If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

•       •       •

520 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Dec 2012 at 11:45 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:    more»

 Paginated (50/page) Single page, reversed Normal view Change images to links Show raw HTML
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Part of the problem is that global temperature records keep getting "adjusted" until they have no specific relation to historical temperatures.

Slightly less than extremely cold is not warming

its spring there

the problem is they're looking for haystacks in the eye of a needle... the temperature was read by a guy LOOKING at it. if it wasn't the right angle, etc, then the reading is wrong. Statistically all the readings are wrong.

prjindigo: its spring there

the problem is they're looking for haystacks in the eye of a needle... the temperature was read by a guy LOOKING at it. if it wasn't the right angle, etc, then the reading is wrong. Statistically all the readings are wrong.

Right. Because scientists are known for being confused by spring time.

Well, in order to actually determine if year x is warmer than year y, and if that difference is statistically relevant, you need several decades worth of data points. So, we know that the last decade was warmer than most previous decades and the average high is higher now than it was when we started measuring. We also see a trend in which this year was warmer than the previous year which was warmer than the previous year,etc.

Scientists aren't sticking their arm out the window and thinking it must be warmer than it looks outside and then reporting on it as evidence of global warming.

prjindigo: its spring there

the problem is they're looking for haystacks in the eye of a needle... the temperature was read by a guy LOOKING at it. if it wasn't the right angle, etc, then the reading is wrong. Statistically all the readings are wrong.

Quit just making up random analogies that don't fit the situation. So, in short, shut up, nicksteel.

GeneralJim: Part of the problem is that global temperature records keep getting "adjusted" until they have no specific relation to historical temperatures.

Isn't it weird that these reconstructions go through thousands of attacks by scientists and they stand up, but this one weird trick by a local mom knocks them down? Climatologists hate her.

GeneralJim: Part of the problem is that global temperature records keep getting "adjusted" until they have no specific relation to historical temperatures.

[jonova.s3.amazonaws.com image 850x284]

part of the problem with what? With Antarctica warming faster than previously thought? Do you think that that finding specifically is wrong?

I can tell by the stupid comments, that none of you even bothered to read the article!
It clearly explains why it took so long and it's pretty sketchy.

"They retrieved one of the sensors and recalibrated it at the University of Wisconsin. They discovered a software error that had introduced mistakes into the record and then used computerized analyses of the atmosphere to fill the gaps. "

They created data where none was available. I imagine there will be a lot of opinions on the validity of that data. It will probably all be overshadowed by hyperbolic shouting from both sides who know the answer without examining the methodology.

GeneralJim: Part of the problem is that global temperature records keep getting "adjusted" until they have no specific relation to historical temperatures.

[jonova.s3.amazonaws.com image 850x284]

'I will remain intentionally ignorant of why adjustments were made, and will therefore assume it's a problem.'

"A 2009 paper found extensive warming in the main part of West Antarctica, but those results were challenged by a group that included climate change contrarians."
Newspaper does not mention if the group which produced this broken-thermometer study includes contrarians or alarmists.

"They can't find any recent warming, so they took a broken sensor with "intermittent gaps and other problems", "recalibrated" it, "used computerized analyses of the atmosphere to fill the gaps" and "discovered" warming that "happened in the 1980s". If you believe that this is science, then I strongly suggest you prep your telescope, lest you miss out on a spectacular sleigh sighting..."

WelldeadLink: "They can't find any recent warming, so they took a broken sensor with "intermittent gaps and other problems", "recalibrated" it, "used computerized analyses of the atmosphere to fill the gaps" and "discovered" warming that "happened in the 1980s". If you believe that this is science, then I strongly suggest you prep your telescope, lest you miss out on a spectacular sleigh sighting..."

And if one is making such judgements without even bothering to glance at the science behind it, one is assuming there's a fat flying philanthropist out there without even bothering to unpack the telescope.

Bontesla: We also see a trend in which this year was warmer than the previous year which was warmer than the previous year,etc.

And by "we", you mean someone other than a scientist looking at the, you know, actual data.

But hey, year after year of increasing temperatures means the same thing as a 187-month trend of cooling, amiright?

SevenizGud: Bontesla: We also see a trend in which this year was warmer than the previous year which was warmer than the previous year,etc.

And by "we", you mean someone other than a scientist looking at the, you know, actual data.

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

But hey, year after year of increasing temperatures means the same thing as a 187-month trend of cooling, amiright?

Oy. This again? Well, at least we can try to fast-forward the discussion:

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: [socratic]
Again, since we're interested in why whether "The earth is not PRESENTLY warming" or not, 4 years would be preferable to 10 or 15 years, yes?
[/socratic]

Quite a departure from the Hansen standard of 8 years. I like to be more robust in the analysis, to, you know, take out the variability. That's why 15 years. You know, more scientific. Because global warming is all about the underlying science, and not political footballing and shading the data.

So we know you're somewhat dishonestly putting forth a 15 year time span while you know very well that such can be misleading. You contend that this is similar to what James Hansen used (only 8 years) in past congressional testimony. This is not the case, as Hansen used much more time than that and his analysis (neither in his testimony nor in the papers it was based on) did not rely on some sort of simple linear regression or simple correlation.

Maybe we can get somewhere with this instead of the usual stuff.

Damnhippyfreak: SevenizGud: Bontesla: We also see a trend in which this year was warmer than the previous year which was warmer than the previous year,etc.

And by "we", you mean someone other than a scientist looking at the, you know, actual data.

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

But hey, year after year of increasing temperatures means the same thing as a 187-month trend of cooling, amiright?

Oy. This again? Well, at least we can try to fast-forward the discussion:

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: [socratic]
Again, since we're interested in why whether "The earth is not PRESENTLY warming" or not, 4 years would be preferable to 10 or 15 years, yes?
[/socratic]

Quite a departure from the Hansen standard of 8 years. I like to be more robust in the analysis, to, you know, take out the variability. That's why 15 years. You know, more scientific. Because global warming is all about the underlying science, and not political footballing and shading the data.

So we know you're somewhat dishonestly putting forth a 15 year time span while you know very well that such can be misleading. You contend that this is similar to what James Hansen used (only 8 years) in past congressional testimony. This is not the case, as Hansen used much more time than that and his analysis (neither in his testimony nor in the papers it was based on) did not rely on some sort of simple linear regression or simple correlation.

Maybe we can get somewhere with this instead of the usual stuff.

Thank you

HighZoolander:
GeneralJim: Part of the problem is that global temperature records keep getting "adjusted" until they have no specific relation to historical temperatures.

[jonova.s3.amazonaws.com image 850x284]

part of the problem with what? With Antarctica warming faster than previously thought? Do you think that that finding specifically is wrong?

Part of the problem with historical records of temperature. They've been jacked around in the last couple decades to the point where years have switched places on the "warmest year" chart. Will all the fraud, it's impossible to know which records have been altered. That's the legacy of this bastard child of science and politics -- the global temperature records will have to be re-created from original studies. Thanks, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, and James Hansen, you twunts. Nice legacy.

Damnhippyfreak:
GeneralJim: Part of the problem is that global temperature records keep getting "adjusted" until they have no specific relation to historical temperatures.

[jonova.s3.amazonaws.com image 850x284]

'I will remain intentionally ignorant of why adjustments were made, and will therefore assume it's a problem.'

Ah, the mark of the moron -- making up shiat and pretending other people said it. Your own arguments are THAT weak, you shill? How sad.

And, YES, when "adjustments" to major data sets change the relative position of decades-old data, that certainly IS a problem. Getting rid of the original data is an even bigger problem. You say it is NOT?

Damnhippyfreak:
So we know you're somewhat dishonestly putting forth a 15 year time span while you know very well that such can be misleading.

Okay.... We know he is deliberately countering bogus information with other bogus information, a questionable tactic in science, although perfectly acceptable in politics. So, should we assume that YOUR cherry-picking of temperature data starting from 1850-1880 is intentionally misleading, due to ignorance of the scientific process in general, or ignorance of climatology specifically?

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: GeneralJim: Part of the problem is that global temperature records keep getting "adjusted" until they have no specific relation to historical temperatures.

[jonova.s3.amazonaws.com image 850x284]

part of the problem with what? With Antarctica warming faster than previously thought? Do you think that that finding specifically is wrong?
Part of the problem with historical records of temperature. They've been jacked around in the last couple decades to the point where years have switched places on the "warmest year" chart. Will all the fraud, it's impossible to know which records have been altered. That's the legacy of this bastard child of science and politics -- the global temperature records will have to be re-created from original studies. Thanks, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, and James Hansen, you twunts. Nice legacy.

Show me one documented case of fraud that actually held up. Bonus points if you can do it without confusing global and regional temperature reconstructions.

As far as recreating everything from original studies... First, no, that doesn't need to be done. If you're that concerned, look at agreement between independent reconstructions. I seem to recall seeing that they all agree extremely well (maybe you think the conspiracy is vast?).

Second, isn't that exactly what Richard Muller already did? Lessee, what did he find, what did he find? How about, exactly what everyone else had already found? Yep, that's about right. So is he part of your conspiracy of twuntses, or are you actually the only one there?

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Part of the problem is that global temperature records keep getting "adjusted" until they have no specific relation to historical temperatures.

[jonova.s3.amazonaws.com image 850x284]

'I will remain intentionally ignorant of why adjustments were made, and will therefore assume it's a problem.'
Ah, the mark of the moron -- making up shiat and pretending other people said it. Your own arguments are THAT weak, you shill? How sad.

And, YES, when "adjustments" to major data sets change the relative position of decades-old data, that certainly IS a problem. Getting rid of the original data is an even bigger problem. You say it is NOT?

Unfortunately, what I said is the shaky reasoning you are relying on - you continue to do so in your response. You're assuming there's a problem while ignoring the actual reasons for the adjustments as documented in the papers where those graphs came from.

That aside, you really need to realize that pointing out a flaw in your reasoning isn't the same as arguing for the exact opposite.

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: So we know you're somewhat dishonestly putting forth a 15 year time span while you know very well that such can be misleading.
Okay.... We know he is deliberately countering bogus information with other bogus information, a questionable tactic in science, although perfectly acceptable in politics. So, should we assume that YOUR cherry-picking of temperature data starting from 1850-1880 is intentionally misleading, due to ignorance of the scientific process in general, or ignorance of climatology specifically?

Nope, your last sentence wouldn't be correct, for a few reasons. First, I'm not in the habit of making such inferences from simple linear regression in the first place. Second, the temperature data starting from 1850-1880 isn't some sort of subset of data that one can be accused of cherry-picking from as it is where the global instrumental record begins. Third, I consider looking at a variety of scales to be appropriate, not just making potentially-misleading inferences from one, as you and the person I was responding to are in the habit of doing.

Yet again, you seem to be assuming something without having evidence behind it - you're welcome to attempt to prove me wrong, however.

Sorry for the cross-thread posting, GeneralJim. But I had this typed out already when the last thread expired. If you really don't wish to address this, that's fine - it's your habit to ignore posts that prove you wrong anyway ;)

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
GeneralJim: But, as to the actual issue, it's even funnier than you may know. In the last few years, there are, indeed, many papers questioning the basics of climatology as in any other field. The whole POINT of the exercise, from my perspective, was to point out how asinine Oreskes' study was. Her "fence" for skepticism was too high to jump. Meanwhile, I was using a more normal set of criteria for skepticism in my survey of papers on gravity and evolution. Oreskes' study was apparently designed in an attempt to convince the non-scientific world of the unanimity of climatological acceptance of AGW. As I have mentioned, I myself took the quiz, and had I been counted, would have counted as a supporter of AGW... Readers of Fark climate threads will see the idiocy of that result.

Heh. You do realize you've just completely invalidated your previous reasoning:

GeneralJim: And, yes, when Monkey Boy said that questioning AGW was just as stupid as questioning gravity or evolution, as proved by the fact that there were NO papers skeptical of AGW, just like with gravity and evolution, I provided him with a list of a dozen or so papers from the previous year which questioned our fundamental understanding of gravity or evolution. But, NO PAPER (allegedly) questioned AGW. There's your proof, I retorted, that climatology publishing has the fix in. He did not understand.

No, not true. And, I am getting weary of dealing with what are your failures to process information, whether genuine, or feigned. It is possible for both the peer-review process to be crooked, and for the Oreskes study to have made it essentially impossible for a study to count as skeptical of AGW. In fact, both ARE true.

Swing and a miss. Unfortunately, you cut off the actual reasoning I put forward as why the first statement quoted invalidates the second (again proving that you're in the habit of not basing your opinion on the available evidence, BTW):

Damnhippyfreak: So you're stating that you attempted to prove "that climatology publishing has the fix in" by (supposedly) doing a review of the literature showing that there were more papers questioning the basics of evolution or gravity, therefore showing that the field of climatology is somehow compromised. You then admit that the criteria you used for the review you performed to be different than the one you're trying to compare it to and "more normal" and supposedly less high to jump - no wonder you found more papers when the criteria you used was, by your own design, more lenient.

Put another way, you've conflated the difference you were looking for (the difference between the number of papers questioning the basics of climatology with the number of papers questioning the basics of evolution and gravity) with the difference due to the more criteria you chose to use with evolution and gravity, therefore invalidating your supposed proof that "that climatology publishing has the fix in". Put it this way - even if what exists in reality is zero papers questioning the basic for all three theories, you still would have found more papers in your review of evolution and gravity because of of your intentionally more lenient standards you used to review them.

It is for this reason that you've invalidated your claim about "that climatology publishing has the fix in" with your admission that you were "using a more normal set of criteria for skepticism in my survey of papers on gravity and evolution" than what Oreskes used.

Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
GeneralJim: But, as to the actual issue, it's even funnier than you may know. [...]

Whoops. I think I provided a ink to a different comment there for that first quotation. Here's the proper one:

GeneralJim:

Damnhippyfreak: Put another way, you've conflated the difference you were looking for (the difference between the number of papers questioning the basics of climatology with the number of papers questioning the basics of evolution and gravity) with the difference due to the more lenient criteria you chose to use with evolution and gravity, therefore invalidating your supposed proof that "that climatology publishing has the fix in".

That makes more sense. I really should have previewed that comment.

HighZoolander:
Show me one documented case of fraud that actually held up. Bonus points if you can do it without confusing global and regional temperature reconstructions.

As far as recreating everything from original studies... First, no, that doesn't need to be done. If you're that concerned, look at agreement between independent reconstructions. I seem to recall seeing that they all agree extremely well (maybe you think the conspiracy is vast?).

Second, isn't that exactly what Richard Muller already did? Lessee, what did he find, what did he find? How about, exactly what everyone else had already found? Yep, that's about right. So is he part of your conspiracy of twuntses, or are you actually the only one there?

Well, Beavis, as you know, NASA's GISS looks like this, different readings for the same times in different years:

Data Manipulation Fraud

Accounting auditing brought to bear on climate data. It is discovered that NASA's GISS data and the Hadley CRU's data have been manufactured. That is, faked. Article HERE. (new window)

NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special. Article HERE. (new window)

NASA Gets Caught Faking Climate Change Data Again. Article HERE. (new window)

Data Corruption At GISS. Article HERE. (new window)

US Government in Massive New Global Warming Scandal - NOAA Disgraced. Article HERE. (new window)

Pre-Climategate: "Unprecedented" Data Purge At CRU. Article HERE. (new window)

Climategate: Leaked Emails Inspired Data Analyses Show Claimed Warming Greatly Exaggerated and NOAA not CRU is Ground Zero. Article HERE. (new window)

Phil Jones: the Secret Agent in Hawaii. Article HERE. (new window)

Hockey Stick, 1998-2005, R.I.P. Article HERE. (new window)

Damnhippyfreak:
Unfortunately, what I said is the shaky reasoning you are relying on - you continue to do so in your response. You're assuming there's a problem while ignoring the actual reasons for the adjustments as documented in the papers where those graphs came from.

Oh, really? Just what circumstances justify the constant farking with the numbers, as evidence in the NASA graphs above? Stop justifying scientific fraud, you shill.

Damnhippyfreak:
Nope, your last sentence wouldn't be correct, for a few reasons. First, I'm not in the habit of making such inferences from simple linear regression in the first place. Second, the temperature data starting from 1850-1880 isn't some sort of subset of data that one can be accused of cherry-picking from as it is where the global instrumental record begins.

Really? Give me a listing of the recording stations in the data set of 1850. The data is FAR from global -- which certainly sets you off if it is anyone else. And, even the warmer frauds use proxy data, so what's your problem? I would guess that your problem is that the larger time-frame observed, the less likely one will come to the conclusion that mankind is causing dangerous warming...

(Loehle, C. and Hu McCulloch. 2008. Correction to: A 2000 Year Global Temperature Reconstruction based on Non-Treering Proxy Data. Energy & Environment 19:93-100)
2000 Years of Temperature records

Sources listed HERE.
We are undergoing 8000 years of cooling

(image created by Robert A. Rohde / Global Warming Art)
The temperature has been dropping for 50 million years

It is as cold as it has ever been since the beginning of diverse life on this planet.

Damnhippyfreak:
It is for this reason that you've invalidated your claim about "that climatology publishing has the fix in" with your admission that you were "using a more normal set of criteria for skepticism in my survey of papers on gravity and evolution" than what Oreskes used.

Again, your failure to understand is not my problem. So, you are claiming that Oreskes used bullshiat criteria, so the comparison is invalid? Okay, I can live with that.

And, incidentally, my claim that I took the test used by Oreskes and was labelled an "AGW believer" was a deliberate misstatement. The test was published in Scientific American; I did take it, and was listed as an AGW supporter. I did this bit of subterfuge because, up until now, you had refused to admit that Oreskes' survey did NOT claim that 98% + of scientists support AGW, as Monkey Boy had been claiming. I knew that you would NEVER correct him, unless I set up a situation in which you could prove me wrong by doing so. So, now you have announced that Oreskes' survey has NOTHING to do with the support of scientists. Thank you. And I apologize to the other Fark readers for the misdirection, now corrected. YOU should apologize for making it necessary.

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.