Climategate

[robinson]

What if they are actually true believers? And they really don't understand what is wrong.

[robinson]

Judging by the rabid and constant response from "skeptics" who are convinced beyond all doubt that the IPCC and all true scientist support AGW, and insist that absolutely nothing is wrong with anything the IPCC has said or done, it is a possibility.

[manny]

... The Sunday Mail’s David Rose reached Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author of the 2007 IPCC report’s chapter on Asia. Lal told Rose that he knew there were no solid data to support the report’s claim that Himalayan glaciers ...

And if Lal knew it, then there is good reason to believe that IPCC chair Pachauri also knew it and deliberately used that bogus data to get grant money.

If Lal knew it, then score one for Evil Yeti; the "real story" is indeed the war on science. He just misidentified who is laying siege to it.

[robinson]

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nised.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

[hammegk]

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... uc3902.htm

More fuel for the fire.

Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39)

1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.

3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:

· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and

· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of 'proxies', for example, tree-rings.

4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.

5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.

6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the
e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific 'self correction', which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.

7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.

8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would be archived. Much 'raw' data requires calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various levels.

9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling.

Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?

10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.

11. The first of the review's terms of reference is limited to: "...manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice..." The term 'acceptable' is not defined and might better be replaced with 'objective'.

12. The second of the review's terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU's policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.

How independent are the other two international data sets?

13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.

The Institute of Physics
February 2010

[asthmatic camel]

Fixed that for you.

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/ ... eashit.jpg

[Anaxagoras]

For you guys:

[robinson]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... tburns.jpg

[hammegk]

I could have started a new thread, but turning a robinson thread into a hammegk blog amuses me.

http://blogs.forbes.com/warrenmeyer/201 ... nnellatest

is an overview.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/01/ ... ition.html

is the meat, if anyone has an hour or so to watch his vimeo presentation.

Does anyone know if Gavin etal have commented on his data handling?

[EvilYeti]

I could have started a new thread, but turning a robinson thread into a hammegk blog amuses me.

http://blogs.forbes.com/warrenmeyer/201 ... nnellatest

is an overview.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/01/ ... ition.html

is the meat, if anyone has an hour or so to watch his vimeo presentation.

Does anyone know if Gavin etal have commented on his data handling?

This comment nicely sums up Meyer's latest failure:

What is this weird compulsion you have about displaying in as many ways as possible how stupid you are? The more videos you produce, the less you seem to understand. And it’s not just that you don’t understand. You’re not even capable of understanding that you don’t understand. Dopy fucking cunt.

Meyer is also clearly a liar; as nobody ever tried to 'hide' the fact that the tree ring proxy data doesn't track the instrument record after roughly 1950. This is known as the 'divergence problem' and has been openly discussed and studied for many years.

Does anyone know if any of the morons here will comment on the simple fact that three separate investigations in the Climategate hoax unequivocally cleared all parties involved?

Just kidding; of course they won't. It's not like they have integrity or anything.

Edit: Check this out; its the retard scoreboard!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[hammegk]

I could have started a new thread, but turning a robinson thread into a hammegk blog amuses me.

http://blogs.forbes.com/warrenmeyer/201 ... nnellatest

is an overview.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/01/ ... ition.html

is the meat, if anyone has an hour or so to watch his vimeo presentation.

Does anyone know if Gavin etal have commented on his data handling?

This comment nicely sums up Meyer's latest failure:

What is this weird compulsion you have about displaying in as many ways as possible how stupid you are? The more videos you produce, the less you seem to understand. And it’s not just that you don’t understand. You’re not even capable of understanding that you don’t understand. Dopy fucking cunt.

Source of quote, please.

And have you actually taken a look at the presentation?

Meyer is also clearly a liar; as nobody ever tried to 'hide' the fact that the tree ring proxy data doesn't track the instrument record after roughly 1950. This is known as the 'divergence problem' and has been openly discussed and studied for many years.

Well, sorta true, and sorta false as I see it. At any rate, rather irelevant in the overall scheme of things.

Does anyone know if any of the morons here will comment on the simple fact that three separate investigations in the Climategate hoax unequivocally cleared all parties involved?

What's to say? I know they've been published, and the participants 'exonerated'. Lots of shit gets published.

[hammegk]

Edit: Check this out; its the retard scoreboard!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Another pile of worthless shit. He said-She said.

[EvilYeti]

Source of quote, please.

It's the fourth comment down.

And have you actually taken a look at the presentation?

Most of it. Nothing new and some of his talking points, like the urban heat island effect, were debunked years ago.

Check the comments near the bottom. Most of his worst mistakes have been detailed.

I understand that if you don't actually get the science that this may sound convincing; but that doesn't make it correct.

Well, sorta true, and sorta false as I see it. At any rate, rather irelevant in the overall scheme of things.

Its very relevant if you are going to be accusing folks of hiding data.

What's to say? I know they've been published, and the participants 'exonerated'. Lots of shit gets published.

So they are guilty and can never be proven innocent. Good to know!

[hammegk]

OK.

4th comment
hunter:
What is this weird compulsion you have about displaying in as many ways as possible how stupid you are? The more videos you produce, the less you seem to understand. And it’s not just that you don’t understand. You’re not even capable of understanding that you don’t understand. Dopy fucking cunt.
January 22, 2010, 4:55 pm

5th comment
hunter (the sane one):
Keep up the good work.
The resident psycho hates it, so it is clearly even better than your typical presentation.

January 22, 2010, 9:38 pm


I.E. No 'there' there; just a couple of nonentities blathering.

Has realclimate commented 'officially'?

Most interesting to me was his comment about the parameter 'aerosol cooling effect' used by models to match history, which is the same parameter with wildly different values assigned for different models.

As to heat island, and reality, who knows?

Also, the pesentation is available in Adobe format ... faster by far than listening/watching the vimeo.

[EvilYeti]

I.E. No 'there' there; just a couple of nonentities blathering.

You can add Warren Meyer to that list!

Has realclimate commented 'officially'?

On what?

You make the same error Xouper constantly makes; that its somehow the job of professional to 'prove' incompetent amateurs are wrong. That's not how the world works.

Most interesting to me was his comment about the parameter choice used by models to match history, which is the same parameter with wildly different values assigned for different models.

This is a meaningless statement without context.

As to heat island, and reality, who knows?

Everybody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat ... al_warming

Because some parts of some cities may be hotter than their surroundings, concerns have been raised that the effects of urban sprawl might be misinterpreted as an increase in global temperature. While the "heat island" warming is an important local effect, there is no evidence that it biases trends in historical temperature record. For example, urban and rural trends are very similar.[9]

What matter is the trends, not the absolute temperature.

[hammegk]

I.E. No 'there' there; just a couple of nonentities blathering.

You can add Warren Meyer to that list!

Has realclimate commented 'officially'?

On what?

You make the same error Xouper constantly makes; that its somehow the job of professional to 'prove' incompetent amateurs are wrong. That's not how the world works.

Nor did I imply so. It was a simple question.

Most interesting to me was his comment about the parameter choice used by models to match history, which is the same parameter with wildly different values assigned for different models.

This is a meaningless statement without context.

See my edit, although the parameter is aerosol cooling.

[hammegk]

From the exhibits:

What is Normal?
“The arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing
scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the
water too hot. Reports all point to a radical change in
climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures
in the arctic zone. Expeditions report that scarcely any ice
has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of
earth and stones, while at many points well known
glaciers have entirely disappeared.”






























































—US WEATHER BUREAU, 1922 :D

[EvilYeti]

Nor did I imply so. It was a simple question.

I also didn't see anything 'new' in the presentation, so its probably already been covered.

See my edit, although the parameter is aerosol cooling.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/Climate% ... 1-2010.pdf

So, the amount of warming we've seen historically is consistent with negative, not positive, feedback. But climate scientists say all the
time that their models accurately describe past warming. To some extent, this means that they have managed to tweak and tune their
models to spit out something like the 20th century temperature profile. I was a financial and economic modeler for years, and the typical
technique is to use what I call a "plug" variable, or an arbitrary variable whose value in each period is set to exactly match what one
needs to make the model spit out the desired output. For climate modelers, one such plug variable is aerosols. Aerosols are solid and
liquid particles in the atmosphere that can reflect solar radiation back into space and thus have a cooling effect on the Earth. They can be
of natural and manmade origin -- manmade aerosols typically are byproducts of combustion and industrial activities, and include things
like sulfur dioxide and soot or black carbon.
I am actually not going to talk much about black carbon, as the evidence is increasingly equivocal as to whether its net effect is cooling
or warming. I personally believe that black carbon soot from Asia is in part responsible for recent summer melting events in the arctic.
So let's focus on the sulfate aerosol concentrations on the left. Sulfate aerosols, unlike CO2, are short lived, so that they tend to be
concentrated downstream of the industrial areas that produce them. These aerosols are concentrated near parts of North America, Asia,
and Europe, and cover perhaps 10% of the globe.
The appeal of man-made aerosols as a plug figure is that, unlike CO2, we have a pretty good understanding of how to run an industrial
economy while limiting the output of these aerosols. Countries like the US are already well on the way to reducing their emissions of
these aerosols, and most countries will follow suit over the coming decades. So if these aerosols are assumed to have a large cooling
effect today, they can help plug the gap between reality and the hyper-sensitive climate models, while still allowing catastrophic
forecasts as the aerosols and their theoretical cooling effect go away in the future.
The IPCC is the first to tell us that scientists really don't have a good handle on the magnitude of aerosol cooling. In a sense, this is a
benefit to climate modelers, as it allows them to assume any cooling number they need to make their models back-cast accurately. The
most telling sign of this is that most modelers nowadays can produce results that look like history, but they all have very different
cooling rates for aerosols. By some coincidence, every single modeler has assumed an aerosol cooling rate that is the exact value needed
to make his or her model fit history. This is what I mean by a "plug" variable.
But simple logic tells us that these assumptions almost have to be outlandish. Remember, high sensitivity assumptions were overstating
past warming by 1-3C, meaning that if aerosols cover about 10% of the globe, we would have to see local cooling effects in these areas
of 10-30C! And we can detect no real cooling whatsoever or substantial change in warming trend between aerosol effected areas and
those without aerosols.

I can see some problems here; but without specific references I'm not even sure what his issue is.

[robinson]

From the exhibits:

What is Normal?
“The arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing
scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the
water too hot.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress. ... review.png

[EvilYeti]

Ayup, pretty clear warming trend in the years leading up to 1922.

Could you nimrods at least think up some original arguments? I'm getting bored.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/ ... Record.png

[hammegk]

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/Climate% ... 1-2010.pdf

Take a look at the graphs from the pdf.

Excluding Tiljander Sediments and SW
Pines Changes the Entire Answer
Eschenbach, 2008
Mann 2008 Long-Term Proxy Average Mann 2008 Long-Term Proxy Average

and

Historic Temperatures Can Be Modeled with
a Constant Linear Trend + A 60-Year Cycle

(wish I knew how to copy & display a graph enclosed in a .pdf :( )

[robinson]

Are you using Windows?

[hammegk]

Yes.

[robinson]

Do you have Photoshop? Imageready? Any image editing software? Paint?

If so

When you have the pdf open to where you want, hit printscreen (on your keyboard). Open image software, hit paste. You should see the screen capture. Crop to show just the graph, save as jpg or png, and there you go. You can now upload it.

If this doesn't work, let me know what happens. It should work. I do it all the time.

[robinson]

If you are using Paint it isn't as easy.

[asthmatic camel]

Gadwin Printscreen makes screen captures a doddle. (Free.)

[hammegk]

Hmmm.

pic deleted

[robinson]

Next we will discuss resizing...

(edit)


well, that didn't help much

60yr.jpg

[hammegk]

Talk about a crappy kludge on getting a pic. :x

pic deleted

[robinson]

I recognize those charts.

Yeah, it's a pain. Which is why people use pdf for documents.

[robinson]

I see the graphs are related to this post.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/Climate% ... 1-2010.pdf

Take a look at the graphs from the pdf.

Excluding Tiljander Sediments and SW
Pines Changes the Entire Answer
Eschenbach, 2008
Mann 2008 Long-Term Proxy Average Mann 2008 Long-Term Proxy Average

and

Historic Temperatures Can Be Modeled with
a Constant Linear Trend + A 60-Year Cycle

(wish I knew how to copy & display a graph enclosed in a .pdf :( )

Well, now you know.

[robinson]

Oooh! Oooh!

"They" got to the Wikipedia Cabal.

Who is they? Didn't the cabal pull this guys posting rights? It's hard to keep up with the conspiracies.

[asthmatic camel]

Gadwin PrintScreen also has a simple to use resizing function. Not that anyone ever listens to me...

[hammegk]

Thanks, ac.

I installed it, and will try it out soon. Looks promising! :)

[EvilYeti]

Uh, if you retards can't figure out how to grab an image out of a .pdf I think multivariate linear regression may be out of your league...

[sparks]

How's that new dental work comin' along....Tithead?

[EvilYeti]

bargle bargle bargle

Take the cock out of your mouth before you address me, child.

[sparks]

A rustling noise from the cornfield.

Indeed. :roll:

[EvilYeti]

A rustling noise from the cornfield.

Indeed. :roll:

Sparks and xouper at it again?

Trollin trollin trollin...

[sparks]

...................................................