i'm still sorting through the files in that data dump. interesting stuff. Not 'omg gotcha!' stuff, but there's enough there to suggest a pattern of abusing the raw data to score political points with policy makers.

Scientists are more spiteful and meaner spirited than any politician out there.

I predict this thread is going to get heated.

Weaver95: i'm still sorting through the files in that data dump. interesting stuff. Not 'omg gotcha!' stuff, but there's enough there to suggest a pattern of abusing the raw data to score political points with policy makers.

Keep up the good work and take your time to get it right. Anything to distract you from your agenda of killing boby boomers. :~)

But in the case of "Climate Change", the MSM has been caught with its trousers down. The reason it has been so ill-equipped to report on this scandal is because almost all of its Environmental Correspondents and Environmental Editors are parti pris members of the Climate-Fear Promotion lobby. Most of their contacts (and information sources) work for biased lobby groups like Greenpeace and the WWF, or conspicuously pro-AGW government departments and Quangos such as the Carbon Trust. How can they bring themselves to report on skullduggery at Hadley Centre when the scientists involved are the very ones whose work they have done most to champion and whose pro-AGW views they share?

But that is the way of the scientist. He will spend thirty years in building up a mountain range of facts with the intent to prove a certain theory; then he is so happy in his achievement that as a rule he overlooks the main chief fact of all--that his accumulation proves an entirely different thing. When you point out this miscarriage to him he does not answer your letters; when you call to convince him, the servant prevaricates and you do not get in. Scientists have odious manners, except when you prop up their theory; then you can borrow money of them. ~ Mark Twain

Weaver95: i'm still sorting through the files in that data dump. interesting stuff. Not 'omg gotcha!' stuff, but there's enough there to suggest a pattern of abusing the raw data to score political points with policy makers.

I have trouble believing you're dumb enough to take that 'data dump' seriously.

GAT_00: Weaver95: i'm still sorting through the files in that data dump. interesting stuff. Not 'omg gotcha!' stuff, but there's enough there to suggest a pattern of abusing the raw data to score political points with policy makers.

I have trouble believing you're dumb enough to take that 'data dump' seriously.

I think it's worth a look. Then again, if i'm not supposed to have something, or if documents are suppressed for any reason, I have to have a copy for my collection. Call it a hobby.

Ooh. I love scandals!

RocketRod: I predict this thread is going to get heated.

The data indicates that it's actually in a cooling trend.

Julieahni: Ooh. I love scandals!

I hate people who wear them with socks.

LOL, the Telegraph.

It is so inconvenient when the truth doesn't jive with your previously published diatribes and actually proves them to be lies.

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded "gotcha" phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"-see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental. But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn't much to it.

But yeah, keep going with that "greatest scandal in modern science" thing.

real shaman: It is so inconvenient when the truth doesn't jive with your previously published diatribes and actually proves them to be lies.

So where did the evil climate change scientists hide all of the glaciers?

Weaver95: i'm still sorting through the files in that data dump. interesting stuff. Not 'omg gotcha!' stuff, but there's enough there to suggest a pattern of abusing the raw data to score political points with policy makers.

You'd think that oil companies and the like would be quite keen and able to handsomely fund the research of scientists skeptical of global warming, but I guess not, since you never hear skeptics claiming that as a motivation.

Now, I like ad hominem abuse as much as the next farker, so let me be the first to say that James Delingpole is a monkeyspanker of the first water.

That said, merely pointing out that the author of some rancid right-wing cumload is a master male member manipulator does not, necessarily, invalidate said cumload. However, the fact that no reputable authority disagrees with the fact of climate change, and the only people who do are discredited neocons puppy-rapers and slathering swivel-eyed godbotherers (hi Bevets!) does.

In summary, I refer to the estimable Harry Frankfurt, which will regretably be heavily filtered:

For the bullshiatter it is in itself neither a reason in favor nor a reason against. Both in lying and in telling the truth people are guided by their beliefs concerning the way things are. These guide them as they endeavor either to describe the world correctly or to describe it deceitfully. For this reason, telling lies does not tend to unfit a person for telling the truth in the same way that bullshiatting tends to. Through excessive indulgence in the latter activity, which involves making assertions without paying attention to anything except what it suits one to say, a person's normal habit of attending to the ways things are may become attenuated or lost.
Someone who lies and someone who tells the truth are playing on opposite sides, so to speak, in the same game. Each responds to the facts as he understands them, although the response of the one is guided by the authority of the truth, while the response of the other defies that authority and refuses to meet its demands. The bullshiatter ignores these demands altogether. He does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshiat is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.

- Harry Frankfurt, On Bullshiat

real shaman: It is so inconvenient when the truth doesn't jive with your previously published diatribes and actually proves them to be lies.

so far none of them have actually lied. they DID do a lot of jumping to conclusions before the final data was in, and then not mentioning it to anyone afterwards. And they also show a disturbing level of willingness to fudge the data for political reasons...but at no point has any of those emails indicated that anyone outright lied.

Now, keep in mind i'm still reading through the document dump so this might change in the future, but all these emails come across like a group of scientists who seem to wear their activist hats while in the lab and occasionally getting confused as to where they should be drawing a line.

real shaman: actually proves them to be lies

Get back to us when you've actually read the emails in context. All of them. Or at least seen a piece of journalism with some weight to it. Same goes for the so called reporter, who, from the looks of it, got his information from someone else's slipshod analysis.

Any fool should realize that actual reporters are sifting through the emails and putting together an real piece of journalism on this instead of rabid, pants wetting speculation based on a few out of context quotes from the emails. The MSM has stated what they know for sure and are, obviously, scrambling to analyze and interpret the information so they can report on what's actually in there and what it means. Scientists will have to be interviewed. Perhaps there'll be a hearing. Who knows. But until this is looked at closely only idiots will draw conclusions.

Not every ice cube floating in the ocean is the tip of an iceberg.

Dr. Picklebacon: an real piece of journalism

Ha ha.. fail.

They were too busy covering PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PA LIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALI N!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN! PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PA LIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!

Mentat: real shaman: It is so inconvenient when the truth doesn't jive with your previously published diatribes and actually proves them to be lies.

So where did the evil climate change scientists hide all of the glaciers?

right there in those valleys where they have always been.

HAHA@!

And compare that with their coverage of the PALIN emailGate!


HAHAHAHAAH!


No full of shiat hypocrites like Lefty full of shiat hypocrites!

Yeah, that INCLUDES YOU, asshole!

Eyebleach: RocketRod: I predict this thread is going to get heated.

The data indicates that it's actually in a cooling trend.

Regardless of whether or not this thread is heating up or cooling down, it is incontrovertibly true that there are numerous benefits to curbing our comment consumption.

As a way to help make Fark more comment-neutral, here is what I propose: for every snarky comment someone wants to post in this thread, they can pay me a modest fee to not post a snarky comment in a different thread.

Act now. (new window)

At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent
lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data.

Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.

These sums complement Kevin's energy work.

Kevin says ... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't". I do not agree with this.

Tom.



At what point is it acceptable for a scientist to "fudge" the data?

Oh boy! Both Weaver95 and Bevets are here.

Grabs popcorn, gets comfy.

RockIsDead 2009-11-22 03:21:01 PM
HAHA@!

And compare that with their coverage of the PALIN emailGate!


HAHAHAHAAH!

How old are you, five?

GAT_00: Weaver95: i'm still sorting through the files in that data dump. interesting stuff. Not 'omg gotcha!' stuff, but there's enough there to suggest a pattern of abusing the raw data to score political points with policy makers.

I have trouble believing you're dumb enough to take that 'data dump' seriously.

So for those of us on the sidelines with popcorn, I have a question...

Have the people who allegedly sent the emails denied authorship? If they all deny, then that's good enough for me. But if a significant number fail to deny, that's a problem.

Mentat: So where did the evil climate change scientists hide all of the glaciers?

The glaciers have been playing hide and seek for the last ten thousand years. The issue isn't glacier decline; the issue isn't whether or not man is to blame; the issue is what is going to happen going forward and is it problematic enough for us to do something about.

Part of me thinks there's a mental illness where people think the world's going to end. It has been present throughout history with various doomsday cults. The global warming crowd is just another one of these cults. The scientists who are in such a hurry to jump to conclusions and manipulate data aren't trying to be dishonest. Their actions are precognitive, a function of their mental illness.

/Just a theory

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil


When did science start hiding data??

I blame 2012.

surface evaporation
global dimming

If CO2 and methane caused some kind of exponential heating effect this planet would never have formed an atmosphere, it would have incinerated and lost all gasses into space.

jvl: GAT_00: Weaver95: i'm still sorting through the files in that data dump. interesting stuff. Not 'omg gotcha!' stuff, but there's enough there to suggest a pattern of abusing the raw data to score political points with policy makers.

I have trouble believing you're dumb enough to take that 'data dump' seriously.

So for those of us on the sidelines with popcorn, I have a question...

Have the people who allegedly sent the emails denied authorship? If they all deny, then that's good enough for me. But if a significant number fail to deny, that's a problem.

so you are willing to take their word that they did not author the emails? That's very gracious of you. And by gracious, I mean gullible.

From the comments:

Ah, I thought MSM would stand for "Main Socialist Media". Well, that's a fair description of your list of Climategate Deniers.

This is how I envision the majority of climate change "skeptics." They're are skeptics, because they have questions. Namely, why does the scientific community (and the elitist, pinko lefties) love Hitler so much?

Eyebleach: RocketRod: I predict this thread is going to get heated.

The data indicates that it's actually in a cooling trend.

Actually it was the first thing that I checked too. Out of 1073 emails, 381 contain the word warm, and only 160 contain the world cool. This clearly shows that although there are numerous cooler periods, the overall trend is warming.

/Bonus out-of-context quote from Mann: "As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations."

Mentat: real shaman: It is so inconvenient when the truth doesn't jive with your previously published diatribes and actually proves them to be lies.

So where did the evil climate change scientists hide all of the glaciers?

They're flying off the shelves in Antarctica... seems they've had decade after decade of record snowfall and some idiots are dumping mineral saline into the groundwater.

nicksteel: Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil


When did science start hiding data??

Use one set of data over another to make visual comparisons less drastic? It's done all the time.

nicksteel: Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil


When did science start hiding data??

And this is where, when regular folk with no experience at all in the science start picking through technical e-mails without those e-mails being in context, they can't see the forest for the trees.

I'll refer you to this, because I can't explain it better:

"The "decline" refers to the "divergence problem". This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature."

Link (new window)

It's about some proxy data being unreliable in recent years and, therefore, you don't use them to plot modern temperatures. This is no big deal.

But I'm sure that consideration won't make it onto skeptic websites.

GoodHomer:
But I'm sure that consideration won't make it onto skeptic websites.

if you want to convince people that scientists aren't being condescending bastards you should probably try very hard to not be a condescending bastard while defending them for being condescending bastards.

Because that strategy might not go over very well with people.

Weaver95:
if you want to convince people that scientists aren't being condescending bastards you should probably try very hard to not be a condescending bastard while defending them for being condescending bastards.

Because that strategy might not go over very well with people.

Global warming deniers are completely irrational and in my opinion immune to convincing no matter what approach one uses. So I'm not particularly interested in trying to have a reasonable conversation with them.

prjindigo:

If CO2 and methane caused some kind of exponential heating effect this planet would never have formed an atmosphere

CO2 has a logarithmic heating effect.

YouTube, Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails (new window)

Not MSM, but kinda interesting.

Racht: Weaver95:
if you want to convince people that scientists aren't being condescending bastards you should probably try very hard to not be a condescending bastard while defending them for being condescending bastards.

Because that strategy might not go over very well with people.

Global warming deniers are completely irrational and in my opinion immune to convincing no matter what approach one uses. So I'm not particularly interested in trying to have a reasonable conversation with them.

oh yes, insult anyone who questions the Holy Writ. I am sure that will certainly convince them!

I know, why don't we call up the people who know the most about the earth and its enviroment, NOAA and NASA. Oh right....

Anyway, I think the lesson is here that the only arena left where journalism is only practiced in any shade of a meaningful manner is sports. At the end of the day, most sports journalism concerns itself with emperical facts, regular journalism can't find out what torr is. It's not that they don't care, it's that they can't imagine a way to find an answer, much less communicate it in an articulate manner.

Weaver95: if you want to convince people that scientists aren't being condescending bastards you should probably try very hard to not be a condescending bastard while defending them for being condescending bastards.

The scientists weren't being condescending, and nobody said they were. He was pointing out that the average joe won't be able to interpret that e-mail the same way a scientist would. If you get offended by that, then that's your problem.

No Spin Zone'd: HAHA well I'm sorry you're just an uneducated backwoods hick, but that's just the way things work. You silly plebes can't even begin to comprehend words like "marine values" and "temps", much less real scientific data. Why don't you just go back to nailing your sister and leave the thinking to those of us with college degrees.

Racht: Global warming deniers are completely irrational and in my opinion immune to convincing no matter what approach one uses. So I'm not particularly interested in trying to have a reasonable conversation with them.

This is just my opinion.. but very few people deny global warming. The thing the "deniers" question (remember its science - so questioning hypotheses is absolutely valid) is that people are the great satan causing it.

The main defensive theme I'm seeing here is the claim that they're just "sexing" up a single graph for a single instance. By using logic you can infer it wasnt just once. Also "sexing up a graph" is manipulating data.

Science is science and the data is the data. You dont get to pick and choose or change the data just because you want to make a prettier picture. No objective scientist in their right mind would do that.

Submit to Congress:
End of The World Prediction Act

Should an individual or institution predict the end of the world, and the world fails to end, that individual or institution is financially liable for all panic it creates.

nicksteel: so you are willing to take their word that they did not author the emails? That's very gracious of you. And by gracious, I mean gullible.

Yes. Because I don't believe it's a conspiracy. At best they are right, and at worst they are incompetent. Lying doesn't enter in to it in my world.

Weaver95:
oh yes, insult anyone who questions the Holy Writ. I am sure that will certainly convince them!

As I just said, I'm not interested in convincing them. It's like trying to convince fundamentalist Christians that no, we are not going to have a rapture in our lifetimes. You may as well be talking to a brick wall.

Hilarious.

The warmist religion is revealed at its core to be a fraud. Watch the warmists spin like whirling dervishes.

You're done. Stick a fork in yourselves. Come back in a few years with a new way to engineer your unworthy fellow humans out of existence based on some other armageddon of your gaia religion revealed to you by Brother Al.

Or swich to Scientology. They have better science supporting their wackadoodle beliefs.