Once again for the record, there is no 'Climategate'

[riddler 0]

But I'm sure people will repeat it ad nauseum, forever. I still hear about how Al Gore said he invented the Internet.

Quote

London, England (CNN) -- An independent report released Wednesday into the leaked "Climategate" e-mails found no evidence to question the "rigor and honesty" of scientists involved.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/07/07/climategate.email.review/index.html?hpt=T2&fbid=z0NU05I1SWK

But good show from the right-wing spin machine. Next up, "why oil in the Gulf is really good for the marine wildlife."

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

But good show from the right left-wing spin machine.

Fixed that for you.

Quote

Next up, "why oil in the Gulf changing the data to fit the hypothesis is really good for marine wildlife the scientific method.

Fixed that for you, too.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,898]

Good to see your knee is still in good shape.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Good to see your knee is still in good shape.

Man you want to make sure you never get in front of that thang

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Good to see your knee is still in good shape.

Yours is in even better shape, evidently. Lemme know when they come up with how mankind caused the Medieval, Roman and Minoan warm periods, ok? That is, of course, once Mann and his collegues actually admit that they happened.

From an op-ed in the Telegraph (emphasis mine):

Quote

The Russell review got off to a bad start. Within hours of its launch last February, Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature (the magazine referred to in “Mike’s Nature trick” which also published the Hockey Stick graph), had to resign from the inquiry because of remarks he had made in an interview on Chinese State Radio, in which he said: “The scientists have not hidden the data. If you look at the emails there is one or two bits of language that are jargon used between professionals that suggest something to outsiders that is wrong. In fact the only problem there has been is on some official restrictions on their ability to disseminate data otherwise they have behaved as researchers should.”

Some people took the narrow-minded view that this suggested Campbell had prejudged the issue, so he had to go. Why did Sir Muir Russell think that Campbell was a suitable person to have on the inquiry panel in the first place? A press release claimed of the panel members: “They were selected on the basis that they have no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science and for the contribution they can make to the issues of the review.”

Pielke disagrees, as well:

Quote

It is not the job of the IPCC authors to serve as selective arbiters of the peer reviewed literature and judge which peer reviewed science they agree with and disagree with. This only invites extra-scientific considerations into the assessment process and a cherrypicking of the literature, rather than a considered assessment. The job of the IPCC should be exactly as it says it is -- to produce a comprehensive, balanced and complete review of the relevant literature. If the IPCC finds itself in a situation where its author team reflects a perspective represented by only a subset of the literature, then the IPCC has a problem.

The released East Anglia emails -- for better or worse -- revealed some problems associated with in-group control of parts of the IPCC. Muir Russell's sanctioning of in group behavior in the preparation of IPCC reports is a notable shortfall in what otherwise appears to be a nuanced and comprehensive assessment of the implications of the East Anglia emails.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Good to see your knee is still in good shape.

Man you want to make sure you never get in front of that thang

How's the flooding you predicted coming, what with the Greenland glaciers predicted to melt in...twelve thousand years, wasn't it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[winsor 235]

Quote

But I'm sure people will repeat it ad nauseum, forever. I still hear about how Al Gore said he invented the Internet.

Quote

London, England (CNN) -- An independent report released Wednesday into the leaked "Climategate" e-mails found no evidence to question the "rigor and honesty" of scientists involved.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/07/07/climategate.email.review/index.html?hpt=T2&fbid=z0NU05I1SWK

But good show from the right-wing spin machine. Next up, "why oil in the Gulf is really good for the marine wildlife."

Nice try.

WSJ

[riddler 0]

Quote

Nice try. WSJ

Hmm - an article from a magazine that's owned by Rupert Murdoch (owner of Fox News), and at the top, the blaring text that says OPINION, from an author that "... is another of the handful of U.S. climate-change contrarians … He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science."

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[riddler 0]

And now for some real science.

Here comes the global warming.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[penniless 0]

Quote

Quote

But I'm sure people will repeat it ad nauseum, forever. I still hear about how Al Gore said he invented the Internet.

Quote

London, England (CNN) -- An independent report released Wednesday into the leaked "Climategate" e-mails found no evidence to question the "rigor and honesty" of scientists involved.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/07/07/climategate.email.review/index.html?hpt=T2&fbid=z0NU05I1SWK

But good show from the right-wing spin machine. Next up, "why oil in the Gulf is really good for the marine wildlife."

Nice try.

WSJ

Unfortunately, since Murdoch's group took over, the WSJ and the London Times have become about as reliable as Fox News.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Nice try. WSJ

Hmm - an article from a magazine that's owned by Rupert Murdoch (owner of Fox News), and at the top, the blaring text that says OPINION, from an author that "... is another of the handful of U.S. climate-change contrarians … He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science."

Hmmm.... an investigation, chaired by a person selected by CRU, that clears them....funny that the story you linked didn't mention that.

Hmmmmm....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

And now for some real science.

Here comes the global warming.

Guess there wasn't as much to be made in grants from the Global Cooling scare:

Quote

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

Quote

NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who has publicly criticized the Bush administration for dragging its feet on climate change and labeled skeptics of man-made global warming as distracting "court jesters," appears in a 1971 Washington Post article that warns of an impending ice age within 50 years.

"U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming," blares the headline of the July 9, 1971, article, which cautions readers that the world "could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts."

The scientist was S.I.Rasool, a colleague of Mr. Hansen's at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The article goes on to say that Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus.

Plus ca change, plus c'est le meme chose

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[riddler 0]

Quote

chaired by a person selected by CRU

So, you want an independent organization to select the chairman of the independent investigation team? But who should select the independent organization that does the selection?

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[riddler 0]

Quote

Plus ca change, plus c'est le meme chose

Is that the new "Freedom" language?

But you're correct, the more facts from scientists, the more other people make up stories:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

Quote

Skeptics: The media had been spreading warnings of a cooling period since the 1950s, but those alarms grew louder in the 1970s.

Science: The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

So, you want an independent organization to select the chairman of the independent investigation team?

I want someone OTHER than CRU to choose who is going to chair the investigation, yes.

Quote

But you're correct, the more facts from scientists, the more other people make up stories:

Would that be scientists like NOAA, NASA, the Academy of Science and even Obama's 'Science Czar', Dr. Holden, all of which published papers or reports on cooling in the 70s?

Or just any old person that doesn't believe the Gore-acle®?

Quote

Science: The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.

Yippee for them - people in the 20's talked about the catastrophic warming - coming to a point sometime soon?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[champu 1]

Quote

Hmmm.... an investigation, chaired by a person selected by CRU, that clears them....funny that the story you linked didn't mention that.

Hmmmmm....

That actually brings up a good point for any company or organization stressing "strong ethics and avoiding even the perception of unethical behavior due to conflicts of interest."

The best way to ensure that is to mandate, "you know what, just don't have any friends... in fact... don't look at anyone either. Live at your desk."

[riddler 0]

Quote

coming to a point sometime soon?

You kinda have to read the article to understand the point. When the vast majority of scientists say one thing, but you want to point out a small minority of contrarians as evidence that all scientists are wrong ... then there's probably more emotion than logic in your argument. From the article:

Quote

A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[billvon 2,898]

>Yippee for them - people in the 20's talked about the catastrophic
>warming - coming to a point sometime soon?

That people who claim "Scientists in the 70's predicted global cooling so they're just as wrong as scientists predicting global warming now" are completely full of shit. Simple, really.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Yippee for them - people in the 20's talked about the catastrophic
>warming - coming to a point sometime soon?

That people who claim "Scientists in the 70's predicted global cooling so they're just as wrong as scientists predicting global warming now" are completely full of shit. Simple, really.

Seeing as I'm the only person that's made that claim, I think I'll just say how NICE it is to see the mods playing by the same rules they're supposed to be enforcing.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[riddler 0]

Quote

I want someone OTHER than CRU to choose who is going to chair the investigation, yes.

And when the third-party is someone you disapprove of (for instance, the White House), you will simply move the goal-post again. You don't like the fact that the White House selected the chairman of the independent panel. And if the White House selects an independent party to select the chairman of the independent council, you will still cry foul, since the selection process was tainted.

Independent means just that, regardless of who is doing the selection. If it was biased, we would call it a biased committee. I think you feel like these organizations are a lot more crafty and conspiratorial than they are.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I want someone OTHER than CRU to choose who is going to chair the investigation, yes.

And when the third-party is someone you disapprove of (for instance, the White House), you will simply move the goal-post again. You don't like the fact that the White House selected the chairman of the independent panel. And if the White House selects an independent party to select the chairman of the independent council, you will still cry foul, since the selection process was tainted.

"Move the goalpost again"? WTF are you talking about?

Quote

Independent means just that, regardless of who is doing the selection.

Evidently that what you believe, yes. Given the evidence, I'm sure you believe that letting a criminal pick their own judge and jury members is impartial, as well.

Quote

I think you feel like these organizations are a lot more crafty and conspiratorial than they are.

Slipshod science that relies on models that not only can't predict the future but can't be regressed against original data, proxies that are nowhere near robust (Yamal, anyone?), PCs that give out the 'correct' data shape with trendless data, data trends that have been 'value-added' until they're nothing close to true..... gee, why should I be suspicious over folks like that?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DanG 1]

Crying about non-existant PA's has become the new standard here when other arguments fail.

And no, mnealtx, pointing out a bad argument is not a PA.

- Dan G

[riddler 0]

Quote

Move the goalpost

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

Since you have stated that you did not approve of the process because you believed the selection of the chair of the independent audit was biased, I then asked who you believe should choose the chair of the independent audit? My presumption is that no matter how many different groups are involved in choosing an independent audit chairperson, you will claim that there is some conspiracy, because you may disapprove of someone or some group in the chain.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

Independent means just that, regardless of who is doing the selection.

Evidently that what you believe, yes. Given the evidence, I'm sure you believe that letting a criminal pick their own judge and jury members is impartial, as well.

I've been an independent reviewer for design reviews on other projects within my own company. Sometimes the person chairing the review is someone I've worked with in the past. I've also been the one under review by people I know. In my experience these reviewers end up being more discriminating than our customers. (I've been told I am)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Crying about non-existant PA's has become the new standard here when other arguments fail.

And no, mnealtx, pointing out a bad argument is not a PA.

I've gotten a warning for saying someone was full of shit. It wasn't the argument, it was the insult.

Nice try, though.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706