimulate discussion in the thread

auerillo

Akrasia wrote: »

The problem with the skeptic movement in general is that, while many of them have legitimate concerns that the governments of the world are going to use Global warming as an excuse to impose taxes or a new system of carbon trading which will in turn be co-opted by powerful interests to increase their own wealth and control, instead of putting their energy into vocally opposing the details of the proposed solutions, (and proposing solutions of their own) they spend enormous energy in trying to deny that the underlying problem of global warming is real.

It would be unusual for a sceptic to propose solutions for a problem about which he is sceptical.

A sceptic is someone who doesn't believe something without proof.

Someone who is credulous believes something without proof, and a cynic is someone who doesn't believe something even when there is evidence for it.

Scepticism is the only sensible position for anyone with intelligence, and is the default position for scientists until they have proof.

It is hard to believe someone whose stated position is "...this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations..." or to believe someone who claims to have "lost" (and previously has stated that he will not release the information, even when it appears he is breaking the law in not so doing) the data on which he is basing his claims. More especially so when there are lots of other respected scientists who claim that the evidence just isn't there.

enfant terrible

Toiletroll wrote: »

Not a bad debate...

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730

Surprised one of the scientists admitted changing his mind about climate change because he decided we only have one planet and the price of inaction would be too great.

It wasn't new convincing evidence that changed his mind just fear of inaction.

Also surprised one of them said in his closing statements that he was more disturbed by the stealing of the emails than the "malfeasance" of the scientists.

I think the political scientist summed up climate change well when she said:

"This is not a scientific issue this is a political issue"

"The task is persuasion"

djpbarry

SLUSK wrote: »

Just blame the editors for having an agenda... Seems like you are willing to say anything to defend these people.

I’m not defending anyone or anything. I am however saying that accepting the version of events presented in a video posted by an anonymous individual on the internet doesn’t strike me as ‘scientifically rigorous’.

djpbarry

Mozart1986 wrote: »

I also appreciate what the scientific "consensus" consists in also. That is where the AGW proponents have their blind-spot. As that female political scientists said, people don't really know how science works, they just presume its a linear process. But its a fluid dinamic process and any kind of "consnesus" should always be dealt with sceptically.

A consensus probably exists among astronomers that the theory of gravity provides an accurate description of the interaction between celestial bodies. I think we should therefore demand access to all of NASA’s raw data.

Mozart1986 wrote: »

Its the sceptics that are the ones who want the data, so they can be sure for themselves and not be pure passengers in a massive political movement.

How many of these sceptics are climate scientists who actually understand the data?

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

If you notice, their arguments here seem to be to attack the character of those who question...

You mean the way you attempt to attack the character of Michael Mann by repeating the following ad nauseum...

auerillo wrote: »

We have to remember that Michael Mann said "... As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations...

I believe this has already been asked before on this thread, but I’ll ask again; what is “this” that Mann is referring to?

auerillo wrote: »

In fairness, they don't come over as very honest or truthful people.

Didn’t you just say it is arguments that should be focussed on, rather than character?

auerillo wrote: »

More especially so when there are lots of other respected scientists who claim that the evidence just isn't there.

How many are climate scientists?

djpbarry

syklops wrote: »

You do not need to know the context of the comment. All you need to do is understand what the code does. And if what the code does is reduce values, then you have to start to wonder.

I’m pretty sure that at some point during the course of my work I have included a statement such as 'i--;' somewhere in my source code; I’m obviously up to something incredibly sinister.

syklops wrote: »

If I feed a number into their code, and when the program is finished that value is smaller than when I started it then there is something wrong.

Or, perhaps you do not understand what it is the code is supposed to do?

djpbarry

Toiletroll wrote: »

It is trying to be impartial and I feel its good to see both sides like this and could improve or stimulate discussion in the thread

Assuming that everyone participating in this thread has two hours to spare to watch your video (I’m guessing most people don’t).

auerillo

djpbarry wrote: »

You mean the way you attempt to attack the character of Michael Mann by repeating the following ad nauseum...
I believe this has already been asked before on this thread, but I’ll ask again; what is “this” that Mann is referring to?
Didn’t you just say it is arguments that should be focussed on, rather than character?
How many are climate scientists?

I refer you to this post where I point out that you deliberately misinterpret what I say and then use that to ask a silly bunch of questions to avoid debating or engaging. http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63380111&postcount=242

If you are unable to differentiate between attacking someone's character, and taking what someone has said and deducing that that reveals something about them, then you are unable to differentiate between them.

Others here are able to understand the difference, and seem to prefer to engage and discuss and I hope you'll forgive me for not answering the questions in your post which appear, as usual, to be designed to avoid engaging and discussing.

djpbarry wrote: »

Assuming that everyone participating in this thread has two hours to spare to watch your video (I’m guessing most people don’t)

Why not speak for yourself, and avoid "assuming" what others do or don't have time for. Quite apart from each of our assumptions about what other do or don't do, it doesn't really add anything to the debate.

Back on topic; I heard Al Gore got a pasting last night from a certain Dr Maslowksi. In a speech, Gore claimed that Dr Maslowksi had said that the ice caps could be totally gone in summer within 7 years. Unfortunately, Dr Maslowksi happened to be present and told Gore that he had never said such a thing and, what is more, he didn't believe it was likely. NAturally, the papers have it today under teh heading "an inconvenient truth".

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

This comment basically sums up how I feel about the whole "climate change" debate.
The fact that the source data has "disappeard" astounds me, surly there must have been more than one copy stored in more than one place!

There is more than one copy, the CRU doesn't collect the data, they just analyse it. If Watts was genuinely interested in looking at the raw data he could have gone to the source himself instead of posing beligerant FOI requests. CRU had already released it's files to Watts, it just didn't have all of te original data on file (although it would know exactly where to go to re-create those records if they needed to)

Amhran Nua

Akrasia wrote: »

If Watts was genuinely interested in looking at the raw data he could have gone to the source himself instead of posing beligerant FOI requests.

Has anyone any plans to do that?

gizmo555

enfant terrible wrote: »

Surprised one of the scientists admitted changing his mind about climate change because he decided we only have one planet and the price of inaction would be too great.

It wasn't new convincing evidence that changed his mind just fear of inaction.

You are entirely mistaken - it was new convincing evidence that changed his mind. What Professor Prinn actually said was that in the ten year interval between his testimonies to the US Congress in 1997 and 2007, enough new evidence emerged to persuade him that as a matter of statistical probability, global warming is man-made. You'll find this part of his speech somewhere around the 40 to 50 minute mark on the video.

The further comments he added that we have to apply the precautionary principle rather than conduct what amounts to a global-scale experiment on the climate with potentially catastrophic results are simple common sense.

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

I refer you to this post where I point out that you deliberately misinterpret what I say and then use that to ask a silly bunch of questions to avoid debating or engaging.

Questions are the very essence of discussion and debate - get used to them.

auerillo wrote: »

Others here are able to understand the difference, and seem to prefer to engage and discuss and I hope you'll forgive me for not answering the questions in your post which appear, as usual, to be designed to avoid engaging and discussing.

The questions are designed to clarify - if you continue to avoid questions, I will assume that you are soap-boxing.

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

The questions are designed to clarify - if you continue to avoid questions, I will assume that you are soap-boxing.

thats laughable....... get over your own self importance, if a poster has no wish to answer your specfic questions then thats their choice, Auerillo discusses and debates quite well here with all other posters....

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

...Auerillo discusses and debates quite well here with all other posters....

...who happen to agree with his/her point of view. That's not debating.

Mozart1986

djpbarry wrote: »

Or, perhaps you do not understand what it is the code is supposed to do?

Cop out! Most academics will agree that the e-mails are disturbing and cas doubt on the credibility of the methods, which need review, not blind acceptance that we'll just never understand because we are just dumb plebs that are meddling in business that doesn't concern us. Unfortunately it does concern us. Thank **** we live in a free country, and not a Moaist dictatorship where prols/people are not considered fully rational. We are rational and if the code is not fully explainable to somebody that I trust then I will keep questioning the assertions, lest I be considered a herd animal.

djpbarry

Mozart1986 wrote: »

Most academics will agree that the e-mails are disturbing and cas doubt on the credibility of the methods...

...in your opinion. In my opinion, most academics will accept that their own email accounts probably contain text that could easily be twisted out of context and used against them to suit a particular agenda.

Mozart1986 wrote: »

...which need review, not blind acceptance that we'll just never understand because we are just dumb plebs that are meddling in business that doesn't concern us.

But you see, that’s the thing – we are dumb plebs. Becoming an expert in a particular scientific discipline is not something that can be achieved by reading a few Wikipedia articles or a few blog entries. It’s impossible for everyone to be an expert in everything, so there comes a point where you simply have to concede that you don’t know what you’re talking about and the important decisions need to be based on the testimony of those who do.

Let me give you an analogy. Suppose Martin Durkin goes to his doctor with a particular complaint. The doctor advises him that the condition is far more serious than Mr. Durkin realises and there is a risk that his health may deteriorate in the not-too-distant future. However, there are several procedures that could protect his health and lengthen his life. Does Mr. Durkin dismiss the Doctor’s advice on the grounds that the science is not ‘exact’, demanding access to the data upon which the Doctor’s advice was based, or does he concede that the Doctor probably knows what (s)he’s talking about and maybe he should take heed?

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

Let me give you an analogy. Suppose Martin Durkin goes to his doctor with a particular complaint. The doctor advises him that the condition is far more serious than Mr. Durkin realises and there is a risk that his health may deteriorate in the not-too-distant future. However, there are several procedures that could protect his health and lengthen his life. Does Mr. Durkin dismiss the Doctor’s advice on the grounds that the science is not ‘exact’, demanding access to the data upon which the Doctor’s advice was based, or does he concede that the Doctor probably knows what (s)he’s talking about and maybe he should take heed?

and suppose that the doctor is one of the doctors who mis-diagonse Cancer... or the ones who we read in the paper all the time about having mal practise cases brought against them....
just cause they are doctors or supposed experts in their field does not make them right..... and a belief that they are is not a belief I would support......

bonkey

Mozart1986 wrote: »

Cop out! Most academics will agree that the e-mails are disturbing and cas doubt on the credibility of the methods,

Even if that's true, it does not suggest for a moment that academics are agreeing that the emails prove wrongdoing.

which need review,

Agreed. They need review, by people qualified to perform such a review.

For anyone...whether they be competently qualified or not...the current, correct status should therefore be to be open to th epossibility that there is something wrong, as well as the possibility that there was no wrongdoing.

that we'll just never understand because we are just dumb plebs that are meddling in business that doesn't concern us.

You were asked if the possibility existed that you didn't understand the code. How you're taking from this an insistence that its none of your business is beyond me.

Are you open to the possibility that there is nothing wrong with the code, and that the problem you are seeing is casued by your lack of understanding of it?

From your stated position, if the output isn't what you expect it to be, then there is something wrong. This isn't a suggestion that the code be reviewed. This isn't allowing that there may be something wrong. Its a flat-out statement that either it does what you expect, or there's a problem.

When asked if you are open to the possibility that the problem lies with you, you raise objections, and invoke "most academics" who are, ironically, not taking the position that you are.

We are rational and if the code is not fully explainable to somebody that I trust then I will keep questioning the assertions, lest I be considered a herd animal.

If you're not open to the possibility that your understanding may be where the problem lies, then aren't you just following a different herd?

bonkey

robtri wrote: »

and suppose that the doctor is one of the doctors who mis-diagonse Cancer... or the ones who we read in the paper all the time about having mal practise cases brought against them....
just cause they are doctors or supposed experts in their field does not make them right..... and a belief that they are is not a belief I would support......

Well, that's why Durkin would consider seeking a second opinion...and even a third and fourth.

I'm sure you can agree that if he just kept going until he found the opinion he wanted to hear, he would be wrong.

If he found that the vast, overwhelming majority of doctors specialised in this field said he most probably had cancer...what should he conclude? IIf he found that dozens of different tests all agreed that he had cancer, but that one or two of them were being questioned for reliability...what should he conclude?

If he was uncertain...thought he might have cancer, but wasn't entirely certain...what would you recommend?

robtri

bonkey wrote: »

Well, that's why Durkin would consider seeking a second opinion...and even a third and fourth.

I'm sure you can agree that if he just kept going until he found the opinion he wanted to hear, he would be wrong.

If he found that the vast, overwhelming majority of doctors specialised in this field said he most probably had cancer...what should he conclude? IIf he found that dozens of different tests all agreed that he had cancer, but that one or two of them were being questioned for reliability...what should he conclude?

If he was uncertain...thought he might have cancer, but wasn't entirely certain...what would you recommend?

Try telling that to a lot of women patients that where told they had cance and had operations, that subsequently turned out they didn't need ....

or what about the doctors that that told a lot of patients they didn't have cancer and turned out they did....
it happens look at our recnt past in the HSE.....

as I said before just becuse they are a doctor doesn't mean they know everything and are right about every medical condition....
likewise for scientists..... not every one agrees on the cause for global warming.... I am not saying whos right or wrong......
I am just arguing the case aginst DJPbarrys point... at some stage we have to accept what we are being told.....

auerillo

bonkey wrote: »

Well, that's why Durkin would consider seeking a second opinion...and even a third and fourth.

I'm sure you can agree that if he just kept going until he found the opinion he wanted to hear, he would be wrong.

If he found that the vast, overwhelming majority of doctors specialised in this field said he most probably had cancer...what should he conclude? IIf he found that dozens of different tests all agreed that he had cancer, but that one or two of them were being questioned for reliability...what should he conclude?

If he was uncertain...thought he might have cancer, but wasn't entirely certain...what would you recommend?

I think it's up to Durkin to decide for himself what to conclude, and not for us to tell him what he should conclude.

As an analogy with man made global warming, it is flawed as it's not the case that the vast, overwhelming majority of scientists know one way or the other. What we do know is that there are some scientists who would like us to believe that the vast majority of scientists all agree that global warming is man made, but this simply isn't the case.

In this post I gave direct quotes from some scientists about the issue; http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63388567&postcount=251

and I repeat their opinions here;

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”.

bonkey

robtri wrote: »

Try telling that to a lot of women patients that where told they had cance and had operations, that subsequently turned out they didn't need ....

If we want to play that game, try telling all hte people who did listen to their doctors, and had their lives extended through successful treatment that they were wrong to have listened.
Try telling the people who didn't listen to their doctors and died of cancer as a result. (Obviously, you can't).

or what about the doctors that that told a lot of patients they didn't have cancer and turned out they did....
it happens look at our recnt past in the HSE.....

No-one has said that the science is perfect. No-one has claied that climate science is perfect.

What has been claimed, and is applicable to both situations, is that the "best guess" - the most likely outcome, based on the best evidence available - is the best position to base one's decisions on.

To make a better comparison than individual cases of cancer, one should say that presented with specific symptoms, the vast majority of relevantly-qualified physicians would agree that a patient most likely has cancer. They could, of course, still be wrong.

For the individual patient, there are a number of possibilties:

1) The have cancer. They treat for cancer. They are inconvenienced, perhaps seriously, but their chances of survival are maximised.
2) They have cancer. They don't treat for cancer. THeir cances of survival are minimised.
3) They don't have cancer. They treat for cancer. They are inconvenienced, perhaps seriously, but their chances of survival are almost maximised.
4) They don't have cancer. They don't treat for cancer. They are not inconvenienced. Their chances of survival are maximised.

Now...plug the 90% in there.

Cases 1 and 2. 90% of all people fall into these cases. Case 1 is clearly the preferable situation.
Cases 3 and 4. 10% of all people fall into these cases. Case 4 is clearly the preferable situation.

So....you don't know whehter you are in the 90% or the 10%. Your choice is to fall into options 1/3 or options 2/4.

If you go for options 2/4 then 90% of the time, you end up minimising your chances of survival. 10% of the time, its a less-than-optimal choice.
If you go for options 1/3, then 90% of the time, you end up maximising your chances of survival. 10% of the time, its the best choice.

From a game-theory perspective...maximising return....proceeding on the assumption that you have cancer is the right path to take.

as I said before just becuse they are a doctor doesn't mean they know everything and are right about every medical condition....
likewise for scientists..... not every one agrees on the cause for global warming.... I am not saying whos right or wrong......
I am just arguing the case aginst DJPbarrys point... at some stage we have to accept what we are being told.....

The best evidence that we have says that there is a very high probability that they are correct. The evidence is, perforce, incomplete. The possibility that even with complete evidence, the wrong conclusion be reached is, of course, possible.

Note - none of this says anything about what the appropriate action to take is. That is an entirely seperate debate...one we can only meaningful discuss on the assumption that the "best guess" is correct.

asdasd

None of that is a good analogy. The demands made by Chief Scientists and the "Global South" ( reductions of up to 50% in Carbon by 2020 from now with minor reductions from developing countries) is a demand for the dismemberment of the industrial base of the West. Whats left of it.

It is like killing the patient to save it.

bonkey

auerillo wrote: »

I think it's up to Durkin to decide for himself what to conclude, and not for us to tell him what he should conclude.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that we should tell him. I'm saying that looking at a case impassionately, one can apply game theory to see what the options are.

Looking at a decision that society should make, rather than an individual, I would argue that society would be foolish in the extreme to take anyting but a risk-averse position. Minimise risk, even at the cost of slightly reducing the maximum gain. (When one looks beyond global warming, however, its arguable that the risk-minimisation strategy also offers the maximum gain).

As an analogy with man made global warming, it is flawed as it's not the case that the vast, overwhelming majority of scientists know one way or the other.

It is the case, however, that any time that the opinion of relevantly qualified scientists have been measured, it has been overwhelmingly in support of the position.

What we do know is that there are some scientists who would like us to believe that the vast majority of scientists all agree that global warming is man made, but this simply isn't the case.

But the question isn't about what the vast majority of scientists agree on. Its about what the vast majority of relevantly qualified scientists agree on....and that has been measured in more ways then just taking the IPCC's statements.

In this post I gave direct quotes from some scientists about the issue;

What you haven't done, however, is shown why these individuals are more trustworthy....nor why their claims cast any reasonable doubt on the science. Repeatedly posting their comments doesn't make the argument any stronger...merely more visible. Ironically, that's the same type of tactic that many of the people you're quoting are complaining about.

I'll readily agree that there are non-scientists on the IPCC, and that the claims of thousands of supporting scientists are irrelevant. I'll readily agree that there are political factors at play.

Where I don't agree, however, is that this somehow invalidates the science. It seems, rather, to be an attmept to not discuss the science....to cast doubt indirectly rather than showing that there's something wrong.

bonkey

asdasd wrote: »

None of that is a good analogy. The demands made by Chief Scientists and the "Global South" ( reductions of up to 50% in Carbon by 2020 from now with minor reductions from developing countries) is a demand for the dismemberment of the industrial base of the West. Whats left of it.

It is like killing the patient to save it.

Allow me to repeat myself, from my bad analgy:

Note - none of this says anything about what the appropriate action to take is.

asdasd

asdasd wrote: »

None of that is a good analogy. The demands made by Chief Scientists and the "Global South" ( reductions of up to 50% in Carbon by 2020 from now with minor reductions from developing countries) is a demand for the dismemberment of the industrial base of the West. Whats left of it.

It is like killing the patient to save it.

Consumers in the west have done a pretty good job of that already!
Carbon cap & trade will kill much of what's left!

Exactly who is Copenhagen supposed to help again?