Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: samwik
satellite data says air temperatures have been in a mild down trend starting 2002
Satellite data doesn't say, temperature of oceans increases in undiminished rate - and thermal capacity of oceans is 5.000 x higher..


.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Did you look at the subject line? "IPCC&FOI"
They are deleting emails with regard to the IPCC AR4 report, in order to keep things from being released by a FOI.

Not only is this unethical, it's actually illegal in the UK


And yes - emails have been deleted. From another one of Jones' leaked emails

Quote:

About 2 months ago I deleted loads of
emails, so have very little - if anything at all

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=940&filename=1228330629.txt

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Looks like the knives are coming out for Jones and Mann - and not by "skeptics"
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorita/

Quote:

Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process
Eduardo Zorita, November 2009

Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.


this is a particular important section of his statement
Quote:

I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files. They depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.

These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the 'politically correct picture'. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the 'pleasure' to experience all this in my area of research.

Now this is one climate scientist I have respect for. Unfortunately this statement and article probably just cost him his funding, or any future papers ever being published.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"Now this is one climate scientist I have respect for. Unfortunately this statement and article probably just cost him his funding, or any future papers ever being published."

Speculative - and not likely given recent events.

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

Speculative - and not likely given recent events.


Can I ask what events you speak off? Surely it's not the recent release of emails - after all, you've called them "exaggerations and quotes taken out of context". Or are you changing your tune?

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Changing my tune? The emails seem to be serious. I never indicated they weren't. The exaggerations refers to the claims about this being the death knell for AGW. Most of the quotes are out of context.

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
I feel certain that if there was something sinister about the context in those snippets that they are circulating around the internet, then the denialists would include enough text to prove it. As it is they only put up equivocal phrases, such as where somebody has "deleted loads of emails, so have very little - if anything at all" of something.
If it were data, I'm sure we'd hear about it; even if it were data from some corrupted file, or outdated file, or....
Have you ever tried to send data to somebody with a different email browser. It can take several tries before you find the right trick to get a readable file.

If the context wasn't harmless, I'm sure they would have included it, but we can only speculate on what they deleted.
My guess would be somebody deleted emails ranting about what a pain in their aspirations that McIntyre guy is, but that guess is just based on some of the more complete emails I've seen.


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
*sigh* -- you want more emails?

Quote:

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 N 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

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=154&filename=942777075.txt
For the less educated - this "hide the decline" is speaking to tree ring proxies giving a decline in temperatures - during a period in which we know global temperatures increase. Obviously this begs the question on how accurate the tree ring proxies are.
Questions that Jones and Mann didn't want. Therefore they applied a "trick" to "hide the decline".

Let me know if you want to read another email about them keeping certain peer-reviewed articles out of the IPCC process, or another one of them conspiring to destroy a entire journal because it accepted articles which they didn't want published.

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
How global warming skeptics are falsifying data...


Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Yup - people manipulate data, cherry-pick certain periods, just to show what they want to. Doesn't matter which "side" they're on - it's all poor science.

Dr Peiser, Mike Mann and Phil Jones - are all cut of the same cloth. They give science a bad name



How is this related to Mann and Jones, and their attempts to disregard freedom of information requests, change the definition of peer reviewed articles, or manipulate data(of which trillion dollar policy decisions are being made)?

Just trying to keep this on topic

Last edited by Canuck; 12/02/09 06:32 AM.
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 6
H
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 6
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend


Yeah, well, hmmm, what else could it be?!

And where have we heard this whole "exaggeration and quotes out of context" argument used equally [in]effectively before?

You're a hoot.

Don't pollute.

C'mon, let's see some more of that ol' boot, scoot, n boogie.

Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 6
H
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 6
Canuck & Socrates

You are on track, the right track, on this thing. Don't mind much about TFF.

Aside from being fallible, and pretty long on that, he's long on bark and short on science, and been that way for years on this and assorted other topics.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Sock puppets are seldom correct, informative, or even amusing.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

As is typical, denialists are stoking people's sense of righteous indignation so they jump to conclusions before they even understand what's going on. This is because like every other kind of denialism, their rejection is not based on science, but on collecting zingers against the guys actually doing research.

It could be there's something serious here. We won't know till we take the time to follow through. Here's a pretty reasoned response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

Currently it's just a bunch of numbskulls repeating the same crap over and over on every forum they can find.

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
The Globe and Mail is about as mainstream as you can get in Canada.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/worl...article1389842/

To those that said they were first "exaggerations and quotes out of context", the IPCC has started an inquiry, specifically with regard to the hockey stick results, and the practices of Mann and Jones distorting the peer review process. The University of East Anglia has also done the same, looking at whether Freedom of Information Act obligations have been broken. They also ordered the head of the CRU (Jones) to step down on Wednesday.

Climate scientists (pro-AGW) are saying this has set the science back 20 years. Monbiot has stated that all scientific work Mann and Jones has done is tarnished, and shouldn't be relied on.


This story has legs a mile long. Apparently the only people who think the statements in these emails were "taken out of context" are the sheeple who were at the end of the line when critical thinking skills were being handed out. The IPCC, the CRU, and even individual climate scientists know how bad this is.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
TFF

Rush , beck , and their types are there only for the attention they can get out of whatever they can find that attracts people who are gullible enought to think the way they want you to think that they think about issues.

and their reason is solely for the money making aspects of the followers of their type of thinking.

they rant and they rave constantly about things they know nothing about.

anybody that does not believe that global warming is real is uninformed to say the least.

they are blind and those who lead them are also blind and lost , they choose to think using other peoples purchased thoughts and not using their eyes to see the reality and the overwelming climatic changes that are approaching their own doorsteps.

where is their version of the IPCC and who funds their version?


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
You are on track


and some tracks lead to nothing , if your destination is to a world that cannot support human life because we cant live on magma , then I suppose he is on the right track.

I gave my explanation of why the earth is cooling here on this forum , it is because the ice is melting causing the earth to cool through depressurization.

thats the way it is , choose to believe it or not.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: Canuck
This story has legs a mile long. Apparently the only people who think the statements in these emails were "taken out of context" are the sheeple who were at the end of the line when critical thinking skills were being handed out. The IPCC, the CRU, and even individual climate scientists know how bad this is.


Legs a mile long? Here's one leg that gets knocked out from under your wildest dream.

http://cop15post.com/2009/12/08/news/opening-address-rounds-on-climate-sceptics/

Originally Posted By: IPCC Opening Address
And support for the scientists was paramount for Pachauri, when he addressed the recent ‘Climategate’ scandal in his opening speech.

Last month a number of emails of climate researchers at the University of East Anglia were hacked and posted on the internet. They appeared to suggest that scientists were colluding to suppress evidence that did not support their theories of climate change.

Climate sceptics pounced on the news as proof of a global conspiracy and the head of the research unit in question has stepped down while an investigation takes place.

But Pachauri said today that that some people were willing to go to great lengths to discredit the IPCC, despite it having a consistently transparent record and having complied[sic] its previous assessment reports on the back of the work of thousands of climate scientists.

“The internal consistency from multiple lines of evidence strongly supports the work of the scientific community, including those individuals singled out in these email exchanges, many of whom have dedicated their time and effort to develop these findings in teams of Lead Authors in the series of IPCC Assessment reports during the past 21 years,” Pachauri said.


I'm sure that CRU and even individual climate scientists also know how lame this all is, and these legs are.

~ wink

Last edited by samwik; 12/08/09 10:48 AM. Reason: COMPILED[sic]+

Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but in the U.S. there is a group of people who feel "with every fiber of their being" that that governments should be weak and should not be able to "tell private citizens what to do."

Anyone should be able to do anything he wants to do so long as he doesn't punch someone else in the nose, so to speak. That is their starting position and their end position.

This conviction drives everything they think they know about science and how it works - first they make their political decision and then they go about trying to justify their belief with science - elevating any bit of "information" they hear that supports their view and rejecting outright whatever disagrees. Simultaneously, they assert that the actual scientists are just trying to justify governments controlling the world.

One of my friends pointed me to an article by Gary Sutton in Forbes yesterday. The gist of the article was that scientists USED TO be absolutely certain that we were going to get global cooling. However, this is a red herring:
http://www.youtube.com/potholer54#p/search/0/EU_AtHkB4Ms

In any case, the Sutton article was otherwise seriously flawed:
Mr. Sutton quoted the NSB in two ways that made it appear that they said something they didn't say:
1) He made it appear that NSB were very certain of their results when they weren't; and
2) He left out the crucial point in the very next sentence indicating human interference could alter the observed pattern.

Here's the original quote you can't find in the article.
"Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading into the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now."

And here's the part he left out (very next sentence):
"However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path."

I also tried to check on the quote he used from Science about predicting "a full-blown, 10,000 year ice age," but there is no issue for March 1, 1975. I tried searching "full-blown" and "ice age" on ebsco-host for the entire month @ Science, but no luck. I'm now browsing JSTOR which is tedious, but would be easier if Mr. Sutton had provided a citation instead of a vague (and incorrect) reference. My best guess is that he has mangled whatever was in the article. (In fact, he refers to Science, but was it in a letter to the editor, an editorial, an actual article? We don't know and Mr Sutton doesn't care or appear to know the difference.)
Already this article is being cited frequently around the net - these guys get hold of this tripe and unthinkingly spread it around.

Of course, he ends with the obligatory "Carthagia delenda est" talking about how the recent climate-gate scandal shows the whole thing is a hoax. No surprise that a denialist with such a sterling record in the rest of his article would be poking the equine - with a wet noodle.

As with other kinds of denialists, these particular denialists don't actually care what the facts are. They don't want people to stop and think. They want action - as quickly and as unthinkingly as is humanly possible.

Last edited by TheFallibleFiend; 12/08/09 05:50 PM.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokĀž»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5