All Scientists Throw Out the Raw Data, Right?
RonSonic
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away
much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming
are based.
As usual, this will probably be challenged with a criticism of the source,
because apparently some believe that if a tree falls in the forest and you hear
about it from Fox News it's still standing.
This is from the Times' Environment Editor
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
So, is that science when you only keep the data you've massaged and "adjusted"
and throw out the raw information.
Dan O
What, like nobody else has any data?
Norman
So long as in the meantime 30 more studies citing Mann et al
can get pushed through, no harm done, right? You know they
still cite Wang as valid?
http://tinyurl.com/yfkn8wp
landotter
Desperate for something to cling to, aren't we? They threw away the
data twenty-five years ago as a normal part of cleaning drive space
back when such things were dearly expensive. Climate science as we
know it hadn't developed, either.
Don't let reality run over your dogma, though.
:sigh:
landotter
Informath.org is the personal website of a Douglas Keenan, a right
wing dooshbag often cited by the energy interests astroturf
disinformation site climateaudit.org.
Translation: you're sucking the cock of Exxon again.
Norman
Bill Sornson
> On Nov 29, 2:44 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 1:32 pm, Norman <invasivenor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 29, 2:26 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 29, 11:16 am, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>> SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted
>>>>> throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their
>>>>> predictions of global warming are based.
>>
>>>>> As usual, this will probably be challenged with a criticism of
>>>>> the source, because apparently some believe that if a tree falls
>>>>> in the forest and you hear about it from Fox News it's still
>>>>> standing.
>>
>>>>> This is from the Times' Environment Editor
>>
>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
>>
>>>>> So, is that science when you only keep the data you've massaged
>>>>> and "adjusted" and throw out the raw information.
No, it's an increasingly exposed, ideologically driven religious movement.
>>>> What, like nobody else has any data?
>>> So long as in the meantime 30 more studies citing Mann et al
>>> can get pushed through, no harm done, right? You know they
>>> still cite Wang as valid?http://tinyurl.com/yfkn8wp
>> Informath.org is the personal website of a Douglas Keenan, a right
>> wing dooshbag often cited by the energy interests astroturf
>> disinformation site climateaudit.org.
>>
>> Translation: you're sucking the cock of Exxon again.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominum
Apparently the GroundRat is still obsessed with homoerotic invectives
(indicating either a predilection for or undue fear of same); AND can't even
spell douche-bag! ROTFL LOL ROTFL
BS (saw enough to plonk long ago)
RonSonic
That's all you've got, insults.
Read the fooking Times piece and tell me if that's the way science is supposed
to work.
--
Oh damn. There's that annoying blog. Again. http://dumbbikeblog.blogspot.com
RonSonic
Let's accept your assertion without prejudice, "Climate science as we know it
hadn't developed" yet they threw out the raw date that a more mature science
could have used more effectively. That would mean that everything since then was
based on primitive assumptions about how to adjust the data. This doesn't bother
you?
>Don't let reality run over your dogma, though.
I'm not the one clinging to surmises drawn from cooked data, data you admit was
massaged in an absence of our present understanding.
There's no way you can spin this or insult your way out of it. These guys fucked
the monkey big time. Even if they were sincere (we can pretend) they're still
working with a bad data set and should have known better.
When a climate model cannot predict last year, it cannot predict a hundred years
hence. Where are our hurricanes. We aren't even getting normal ones much less
the backward 'canes on Al Gore's book cover.
Andre Jute
>All Scientists Throw Out the Raw Data, Right?
"Scientists" with something to hide may throw out data, real
scientists never, ever throw out the raw data for fear that someone
may say the adjusted data on which they base their final results has
been crookedly cooked. In fact, the generally correct assumption is
that data is thrown out only to stymie would-be critics and circumvent
the freedom of information laws.
In the case of the UEA, Phil Jones's institution, the excuse of
running out of space is simply not credible, University libraries have
great expertise in microfilming page material, and digital data was
then stored on tape and floppy discs. A small box of floppy discs, or
a few dozen microcassettes (my Epson PX8, called the Paris in the
States, stored my novels on microcassettes as also used in my Olympus
recorder), or one or two big reels of IBM tape would easily have
sufficed for centuries of temperature readings, hundred of millions of
data points if they had that many, which I doubt. Think of what is
involved: place, date, temperature. Gee. It's a barefaced lie. The
data was destroyed for another reason, which I leave to your good
sense.
More from Ron below.
Andre Jute
I still hold the raw data from my dissertations, as I have for four
decades, just so nobody can mistake me for a climate "scientist"
Bill Sornson
Neil Brooks
Again, though....
Doesn't that imply that you're IGNORING his posts?
Then ... why AREN'T you?
Hmmm.
Is it the fact that ... poor impulse control is one of the hallmarks
of Dry Drunk Syndrome?
I think that's it. YMMV.
landotter
Time to nail yourself up on a cross like a good right wing
authoritarian. While you're hangin' away up there, have a good long
think about your faction's relationship with truth. I remember a bunch
of scared little pussies a few years back that just had to go and
invade an entire country without any fucking evidence that they were a
threat in any way. A million dead and a nation bankrupted. Whoops! But
you tough guys just got so darned angry and scared. But this time--
you've got the truth! Riiiiiight. This time your fringe little faction
is willing to gamble even bigger bullshit. Just STFU and go away.
Ben C
[...]
> Time to nail yourself up on a cross like a good right wing
> authoritarian. While you're hangin' away up there, have a good long
> think about your faction's relationship with truth. I remember a bunch
> of scared little pussies a few years back that just had to go and
> invade an entire country without any fucking evidence that they were a
> threat in any way.
That was a similar situation, but I think you've got the factions the
wrong way round. In both cases it's the government making up their minds
about what they want to do first and then getting "scientists" or
"intelligence experts" to cook up a case for them.
You think Republicans and big oil are the enemy. I'm not saying they
aren't scum, but it was our supposedly socialist party that took us to
war.
The common theme is just that governments like people to be scared
because it gives them more power. We were supposed to be scared of
terrorists. Now we're supposed to be scared of malaria, hurricanes, and
drowning under melted icecaps.
Andre Jute
> On Nov 29, 1:50 pm, Norman <invasivenor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 29, 2:44 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 29, 1:32 pm, Norman <invasivenor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 29, 2:26 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 29, 11:16 am, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away
> > > > > > much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming
> > > > > > are based.
>
> > > > > > As usual, this will probably be challenged with a criticism of the source,
> > > > > > because apparently some believe that if a tree falls in the forest and you hear
> > > > > > about it from Fox News it's still standing.
>
> > > > > > This is from the Times' Environment Editor
>
> > > > > >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
>
> > > > > > So, is that science when you only keep the data you've massaged and "adjusted"
> > > > > > and throw out the raw information.
>
> > > > > What, like nobody else has any data?
>
> > > > So long as in the meantime 30 more studies citing Mann et al
> > > > can get pushed through, no harm done, right? You know they
> > > > still cite Wang as valid?http://tinyurl.com/yfkn8wp
>
> > > Informath.org is the personal website of a Douglas Keenan, a right
> > > wing dooshbag often cited by the energy interests astroturf
> > > disinformation site climateaudit.org.
>
> > > Translation: you're sucking the cock of Exxon again.
>
>
> Time to nail yourself up on a cross like a good right wing
> authoritarian. While you're hangin' away up there, have a good long
> think about your faction's relationship with truth. I remember a bunch
> of scared little pussies a few years back that just had to go and
> invade an entire country without any fucking evidence that they were a
> threat in any way. A million dead and a nation bankrupted. Whoops! But
> you tough guys just got so darned angry and scared. But this time--
> you've got the truth! Riiiiiight. This time your fringe little faction
> is willing to gamble even bigger bullshit. Just STFU and go away.
Interesting response in a scientific debate, that those who disagree
should be crucified.
Even more interesting that in 17 hours not one of Maxine's
(landotter's) fellow-global warming religionists has said, "Hey,
wishing people dead over a little scientific disagreement is a bit
over the top." The reason of course is that fanatics do wish opponents
dead, whereas scientists don't.
The Climategate papers also exposed climatologists like the sainted
Ben Santer expressing the desire to smash another climatologist's face
for daring to disagree with him. With an example like that from one of
the high priests of global warming before her, how can Maxine
(landotter) fail to wish dissenters crucified?
Andre Jute
Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science -- and I
said it long before Climategate exposed those clowns as bullies
bjwe...@gmail.com
Hey,
So I think some of the emails from Emailgate are an
embarrassment and also that it's better not to ever throw
raw data away if you can avoid it. I am not going to try
to defend Emailgate because I think it's pointless to,
but I also think it has very little to do with whether global
warming is real. It is internal documents from only one
university and contrary to opinion, science is much too
decentralized for a small group of people (even prominent
ones) to control what others do and think.
Now, on to the question in the title. Yes, most scientists
do eventually throw out raw data. These guys apparently
disposed of a bunch of paper and magnetic tapes when
they moved buildings - in the 1980s! When was the last time
you used a 9-track magnetic tape reader? (In the 1980s
they wouldn't have been using Exabytes or DATs). Or saw a
working one? Unless you are in the data archiving business,
it's been a while. Most academic departments will now have
a struggle to read an Exabyte, let alone a 9-track tape
(current in the 1980s), and forget about something that was
old in the 1980s. Even if you could find an old enough
tape drive, you couldn't find a computer compatible with it.
For my thesis (which is not climate science or anything
controversial) I used data written to 9-track tape in 1989
and Exabyte in 1993-4. The original tapes are long gone
and may even have been unreadable by the time I finished
writing and publishing the papers in 1998-2001. The copies
on disk have probably gotten lost since I've moved many
times since then. Nobody wants to see the raw data
because it isn't very useful in the raw form. I may still have
a copy of the reduced data, but even when I published it,
nobody really wanted to see all the data for themselves.
This is more or less normal. It would be nice to keep
everything forever, but if you asked anyone in my field they'd
have similar experiences. The only reason you're not
clamoring for our heads is that we do something that is
unobjectionable to politicians and oil companies.
So I can't take this seriously (mag tapes discarded in the
1980s!) as further evidence for the Great Conspiracy.
Ben
Ben C
But is it? Science in general might be decentralized, but one of the
criticisms of AGW science is that is isn't-- it's a fairly small group
who peer-review each other. The Hadley CRU is certainly central, and we
can easily see from the emails who else is in and who is out (although
all this has long been well-known to anyone who was paying attention).
See the Wegman report for more details of who makes up the clique.
This is the first "I might be changing my mind" article I've seen:
http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/more_on_climategate.php
"[...] says she still believes the consensus view on climate change.
Well, that was my position at the end of last week, and I suppose it
still is. But how do I defend it? There is far more of a problem
here for the consensus view than Megan and ordinarily reliable
commentators like The Economist acknowledge. I am not a climate
scientist. In the end I have to trust the experts. That is what we
are asked to do. "Trust us, we're scientists" [...] Can I read these
emails and feel that the scientists involved deserve to be trusted?
No, I cannot."
Andre Jute
to lie to us on global warming:
On Nov 30, 7:52 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> So I think some of the emails from Emailgate are an
> embarrassment
Note how Weiner says "Emailgate" when everyone else already calls it
Climategate. Poor Weiner is still loyally trying to pretend the main
interest is the fact that the e-mails were hacked, rather than the
implications of the e-mails and other information for the "science" of
global warming.
And "embarrassment" when it is a cataclysm, proof that what many has
said about the statistical lies told by the IPCC is true. "Hide the
decline" by a "trick". Indeed.
> and also that it's better not to ever throw
> raw data away if you can avoid it.
Yup, especially when you're setting yourself up as a policymaker,
especially when you've cooked the data, and especially if you have
contempt for the central scientific doctrine of falsifiability.
> I am not going to try
> to defend Emailgate because I think it's pointless to,
Only too true.
> but I also think it has very little to do with whether global
> warming is real.
It is only proof positive that global warming was "manmade" by a small
clique of "scientists", just as the Wegman report said, just as
North's NAS Panel testified under oath, just as McIntyre proved. It is
only proof positive that "consensus" was achieved by ruining the
careers of dissenting editors and academics and other assaults on
freedom of opinion and speech. "Hide the decline"! It is all the proof
required to those who didn't understand it before that global warming
never was.
> It is internal documents from only one
> university
This is an outright lie. All the leaders of the global warming clique
are represented in the e-mails, and thus their universities too.
> and contrary to opinion, science is much too
> decentralized for a small group of people (even prominent
> ones) to control what others do and think.
The gloating in the e-mails when they succeeded in having an editor
fired, or in denying a dissenter publication, and the many, many
attempts at thought control and direction, gives the lie to this
pisspoor attempt at spin by Weiner. I particularly remember the
disgusting spectacle of a good part of the scientific community trying
to ruin Bjorn Lomborg's career for The Skeptical Environmentalist --
and succeeding for a while.
Once again, Weinger, you failed to pull the wool over our eyes. Try
harder, sonny.
Andre Jute
Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science -- and I
said it long before the Climategate exposed those clowns as crooks
bjwe...@gmail.com
> On 2009-11-30, b...@mambo.ucolick.org <bjwei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So I think some of the emails from Emailgate are an
> > embarrassment and also that it's better not to ever throw
> > raw data away if you can avoid it. I am not going to try
> > to defend Emailgate because I think it's pointless to,
> > but I also think it has very little to do with whether global
> > warming is real. It is internal documents from only one
> > university and contrary to opinion, science is much too
> > decentralized for a small group of people (even prominent
> > ones) to control what others do and think.
>
> But is it? Science in general might be decentralized, but one of the
> criticisms of AGW science is that is isn't-- it's a fairly small group
> who peer-review each other. The Hadley CRU is certainly central, and we
> can easily see from the emails who else is in and who is out (although
> all this has long been well-known to anyone who was paying attention).
>
> See the Wegman report for more details of who makes up the clique.
>
> This is the first "I might be changing my mind" article I've seen:
>
>
> "[...] says she still believes the consensus view on climate change.
> Well, that was my position at the end of last week, and I suppose it
> still is. But how do I defend it? There is far more of a problem
> here for the consensus view than Megan and ordinarily reliable
> commentators like The Economist acknowledge. I am not a climate
> scientist. In the end I have to trust the experts. That is what we
> are asked to do. "Trust us, we're scientists" [...] Can I read these
> emails and feel that the scientists involved deserve to be trusted?
> No, I cannot."
No really. There's a lot of people who work on
atmospheric science, ocean temperatures, so on and so forth.
There are probably a significantly smaller number of
people who work on historical reconstructions of the
long term climate record of the specific type that
Michael Mann and this CRU did (honestly, before this
scandal, I had never heard of the CRU, which suggests they
are not as central as it is now fashionable to say, but I am not
in the field). However, I don't work on any of this stuff,
and I do understand some of the physics involved
(radiative transfer in stratified atmospheres, infrared
radiation and so on), and so do about a jillion other
physicists.
I'm not qualified to write or review
articles on historical reconstruction of temperatures,
but I can understand the parts of climate science that
have to do with anthropogenic radiative forcing, and
it is not going to go away no matter how many pies
they take in the face in East Anglia. If I and all the other
scientists are wrong, it will be quite obvious of order
40 years from now, manifesting itself in things like
changing growing seasons, plant and animal ranges,
glacier disappearance, and so on. All of these are happening
now, I just picked 40 years because there are fluctuations
on decade-long timescales to average over.
The fact that Clive Crook is full of doubt now
reflects the success of climate change skeptics in
laying down a base of mistrust. Honestly, it's way too
hard to organize scientists to do anything even when
justified, let alone organize a conspiracy of deception.
If you look at the level of political criticism of the
scientists working on this, it's not that surprising they get
paranoid.
I had a high school friend whose father was a doctor
doing research on the harmful effects of environmental
lead contamination on children (paint, leaded gas etc). He
got an amazing amount of shit from industry, FOI data
requests, accusations of misconduct, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Needleman
There's just a lot of vested interest in stepping on
anything that suggests we might have to change our ways.
Now that it's gone, how many people wish we had
lead interior paint or leaded gas back? It turned out to
be a solvable problem, but the industry acted like it was
the end of life as we know it at the time.
Ben
Ben C
> On Nov 30, 4:21�pm, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> No really. There's a lot of people who work on
> atmospheric science, ocean temperatures, so on and so forth.
> There are probably a significantly smaller number of
> people who work on historical reconstructions of the
> long term climate record of the specific type that
> Michael Mann and this CRU did (honestly, before this
> scandal, I had never heard of the CRU, which suggests they
> are not as central as it is now fashionable to say, but I am not
> in the field). However, I don't work on any of this stuff,
> and I do understand some of the physics involved
> (radiative transfer in stratified atmospheres, infrared
> radiation and so on), and so do about a jillion other
> physicists.
Even I understand that (well enough anyway). But the climate is more
complicated than that. I don't dispute that all things being equal in a
controlled experiment more CO2 will make things warmer.
The question is by how much, and how significant is it compared to other
factors.
The argument is with the alarmism: are there really good grounds to
think it's going to get 2-4 C warmer by 2100 or whatever it is they're
claiming?
> I'm not qualified to write or review
> articles on historical reconstruction of temperatures,
> but I can understand the parts of climate science that
> have to do with anthropogenic radiative forcing, and
> it is not going to go away no matter how many pies
> they take in the face in East Anglia. If I and all the other
> scientists are wrong, it will be quite obvious of order
> 40 years from now, manifesting itself in things like
> changing growing seasons, plant and animal ranges,
> glacier disappearance, and so on. All of these are happening
> now, I just picked 40 years because there are fluctuations
> on decade-long timescales to average over.
>
>
> The fact that Clive Crook is full of doubt now
> reflects the success of climate change skeptics in
> laying down a base of mistrust. Honestly, it's way too
> hard to organize scientists to do anything even when
> justified, let alone organize a conspiracy of deception.
> If you look at the level of political criticism of the
> scientists working on this, it's not that surprising they get
> paranoid.
That's a fair comment, but it's not a mitigation but part of the
problem: the paranoia makes it more likely that you end up with thugs
working on the problem instead of the good scientists, and an atmosphere
in which nobody is allowed to question anything without getting kicked
out.
Worse than the way they treat skeptics is the way they turn on their own
people when they step out of line.
> I had a high school friend whose father was a doctor
> doing research on the harmful effects of environmental
> lead contamination on children (paint, leaded gas etc). He
> got an amazing amount of shit from industry, FOI data
> requests, accusations of misconduct, see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Needleman
>
> There's just a lot of vested interest in stepping on
> anything that suggests we might have to change our ways.
This pattern does exist, but of course it doesn't tell you who is
actually right and wrong in each case.
> Now that it's gone, how many people wish we had
> lead interior paint or leaded gas back? It turned out to
> be a solvable problem, but the industry acted like it was
> the end of life as we know it at the time.
Lead is known to be poisonous and there are alternatives. But, apart
from supposed global warming, pollutants don't get much more benign
than CO2. So there's a big risk of making things worse if you ban it.
Tim McNamara
<caf19c96-480f-418c...@m11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
"b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The fact that Clive Crook is full of doubt now reflects the success
> of climate change skeptics in laying down a base of mistrust.
Mud is easy to sling and denial is simple. Scientists, like everyone
else, have to accommodate new ideas and will tend to initially reject
ideas which are discomforting.
I am reminded of the publication of Karl von Frisch's book on the
language of bees, for example- one of his detractors famously wrote that
while the book was meticulously researched and brilliantly reasoned, he
hoped von Frisch was wrong because it was just too disturbing to think
that such simple creatures could possess a language (and there are some
scientists still unable to accept von Frisch's work), language being one
of the hallmarks of sentience and having been thought to be a uniquely
human trait.
In other examples there are Darwin, Einstein, Galileo...
> Honestly, it's way too hard to organize scientists to do anything
> even when justified, let alone organize a conspiracy of deception.
Herding cats is easier than trying to get scientists to agree. Put five
scientists in a room to discuss an issue and you'll end up with seven
opinions.
> If you look at the level of political criticism of the scientists
> working on this, it's not that surprising they get paranoid.
There's another factor here, possibly, which is competition between
scientists and the "publish or perish" life cycle they tend to live
within.
Tim McNamara
Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> On 2009-12-01, b...@mambo.ucolick.org <bjwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 4:21�pm, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> [...]
> > No really. There's a lot of people who work on atmospheric
> > science, ocean temperatures, so on and so forth. There are probably
> > a significantly smaller number of people who work on historical
> > reconstructions of the long term climate record of the specific
> > type that Michael Mann and this CRU did (honestly, before this
> > scandal, I had never heard of the CRU, which suggests they are not
> > as central as it is now fashionable to say, but I am not in the
> > field). However, I don't work on any of this stuff, and I do
> > understand some of the physics involved (radiative transfer in
> > stratified atmospheres, infrared radiation and so on), and so do
> > about a jillion other physicists.
>
> Even I understand that (well enough anyway). But the climate is more
> complicated than that. I don't dispute that all things being equal in
> a controlled experiment more CO2 will make things warmer.
>
> The question is by how much, and how significant is it compared to
> other factors.
There are factors that tend to increase and factors that tend to
decrease global and local temperatures. CO2 and other anthropogenic
greenhouse gases are at the top of the conversation because those
factors are under our control. The evidence, such as the loss of
glacier mass in the US and Europe, losses in the Greenland ice sheets,
Arctic pack ice and Antarctic ice sheets, is clear. In some cases there
are mitigating factors such as high level particulate pollution clouds
reducing ground level temperatures, absorption of CO2 by the oceans,
etc. These are very complex, very large scale systems. What has been
interesting is that the measured changes have almost all been at or
ahead of the most alarmist computer models.
CO2 seems to be the primary driver and the evidence seems pretty firm on
this. Is it definitive? No, because very little in science can be said
to be definitive.
The problem with trying to say "it's not my fault" and blaming something
else is that this robs us of any ability to control or influence our
fate. The climate change deniers are adopting a victim stance- which is
sadly the general outlook for the current crop of people who often call
themselves "conservatives" (real conservatives have a different world
view than Rush, Beck and their ilk).
> The argument is with the alarmism: are there really good grounds to
> think it's going to get 2-4 C warmer by 2100 or whatever it is
> they're claiming?
Well, you'll have to read the subject and decide that for yourself. I
have been convinced thus far (in part because those who deny the
possibility offer no cogent alternative set of mechanisms to explain the
observations and often point to things that are demonstrably false. My
favorite one was that the warmth of the past 10 years has been due to
the Sun when in fact ol' Sol has been at his lowest ebb in terms of
total solar irradiance for most of the past decade. Then they decide
"the Earth has really been cooling for the past 10 years, reaching its
peak in 1998" even though 7 of the warmest 10 years on record occurred
since 1998, etc.).
That's an... interesting... conclusion which flies squarely in the face
of the facts..
Ben C
The relationship to temperature may not be so clear cut. I'm sure I read
somewhere that Arctic ice loss is actually because it's snowing less
there. The ice always melts a bit in the summer, it's a question of how
much it gets replenished.
Why's it snowing less? Because it's warmer? Well maybe, but that's not
obviously the only possible reason.
It may also be of course that glacier and ice loss has been exaggerated
too. I'm not specifically claiming it has been, just that everything
needs a second look.
> In some cases there are mitigating factors such as high level
> particulate pollution clouds reducing ground level temperatures,
> absorption of CO2 by the oceans, etc. These are very complex, very
> large scale systems. What has been interesting is that the measured
> changes have almost all been at or ahead of the most alarmist computer
> models.
Only in the most alarmist news stories :)
> CO2 seems to be the primary driver and the evidence seems pretty firm
> on this.
Not to me it doesn't.
[...]
>> The argument is with the alarmism: are there really good grounds to
>> think it's going to get 2-4 C warmer by 2100 or whatever it is
>> they're claiming?
>
> Well, you'll have to read the subject and decide that for yourself. I
> have been convinced thus far (in part because those who deny the
> possibility offer no cogent alternative set of mechanisms to explain the
> observations
I hadn't realized how disputed the observations were until recently.
Previously I was only skeptical about the extrapolations into the
future.
> and often point to things that are demonstrably false. My
> favorite one was that the warmth of the past 10 years has been due to
> the Sun when in fact ol' Sol has been at his lowest ebb in terms of
> total solar irradiance for most of the past decade. Then they decide
> "the Earth has really been cooling for the past 10 years, reaching its
> peak in 1998" even though 7 of the warmest 10 years on record occurred
> since 1998, etc.).
In the emails they admit it hasn't been getting warmer for the last 10
years and that they didn't predict it and can't account for it.
[...]
>> Lead is known to be poisonous and there are alternatives. But, apart
>> from supposed global warming, pollutants don't get much more benign
>> than CO2. So there's a big risk of making things worse if you ban it.
>
> That's an... interesting... conclusion which flies squarely in the face
> of the facts..
Well tell me something you'd rather spew into the environment than CO2.
Plutonium? Sulphur dioxide? Lead? Mercury? Arsenic?
And what's wrong with CO2 apart from supposed global warming?
Chalo
>
> And what's wrong with CO2 apart from supposed global warming?
Lack of an adequate mechanism for re-uptake. (For huge amounts of
fossil CO2, anyway.)
If industry found some economically expedient process that annually
produced tens of billions of tons of excess atmospheric oxygen as a
byproduct, then eventually that too would create unintended and
unwanted systemic changes. Even though we acknowledge oxygen to be a
good thing, we don't need to upset the natural balance of the stuff.
As it is, we're spewing gigatons of CO2 at the same time we are
deforesting, polluting, overfishing, and otherwise impairing the
biosphere's natural mechanisms for recovering and reusing atmospheric
carbon.
Emitting more CO2 than the world can reabsorb is like taking on debt
you can't pay back-- eventually it has to stop, and you wind up worse
off than you would have been if you had never done it. Both patterns
are characteristic of our current doomed economic system, and both are
breaking down before our eyes.
Chalo
Tim McNamara
Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
The global warming deniers tell us that snowfall is actually increasing.
By the way, the relationship of melting ice to temperature is very clear
cut. Most people understand this by about the 3rd grade.
> It may also be of course that glacier and ice loss has been
> exaggerated too. I'm not specifically claiming it has been, just that
> everything needs a second look.
Oh, good grief. How many second, third, fourth, fifth, nth looks do you
want? There's already been *hundreds*. This research has been going on
for decades- Al Gore did not hatch this in 2006. He was actually late
to the party.
> > In some cases there are mitigating factors such as high level
> > particulate pollution clouds reducing ground level temperatures,
> > absorption of CO2 by the oceans, etc. These are very complex, very
> > large scale systems. What has been interesting is that the
> > measured changes have almost all been at or ahead of the most
> > alarmist computer models.
>
> Only in the most alarmist news stories :)
>
> > CO2 seems to be the primary driver and the evidence seems pretty
> > firm on this.
>
> Not to me it doesn't.
Then you need to educate yourself, Ben. There's lots of information not
stolen from a computer in England.
> [...]
> >> The argument is with the alarmism: are there really good grounds
> >> to think it's going to get 2-4 C warmer by 2100 or whatever it is
> >> they're claiming?
> >
> > Well, you'll have to read the subject and decide that for yourself.
> > I have been convinced thus far (in part because those who deny the
> > possibility offer no cogent alternative set of mechanisms to
> > explain the observations
>
> I hadn't realized how disputed the observations were until recently.
> Previously I was only skeptical about the extrapolations into the
> future.
Then you weren't paying attention. The observations have been
strenuously disputed by those who can't tolerate the notion that they've
helped screw up the world.
> > and often point to things that are demonstrably false. My favorite
> > one was that the warmth of the past 10 years has been due to the
> > Sun when in fact ol' Sol has been at his lowest ebb in terms of
> > total solar irradiance for most of the past decade. Then they
> > decide "the Earth has really been cooling for the past 10 years,
> > reaching its peak in 1998" even though 7 of the warmest 10 years on
> > record occurred since 1998, etc.).
>
> In the emails they admit it hasn't been getting warmer for the last
> 10 years and that they didn't predict it and can't account for it.
There's much more data than what's in the e-mails. Which, BTW, were
stolen and in the hands of someone with obvious hostile intent before
their release. The number of "released" e-mails has been few out of the
thousands that must be in a file of that size. It's certainly
reasonable to question what if any modifications have been wrought by
the malefactors.
While there's been a lot of crowing about the unveiling of the "global
warming conspiracy," there's been little refutation of the established
facts and measurements. There's also thus far been, what, three
researchers smeared out of the tens of thousands at work on this?
Sadly, the "opposition" to climate change is mainly a bunch of people
who believe that facts are established by those who shout loudest and
longest. That's too bad.
> [...]
> >> Lead is known to be poisonous and there are alternatives. But,
> >> apart from supposed global warming, pollutants don't get much more
> >> benign than CO2. So there's a big risk of making things worse if
> >> you ban it.
> >
> > That's an... interesting... conclusion which flies squarely in the
> > face of the facts..
>
> Well tell me something you'd rather spew into the environment than
> CO2. Plutonium? Sulphur dioxide? Lead? Mercury? Arsenic?
Foolish attempt at "argument." You're smart enough to know better.
> And what's wrong with CO2 apart from supposed global warming?
There's too much of it. The extent of the problems created by this has
not yet been delineated. But there are always consequences to actions
and those consequences are inescapable. The wise modify their actions
to obtain the consequences they want, but this is exactly what the
climate change deniers want to avoid. They just want there to be no
problem so they can carry on bidness as usual.
Andre Jute
activities of leading climate "scientists" like Michael Mann and Phil
Jones, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> There's another factor here, possibly, which is competition between
> scientists and the "publish or perish" life cycle they tend to live
> within.
So these guys cooked up the data to have something to publish that was
"new" and wanted by the bureaucrats in the IPCC, then they tried to
stop critics being published, thereby interfering with their careers,
and had editors who published dissenting views fired, and then they
destroyed material subject to FoI requests, an illegal activity. Not
to mention that they repeatedly massively defrauded the taxpayer and
brought all of science into disrepute.
And then they bragged about their crimes in these e-mails and gloated
about the misfortunes they had brought on their enemies. And covered
up for each other.
But you, Little Timmie, want us to forgive them because they were
driven to publish...
That sort of pitiful crap is called special pleading.
Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar
datakoll
mishandling data is uncommon.
people may make gross errors but the errors are usually well founded
gross errors.
suggesting global warming or whatever is based on dishonest bad
science...
Andre Jute
wrote:
> There's a lot of people who work on
> atmospheric science, ocean temperatures, so on and so forth.
> There are probably a significantly smaller number of
> people who work on historical reconstructions of the
> long term climate record of the specific type that
> Michael Mann and this CRU did (honestly, before this
> scandal, I had never heard of the CRU, which suggests they
> are not as central as it is now fashionable to say, but I am not
> in the field).
It is precisely the centrality of the work of Mann, Jones, Wang and
the other historical climate statisticians that makes their crooked
methods so controversial. You see, Ben, this is what I've been trying
to explain to you, that in the presence of the Medieval Warming Period
and the Little Ice Age in the earth's recent history there can be no
global warming, just a normal uptrend from the LIA with normal
variability around a rising trendline, probably for another century or
two. Until temperatures rise well above those in the MWP -- and we're
a long, long way from there -- there is no cause for alarm.
Global warming only exists because of lies like Michael Mann's hockey
stick, which with statistical dishonesties flattened the Medieval Warm
Period and Little Ice Age out of existence and thus made the decade of
the 1990s look like a sudden uptrend whereas in the historical
perspective it is just another unremarkable variation around a slight
upward slope.
That is why these scientists are so important: because they are the
only ones who can make global warming possible.
You are also wrong about their importance being only recently noticed.
Many of us who object to this sort of statistical crookery have been
saying so for decades. The lie that the MWP and LIA were euro-centric,
which you too told, perhaps because you were misinformed, is given the
lie in every other science. It is only in climatology that Mann and
Jones and the others, with their long-since discredited hockey stick,
find any acceptance at all. And Mann was described as incompetent
before the US Senate under oath by both Wegman and North, who
respectively led two panels of the NAS. (That would have been enough
in any other profession to get him thrown out. But not in
climatology...)
Of course Wegman and even McIntyre only pointed to incompetence but
many of us have long suspected, from the surrounding unscientific
practices and public persecutions, that a conspiracy to cook the
figures was at work behind the scenes. The Climategate e-mails prove
that the crucial hockey stick was not the result of mere statistical
incompetence but something worse: deliberate scientific fraud for a
political cause. More, it proves that the fraud was not confined to
one or two individuals but was endemic in this branch of climatology.
Even worse, it wasn't just endemic, it was the result of a conspiracy.
(Wegman, in his report, already hinted at conspiracy when he discussed
the collusionist "peer review" procedures of this clique. He
identified them by name. We've known all along who the plotters were.
Climategate isn't a revelation, it is merely proof by confession.)
I repeat the point: Without Jones and Mann by statistical tricks
flattening the MWP and the LIA, *there not only is no global warming,
there cannot be global warming for a very long time*.
Without the presumption of global warming, there is no need to look
for a cause for a non-existent problem. Thus there is no need for
policy to control the scapegoat CO2.
This whole charade only works in the presence of a whole raft of
special pleadings for climatology which every other science would and
has rejected with contempt (see Wegman before the Senate, supported by
North). There's the precautionary principle which demands action on
assumptions not subject to proof, there is the rejection of cost-
benefit analysis which allows all kinds of hysterical pressures to
direct policy, there's the continued reliance on totally discredited
work (Jones, Mann, Wang, etc, etc, etc, nauseatingly -- for small
branch of a small science, it sometimes seems as if everyone in it is
a crook) which actually removes the entire basis of the "science" of
global warming for the reasons given above, there is the withholding
of data, the persecution of critics, the bullying false claims of
"consensus" (as if science is decided by vote!), etc, etc, etc --
excuse me while I vomit in disgust. In no real science would this
hysterical crap be permitted.
>However, I don't work on any of this stuff,
> and I do understand some of the physics involved
> (radiative transfer in stratified atmospheres, infrared
> radiation and so on), and so do about a jillion other
> physicists.
Well, of course you do. But if there is no global warming because we
actually live in a cool period (including the 1990s and specifically
including 1998), then the work is of merely academic interest.
> I'm not qualified to write or review
> articles on historical reconstruction of temperatures,
Statistical procedures are common across the sciences. That's how we
caught out Mann, Jones, Wang and other crooks.
> but I can understand the parts of climate science that
> have to do with anthropogenic radiative forcing, and
> it is not going to go away no matter how many pies
> they take in the face in East Anglia.
Once more, unless you can first prove that there is global warming --
and there is prima facie evidence easily understood by the man in the
street that there is none -- you can make all kinds of contortions
about CO2 and it will still be of only academic interest. (There is
also the small problem of CO2 emissions throughout history lagging
temperature rise, not leading it.)
> If I and all the other
> scientists are wrong, it will be quite obvious of order
> 40 years from now, manifesting itself in things like
> changing growing seasons, plant and animal ranges,
> glacier disappearance, and so on.
Oh, crap. These things have changed radically through history, even in
recent history. Human agriculture in the modern form wasn't even
established until the opportunity of the last "global warming" of the
Medieval Warm Period. Perhaps they should give you guys a compulsory
course in economic history before they let you loose on science.
>All of these are happening
> now, I just picked 40 years because there are fluctuations
> on decade-long timescales to average over.
Of course they're happening. They happen all the time. They're
entirely natural. It is hubris of the highest order to attempt to fix
the planet in your image, Ben.
> The fact that Clive Crook is full of doubt now
> reflects the success of climate change skeptics in
> laying down a base of mistrust.
Actually, the big success in turning misinformation into a religion --
witness the agony of the committed like Max Otter who writes here as
Landotter -- was the IPCC's when they made a beneficial gas (CO2) that
is food for plants the bogeyman in an event that didn't even happen
(global warming) and persuaded a frightened populace to spend
trillions on combating it.
>Honestly, it's way too
> hard to organize scientists to do anything even when
> justified, let alone organize a conspiracy of deception.
That bandwagon had powerful incentives, like not being published, like
being seen to buck a much-touted "consensus", like being seen to be a
reactionary, and much more.
More from Ben snipped; he's either got the point by now or he hasn't.
Hope this clarifies the matter for you, Ben.
Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html
Andre Jute
> Ben C wrote:
>
> > And what's wrong with CO2 apart from supposed global warming?
>
> Lack of an adequate mechanism for re-uptake. (For huge amounts of
> fossil CO2, anyway.)
Nonsense. Our plant life will be enriched, crops will be larger,
everyone will benefit. CO2 is food for plants. The waste product of
plants is oxygen. We breathe oxygen.
> If industry found some economically expedient process that annually
> produced tens of billions of tons of excess atmospheric oxygen as a
> byproduct, then eventually that too would create unintended and
> unwanted systemic changes. Even though we acknowledge oxygen to be a
> good thing, we don't need to upset the natural balance of the stuff.
Who says the natural balance of CO2 is necessarily what it is in our
time? It has been ten times as much as the 380ppm commonly thrown
about by the alarmists. And Nothing Happened. The Dog Did Not Bark In
The Night.
> As it is, we're spewing gigatons of CO2 at the same time we are
> deforesting, polluting, overfishing, and otherwise impairing the
> biosphere's natural mechanisms for recovering and reusing atmospheric
> carbon.
Then the remedy is not to cripple our economies but to replant forests
on a vast scale. I'm for reforesting.
> Emitting more CO2 than the world can reabsorb is like taking on debt
> you can't pay back-- eventually it has to stop, and you wind up worse
> off than you would have been if you had never done it. Both patterns
> are characteristic of our current doomed economic system, and both are
> breaking down before our eyes.
CO2 is a mickey mouse part of the gases in the atmosphere, and manmade
CO2 is a fraction of that, and the part of manmade CO2 we can ever
"control" is a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction. It will cost
trillions to try, and will most likely fail. (And all this for a gas
whose link to global warming isn't proven, and for an event, global
warming, which hasn't happened and very likely cannot happen for
several centuries? Gee.) For that much money we can feed all the
hungry in the world, give them clean water, educate them, help them
build viable agriculture, replant the Amazon basin from end to end,
plant vast forests elsewhere, and still have enough left over to build
a rocket to exile the those criminal fraudsters Mann, Jones and Wang
to Mars; with the change we can reduce everyone's taxes.
> Chalo
Andre Jute
Bring back global warming, I'm cold
Andre Jute
datakoll wrote:
> scientists, researchers and analysts are peer reviewed
In climatology a clique "peer reviewed" each other's papers. For the
crucial Hockey Stick paper by Michael Mann, since much discredited,
the "peer reviewers" never asked to see the raw data, never asked to
see the algorithms. It isn't known what they actually did. But all of
them had been co-authors of papers with Mann, and several of them
later wrote papers defending Mann. The Wegman Report is scathing about
this clique and its methods of "peer review".
> mishandling data is uncommon.
Not in climatology. According to the Climategate Papers, mishandling
data "to hide the decline" by a "trick" is not only common but
deliberate.
> people may make gross errors but the errors are usually well founded
> gross errors.
Bad method + Right answer = Bad science -- Wegman
And in this case the answer fabricated an event which didn't happen --
the so-called global warming of the 1990's out of nothing. And the
same people have been trying to make the 2000 decade warmer still
despite the common experience that it is much cooler. "Hide the
decline" -- Phil Jones, CRU.
> suggesting global warming or whatever is based on dishonest bad
> science...
The destruction of the raw data, leaving only the cooked numbers,
certainly suggests something underhand going on. But it is merely
corroborating evidence when we already have the signed confessions of
the criminals in the Climategate Papers.
Andre Jute
"Loonies like Asher will continue to shout 'Global Warming' until
they suddenly start shouting 'Global Cooling' as if they'd done that
from the beginning." -- Tom Kunich
"Oh, I've seen the loonies do that for half a century. Asher's problem
is that he has such a poor grasp of history, he thinks the New
Apocalypse of Global Warming is brand spanking new and exciting." --
Andre Jute
Radey Shouman
> There's much more data than what's in the e-mails. Which, BTW, were
> stolen and in the hands of someone with obvious hostile intent before
> their release. The number of "released" e-mails has been few out of the
> thousands that must be in a file of that size. It's certainly
> reasonable to question what if any modifications have been wrought by
> the malefactors.
"released"? You might count them yourself:
<http://www.megaupload.com/?d=u44fst89>
The md5 sum for FOI2009.zip should be da2e1d6c453e0643e05e90c681eb1df4
Or go to <http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php> to search online.
Of course it's not obvious that none of the emails have been altered,
but doing that in a period- and writing style-correct way, getting all
of the verifiable details right, would be a truly mammoth task. As
far as I know none of the correspondents has actually claimed that any
emails have been faked, quite a few have said that they are real.
BTW, it seems unlikely that the emails and other files were stolen in the
smash and grab sense; it is much more likely an inside leak.
Chalo
>
> CO2 is a mickey mouse part of the gases in the atmosphere, and manmade
> CO2 is a fraction of that, and the part of manmade CO2 we can ever
> "control" is a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction. It will cost
> trillions to try, and will most likely fail. (And all this for a gas
> whose link to global warming isn't proven, and for an event, global
> warming, which hasn't happened and very likely cannot happen for
> several centuries? Gee.) For that much money we can feed all the
> hungry in the world, give them clean water, educate them, help them
> build viable agriculture, replant the Amazon basin from end to end,
> plant vast forests elsewhere, and still have enough left over to build
> a rocket to exile the those criminal fraudsters Mann, Jones and Wang
> to Mars; with the change we can reduce everyone's taxes.
Ummm... I think you grossly discount the economic benefits of
developing cleaner, sustainable new sources of energy, along with the
benefits of spinoff tech thus engendered. The opposition to reducing
carbon emissions is the energy industry _obstructing technological
progress_, just as practiced by the automotive industry, telecom
industry, pharmaceutical industry, and many other monopolies and
oligopolies whenever they have been able to do so.
Those who have come to dominate the game will always oppose
technological developments that might cause them to have to share the
pie, even when those developments would result in a bigger pie from
which they could have a larger portion in absolute terms. They'd
prefer a larger relative portion of a diminishing, despoiled,
decomposing pie. Thus they generally refrain even from staking their
own claim on rich prospective new technologies that might upset the
dominance of older technologies they believe they control.
The developing world has taken charge of the old dirty 19th and 20th
century ways of doing things. In refusing (for the putative benefit
of entrenched interests) to take the next step into the technological
future, the First World utterly yields its economic power over to
those who are able to do the same old tricks more cheaply, giving us a
good taste of what used to be our own toxic externalities in the
process.
Chalo
Ben C
> In article <slrnhhb6hf....@bowser.marioworld>,
> Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>> > CO2 seems to be the primary driver and the evidence seems pretty
>> > firm on this.
>>
>> Not to me it doesn't.
>
> Then you need to educate yourself, Ben. There's lots of information not
> stolen from a computer in England.
Yes but much of it did come out of the same computer.
[...]
>> I hadn't realized how disputed the observations were until recently.
>> Previously I was only skeptical about the extrapolations into the
>> future.
>
> Then you weren't paying attention. The observations have been
> strenuously disputed by those who can't tolerate the notion that they've
> helped screw up the world.
It's pretty clear the hockey stick was fraud. Read McIntyre and
McKitrick's paper and make up your own mind.
Interesting in that paper is that they found a directory called
"CENSORED" in which it was revealed that Mann knew that even his bogus
algorithm didn't produce a hockey stick without the bristlecone pines.
This is from one of Mann's email correspondences with Jones on
data-hiding, dated 2005-02-02:
Yes, we've learned out lesson about FTP. We're going to be very
careful in the future what gets put there. Scott really screwed up
big time when he established that directory so that Tim could access
the data.
So that's why the CENSORED directory was there-- Scott was trying to
share data with Tim.
Thank goodness they were incompetent as well as fraudulent.
[...]
> While there's been a lot of crowing about the unveiling of the "global
> warming conspiracy," there's been little refutation of the established
> facts and measurements.
It's true that much of what they've been up to has been suspected fairly
accurately by quite a few people already. But the emails are confirming
it.
[...]
>> And what's wrong with CO2 apart from supposed global warming?
>
> There's too much of it. The extent of the problems created by this has
> not yet been delineated. But there are always consequences to actions
> and those consequences are inescapable. The wise modify their actions
> to obtain the consequences they want, but this is exactly what the
> climate change deniers want to avoid. They just want there to be no
> problem so they can carry on bidness as usual.
Yes, but you have to take into account the scale of the problem and the
harm that may be caused by the alternatives.
Anthropogenic CO2 won't be produced for ever, because the fossil fuels
will run out anyway. It may well be that if things just run their course
no harm will be done. Maybe we will have figured out how to do fusion by
then anyway.
Banning CO2 is not without its problems: inexperienced people doing
nuclear fission, biofuels for the rich instead of food for the poor,
developing countries not being allowed to develop by burning their coal.
You can't just take the view that banning CO2 is being on the safe side.
landotter
[drivelsnip]
> It's pretty clear the hockey stick was fraud.
Clear only to authoritarians who are desperate to believe whatever it
takes to support their faction's conspiracy theory.
>Read McIntyre and
> McKitrick's paper and make up your own mind.
An economist and an energy company stooge?
Their lies were easily rebutted by actual climate scientists.
Want to know why you so easily are duped into believing fringe bad
science?
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
"According to research by Altemeyer, right-wing authoritarians tend to
exhibit cognitive errors and symptoms of faulty reasoning.
Specifically, they are more likely to make incorrect inferences from
evidence and to hold contradictory ideas that result from
compartmentalized thinking. They are also more likely to uncritically
accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs, and they are
less likely to acknowledge their own limitations."
Ben C
> [drivelsnip]
>> It's pretty clear the hockey stick was fraud.
>
> Clear only to authoritarians who are desperate to believe whatever it
> takes to support their faction's conspiracy theory.
>
>>Read McIntyre and
>> McKitrick's paper and make up your own mind.
>
> An economist and an energy company stooge?
I suggested "read the paper and make up your own mind", not "read the
CVs of the authors and make up your own mind".
(Anyway I don't see what's wrong with economists or people who have
worked for energy companies).
> Their lies were easily rebutted by actual climate scientists.
Well, I had a look at the "rebuttals" on realclimate.org. It was
basically dodge, squirm, wriggle.
> Want to know why you so easily are duped into believing fringe bad
> science?
>
> http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
>
> "According to research by Altemeyer, right-wing authoritarians tend to
> exhibit cognitive errors and symptoms of faulty reasoning.
But I'm not a right-wing authoritarian.
AMuzi
That's funny.
Let's look at left wing authoritarians. Are you saying
Chavez or Kim Jong MentallyIll or I'manutjob or Whacky
Gaddafi are authoritarians with credibility and reason?
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
datakoll
specious arguement.
people disagree but notice parties seperate into scientists vs
scientists supported by 'special interests.'
landotter
You might want to read up on what right wing authoritarianism actually
is, vs. what you assume it is. Right wing authoritarian follower
personalities are what you find in the devotees of your examples. The
leaders themselves usually are social dominants, and may or may not be
right wing authoritarians--they will exploit whichever power structure
necessary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism
AMuzi
OK, I have a problem with 'authority' anyway. Authoritarians
drive me to distraction; left, right, whatever. When it
comes to parsing Hitler versus Mao, I'm out.
Tim McNamara
Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> On 2009-12-01, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > In article <slrnhhb6hf....@bowser.marioworld>,
> > Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> [...]
> >> > CO2 seems to be the primary driver and the evidence seems pretty
> >> > firm on this.
> >>
> >> Not to me it doesn't.
> >
> > Then you need to educate yourself, Ben. There's lots of
> > information not stolen from a computer in England.
>
> Yes but much of it did come out of the same computer.
>
> [...]
> >> I hadn't realized how disputed the observations were until
> >> recently. Previously I was only skeptical about the extrapolations
> >> into the future.
> >
> > Then you weren't paying attention. The observations have been
> > strenuously disputed by those who can't tolerate the notion that
> > they've helped screw up the world.
>
> It's pretty clear the hockey stick was fraud. Read McIntyre and
> McKitrick's paper and make up your own mind.
>
> Interesting in that paper is that they found a directory called
> "CENSORED" in which it was revealed that Mann knew that even his
> bogus algorithm didn't produce a hockey stick without the bristlecone
> pines.
Which hockey stick graph? The temperature graphs are not and have not
been hockey sticks. The CO2 production graphs have the hockey stick
shape and have nothing to do with bristlecone pines. Human population
charts also tend to be hockey stick shaped, not coincidentally.
> This is from one of Mann's email correspondences with Jones on
> data-hiding, dated 2005-02-02:
>
> Yes, we've learned out lesson about FTP. We're going to be very
> careful in the future what gets put there. Scott really screwed
> up big time when he established that directory so that Tim could
> access the data.
>
> So that's why the CENSORED directory was there-- Scott was trying to
> share data with Tim.
>
> Thank goodness they were incompetent as well as fraudulent.
>
> [...]
> > While there's been a lot of crowing about the unveiling of the
> > "global warming conspiracy," there's been little refutation of the
> > established facts and measurements.
>
> It's true that much of what they've been up to has been suspected
> fairly accurately by quite a few people already. But the emails are
> confirming it.
At this point I am not convinced, sorry. This is three researchers out
of thousands. Three overly competitive twits don't discredit decades of
data and analysis by people who are far more central to the discussion
than these guys. And I still don't trust the content of the e-mails to
be legitimate, given their dubious provenance.
> [...]
> >> And what's wrong with CO2 apart from supposed global warming?
> >
> > There's too much of it. The extent of the problems created by this
> > has not yet been delineated. But there are always consequences to
> > actions and those consequences are inescapable. The wise modify
> > their actions to obtain the consequences they want, but this is
> > exactly what the climate change deniers want to avoid. They just
> > want there to be no problem so they can carry on bidness as usual.
>
> Yes, but you have to take into account the scale of the problem and
> the harm that may be caused by the alternatives.
That is reasonable.
> Anthropogenic CO2 won't be produced for ever, because the fossil
> fuels will run out anyway. It may well be that if things just run
> their course no harm will be done. Maybe we will have figured out how
> to do fusion by then anyway.
I'm flashing to "Back to the Future."
> Banning CO2 is not without its problems: inexperienced people doing
> nuclear fission, biofuels for the rich instead of food for the poor,
> developing countries not being allowed to develop by burning their
> coal.
There are few people experienced in nuclear fission nowadays and until
the security and disposal issues can be addressed it is a non-starter.
A shame, too, because nuclear power is in many ways a very promising
technology. The biofuels issue is a major one and I suspect our
opinions on that might be quite similar. And on the last point, there
may be other ways to pursue economic development. Economies are not
required to go through the heavy industry route to prosperity.
> You can't just take the view that banning CO2 is being on the safe
> side.
Given that the plan is to limit CO2 production, it's disingenuous to
talk about banning it. Why don't we stick to fact rather than fantasy?
One of the biggest sources of CO2 in the private world is transportation
and individual choices can have a large impact on that. Riding a bike
instead of driving a car, for example. IMHO bikes can just about save
the world.
Tim McNamara
AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> landotter wrote:
> > Want to know why you so easily are duped into believing fringe bad
> > science?
> >
> > http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
> >
> > "According to research by Altemeyer, right-wing authoritarians tend
> > to exhibit cognitive errors and symptoms of faulty reasoning.
> > Specifically, they are more likely to make incorrect inferences
> > from evidence and to hold contradictory ideas that result from
> > compartmentalized thinking. They are also more likely to
> > uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their
> > beliefs, and they are less likely to acknowledge their own
> > limitations."
>
> That's funny. Let's look at left wing authoritarians. Are you saying
> Chavez or Kim Jong MentallyIll or I'manutjob or Whacky Gaddafi are
> authoritarians with credibility and reason?
Kim Jong Il, Ahmadinejad and Gaddafi are right wingers, not left
wingers. The latter two believe in government based on religious laws,
like most of the white evangelicals in the US. All three of these
crackpots all subscribe to the unitary executive model of government
promulgated by Bush/Cheney et al (and neither of those two guys score
much better on the looney-tunes scale).
Chavez is arguably a left winger. And clearly a nutbar.
Tim McNamara
AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> OK, I have a problem with 'authority' anyway. Authoritarians drive me
> to distraction; left, right, whatever. When it comes to parsing
> Hitler versus Mao, I'm out.
Something to that. How come the authoritarianism of Bush and Cheney
didn;'seem to bother you, though?
Andre Jute
> Andre Jute wrote:
>
> > CO2 is a mickey mouse part of the gases in the atmosphere, and manmade
> > CO2 is a fraction of that, and the part of manmade CO2 we can ever
> > "control" is a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction. It will cost
> > trillions to try, and will most likely fail. (And all this for a gas
> > whose link to global warming isn't proven, and for an event, global
> > warming, which hasn't happened and very likely cannot happen for
> > several centuries? Gee.) For that much money we can feed all the
> > hungry in the world, give them clean water, educate them, help them
> > build viable agriculture, replant the Amazon basin from end to end,
> > plant vast forests elsewhere, and still have enough left over to build
> > a rocket to exile the those criminal fraudsters Mann, Jones and Wang
> > to Mars; with the change we can reduce everyone's taxes.
>
> Ummm... I think you grossly discount the economic benefits of
> developing cleaner, sustainable new sources of energy, along with the
> benefits of spinoff tech thus engendered. The opposition to reducing
> carbon emissions is the energy industry _obstructing technological
> progress_, just as practiced by the automotive industry, telecom
> industry, pharmaceutical industry, and many other monopolies and
> oligopolies whenever they have been able to do so.
Then the remedy is to open up the marketplace by breaking up the
monopolies, not Government by Accident to attack CO2 for an unproven
link to an event, global warming, that never happened except inside
the statistical trickery of some crooked scientists.
And let's not forget, government is the biggest monopoly of all.
>
> Those who have come to dominate the game will always oppose
> technological developments that might cause them to have to share the
> pie, even when those developments would result in a bigger pie from
> which they could have a larger portion in absolute terms. They'd
> prefer a larger relative portion of a diminishing, despoiled,
> decomposing pie. Thus they generally refrain even from staking their
> own claim on rich prospective new technologies that might upset the
> dominance of older technologies they believe they control.
In an open market, that is an opportunity for another provider, vide
Xerox PARC and Apple with the GUI that was the USP of the Mac.
> The developing world has taken charge of the old dirty 19th and 20th
> century ways of doing things. In refusing (for the putative benefit
> of entrenched interests) to take the next step into the technological
> future, the First World utterly yields its economic power over to
> those who are able to do the same old tricks more cheaply, giving us a
> good taste of what used to be our own toxic externalities in the
> process.
You underestimate the economic advantages of backwardness, Chalo. One
of them is that the backward entity skips much of the pain of
development, and goes straight to GO with the latest technology. The
dirty development stage will be so much shorter before the newly
industrialized realize that if they want to compete, they need
technology, which is usually cleaner.
That is why technology transfer is cheaper than a direct attack on
CO2. Even cheaper is reforestation in the Amazon basin.
Andre Jute
Cost benefit analysis
Sandy
"Vibrating blastofermes are essential to bicycle stability."
I think I'll write that one up. Then it will be real. Yup.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
-
The belief in a relation of cause and effect is a superstition.
Wittgenstein, L
Tractatus logico-philosophicus
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> Chavez is arguably a left winger. And clearly a nutbar.
Did you start watching the corporate USian media? First of all, Chavez
has been ELECTED by the majority of the people of Venezuela, in
elections internationally recognized as fair. Secondly, how is he a
"nutbar" - for putting the interests of the people of Venezuela over
foreign corporations and the fascist upper class?
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
Ben C
> In article <slrnhhca1o....@bowser.marioworld>,
> Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>> It's pretty clear the hockey stick was fraud. Read McIntyre and
>> McKitrick's paper and make up your own mind.
>>
>> Interesting in that paper is that they found a directory called
>> "CENSORED" in which it was revealed that Mann knew that even his
>> bogus algorithm didn't produce a hockey stick without the bristlecone
>> pines.
>
> Which hockey stick graph?
The one used on page 29 of the IPCC Technical Summary.
> The temperature graphs are not and have not been hockey sticks.
They kick up sharply at the end and make the MWP and LIA look like they
didn't happen. The idea is to make 20th century warming look
unprecedented, anomalous, scary, and like it must be all our fault.
[...]
>> It's true that much of what they've been up to has been suspected
>> fairly accurately by quite a few people already. But the emails are
>> confirming it.
>
> At this point I am not convinced, sorry. This is three researchers out
> of thousands.
I'm not convinced there are thousands of _independent_ researchers. How
many thousands of non-independent ones counts for nothing.
I've heard the flypaper argument made for Christianity too-- all those
millions of believers can't be wrong!
[...]
>> Banning CO2 is not without its problems: inexperienced people doing
>> nuclear fission, biofuels for the rich instead of food for the poor,
>> developing countries not being allowed to develop by burning their
>> coal.
>
> There are few people experienced in nuclear fission nowadays and until
> the security and disposal issues can be addressed it is a non-starter.
That's not going to stop people doing it as soon as it becomes
economical.
Beside the dangers of poorly-maintained reactors that fall apart like
Chernobyl the other problem is proliferation of nuclear weapons,
increasing the probability that one day someone stupid enough to
actually use them will have them.
> A shame, too, because nuclear power is in many ways a very promising
> technology. The biofuels issue is a major one and I suspect our
> opinions on that might be quite similar. And on the last point, there
> may be other ways to pursue economic development. Economies are not
> required to go through the heavy industry route to prosperity.
The problem is how do you get there. I am very cynical about the
effectiveness of big government or UN meddling (I freely admit this is a
bit "right wing").
landotter
> On 2009-12-03, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> > Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> [...]
> >> It's pretty clear the hockey stick was fraud. Read McIntyre and
> >> McKitrick's paper and make up your own mind.
>
> >> Interesting in that paper is that they found a directory called
> >> "CENSORED" in which it was revealed that Mann knew that even his
> >> bogus algorithm didn't produce a hockey stick without the bristlecone
> >> pines.
>
> > Which hockey stick graph?
>
> The one used on page 29 of the IPCC Technical Summary.
>
> > The temperature graphs are not and have not been hockey sticks.
>
> They kick up sharply at the end and make the MWP and LIA look like they
> didn't happen. The idea is to make 20th century warming look
> unprecedented, anomalous, scary, and like it must be all our fault.
That's the idea? How do you know? You a mind reader? If it's so
obviously glaringly fucked up--name all of the international
scientific organizations that have also seen this--if it's so obvious,
then peer review would have caught it.
> The problem is how do you get there. I am very cynical about the
> effectiveness of big government or UN meddling (I freely admit this is a
> bit "right wing").
And here we have the admission that you filter reality through
dogmatism. Thanks for playing. You're cynical about the effectiveness
of big government because of a feudalistic faith with no evidence.
Such beliefs are trendy, as is the worship of Reagan's manly ranchers'
hands which tore down the Berlin wall in your dreams--but not reality
based.
Andre Jute
Stalin and Hitler were both repeatedly elected by their respective
franchises. They, and Mao and Pol Pot, were all leftwing
authoritarians. A whole lot of South American leaders labelled
dictators by the NYT and even by the State Deparment were repeatedly
elected by large majorities, including, one from each side of the
fence, Stroessner and Peron. I don't think these rightwing-leftwing
labels are in the least helpful; they are the knee-jerk well-
poisonings of the thoughtless and the ill-educated. -- Andre Jute
Andre Jute
> Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>
> > >> It's pretty clear the hockey stick was fraud. Read McIntyre and
> > >> McKitrick's paper and make up your own mind.
> > [Temperatures] kick up sharply at the end and make the
> > Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age look like they
> > didn't happen. The idea is to make 20th century warming look
> > unprecedented, anomalous, scary, and like it must be all our fault.
>
> That's the idea? How do you know? You a mind reader?
Hello, Maxine, you're looking particularly fetching in green.
We know the hockey stick is deliberate crookery because the criminals
who cooked the statistics repeatedly told us so. Here is one well-
reported example from long, long before Climategate:
“We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” -- Jonathan Overpeck,
climate "scientist", IPCC writer
> If it's so
> obviously glaringly fucked up--name all of the international
> scientific organizations that have also seen this--if it's so obvious,
> then peer review would have caught it.
You should read the Wegman Report, to which all the members of the NAS
Panel under North investigating Mann also swore their unqualified
agreement under oath before Congress. Wegman and North condemns Mann's
methods totally and declare that his results, the hockey stick, are
completely unfounded. Wegman also points out that the so-called peer
review was totally compromised by being done by Mann's students, co-
authors, co-workers, people Mann had peer-reviewed, absolutely no one
independent, a cosy little climactic climate clique all committing a
circle-jerk. We now know that the socalled peer reviewers never asked
for the raw data, never asked for the algorithm, in short, they never
did what peer reviewers are supposed to do; instead they gave Mann a
free pass for his statistical cheats and his lying hockey stick. So
much for "peer review" in climatology. It is clearly the sort of
conspiracy against the public interest for which businessmen would be
jailed; one wonders why these climate "scientists" aren't in jail yet.
No wonder Mann, Jones and the rest didn't want to release the data --
they knew their cheating would be exposed.
The upshot is that after nine years of unnecessary climate hysteria
the Medieval Warm Period is reinstalled. The MWP is several centuries
in which the planet was up to 7 degrees Celsius warmer than it is now
all around the globe, with hugely beneficial effects for all. That
proves that we do not have global warming, that we're merely
recovering from the Little Ice Age, on a harmless, gentle temperature
upslope with natural variations around the trend line. Our time,
including the 1990s, is in fact pretty cool, not hot at all as the
these crooked "scientists" try to claim. it follows that whatever CO2
may be guilty of, it didn't cause global warming, because global
warming didn't happen. Capice?
Hope this informs you. The short version is: There is no reason to
panic. The earth is safe from global warming, CO2 and the Big Bad
Wolf. It was all just fiction.
Andre Jute
Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science -- and I
said it long before the Climategate exposed those clowns as crooks and
liars
Ben C
> On Dec 3, 2:42�am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>> On 2009-12-03, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <slrnhhca1o.3dc.spams...@bowser.marioworld>,
>> > �Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> It's pretty clear the hockey stick was fraud. Read McIntyre and
>> >> McKitrick's paper and make up your own mind.
>>
>> >> Interesting in that paper is that they found a directory called
>> >> "CENSORED" in which it was revealed that Mann knew that even his
>> >> bogus algorithm didn't produce a hockey stick without the bristlecone
>> >> pines.
>>
>> > Which hockey stick graph?
>>
>> The one used on page 29 of the IPCC Technical Summary.
>>
>> > The temperature graphs are not and have not been hockey sticks.
>>
>> They kick up sharply at the end and make the MWP and LIA look like they
>> didn't happen. The idea is to make 20th century warming look
>> unprecedented, anomalous, scary, and like it must be all our fault.
>
> That's the idea? How do you know? You a mind reader? If it's so
> obviously glaringly fucked up--name all of the international
> scientific organizations that have also seen this--if it's so obvious,
> then peer review would have caught it.
You'da thunk.
>> The problem is how do you get there. I am very cynical about the
>> effectiveness of big government or UN meddling (I freely admit this is a
>> bit "right wing").
>
> And here we have the admission that you filter reality through
> dogmatism. Thanks for playing. You're cynical about the effectiveness
> of big government because of a feudalistic faith with no evidence.
No it's because of living in a country where for the last decade I pay
half my salary to big government who give it Phil Jones.
landotter
> On Dec 3, 3:50 am, Tom Sherman °_°
>
> <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> > Tim McNamara wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > Chavez is arguably a left winger. And clearly a nutbar.
>
> > Did you start watching the corporate USian media? First of all, Chavez
> > has been ELECTED by the majority of the people of Venezuela, in
> > elections internationally recognized as fair. Secondly, how is he a
> > "nutbar" - for putting the interests of the people of Venezuela over
> > foreign corporations and the fascist upper class?
>
> > --
> > Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
> > I am a vehicular cyclist.
>
> Stalin and Hitler were both repeatedly elected by their respective
> franchises.
That would be a lie.
>They, and Mao and Pol Pot, were all leftwing
> authoritarians.
Another lie.
> A whole lot of South American leaders labelled
> dictators by the NYT and even by the State Deparment were repeatedly
> elected by large majorities, including, one from each side of the
> fence, Stroessner and Peron. I don't think these rightwing-leftwing
> labels are in the least helpful; they are the knee-jerk well-
> poisonings of the thoughtless and the ill-educated.
The problem is simply your own ignorance. Right wing authoritarian is
a personality type that's eager to be a follower. Right wing
authoritarian followers enable social dominants. Sometimes social
dominants will also be right wing authoritarians. For example, "we
need a powerful leader to unite our people, and I can be that leader!"
The poisonous combination of the two personality types lead to
totalitarianism, regardless of economic theory. Fascism and communism
in practice are two sides of the same coin. They are both enemies of
liberalism and democracy.
Andre Jute
>Right wing authoritarian is
> a personality type that's eager to be a follower.
Do you ever read over the gobbledygook you send to RBT, Maxine? An
authoritarian is particularly not a follower: he is a person who
demands that others submit to his authority. The sort of gobbledygook
that you spew may sound good in the kind of sociology department that
characterizes tenth-rate community colleges, but it won't wash with
people who know how to put their minds in gear.
Andre Jute
This is a waste of my time
landotter
By responding to me you prove that you lied about plonking me!
Words do have meanings, regardless of your ignorance:
Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality and ideological
variable studied in political, social, and personality psychology. It
is defined by three attitudinal and behavioral clusters which
correlate together:[1][2]
1. Authoritarian submission — a high degree of submissiveness to
the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in
the society in which one lives.
2. Authoritarian aggression — a general aggressiveness directed
against deviants, outgroups, and other people that are perceived to be
targets according to established authorities.
3. Conventionalism — a high degree of adherence to the traditions
and social norms that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its
established authorities, and a belief that others in one's society
should also be required to adhere to these norms[3].
Andre Jute
when my son called upstairs to say the central heating boiler kicked
out again. It happens every time we get kerosine delivered and the
silt in the bottom of the tank gets stirred up. A bloody irritation.
Anyway, I rose in the middle of a sentence, spoke politely to the
boiler until it resumed normal service, returned to my rowing machine
computer -- and sent the same sort of gobbledygook I'm complaining
about. Tsch! Tsch! Ah, well, nobody is perfect, not even me.
Bring back the global warming those IPCC bullies and their attendant
brownnosers aka "climatologists" promised us, and we'll all benefit,
and the central heating salesmen can go bankrupt for all I care.
Andre Jute
...who shoulda had the brains to be in Adelaide (Australia) roundabout
wintertime in the Northern Hemisphere.
PS And up Michael Press for disillusioning me about Ireland having a
mediterranean climate! Yo, young Master Press, you'll forever be the
most unpopular person in the tearoom until you realize that people
treasure their illusions.
Andre Jute
<landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 12:16 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The hermaphrodite Maxine von Ott zu Bott aka landotter
>
> > >Right wing authoritarian is
> > > a personality type that's eager to be a follower.
>
> > Do you ever read over the gobbledygook you send to RBT, Maxine? An
> > authoritarian is particularly not a follower: he is a person who
> > demands that others submit to his authority. The sort of gobbledygook
> > that you spew may sound good in the kind of sociology department that
> > characterizes tenth-rate community colleges, but it won't wash with
> > people who know how to put their minds in gear.
>
> > Andre Jute
> > This is a waste of my time
>
> By responding to me you prove that you lied about plonking me!
You're behind the times, Maxine. I stopped using that killfile many
moons ago. Looks like you're the last person on RBT to discover it.
> Words do have meanings, regardless of your ignorance:
Yes, I know. I do words for a living. http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html
> Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality and ideological
> variable studied in political, social, and personality psychology. It
> is defined by three attitudinal and behavioral clusters which
> correlate together:[1][2]
>
> 1. Authoritarian submission — a high degree of submissiveness to
> the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in
> the society in which one lives.
I can see why this truism rings a bell with you, Maxine. You're
describing the scientism of the global warmies.
> 2. Authoritarian aggression — a general aggressiveness directed
> against deviants, outgroups, and other people that are perceived to be
> targets according to established authorities.
Once more, I see now where you're coming from. This is the treatment
of dissenters ("deniers") by the global warmies.
> 3. Conventionalism — a high degree of adherence to the traditions
> and social norms that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its
> established authorities, and a belief that others in one's society
> should also be required to adhere to these norms[3].
How apt! This is the impressionables of society jumping onto the
global warming bandwagon.
Hey, Maxine, maybe you're not such a thicko as everyone thinks!
Andre Jute
Wordsmith
Ozark Bicycle
> On Dec 3, 12:16 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The hermaphrodite Maxine von Ott zu Bott aka landotter
>
> > >Right wing authoritarian is
> > > a personality type that's eager to be a follower.
>
> > Do you ever read over the gobbledygook you send to RBT, Maxine? An
> > authoritarian is particularly not a follower: he is a person who
> > demands that others submit to his authority. The sort of gobbledygook
> > that you spew may sound good in the kind of sociology department that
> > characterizes tenth-rate community colleges, but it won't wash with
> > people who know how to put their minds in gear.
>
> > Andre Jute
> > This is a waste of my time
>
> By responding to me you prove that you lied about plonking me!
Gambling in Casablanca?? I'm shocked! Shocked!!
[...]
AMuzi
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> [...]
>> Chavez is arguably a left winger. And clearly a nutbar.
>
> Did you start watching the corporate USian media? First of all, Chavez
> has been ELECTED by the majority of the people of Venezuela, in
> elections internationally recognized as fair. Secondly, how is he a
> "nutbar" - for putting the interests of the people of Venezuela over
> foreign corporations and the fascist upper class?
>
You have a point. 'Nutbar' is too mild.
'Criminally deranged' is more apt.
D'ohBoy
You're just pissed cuz he disrespected your man (the dubber).
I laughed my ass off every time he insulted that idjit.
'Murica's teetering in its position at the top of the heap and you
feel it and people like Chavez who feel it too scare and anger you.
Just lay back and think of England. Otherwise this is gonna hurt
(people who think like you).
D'ohBoy
AMuzi
'hockey stick peer review' gets 78,000 hits in a search:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14664
AMuzi
Hitler's election 19 April, 1932:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp
Stalin's April 1922:
http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/stalin/timeline.html
Whether Mao and PolPot are "leftwing authoritarians" may be
ambiguous to you. But not to everyone.
Tim McNamara
Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
Define "independent" versus "non-independent." Is someone financed by
an oil company independent while someone who works for a university
non-independent? Or is "independent" only a researcher who is
self-employed, has no income from anyone in the university world or
energy companies or government or politicians... in short is a hermit
who lives 100 miles from the nearest person?
Could you even ever possibly be satisfied that the facts show what they
show if it happens to not be what you want them to show?
> I've heard the flypaper argument made for Christianity too-- all
> those millions of believers can't be wrong!
Oh good grief. So not what was said or intended. Try some honesty, eh?
> [...]
> >> Banning CO2 is not without its problems: inexperienced people
> >> doing nuclear fission, biofuels for the rich instead of food for
> >> the poor, developing countries not being allowed to develop by
> >> burning their coal.
> >
> > There are few people experienced in nuclear fission nowadays and
> > until the security and disposal issues can be addressed it is a
> > non-starter.
>
> That's not going to stop people doing it as soon as it becomes
> economical.
Possibly. But then see your caveats below.
> Beside the dangers of poorly-maintained reactors that fall apart like
> Chernobyl the other problem is proliferation of nuclear weapons,
> increasing the probability that one day someone stupid enough to
> actually use them will have them.
Yup.
> > A shame, too, because nuclear power is in many ways a very
> > promising technology. The biofuels issue is a major one and I
> > suspect our opinions on that might be quite similar. And on the
> > last point, there may be other ways to pursue economic development.
> > Economies are not required to go through the heavy industry route
> > to prosperity.
>
> The problem is how do you get there. I am very cynical about the
> effectiveness of big government or UN meddling (I freely admit this
> is a bit "right wing").
Ya think?
Tim McNamara
Tom Sherman �_� <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > [...] Chavez is arguably a left winger. And clearly a nutbar.
>
> Did you start watching the corporate USian media? First of all,
> Chavez has been ELECTED by the majority of the people of Venezuela,
> in elections internationally recognized as fair. Secondly, how is he
> a "nutbar" - for putting the interests of the people of Venezuela
> over foreign corporations and the fascist upper class?
Read the texts of some of his speeches. He's a fruit loop.
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> Just lay back and think of England. [...]
Abingdon or Nottingham?
Tom Sherman °_°
Compared to George Wanker Bush and Darth Cheney?
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> No it's because of living in a country where for the last decade I pay
> half my salary to big government who give it Phil Jones.
Better than the USian Welfare for Wall Street�.
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]A whole lot of South American leaders labelled
> dictators by the NYT and even by the State Deparment were repeatedly
Easy to get elected when your police and military backed death squads
kill off opposition politicians, journalists, lawyers, judges, union
organizers, and anyone else who opposes plutocracy.
Ben C
> In article <slrnhheueh....@bowser.marioworld>,
> Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>> I'm not convinced there are thousands of _independent_ researchers.
>> How many thousands of non-independent ones counts for nothing.
>
> Define "independent" versus "non-independent." Is someone financed by
> an oil company independent while someone who works for a university
> non-independent? Or is "independent" only a researcher who is
> self-employed, has no income from anyone in the university world or
> energy companies or government or politicians... in short is a hermit
> who lives 100 miles from the nearest person?
This is a good point, and what it really shows that is you have to also
expect a certain standard from people.
The people who peer-reviewed Mann's original work didn't ask for the raw
data or try to reproduce the conclusions using his method, but I don't
find that surprising. If you're reviewing a paper you're just reading it
and checking it's basically OK, not tearing it apart and putting it back
together again, because you're not expecting fraud.
If you work in the field, why would you replicate the work of another
respected researcher? Better to build on the work of others and start on
the next task.
D'ohBoy
Are you talking about Bush? Course, he didn't have to kill, he
achieved his election through less blatant criminality. After which,
he turned to the above-described methods.
Did you see the report from the Justice Department yesterday?
D'ohBoy
Andre Jute
I wasn't about to bother answering such transparently dumb
provocation. Maxine goes around hysterically screeching, "You lie, you
lie," every time someone says something she doesn't like, utterly
without regard for whether they speak the truth. Global warming and
other fundie faiths do that to you. All the teenage girls I know are
better balanced than that.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Andre Jute
Historical truth isn't optional
Andre Jute
Aw, sheet, Liddell Tommi, I worked in South America in my political
exile. Killing the opposition was far more prevalent among the lefties
and commies than among the so-called "rightwingers". In fact, it was
commie policy to kill the middle classes, whereas the "rightwing"
clients of Washington needed the middle classes to establish a haven
of peace if their dream of a liberal, rich, American-style democracy
was ever to succeed. Did you know that Alfredo Stroessner, who was
democratically elected again and again by overwhelming majorities,
instituted proportional representation merely so that he could at
least have the appearance of an effective parliamentary opposition, in
the hope that it would grow into the real thing? (No, I don't suppose
you knew, or that you're actually interested in the facts. You'd
rather spout your prejudices.) I can multiply such examples forever
but there's no point: your faith that your nation's foreign actions
are always evil is as solid as your faith in global warming, another
much-told lie.
Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar
Andre Jute
Ever wonder why the thought police don't come arrest you for endlessly
spouting crap like this and calling the President names? Ever wonder
what happened to those Cubans who even whispered a word against Castro
before they reached Miami?
What a tenthrate jerkoff you are, Duhboy.
Andre Jute
> On 2009-12-03, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> > Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> [...]
> >> I'm not convinced there are thousands of _independent_ researchers.
> >> How many thousands of non-independent ones counts for nothing.
>
> > Define "independent" versus "non-independent." Is someone financed by
> > an oil company independent while someone who works for a university
> > non-independent? Or is "independent" only a researcher who is
> > self-employed, has no income from anyone in the university world or
> > energy companies or government or politicians... in short is a hermit
> > who lives 100 miles from the nearest person?
This is one of the silliest straw men I've ever seen.
> This is a good point, and what it really shows that is you have to also
> expect a certain standard from people.
It isn't a point at all. It is very easy indeed to define scientific
independence. It generally comes down to not having all your eggs in
one basket, not being financially dependent on a single entity, on
staying clear of politics. The arrogance of these climatologist in
trying to dictate world policy is quite incredible.
> The people who peer-reviewed Mann's original work didn't ask for the raw
> data or try to reproduce the conclusions using his method, but I don't
> find that surprising.
Holy shit, Ben! The IPCC didn't do due diligence, the peer reviewers
were Mann's student, co-authors and buddies, and then trillions were
spent on policy made on the back of the hockey stick. That is not all.
When outsiders (McIntyre & McKitrick) tried to do due diligence, the
so-called scientists refused to give them the data, and the National
Academy of Science set up a Panel under Gerald North to *defend*
Mann's right not to answer to anyone! Does the stench of such
corruption not offend you? How is this science? (North's Panel found
exactly the same as Wegman, that Mann was at least incompetent and
possibly a crook, and swore to that under oath before the Senate, and
then permitted the newspapers to lie that their report vindicated
Mann! What does that say about the profession of science?)
Even after Mann was exposed, the IPCC went on showing his discredited
hockey stick, and Keith Briffa, lead author of the next IPCC
Assessment went on precisely the same way, using the same Mann methods
to tell the same lie, all in papers "peer-reviewed" by the same
clique. Briffa to this day refuses to release his algorith or his data
for verification. There is no independent review here!
At the very least, the journals should have appointed peer reviewers
who didn't owe their careers to Mann. Wegman makes clear, in a
frightening chapter in his report to the Senate, that there were NO
independent reviewers, and that the journals colluded in this climate
clique's misdoings, undeed were under their thumb, to the extent of
editors who permitted dissent to appear in their pages being fired at
the behest of the Climategate crooks.
>If you're reviewing a paper you're just reading it
> and checking it's basically OK,
If everyone is on the same bandwagon, that is clearly not enough. It
is important to understand that the climatologist presumed global
warming via manmade CO2 as an act of faith, and set out to find
evidence of it, and when there was none (as reported in the first IPCC
assessment) set out manufacture it. On such a bandwagone, of course
everyone assumes that what the other guys in the clique do is
"basically OK"! This confession was known before Climategate: “We must
get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” -- Jonathan Overpeck, climate
"scientist", IPCC writer. And "HIde the decline."
If trillions will be spent on policy made on the back of such papers,
that is clearly many miles from enough. I'm totally amazed at your
complaisance in this regard, Ben.
>not tearing it apart and putting it back
> together again, because you're not expecting fraud.
After distinguished academicians accused all the leaders of the
climatology control clique of incompetence (back then there was no
evidence of fraud, yet, and the flood of confessions are contained in
Climategate), and stated that they colluded with the journals to pass
this incompetent work off as "science" -- of course everyone should
have altered the procedures. But the IPCC, the climatologists, the
journals, the universities just went on the same old way, as if
nothing had happened, and brushed off those who wanted to do due
diligence on this science. The universities, fearful of losing
prestige and grants, started covering up for the climatologists (not
only in Britain, in the States too).
No other science has so many special pleadings. Any other science so
obviously crooked would be closed down in the blink of an eyelid!
> If you work in the field, why would you replicate the work of another
> respected researcher?
WTF? Of course the first step in falsifying it (a necessary scientific
procedure) is to replicate his work to see that he applied his own
algorithm correctly, then to discover whether the raw data in fact
supports the algorithm he arrived at, then to discover whether any
other raw data give better results either with his algorithm or a more
suitable one. The process is well described by McIntyre. It is a
standard process in statistical work in the fields I'm familiar with,
economics, demographics, psychology; even in their commercial end,
market research, you always make spot checks both in the field and of
the analysis, starting with the raw numbers and checking specifically
that the algorithms are suitable. (I cannot understand how the
climatologists got away, and still get away, with their refusal to
release their algorithms. Mann's crookery was in his algorithm as much
as in his selection of known-unsuitable proxies selected to give the
desired hockey stick. His crooked algorithm was exposed by reverse
engineering by McIntyre.)
>Better to build on the work of others and start on
> the next task.
Well then, Mann's hockey stick will be in the literature for all time
as "science".
You may be right about the practice of science where it matters little
and the cost of error is small. But climatology has made itself into a
political "science" on which trillions hang, not to mention policies
that will very likely kill hundreds of millions miserably by
starvation, and it could be a planet-killer (in the 1970s similar
clowns blew up a hysteria about an imminent ice age and wanted to heat
up the oceans...). But, even without deliberate lies being exposed,
the scientists aren't even checking the calculations on which all this
is supposedly based?
It won't do.
It is no surprise that the whole affair blew up in their faces.
Businessmen who conspired to defraud the public as grossly as these
"scientists" would long since be in jail.
The most sickening thing in the whole affair is the sang froid with
which the entire scientific establishment simply accepts that
scientists lie for political purposes, and that they have a special
right to do so (that is the implication of the NAS setting up a panel
to *defend* Mann after the Wegman Panel, also distinguished NAS
members, condemned him), and that they should be permitted to
persecute their critics.
Andre Jute
"Loonies like Asher will continue to shout 'Global Warming' until
they suddenly start shouting 'Global Cooling' as if they'd done that
from the beginning." -- Tom Kunich
"Now's a good time for good ole Bill to switch." -- Andre Jute
landotter
He's a handjob expert now, folks!
Tim McNamara
Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> On 2009-12-03, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > In article <slrnhheueh....@bowser.marioworld>,
> > Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> [...]
> >> I'm not convinced there are thousands of _independent_
> >> researchers. How many thousands of non-independent ones counts for
> >> nothing.
> >
> > Define "independent" versus "non-independent." Is someone financed
> > by an oil company independent while someone who works for a
> > university non-independent? Or is "independent" only a researcher
> > who is self-employed, has no income from anyone in the university
> > world or energy companies or government or politicians... in short
> > is a hermit who lives 100 miles from the nearest person?
>
> This is a good point, and what it really shows that is you have to
> also expect a certain standard from people.
And what happens in public (e.g., political) debate is to continually
raise the bar of what standards are acceptable for information that
opposes one's own view or threatens one's own interests. This is
readily observed among science deniers like creationists and the
anti-global warming folks. The bar is very low for what they accept to
support their own contention and impossibly high for contrary data.
> The people who peer-reviewed Mann's original work didn't ask for the
> raw data or try to reproduce the conclusions using his method, but I
> don't find that surprising. If you're reviewing a paper you're just
> reading it and checking it's basically OK, not tearing it apart and
> putting it back together again, because you're not expecting fraud.
"Fraud" has not been shown. What's been shown is pettiness, temper,
excess competitiveness and righteousness.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091202/full/462551a.html
> If you work in the field, why would you replicate the work of another
> respected researcher? Better to build on the work of others and start
> on the next task.
You replicate the work to test it, verify or refute the findings.
That's basic science and is done all the time for very good reasons-
experimental design can be flawed, data analysis can be erroneous and
conclusions can be biased or false. Peer review is supposed to check
for this, of course, but even then sometimes anomalous measurements,
typographic errors, etc. can get through undetected. So scientists
double-check each others' work.
At some point, though, enough is enough. Once the findings have been
replicated, they become established science and then can become the
foundation for the next generation of research. Scientific progress is
iterative not linear.
There was an editorial written in the past couple of years, but I cannot
remember by whom, about the necessity of "scientific heretics." He or
she was right, of course- scientific heretics are absolutely essential
to scientific advancement. But they themselves must practice exemplary
science and all too often this is not the case.
Tim McNamara
Tom Sherman �_� <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <hf7cih$pjg$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Tom Sherman �_� <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>> [...] Chavez is arguably a left winger. And clearly a nutbar.
> >> Did you start watching the corporate USian media? First of all,
> >> Chavez has been ELECTED by the majority of the people of
> >> Venezuela, in elections internationally recognized as fair.
> >> Secondly, how is he a "nutbar" - for putting the interests of the
> >> people of Venezuela over foreign corporations and the fascist
> >> upper class?
> >
> > Read the texts of some of his speeches. He's a fruit loop.
>
> Compared to George Wanker Bush and Darth Cheney?
George was a bit of a nutjob himself; Cheney spouted actual evil.
Ben C
> On Dec 4, 8:30?am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>> On 2009-12-03, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <slrnhheueh.4rt.spams...@bowser.marioworld>,
>> [...]
>> >> I'm not convinced there are thousands of _independent_ researchers.
>> >> How many thousands of non-independent ones counts for nothing.
>>
>> > an oil company independent while someone who works for a university
>> > self-employed, has no income from anyone in the university world or
>> > energy companies or government or politicians... in short is a hermit
>> > who lives 100 miles from the nearest person?
>
> This is one of the silliest straw men I've ever seen.
>
>> This is a good point, and what it really shows that is you have to also
>> expect a certain standard from people.
>
> It isn't a point at all. It is very easy indeed to define scientific
> independence. It generally comes down to not having all your eggs in
> one basket, not being financially dependent on a single entity, on
> staying clear of politics. The arrogance of these climatologist in
> trying to dictate world policy is quite incredible.
>
>> The people who peer-reviewed Mann's original work didn't ask for the raw
>> data or try to reproduce the conclusions using his method, but I don't
>> find that surprising.
>
> Holy shit, Ben! The IPCC didn't do due diligence, the peer reviewers
> were Mann's student, co-authors and buddies, and then trillions were
> spent on policy made on the back of the hockey stick. That is not all.
> When outsiders (McIntyre & McKitrick) tried to do due diligence, the
> so-called scientists refused to give them the data, and the National
> Academy of Science set up a Panel under Gerald North to *defend*
> Mann's right not to answer to anyone! Does the stench of such
> corruption not offend you?
Damn right it offends me. But even if Mann's work hadn't just been reviewed
by his buddies (as it was) he still might have got away with it, because
as a peer-reviewer, you're looking for superficial mistakes, not
major fraud.
> How is this science? (North's Panel found exactly the same as Wegman,
> that Mann was at least incompetent and possibly a crook, and swore to
> that under oath before the Senate, and then permitted the newspapers
> to lie that their report vindicated Mann! What does that say about the
> profession of science?)
Well, as I've said before, the whole point of science is the actual
science needs to speak for itself.
Of course human nature being what is, that isn't always what happens.
[...]
> If trillions will be spent on policy made on the back of such papers,
> that is clearly many miles from enough. I'm totally amazed at your
> complaisance in this regard, Ben.
All I'm saying is that I don't set much store by peer-review at the best
of times. It's better than nothing (except for the false sense of
authority it is used to imply) but won't guarantee papers are right and
certainly can't be relied upon to identify fraud.
Really you need independent replication of the same results, where
independent at least means differently dependent.
>>not tearing it apart and putting it back
>> together again, because you're not expecting fraud.
>
> After distinguished academicians accused all the leaders of the
> climatology control clique of incompetence (back then there was no
> evidence of fraud, yet, and the flood of confessions are contained in
> Climategate), and stated that they colluded with the journals to pass
> this incompetent work off as "science" -- of course everyone should
> have altered the procedures. But the IPCC, the climatologists, the
> journals, the universities just went on the same old way, as if
> nothing had happened, and brushed off those who wanted to do due
> diligence on this science. The universities, fearful of losing
> prestige and grants, started covering up for the climatologists (not
> only in Britain, in the States too).
Above a certain level of seniority in a university it's a bigger
embarrassment to them to admit they let you get away with it for so long
so you get a whitewash.
Having said that, someone from GWPF (Nigel Lawson's skeptical
think-tank) has said the person they've appointed to investigate Jones
is a reasonably independent choice. So we shall see what comes out of
that.
Mann is now distancing himself from Jones, although I kind of think he
started it. Bastard!
> No other science has so many special pleadings. Any other science so
> obviously crooked would be closed down in the blink of an eyelid!
>
>> If you work in the field, why would you replicate the work of another
>> respected researcher?
>
> WTF? Of course the first step in falsifying it (a necessary scientific
> procedure) is to replicate his work to see that he applied his own
> algorithm correctly, then to discover whether the raw data in fact
> supports the algorithm he arrived at, then to discover whether any
> other raw data give better results either with his algorithm or a more
> suitable one.
If you just got a grant to do climate research at CRU and Jones was your
boss, do you think that would go down a bundle?
> The process is well described by McIntyre. It is a standard process in
> statistical work in the fields I'm familiar with, economics,
> demographics, psychology; even in their commercial end, market
> research, you always make spot checks both in the field and of the
> analysis, starting with the raw numbers and checking specifically that
> the algorithms are suitable.
Absolutely that is what should happen, and we owe a great debt to M&M
for doing it.
> (I cannot understand how the
> climatologists got away, and still get away, with their refusal to
> release their algorithms. Mann's crookery was in his algorithm as much
> as in his selection of known-unsuitable proxies selected to give the
> desired hockey stick. His crooked algorithm was exposed by reverse
> engineering by McIntyre.)
>
>>Better to build on the work of others and start on
>> the next task.
>
> Well then, Mann's hockey stick will be in the literature for all time
> as "science".
I think not for all time. The longer we wait the more obvious it will be
whether anthropogenic CO2 has any effect on climate or not.
Remember since about 1900 there have been cooling, warming, cooling
again and now warming scares.
> You may be right about the practice of science where it matters little
> and the cost of error is small. But climatology has made itself into a
> political "science" on which trillions hang, not to mention policies
> that will very likely kill hundreds of millions miserably by
> starvation, and it could be a planet-killer (in the 1970s similar
> clowns blew up a hysteria about an imminent ice age and wanted to heat
> up the oceans...). But, even without deliberate lies being exposed,
> the scientists aren't even checking the calculations on which all this
> is supposedly based?
>
> It won't do.
>
> It is no surprise that the whole affair blew up in their faces.
> Businessmen who conspired to defraud the public as grossly as these
> "scientists" would long since be in jail.
>
> The most sickening thing in the whole affair is the sang froid with
> which the entire scientific establishment simply accepts that
> scientists lie for political purposes, and that they have a special
> right to do so (that is the implication of the NAS setting up a panel
> to *defend* Mann after the Wegman Panel, also distinguished NAS
> members, condemned him), and that they should be permitted to
> persecute their critics.
All that sucks too, but hopefully the exposure will reduce people's
faith in scientism and thus restore some balance to the force.
Ben C
> In article <slrnhhhi4o....@bowser.marioworld>,
> Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>> This is a good point, and what it really shows that is you have to
>> also expect a certain standard from people.
>
> And what happens in public (e.g., political) debate is to continually
> raise the bar of what standards are acceptable for information that
> opposes one's own view or threatens one's own interests. This is
> readily observed among science deniers like creationists and the
> anti-global warming folks.
Lumping anti-GW folks together with creationists there I see. Still,
raising the bar for the opposition is better than lowering it for those
on your side, which is what the climate-fraud-deniers do.
> The bar is very low for what they accept to support their own
> contention and impossibly high for contrary data.
>> The people who peer-reviewed Mann's original work didn't ask for the
>> raw data or try to reproduce the conclusions using his method, but I
>> don't find that surprising. If you're reviewing a paper you're just
>> reading it and checking it's basically OK, not tearing it apart and
>> putting it back together again, because you're not expecting fraud.
>
> "Fraud" has not been shown. What's been shown is pettiness, temper,
> excess competitiveness and righteousness.
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091202/full/462551a.html
Those are about the emails (and the first one is ridiculously biased).
I'm referring to Mann's original hockey stick, which I think was fraud
rather than just gross incompetence.
Andre Jute
> On 2009-12-04, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> If you work in the field, why would you replicate the work of another
> >> respected researcher?
>
> > WTF? Of course the first step in falsifying it (a necessary scientific
> > procedure) is to replicate his work to see that he applied his own
> > algorithm correctly, then to discover whether the raw data in fact
> > supports the algorithm he arrived at, then to discover whether any
> > other raw data give better results either with his algorithm or a more
> > suitable one.
>
> If you just got a grant to do climate research at CRU and Jones was your
> boss, do you think that would go down a bundle?
Laughing so loudly, my coffee went everywhere. But yeah, that
demonstrates an element of "independence": if you have only three
major institutions working in field, incest soon seems normal. It's
another aspect of the "eggs in one basket" syndrome.
Andre Jute
Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science
landotter
> Those are about the emails (and the first one is ridiculously biased).
> I'm referring to Mann's original hockey stick, which I think was fraud
> rather than just gross incompetence.
You think that because you're a tool who will believe whatever your
political faction tells you. Seeing as there's no evidence of fraud or
incompetence.
It's quite common for the scientifically minded to pride themselves in
changing their minds when presented with evidence that contradicts
their held opinion. So why has not a single scientific body that's not
a tool of the wackadoodle right come out favoring your opinion?
Because they use evidence--not right wing authoritarian thinking.
Andre Jute
> On Dec 4, 3:12 pm, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>
> > Mann's original hockey stick, which I think was fraud
> > rather than just gross incompetence.
>
> You think that because you're a tool who will believe whatever your
> political faction tells you. Seeing as there's no evidence of fraud or
> incompetence.
Huh? Two committees of the National Academy of Science found Mann
incompetent. These are the findings of the NAS Panel under Gerald
North, which was constituted specifically to *defend* Mann but found
the evidence of his incompetence too strong to lie for him:
*** the principal components method by which Hockey Stick was achieved
was flawed
***RE tests are insufficient for statistical significance (i.e. the
Hockey Stick has zero meaning)
***Mann's Hockey Stick depends on bristlecone proxies which are known
to be unreliable
***Such strip bark forms should be “avoided” in reconstruction
This is a comprehensive condemnation of a statistical report, stated
politely. (In plain English, Mann was either incompetent or
deliberately cooked up a politically desirable result.)
The NAS Panel under Gerald North, a distinguished climatologist, was
set up specifically to counter the Wegman Panel,
which had been commissioned by the US Senate to investigate Michael
Mann's statistical credibility, and had found it to be zero
Certainly, to
support a multi-trillion policy, for which purpose the Mann Hockey
Stick was put forward by IPCC, one would expect at least enthusiastic
support from a scientist's peers, especially from a panel which was
constituted specifically to support Mann against Wegman.
North and his panel then also called before the Senate, together with
Wegman. The members of the NAS panel were asked under oath if they
wished to dispute the Wegman findings (which condemned Mann as an
incompetent -- see below), and this interesting dialogue ensued:
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions [about the
Mann papers] or the methodology of Dr. Wegman's report?
DR. NORTH. No, we don't. We don't disagree with their
criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.
DR. BLOOMFIELD [statistician to the NAS Panel]. Our committee reviewed
the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that
some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same
misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length
by Dr. Wegman.
WALLACE: The two reports were complementary, and to
the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite
consistent.
In short, the NAS committee -- set up to support Mann -- agreed item
by item with Wegman's devastating condemnation of the man and his
methods as totally incompetent. I quote only two paragraphs of
Wegman's comprehensive indictment of Mann:
'The controversy of Mann’s methods lies in that the proxies are
centered on the mean of the period 1902-1995, rather than on the whole
time period. This mean is, thus, actually decentered low, which will
cause it to exhibit a larger variance, giving it preference for being
selected as the first principal component. The net effect of this
decentering using the proxy data in MBH98 and MBH99 is to produce a
“hockey stick” shape.' In short, Mann set out to produce a hockey
stick for political reasons and pre-selected and weighed his data to
produce a hockey stick. Later Dr Wegman added that this was
"politically convenient" -- scientific language for an accusation of
cooking data and lying about it.
The Wegman report executive summary concludes with a total,
contemptuous dismissal of Mann's Hockey Stick:
'Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the
decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that
1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his
analysis.'
And Dr North and everone else on the NAS Panel agreed under oath to
every word of that and more.
That was prophetic testimony, as reports were already in the pipeline
that applying Mann's algorithm, which Wegman had condemned so roundly,
to random red noise also produced a Hockey Stick. Every time. If
random inputs can duplicate your "science", it is cargo cult science.
Speak into the tennis ball, Dr Mann.
With Mann and his Hockey Stick totally discredited, Medieval Warm
Period and the Little Ice Age remain, and while they
stand Global Warming is a joke. That, of course, is why the Global
Warmies, like Michael Mann, expend so much energy to lie these
historical phenomena out of existence.
Andre Jute
Reformed petrol head
Car-free since 1992
Greener than thou!
Tim McNamara
Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> On 2009-12-04, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > In article <slrnhhhi4o....@bowser.marioworld>,
> > Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> [...]
> >> This is a good point, and what it really shows that is you have to
> >> also expect a certain standard from people.
> >
> > And what happens in public (e.g., political) debate is to
> > continually raise the bar of what standards are acceptable for
> > information that opposes one's own view or threatens one's own
> > interests. This is readily observed among science deniers like
> > creationists and the anti-global warming folks.
>
> Lumping anti-GW folks together with creationists there I see. Still,
> raising the bar for the opposition is better than lowering it for
> those on your side, which is what the climate-fraud-deniers do.
Yup. The science is clear, Ben, whether you like it or not.
> > The bar is very low for what they accept to support their own
> > contention and impossibly high for contrary data.
>
> >> The people who peer-reviewed Mann's original work didn't ask for
> >> the raw data or try to reproduce the conclusions using his method,
> >> but I don't find that surprising. If you're reviewing a paper
> >> you're just reading it and checking it's basically OK, not tearing
> >> it apart and putting it back together again, because you're not
> >> expecting fraud.
> >
> > "Fraud" has not been shown. What's been shown is pettiness,
> > temper, excess competitiveness and righteousness.
> >
> > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
> >
> > http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091202/full/462551a.html
>
> Those are about the emails (and the first one is ridiculously
> biased). I'm referring to Mann's original hockey stick, which I think
> was fraud rather than just gross incompetence.
Have you ever seen the mythical hockey stick, Ben? The graphs I've seen
look like sawtooth blades not hockey sticks, with one really tall tooth
developing over the past 100 or so years. This is the pattern of the
temperature graphs, the CO2 graphs, etc.
There is more to the global warming than Mann, Ben. Get over it.
Sandy
> In article<slrnhhiuoj....@bowser.marioworld>,
>
> There is more to the global warming than Mann, Ben. Get over it.
Yes, but let's put this in shorter lines.
I read and linked (here) to an article, some months ago, where it was
reported that about 35% of graduate students and post-docs admitted to
having fudged or invented data in support of their research papers.
Figure those admitted fraud easily. Logically, another 35% of the
remaining 65% lied at this second level of inquiry.
Dumping or inventing data rises to the level of professional cheating.
And what do we think of the pro cyclists? That even if not caught, a
good number of them dope. And we use inferences to condemn and
disqualify them, not even direct "scientific" proof.
So as the data supplied is a key factor in coming to conclusions, the
reliability of this data is in question.
If global warming is real, whether or not it is well argued, then it's
really sad to think that ideologues are running the show. To the point
that the threat of annihilation appears about as close as the date for
the sun to go supernova.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
-
"Our knowledge is a little island in a great ocean of non-knowledge."
- Edward O. Wilson
Tim McNamara
Sandy <leu...@free.fr> wrote:
> On 04-Dec-09 19:02, Tim McNamara a bien r�fl�chi et puis a
> d�clar�...:
> > In article<slrnhhiuoj....@bowser.marioworld>,
>
>
> >
> > There is more to the global warming than Mann, Ben. Get over it.
>
> Yes, but let's put this in shorter lines.
Which you then didn't do.
> I read and linked (here) to an article, some months ago, where it was
> reported that about 35% of graduate students and post-docs admitted
> to having fudged or invented data in support of their research
> papers.
>
> Figure those admitted fraud easily. Logically, another 35% of the
> remaining 65% lied at this second level of inquiry.
"Logically?" No, "assumptively" would be the correct term. Assumed
without a shred of supporting evidence. Who's fudging now?
> Dumping or inventing data rises to the level of professional
> cheating. And what do we think of the pro cyclists? That even if not
> caught, a good number of them dope. And we use inferences to condemn
> and disqualify them, not even direct "scientific" proof.
>
> So as the data supplied is a key factor in coming to conclusions, the
> reliability of this data is in question.
Your entire chain of illogic is in greater question.
> If global warming is real, whether or not it is well argued, then
> it's really sad to think that ideologues are running the show. To
> the point that the threat of annihilation appears about as close as
> the date for the sun to go supernova.
"Idealogues" are attempting to run the show; science is refuting them.
Ben C
> In article <slrnhhiuoj....@bowser.marioworld>,
[...]
>> Those are about the emails (and the first one is ridiculously
>> biased). I'm referring to Mann's original hockey stick, which I think
>> was fraud rather than just gross incompetence.
>
> Have you ever seen the mythical hockey stick, Ben? The graphs I've seen
> look like sawtooth blades not hockey sticks, with one really tall tooth
> developing over the past 100 or so years.
OK, sawtooths with a one really tall tooth if that's what you want to
call it.
> This is the pattern of the temperature graphs, the CO2 graphs, etc.
>
> There is more to the global warming than Mann, Ben.
But is there? There are three other temperature histories beside the
discredited Hadley CRU one.
One is NASA's, which has already been disputed, and looks likely to be
the work of the same clique (i.e. Mann).
The other two are satellite records. These don't show any anomalous
warming or evidence that CO2 has caused the warming (although no doubt
you can find some crap on realclimate.org that claims they do after
they've been "recalibrated" and "adjusted").
Ben C
> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> considered Fri, 04 Dec 2009
[...]
>>There is more to the global warming than Mann, Ben. Get over it.
>
I'm curious which religion in particular I'm being accused of.
Most of the traditional ones have decided syncretism with the new kid on
the block is the best form of defence.
Sandy
> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 23:11:20 -0600, Sandy<leu...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>> I read and linked (here) to an article, some months ago, where it was
>> reported that about 35% of graduate students and post-docs admitted to
>> having fudged or invented data in support of their research papers.
>>
>> Figure those admitted fraud easily. Logically, another 35% of the
>> remaining 65% lied at this second level of inquiry.
>>
>> Dumping or inventing data rises to the level of professional cheating.
>
> "another 35%".
>
> Irony is so ironic.
To observe two things:
- you apparently feel that a dishonesty rate of 35% is fine
- you would accept as proven false data and conclusions from admitted liars.
Note that I provided no data at all.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
-
The belief in a relation of cause and effect is a superstition.
Wittgenstein, L
Tractatus logico-philosophicus
Sandy
>> déclaré...:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> There is more to the global warming than Mann, Ben. Get over it.
>>
>> Yes, but let's put this in shorter lines.
>
> Which you then didn't do.
Now I have good reason to doubt your capacity to read.
>> I read and linked (here) to an article, some months ago, where it was
>> reported that about 35% of graduate students and post-docs admitted
>> to having fudged or invented data in support of their research
>> papers.
>>
>> Figure those admitted fraud easily. Logically, another 35% of the
>> remaining 65% lied at this second level of inquiry.
>
> "Logically?" No, "assumptively" would be the correct term. Assumed
> without a shred of supporting evidence. Who's fudging now?
I see. So you would accept the presentation of false data as true, and
you would also accept the derived conclusions as true. At least 35% of
the time. If a class of people is known to admit to lying 35% of the
time, when they first stated that they were conveying the truth, then
you believe that the remainder are being honest? That, although at the
outset, 100% asked you to put unwavering faith in them?
>> Dumping or inventing data rises to the level of professional
>> cheating. And what do we think of the pro cyclists? That even if not
>> caught, a good number of them dope. And we use inferences to condemn
>> and disqualify them, not even direct "scientific" proof.
>>
>> So as the data supplied is a key factor in coming to conclusions, the
>> reliability of this data is in question.
>
> Your entire chain of illogic is in greater question.
Just because you suggest it is? Besides your flat statement, just where
does the logic fail? Are there no racers who cheat? Who dope? Who lie?
Or are the ones who admit to doping lying? Or are there no false
positives? Or what?
>> If global warming is real, whether or not it is well argued, then
>> it's really sad to think that ideologues are running the show. To
>> the point that the threat of annihilation appears about as close as
>> the date for the sun to go supernova.
>
> "Idealogues" are attempting to run the show; science is refuting them.
You object to my spelling? Is the dictionary you would refer to more
honest than mine? I usually admire marriage, but you are wedded
inflexibly to a spouse which is known to cheat. For your internal
harmony, I wish you the best, but it may be worth your while to admit to
a bit of a blind eye, even if the basic relationship is worth preserving.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
-
- "Someone who knows too much finds it hard not to lie.”"
- Wittgenstein, L.
landotter
> On 2009-12-05, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
> >> Those are about the emails (and the first one is ridiculously
> >> biased). I'm referring to Mann's original hockey stick, which I think
> >> was fraud rather than just gross incompetence.
>
> > Have you ever seen the mythical hockey stick, Ben? The graphs I've seen
> > look like sawtooth blades not hockey sticks, with one really tall tooth
> > developing over the past 100 or so years.
>
> OK, sawtooths with a one really tall tooth if that's what you want to
> call it.
>
> > This is the pattern of the temperature graphs, the CO2 graphs, etc.
>
> > There is more to the global warming than Mann, Ben.
>
> But is there? There are three other temperature histories beside the
> discredited Hadley CRU one.
>
That would be a lie. It has not been discredited. People with a
political agenda have lied about it. Learn the difference.
> One is NASA's, which has already been disputed, and looks likely to be
> the work of the same clique (i.e. Mann).
>
> The other two are satellite records. These don't show any anomalous
> warming or evidence that CO2 has caused the warming (although no doubt
> you can find some crap on realclimate.org that claims they do after
> they've been "recalibrated" and "adjusted").
>
> Seehttp://www.uah.edu/News/climatebackground.php
A link to a cranky wingnut scientist in Alabama? Holy schmoley! How
about I link to an Estonian physicist who believes in the elves in my
shorts?
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
Does he do leg presses with Pat Robertson?
:fingermustache:
:bellamy:
Tim McNamara
Sandy <leu...@free.fr> wrote:
> On 05-Dec-09 00:05, Tim McNamara a bien r�fl�chi et puis a
> d�clar�...:
> > In article<4b19eb82$0$22190$426a...@news.free.fr>,
> > Sandy<leu...@free.fr> wrote:
> >
> >> On 04-Dec-09 19:02, Tim McNamara a bien r�fl�chi et puis a
> >> d�clar�...:
> >>> In article<slrnhhiuoj....@bowser.marioworld>,
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> There is more to the global warming than Mann, Ben. Get over it.
> >>
> >> Yes, but let's put this in shorter lines.
> >
> > Which you then didn't do.
>
> Now I have good reason to doubt your capacity to read.
Dude? One line from me versus about 20 lines from you. 20 is not
"shorter" lines than one.
> >> I read and linked (here) to an article, some months ago, where it
> >> was reported that about 35% of graduate students and post-docs
> >> admitted to having fudged or invented data in support of their
> >> research papers.
> >>
> >> Figure those admitted fraud easily. Logically, another 35% of the
> >> remaining 65% lied at this second level of inquiry.
> >
> > "Logically?" No, "assumptively" would be the correct term. Assumed
> > without a shred of supporting evidence. Who's fudging now?
>
> I see. So you would accept the presentation of false data as true,
> and you would also accept the derived conclusions as true. At least
> 35% of the time. If a class of people is known to admit to lying 35%
> of the time, when they first stated that they were conveying the
> truth, then you believe that the remainder are being honest? That,
> although at the outset, 100% asked you to put unwavering faith in
> them?
No, I reject your baseless assumption that up to of 50% of climate
researchers (or researchers in general) are lying or fraudulent. If
you're going to make that "logical" assumption, then you'd better be
able to back it up. Where's your proof?
> >> Dumping or inventing data rises to the level of professional
> >> cheating. And what do we think of the pro cyclists? That even if
> >> not caught, a good number of them dope. And we use inferences to
> >> condemn and disqualify them, not even direct "scientific" proof.
> >>
> >> So as the data supplied is a key factor in coming to conclusions,
> >> the reliability of this data is in question.
> >
> > Your entire chain of illogic is in greater question.
>
> Just because you suggest it is? Besides your flat statement, just
> where does the logic fail? Are there no racers who cheat? Who dope?
> Who lie? Or are the ones who admit to doping lying? Or are there no
> false positives? Or what?
Now you're dancing and skirting the issue. Don't waste my time.
> >> If global warming is real, whether or not it is well argued, then
> >> it's really sad to think that ideologues are running the show. To
> >> the point that the threat of annihilation appears about as close
> >> as the date for the sun to go supernova.
> >
> > "Idealogues" are attempting to run the show; science is refuting
> > them.
>
> You object to my spelling? Is the dictionary you would refer to more
> honest than mine? I usually admire marriage, but you are wedded
> inflexibly to a spouse which is known to cheat. For your internal
> harmony, I wish you the best, but it may be worth your while to admit
> to a bit of a blind eye, even if the basic relationship is worth
> preserving.
Try thinking linearly and logically rather than in ridiculous similes.
Tim McNamara
Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> On 2009-12-05, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > In article <slrnhhiuoj....@bowser.marioworld>,
> [...]
> >> Those are about the emails (and the first one is ridiculously
> >> biased). I'm referring to Mann's original hockey stick, which I
> >> think was fraud rather than just gross incompetence.
> >
> > Have you ever seen the mythical hockey stick, Ben? The graphs I've
> > seen look like sawtooth blades not hockey sticks, with one really
> > tall tooth developing over the past 100 or so years.
>
> OK, sawtooths with a one really tall tooth if that's what you want to
> call it.
It's important to discuss facts and not keep putting up straw man
arguments, which is unfortunately the standard tactic these days of the
deniers.
> > This is the pattern of the temperature graphs, the CO2 graphs, etc.
> >
> > There is more to the global warming than Mann, Ben.
>
> But is there? There are three other temperature histories beside the
> discredited Hadley CRU one.
So you've just agreed with me that there is more to global warming than
Mann.
> One is NASA's, which has already been disputed, and looks likely to
> be the work of the same clique (i.e. Mann).
Mann is in England. NASA has its own climate research division (which
BTW was basically stopped from operating and publishing during the Bush
Administration because their findings were not what was wanted).
> The other two are satellite records. These don't show any anomalous
> warming or evidence that CO2 has caused the warming (although no
> doubt you can find some crap on realclimate.org that claims they do
> after they've been "recalibrated" and "adjusted").
>
> See http://www.uah.edu/News/climatebackground.php
I haven't had time to look at that yet.
Andre Jute
This is Maxine Otter's idea of a wingnut? Seems to me the Dr Christy
has impeccable climatological credentials:
"Dr. John R. Christy is professor of atmospheric science and director
of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in
Huntsville, where he began studying global climate issues in 1987.
"In 1989 Dr. Roy W. Spencer (then a space scientist at NASA's Marshall
Space Flight Center and now a principle research scientist at UAH) and
Christy developed a global temperature dataset from microwave data
observed from satellites beginning in November 1978.
"For this achievement, Spencer and Christy were awarded NASA's Medal
for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991. In 1996 they received
a special award by the American Meteorological Society "for developing
a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-
orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor
climate." In January 2002 Christy was inducted as a fellow of the
American Meteorological Society.
"Christy has served as a contributor (1992, 1994 and 1996) and lead
author (2001) for the U.N. reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, in which the satellite temperatures were included as a
high-quality data set for studying global climate change. He has or is
serving on five National Research Council panels or committees, has
performed research funded by NASA, NOAA, DOE, DOT and the State of
Alabama and has published studies appearing in Science, Nature, the
Journal of Climate and The Journal of Geophysical Research. He has
testified before several congressional committees.
"In November 2000 Gov. Don Siegelman appointed him to be Alabama's
state climatologist."
How can a lead author for an IPCC assessment, and a contributor to
three other IPCC assessments be a "wingnut"?
It seems like you, dear Maxine, not only want to select from which
science you believe by the presumed politics of the scientists, now
you even want to select among the IPCC lead writers according to
whether they feed your presumptions or disagree with your prejudices.
That's not science, that's scientology.
You should have paid attention, my dear, when I explained to you for
two years now that what you saw on television came from the Summary
for Policymakers, written by bureaucrats with an agenda, and that the
majority of even the IPCC's scientists never believed for a moment in
global warming, that global warming was entirely the manmade construct
of the paleoclimatalogical clique of now disgraced liars and crooks
led by Mann and Jones, stars of Climategate.
To summarize, here we have an IPCC insider, in charge of one of the
four official streams of global temperature measurements, and he says
there is no manmade global warming, and if there were we couldn't
influence it by buggering around with carbon emissions, and what we
have done so far (Kyoto etc) or will do at Copenhagen will have no
measurable effect. But Maxine (zero degrees, zero prizes, zero track
record) knows better...
[Juvenile hysterics snipped]
Andre Jute
Just the facts, mam.
Andre Jute
> In article <slrnhhkbco.484.spams...@bowser.marioworld>,> > > In article <slrnhhiuoj.37i.spams...@bowser.marioworld>,
> > [...]
> > >> Those are about the emails (and the first one is ridiculously
> > >> biased). I'm referring to Mann's original hockey stick, which I
> > >> think was fraud rather than just gross incompetence.
>
> > > Have you ever seen the mythical hockey stick, Ben? The graphs I've
> > > seen look like sawtooth blades not hockey sticks, with one really
> > > tall tooth developing over the past 100 or so years.
>
> > OK, sawtooths with a one really tall tooth if that's what you want to
> > call it.
>
> It's important to discuss facts and not keep putting up straw man
> arguments, which is unfortunately the standard tactic these days of the
> deniers.
>
> > > This is the pattern of the temperature graphs, the CO2 graphs, etc.
>
> > > There is more to the global warming than Mann, Ben.
>
> > But is there? There are three other temperature histories beside the
> > discredited Hadley CRU one.
>
> So you've just agreed with me that there is more to global warming than
> Mann.
>
> > One is NASA's, which has already been disputed, and looks likely to
> > be the work of the same clique (i.e. Mann).
>
> Mann is in England.
Do you actually know who these people are, Timmie? Mann is at the
State University of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania was in the United
States the last time I looked.
And how does the fact that any lying paleoclimatologist is in England,
or Outer Mongolia for that matter, absolve the IPCC in New York from
having published lies about global warming after they weere exposed.
>NASA has its own climate research division (which
> BTW was basically stopped from operating and publishing during the Bush
> Administration because their findings were not what was wanted).
Actually, the researchers whose work you won't read (below) are ex-
NASA, and decorated by NASA for scientific excellence, and they say
there is no manmade global warming.
> > The other two are satellite records. These don't show any anomalous
> > warming or evidence that CO2 has caused the warming (although no
> > doubt you can find some crap on realclimate.org that claims they do
> > after they've been "recalibrated" and "adjusted").
>
> > Seehttp://www.uah.edu/News/climatebackground.php
>
> I haven't had time to look at that yet.
And will forever pretend that you haven't because it is inarguable
science from a NASA and an IPCC insider and lead author, clearly
concluding *on the science* that there is no manmade global warming.
It is not Ben and I who are the deniers, it is Little Timmie McNamara
and the cohorts of leftover marxists who found in global warming
another religion and another stick to beat capitalism.
Andre Jute
Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science -- and I
said it long before the Climategate exposed those clowns as crooks
Ben C
> On Dec 5, 3:53�am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>> On 2009-12-05, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <slrnhhiuoj.37i.spams...@bowser.marioworld>,
>> [...]
>> >> Those are about the emails (and the first one is ridiculously
>> >> biased). I'm referring to Mann's original hockey stick, which I think
>> >> was fraud rather than just gross incompetence.
>>
>> > Have you ever seen the mythical hockey stick, Ben? �The graphs I've seen
>> > look like sawtooth blades not hockey sticks, with one really tall tooth
>> > developing over the past 100 or so years.
>>
>> OK, sawtooths with a one really tall tooth if that's what you want to
>> call it.
>>
>> > This is the pattern of the temperature graphs, the CO2 graphs, etc.
>>
>> > There is more to the global warming than Mann, Ben.
>>
>> But is there? There are three other temperature histories beside the
>> discredited Hadley CRU one.
>>
> That would be a lie. It has not been discredited. People with a
> political agenda have lied about it. Learn the difference.
Yes people with a political agenda have lied about it-- that's how they
discredited themselves.
>> One is NASA's, which has already been disputed, and looks likely to be
>> the work of the same clique (i.e. Mann).
>>
>> The other two are satellite records. These don't show any anomalous
>> warming or evidence that CO2 has caused the warming (although no doubt
>> you can find some crap on realclimate.org that claims they do after
>> they've been "recalibrated" and "adjusted").
>>
>> Seehttp://www.uah.edu/News/climatebackground.php
>
> A link to a cranky wingnut scientist in Alabama? Holy schmoley!
Not a cranky wingnut by any stretch of the imagination. See Jute's reply.
> How about I link to an Estonian physicist who believes in the elves in
> my shorts?
Please do! But I don't know what you've got against Alabamans or
Estonians.
Ben C
> In article <slrnhhkbco....@bowser.marioworld>,
> Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-12-05, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>> > In article <slrnhhiuoj....@bowser.marioworld>,
>> [...]
>> >> Those are about the emails (and the first one is ridiculously
>> >> biased). I'm referring to Mann's original hockey stick, which I
>> >> think was fraud rather than just gross incompetence.
>> >
>> > Have you ever seen the mythical hockey stick, Ben? The graphs I've
>> > seen look like sawtooth blades not hockey sticks, with one really
>> > tall tooth developing over the past 100 or so years.
>>
>> OK, sawtooths with a one really tall tooth if that's what you want to
>> call it.
>
> It's important to discuss facts and not keep putting up straw man
> arguments, which is unfortunately the standard tactic these days of the
> deniers.
I think the term "hockey stick" was originally coined and is still used
by the warmists, not by the deniers. So it's hardly a straw man.
>> > This is the pattern of the temperature graphs, the CO2 graphs, etc.
>> >
>> > There is more to the global warming than Mann, Ben.
>>
>> But is there? There are three other temperature histories beside the
>> discredited Hadley CRU one.
>
> So you've just agreed with me that there is more to global warming than
> Mann.
>
>> One is NASA's, which has already been disputed, and looks likely to
>> be the work of the same clique (i.e. Mann).
>
> Mann is in England.
I hope not, but he may be trying to evade arrest here. Last I heard he
was on his way from Penn State to State Pen.
> NASA has its own climate research division (which
> BTW was basically stopped from operating and publishing during the Bush
> Administration because their findings were not what was wanted).
Plenty of emails to and fro between Hadley CRU and Nasa GISS discussing
how to make sure their "independent" temperature records would correlate.
>> The other two are satellite records. These don't show any anomalous
>> warming or evidence that CO2 has caused the warming (although no
>> doubt you can find some crap on realclimate.org that claims they do
>> after they've been "recalibrated" and "adjusted").
>>
>> See http://www.uah.edu/News/climatebackground.php
>
> I haven't had time to look at that yet.
Not long, and definitely worth a read.
Sandy
>> déclaré...:
>>>> déclaré...:
>>>>> In article<slrnhhiuoj....@bowser.marioworld>,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is more to the global warming than Mann, Ben. Get over it.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but let's put this in shorter lines.
>>>
>>> Which you then didn't do.
>>
>> Now I have good reason to doubt your capacity to read.
>
> Dude? One line from me versus about 20 lines from you. 20 is not
> "shorter" lines than one.
At the point I wrote, it was my first message; contrast that with the
ceaseless, condescending diatribe you have offered.
>
>>>> I read and linked (here) to an article, some months ago, where it
>>>> was reported that about 35% of graduate students and post-docs
>>>> admitted to having fudged or invented data in support of their
>>>> research papers.
>>>>
>>>> Figure those admitted fraud easily. Logically, another 35% of the
>>>> remaining 65% lied at this second level of inquiry.
>>>
>>> "Logically?" No, "assumptively" would be the correct term. Assumed
>>> without a shred of supporting evidence. Who's fudging now?
>>
>> I see. So you would accept the presentation of false data as true,
>> and you would also accept the derived conclusions as true. At least
>> 35% of the time. If a class of people is known to admit to lying 35%
>> of the time, when they first stated that they were conveying the
>> truth, then you believe that the remainder are being honest? That,
>> although at the outset, 100% asked you to put unwavering faith in
>> them?
>
> No, I reject your baseless assumption that up to of 50% of climate
> researchers (or researchers in general) are lying or fraudulent. If
> you're going to make that "logical" assumption, then you'd better be
> able to back it up. Where's your proof?
I suppose you are claiming that none have done so. Are the climate guys
so angelic? The clumsy lie is easily found out. The more clever ones
can escape detection a long time. On both sides of this issue.
>
>>>> Dumping or inventing data rises to the level of professional
>>>> cheating. And what do we think of the pro cyclists? That even if
>>>> not caught, a good number of them dope. And we use inferences to
>>>> condemn and disqualify them, not even direct "scientific" proof.
>>>>
>>>> So as the data supplied is a key factor in coming to conclusions,
>>>> the reliability of this data is in question.
>>>
>>> Your entire chain of illogic is in greater question.
>>
>> Just because you suggest it is? Besides your flat statement, just
>> where does the logic fail? Are there no racers who cheat? Who dope?
>> Who lie? Or are the ones who admit to doping lying? Or are there no
>> false positives? Or what?
>
> Now you're dancing and skirting the issue. Don't waste my time.
Don't read me.
>>>> If global warming is real, whether or not it is well argued, then
>>>> it's really sad to think that ideologues are running the show. To
>>>> the point that the threat of annihilation appears about as close
>>>> as the date for the sun to go supernova.
>>>
>>> "Idealogues" are attempting to run the show; science is refuting
>>> them.
>>
>> You object to my spelling? Is the dictionary you would refer to more
>> honest than mine? I usually admire marriage, but you are wedded
>> inflexibly to a spouse which is known to cheat. For your internal
>> harmony, I wish you the best, but it may be worth your while to admit
>> to a bit of a blind eye, even if the basic relationship is worth
>> preserving.
>
> Try thinking linearly and logically rather than in ridiculous similes.
Linear thinking can keep you bottled up in the wrong direction.
Logically, my stuff is fine. I'm sorry if my last line struck home.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
-
“Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts
from reliable figures.”
Essar, E.