More global warming stuff

[Badger]

From "Watt's up with that" blog:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/07/c ... more-14918

It is my opinion that raw data, and independent analysis is a good thing, in science.

[ed]

Any person with a reasonable tool kit, when presented with a contention will ask for the raw data. Then you graph it, then you slice and dice it.

Was it so that the Brit loons refused to release their data?

Amazing. Then again, that's how religions began..

[Anaxagoras]

tl/dr but I saw a lot of hockey sticks and lines with positive slope so I guess it's warming innit?

ETA: OK, I read a little.

Using the algorithm which averages together individual station ID numbers, I get very consistent CRUesque patterns. the warming is common to a variety of data sorting processes. This methods avoids the issues of data selection or code problems in the other methods and I’m confident in the accuracy of these results, but you should check them.

[DrMatt]

Any person with a reasonable tool kit, when presented with a contention will ask for the raw data. Then you graph it, then you slice and dice it.

Was it so that the Brit loons refused to release their data?

Amazing. Then again, that's how religions began..

In science one goes beyond asking for the raw data when one can. One asks for the methodology and goes and collects more raw data.

[Badger]

tl/dr but I saw a lot of hockey sticks and lines with positive slope so I guess it's warming innit?

ETA: OK, I read a little.

Using the algorithm which averages together individual station ID numbers, I get very consistent CRUesque patterns. the warming is common to a variety of data sorting processes. This methods avoids the issues of data selection or code problems in the other methods and I’m confident in the accuracy of these results, but you should check them.

The discussion surrounding station type, and comparison of trends between urban and rural station data is what I found to be interesting.

[EvilYeti]

From "Watt's up with that" blog:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/07/c ... more-14918

It is my opinion that raw data, and independent analysis is a good thing, in science.

Only if those doing the analysis are competent and not fraudulent, though!

[Badger]

From "Watt's up with that" blog:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/07/c ... more-14918

It is my opinion that raw data, and independent analysis is a good thing, in science.

Only if those doing the analysis are competent and not fraudulent, though!

What's "competent"?

Shouldn't hypothesis and methods be repeatable by anyone, no matter their bias?

[EvilYeti]

What's "competent"?

Shouldn't hypothesis and methods be repeatable by anyone, no matter their bias?

Absolutely not. You need to be competent enough to understand the hypothesis and methods first; regardless of bias.

If a retarded person can't be taught calculus it doesn't invalidate the discipline, after all.

That is what is so frustrating about this supposed 'debate'. The deniers claim one bombshell after another when, after competent analysis, its nothing but amateur mistakes. And you wonder why we don't take you seriously.

[Badger]

What's "competent"?

Shouldn't hypothesis and methods be repeatable by anyone, no matter their bias?

Absolutely not. You need to be competent enough to understand the hypothesis and methods first; regardless of bias.

If a retarded person can't be taught calculus it doesn't invalidate the discipline, after all.

That is what is so frustrating about this supposed 'debate'. The deniers claim one bombshell after another when, after competent analysis, its nothing but amateur mistakes. And you wonder why we don't take you seriously.

Sorry for my lack of clarity. How about if I'd said "A reasonable person" rather than "anyone"?

Say something to convince me. I'm not retarded.

[EvilYeti]

Sorry for my lack of clarity. How about if I'd said "A reasonable person" rather than "anyone"?

Say something to convince me. I'm not retarded.

We are way ahead of you. We refer to 'reasonable persons' as 'peers' and have them 'review' research papers before they are published. It says everyone the trouble of wading through mistakes make by amateur goons.

Here is a great example of this:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/08 ... 6.php#more

In a nutshell, a few years ago Ross McKitrick released a paper that was described thusly by the denialist community:

After four years of one of the most rigorous peer reviews ever, Canadian Ross McKitrick and another of us (Michaels) published a paper searching for "economic" signals in the temperature record. ... The research showed that somewhere around one-half of the warming in the U.N. surface record was explained by economic factors, which can be changes in land use, quality of instrumentation, or upkeep of records.

Problem was the software he used to perform his analysis expected input in radians when the data source he used was in degrees. Given that he neglected to do the conversion every single number he computed was wrong. Oops.

Having nitwits review the work of other nitwits reviewing the work of competent professionals doesn't strike as a particularly effective means of uncovering the truth, in my opinion.

[xouper]

We are way ahead of you. We refer to 'reasonable persons' as 'peers' ...

Sorry, but you are not such a 'peer'. You are not a climatologist. You don't even have a PhD.

[sparks]

And it came to pass: YetiCunt reappeared at SC.

[manny]

We are way ahead of you. We refer to 'reasonable persons' as 'peers' and have them 'review' research papers before they are published.

Or, you know, crib an article from a magazine one step ahead of Omni. But definitely one of those. Yeah, definitely one of those. Climate scientists are excellent drivers. Yeah, they drive slow on the driveway when their dads come to Walbrook.

[Anaxagoras]

We are way ahead of you. We refer to 'reasonable persons' as 'peers' and have them 'review' research papers before they are published.

Or, you know, crib an article from a magazine one step ahead of Omni. But definitely one of those. Yeah, definitely one of those. Climate scientists are excellent drivers. Yeah, they drive slow on the driveway when their dads come to Walbrook.

Come ON! This is Serial!

[robinson]

Summer snow a surprise for holidaymakers

SUMMER holidaymakers could be forgiven for thinking winter has come a few months early, with a cold snap bringing a light dusting of snow to some parts of New South Wales.

Southern NSW, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia were hit by an unseasonable cold front today, with temperatures plummeting to near zero in the Snowy Mountains.

Towns such as Thredbo, and Cooma in the NSW Southern Tablelands, reported a brief flurry of snow this morning, Bureau of Meteorology Duty forecaster Jane Golding said.

"We had falls in the Snowies and down to about 900 metres above sea level,'' Ms Golding said.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/su ... 5820913288

[robinson]

Evidences for both sides!!!

[Mentat]

Evidences for dipshits on both sides!!!

FTFY

[EvilYeti]

We are way ahead of you. We refer to 'reasonable persons' as 'peers' ...

Sorry, but you are not such a 'peer'. You are not a climatologist. You don't even have a PhD.

Which is why you don't see me reviewing climate science research, you gibbering retard.

In my field I've done my share of reviewing. And no, I don't have a PhD nor would I want one. I make way more money than all the post-doc's around here already! Not to mention my discipline is so new that very few non-technical institutions offer a degree in it.

[sparks]

Oh....sweet Jeebus.

Here we go again. :Yawn:

[xouper]

We are way ahead of you. We refer to 'reasonable persons' as 'peers' ...

Sorry, but you are not such a 'peer'. You are not a climatologist. You don't even have a PhD.

Which is why you don't see me reviewing climate science research, ...

That's exactly my point. You are not qualified to evaluate that research and you are especially not qualified to tell us how to interpret that research.

[EvilYeti]

We are way ahead of you. We refer to 'reasonable persons' as 'peers' ...

Sorry, but you are not such a 'peer'. You are not a climatologist. You don't even have a PhD.

Which is why you don't see me reviewing climate science research, ...

That's exactly my point. You are not qualified to evaluate that research and you are especially not qualified to tell us how to interpret that research.

I'm more than qualified to evaluate and interpret the research, as I have a background in environmental science and have worked in the field. I'm just not qualified to review papers for publication.

You, on the other hand, know nothing other than what you read in tabloid newspapers.

[xouper]

We are way ahead of you. We refer to 'reasonable persons' as 'peers' ...

Sorry, but you are not such a 'peer'. You are not a climatologist. You don't even have a PhD.

Which is why you don't see me reviewing climate science research, ...

That's exactly my point. You are not qualified to evaluate that research and you are especially not qualified to tell us how to interpret that research.

I'm more than qualified to evaluate and interpret the research, ...

FAIL!!!

You have said more than once on this forum that those who are not climatologists are not qualified to pass judgment on such research. Thus by your own argument you are not qualified.

[EvilYeti]

FAIL!!!

You have said more than once on this forum that those who are not climatologists are not qualified to pass judgment on such research. Thus by your own argument you are not qualified.

Indeed I am not qualified to make claims that climate scientists have committed scientific fraud or other malfeasance. Neither are you or anyone else outside the field and without access to the primary methods and data.

The reason for this is simple if you look at the history of Mann's harassers. They make bombastic claims which are soon exposed as fraudulent by more competent analysts. Rather than being a career-ending move as it would be if they were actual professionals, they simply reboot and launch another flawed attack. This is a huge waste of time for everyone involved.

So, in a nutshell, the non-professionals opinions have no weight simply because they have nothing to lose.

Myself, however, am more than qualified to simply read the research papers, data and code and explain in perhaps simpler terms what it actually means to a lay audience. For example, with Michael Mann's comments re: 'hide the decline'.

I am by no means special, btw, anyone with at least an undergrad science education would be able to do the same with just a bit of extra research.

[xouper]

So, in a nutshell, the non-professionals opinions have no weight ...

Agreed. I am glad to see you admit that your opinions, as a non-climatologist, likewise carry no weight.

[manny]

I am by no means special, btw, anyone with at least an undergrad science education would be able to do the same with just a bit of extra research.

To go beyond the usual partisan bickering, that's actually exactly the problem. The climate science profession, which advocates massive sudden changes in the way of life of something like a billion people, which wants massive wealth transfers, which wants nation-states to submit to international authorities, goes out of its way more than any other science with the possible exception of Big Pharma to make itself incomprehensible to the average person with an undergraduate science education. Can we see the models? "No, that's proprietary." Can we see the raw data? "Dog ate it." Al Gore intentionally lied and you stood right next to him and said nothing. Why? "Well, we need to get people's attention."

They're acting like politicians, not scientists, and then expecting people to treat them like scientists. Fuck 'em. If you really believe in AGW, the main thing you should be working on is persuading the climate scientists to be less sneaky, less arrogant and less duplicitous.

[EvilYeti]

So, in a nutshell, the non-professionals opinions have no weight ...

Agreed. I am glad to see you admit that your opinions, as a non-climatologist, likewise carry no weight.

Yes, if I were to accuse climate researchers of scientific malfeasance, that opinion would have no weight.

If I was right, of course someone else in the field could run with it, or I could write a letter to a journal and the editors (whose opinions do have weight) might chose to do something.

[EvilYeti]

To go beyond the usual partisan bickering, that's actually exactly the problem. The climate science profession, which advocates massive sudden changes in the way of life of something like a billion people ....

Actually this is exactly the problem. Nobody in the climate science community "advocates massive sudden changes in the way of life of something like a billion people ...."

Some of the enivro-nazi's might and I've seen some pretty radical ideas from the IPCC, but the climate scientists aren't advocates for political change.

Can we see the models? "No, that's proprietary." Can we see the raw data? "Dog ate it." Al Gore intentionally lied and you stood right next to him and said nothing. Why? "Well, we need to get people's attention."

All the models and data are available for anyone whom wants it.

You just have to ask nicely; which the deniers do not. Decorum matters!

They're acting like politicians, not scientists, and then expecting people to treat them like scientists. Fuck 'em. If you really believe in AGW, the main thing you should be working on is persuading the climate scientists to be less sneaky, less arrogant and less duplicitous.

If you are approach professionals in any discipline with that attitude they are not going to want to work with you. You want respect, you have to give it first!

[Mentat]

I am by no means special, btw, anyone with at least an undergrad science education would be able to do the same with just a bit of extra research.

To go beyond the usual partisan bickering, that's actually exactly the problem. The climate science profession, which advocates massive sudden changes in the way of life of something like a billion people, which wants massive wealth transfers, which wants nation-states to submit to international authorities, goes out of its way more than any other science with the possible exception of Big Pharma to make itself incomprehensible to the average person with an undergraduate science education. Can we see the models? "No, that's proprietary." Can we see the raw data? "Dog ate it." Al Gore intentionally lied and you stood right next to him and said nothing. Why? "Well, we need to get people's attention."

They're acting like politicians, not scientists, and then expecting people to treat them like scientists. Fuck 'em. If you really believe in AGW, the main thing you should be working on is persuading the climate scientists to be less sneaky, less arrogant and less duplicitous.

And everybody else is either stupid and gives money to big oil, or is big oil and forces everybody to give money to them.

[manny]

Actually this is exactly the problem. Nobody in the climate science community "advocates massive sudden changes in the way of life of something like a billion people ...."

Some of the enivro-nazi's might and I've seen some pretty radical ideas from the IPCC, but the climate scientists aren't advocates for political change.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that to a person, they and their lay supporters are fundamentally dishonest about their aims.

All the models and data are available for anyone whom wants it.

You just have to ask nicely; which the deniers do not. Decorum matters!

I forgot to mention the part about "deniers." Here's what should happen to people who compare AGW skeptics to Holocaust deniers. They should be herded onto boxcars along with their families. They should be given dysentery and typhoid, starved to under 90 pounds and put to hard labor. Their families should be exterminated in front of their eyes and they should be forced to dig the graves. After a couple years of this, if they still choose to use the term "deniers" they will have earned the moral right to do so. Until then they can all fuck themselves with rusty barb wire.

If you are approach professionals in any discipline with that attitude they are not going to want to work with you. You want respect, you have to give it first!

That's fine, but not a single serious person is obliged to listen to someone who takes that stance, so you'll excuse me if I find the IPCC, James Hansen and the lot of them a bunch of lying sacks of shit not worthy of my attention, let alone my vote.

[sparks]

It is a tough choice, to be sure.


Now, all you Prius driving pricks--get the fuck outta my way! The turbo diesel is warmed up and eats those over priced battery packs for lunch. :P

[DrMatt]

It is a tough choice, to be sure.


Now, all you Prius driving pricks--get the fuck outta my way! The turbo diesel is warmed up and eats those over priced battery packs for lunch. :P

Fine but don't whine when the price of fuel is up.

[sparks]

The DuraMax isn't exactly easy on fuel, but it beats the hell out of the bad old days when a full size truck wasn't expected to get more than 10 mpg.

Fully loaded (the truck I mean) on the hiway I routinely get 20 mpg, driving 65-75 and with the A/C on full. It's down to about 15 around town.

[Bearguin]

The DuraMax isn't exactly easy on fuel, but it beats the hell out of the bad old days when a full size truck wasn't expected to get more than 10 mpg.

Fully loaded (the truck I mean) on the hiway I routinely get 20 mpg, driving 65-75 and with the A/C on full. It's down to about 15 around town.

What year?

I've got a 2001. Unfortunately I use it for a 7km drive to work in the winter so, while I go three weeks on a tank, I'm only seeing about 13 (Imperial) mpg.

Best I've seen is about 22 mpg empty. What I like is I still get better than 15 towing a 28 ft trailer.

Much better then when I had a 350 pulling the same trailer. Rarely saw double digits with that setup.

And isn't the Allison great for towing?

[EvilYeti]

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that to a person, they and their lay supporters are fundamentally dishonest about their aims.

You are consistently conflating the various radical environmental movements with the science community. They have absolutely no overlap, I can assure you that.

I forgot to mention the part about "deniers." Here's what should happen to people who compare AGW skeptics to Holocaust deniers. They should be herded onto boxcars along with their families. They should be given dysentery and typhoid, starved to under 90 pounds and put to hard labor. Their families should be exterminated in front of their eyes and they should be forced to dig the graves. After a couple years of this, if they still choose to use the term "deniers" they will have earned the moral right to do so. Until then they can all fuck themselves with rusty barb wire.

I didn't say holocaust deniers. Just deniers, like evolution deniers and Apollo landing deniers. They all have the same thing in common though, denying reality.

I have in the past, many years ago, made the comparison. And its completely justified, people like you use the exact same rhetorical cheats the holocaust deniers do to try and argue their case.

So to be fair, here's what should happen to people like you that share tactics with the revisionists.

They should be herded onto boxcars along with their families. They should be given dysentery and typhoid, starved to under 90 pounds and put to hard labor. Their families should be exterminated in front of their eyes and they should be forced to dig the graves. After a couple years of this, if people like you still choose to use the same dishonest rhetorical cheats as the holocaust deniers they will have earned the moral right to do so. Until then they can all fuck themselves with rusty barb wire.

So, in short, if you want people to stop comparing you to holocaust deniers, then stop acting like one.

That's fine, but not a single serious person is obliged to listen to someone who takes that stance, so you'll excuse me if I find the IPCC, James Hansen and the lot of them a bunch of lying sacks of shit not worthy of my attention, let alone my vote.

Well, for better or worse lots of serious people listen to them. But, as like Xouper, you are relegated to the margins of society, your opinion thankfully does not matter.

[EvilYeti]

Big oil is in it for the money, but you get something in return that is easily definable and can be demonstrated to exist. Sure I'm OK with regulating their activites (as with any business, as is the status quo).

Uh, that's all that is being attempted. Whats the problem then?

The warmerists want slavery, poverty, and genocide and also are in it for the money. And demand zero accountability.

No, only right-wing nutballs make that claim.

[manny]

You are consistently conflating the various radical environmental movements with the science community. They have absolutely no overlap, I can assure you that.

Riiiight. Michael Mann co-wrote the IPCC report and Hansen want war-crimes trials against oil executives, but there's no overlap. Like I said -- fundamentally dishonest.
[quote
I didn't say holocaust deniers. [/quote]But that's what you meant; that's why the term was coined. Some of you, being fundamentally dishonest, want to continue to use the term while weaseling out of its antisemitic origins. Well you can't.

Well, for better or worse lots of serious people listen to them. But, as like Xouper, you are relegated to the margins of society, your opinion thankfully does not matter.

How's cap and trade coming along, Sparky? What did the UN do just today with the first deadline out of Copenhagen.

No one believes your side. Which is really kind of a pity, because you might even be right. If you are, you will be responsible for the consequences of your continued dishonesty.

[EvilYeti]

Riiiight. Michael Mann co-wrote the IPCC report and Hansen want war-crimes trials against oil executives, but there's no overlap. Like I said -- fundamentally dishonest.

I just googled 'Michael Mann oil war crimes' and found nothing to indicate he ever said such a thing.

Holocaust deniers use this tactic all the time, its known as the 'big lie'. Just make a bombastic, fictional claim and keep repeating it until it sticks. Works like a charm!

But that's what you meant; that's why the term was coined. Some of you, being fundamentally dishonest, want to continue to use the term while weaseling out of its antisemitic origins. Well you can't.

You can't be serious.

If you deny something then you are a denier. Its in the friggen dictionary with an origin in the 15th century....

Main Entry: 1de·ni·er
Pronunciation: \di-ˈnī(-ə)r, dē-\
Function: noun
Date: 15th century

: one who denies <deniers of the truth>

AGW is a truth, albeit and inconvenient one as Mr. Gore says.

How's cap and trade coming along, Sparky? What did the UN do just today with the first deadline out of Copenhagen.

No one believes your side. Which is really kind of a pity, because you might even be right. If you are, you will be responsible for the consequences of your continued dishonesty.

True, many people don't accept the reality of AGW. For the same reason they don't accept the reality of the Apollo Landing, natural selection or Nazi genocide. Because they are dumb.

[manny]

I just googled 'Michael Mann oil war crimes' and found nothing to indicate he ever said such a thing.

Holocaust deniers use this tactic all the time, its known as the 'big lie'. Just make a bombastic, fictional claim and keep repeating it until it sticks. Works like a charm!

I couldn't figure out how you missed the words "and Hansen" but then I realized I made a typo which could be read to be implying that both had called for trials. Revised sentence: Michael Mann co-wrote the IPCC report and Hansen wantss war-crimes trials against oil executives...

[Bearguin]

I just googled 'Michael Mann oil war crimes' and found nothing to indicate he ever said such a thing.

Holocaust deniers use this tactic all the time, its known as the 'big lie'. Just make a bombastic, fictional claim and keep repeating it until it sticks. Works like a charm!

I couldn't figure out how you missed the words "and Hansen" but then I realized I made a typo which could be read to be implying that both had called for trials. Revised sentence: Michael Mann co-wrote the IPCC report and Hansen wantss war-crimes trials against oil executives...

EY will twist that typo as well.


I'm sure there are some reasonable people who can discuss this from EY's side, and it would be nice to see. Unfortunately, EY is just a big cunt and can't have a reasonable discussion with anyone. Badger tried very nicely (well, he is Canadian after all) but EY just responded with his usual bullshit.

Seems there is no hope for a middle ground discussion on this. Just have each side talking from out of their asses.

I swear the whole debate has gone beyond the political and become religious.

[EvilYeti]

I just googled 'Michael Mann oil war crimes' and found nothing to indicate he ever said such a thing.

Holocaust deniers use this tactic all the time, its known as the 'big lie'. Just make a bombastic, fictional claim and keep repeating it until it sticks. Works like a charm!

I couldn't figure out how you missed the words "and Hansen" but then I realized I made a typo which could be read to be implying that both had called for trials. Revised sentence: Michael Mann co-wrote the IPCC report and Hansen wantss war-crimes trials against oil executives...

Quite a big difference, I would say!

For the record, Hansen has been called out on his rhetoric multiple times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Controversies

He definitely has an activist bent, which also for the record I agree is damaging (scientists should remain neutral) to his message.

I still don't see any evidence hes a communist, luddite or a secret EarthFirst! agent.