Quote :

further noise

Perhaps you could tell me just what I've been offering in this thread which constitutes noise. I provided news of a new statistical study. My comment on it was that I was appreciative of the fact that the authors laid out their methods and data and that it's conclusions were consistent with previous ones, which you didn't seem to be aware of. I made the point that it was likely to be heavily contested in both statistical and climate journals and further that I was happy to wait to see how things panned out. I corrected DWB's article announcement that '2010 was the hottest year on record ever' by showing that 3 out of 4 mainstream datasets in current use today disagree with that announcement and because of that, it was perhaps unduly alarmist in tone. I drew attention (along with Sam starting the thread) to a group of scientists who have been withholding data and who had been ignoring FOI requests and it is now 'well established fact' that they have been. I have drawn attention to independent studies on the Australian temperature record which show that through arbitrary adjustments a warming bias of 40% has been introduced into the record. I opined earlier that I was not surprised by this but on the other hand I was interested to hear what the official response might be. I've provided further news of NZ's NIWA being sued for withholding information about their own adjustments to raw temperature data, which have altered the raw record from basically no warming over 100 years, to show a warming of 1 degree C over the same time.

edit: I further offered to another poster that the climate change debate is a good one for reflecting on our abilities to truly understand such a complex issue and that we should probably learn to deal with the fact that we are not going to have full knowledge of this stuff anytime soon.


Please show me where any of what I've been talking about constitutes 'noise' in your opinion. Please, I'm interested.

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Sat, 21 Aug 2010 18:11.

Quote from Shotglass :

youd be aware of that if youd ****ing read what i write

I'm aware of what you've written. I could tell you what you'd written all the way back to page 4. You on the other hand couldn't even be bothered checking a few lines up to see that what I had said and what you thought I had said was compatible. Your ability to confuse and conflate what people are actually trying to express has been consistently impressive throughout this debate. And not just in this thread I see, but all over this forum.

You've clearly bluffed your way through here and somebody with even the most rudimentary understanding of the arguments of climate change (me) can see that. You on the other hand have no understanding. None. Nadda. Zip. Zilch. It's as plain as day. It's embarressing for you, but if you choose to or are unable to see that, then that's your business.

Thanks for playing but it's getting boring. I will probably ignore you from now on. You can only get so far talking to a brick wall. It's funny... if your idea of learning about a topic is to just show up and start mouthing off to people who are actually putting in the time to understanding things then that's a very strange way to go about learning. But this isn't about learning is it? You care nothing about current results in climate science. Your opinions are about 10 years out of date and you have shown no desire to improve your awareness on any of the issues we've been discussing. You've had ample opportunity to provide some kind of information... ANY information, that was in any way more substantiated than the made up contents swirling about inside your own head. I've been waiting, genuinely hoping that you'd be able to come through. You've blown it. Your behaviour has been nothing less than that of a troll.

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Sat, 21 Aug 2010 11:20.

Shotglass,

I can't help but be a little mean here, but you basically held up a giant neon placard signifying 'stupefyingly ignorant!!!' all the way back on page 4 of this thread when you admitted that you had no idea who James Hansen is. That is classic! I didn't want to say anything about that, but you've been so rude in this thread that I don't care. Saying 'who is James Hansen?' is basically like saying 'what is global warming?'. I couldn't believe that one. I was dumbfounded! Yet you continually profess to tell us how it all is. This is all extremely rich, and I can't help finding this highly entertaining. Laughing at your expense, that is.

You should just go away for awhile, and come back when you know something. You've talked a tough talk, but there is nothing behind it. Go get educated. I bet you've never read a climate paper in your life.

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Sat, 21 Aug 2010 02:24.

Quote from Shotglass :

am i really the only one who does think its a bad thing scientists have to spend time following this blog nonsense instead of devoting their time to doing actual science?

if youre gonna complain about grant money being wasted complain about all the time they recently have had to spend not doing their jobs

Perfect argument. You should take this up with Gavin Schmidt over at Real Climate right away. People have been wanting him to get back to work for years.

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Sat, 21 Aug 2010 01:28.

Quote from SamH :

the nitty gritty of it is really science versus post-normalism.

Exactly Sam.

edit: PS, DWB- here's a recent snippet from Judy Curry on her thoughts on the development and growing impact of sceptical sites. It's o.k. - she's a scientist. You can read it.

Quote :

Why have you been so conversant with some of the so-called skeptical sites, sites that are certainly outside mainstream climate science?

One of the other positives that I think has come out of Climategate is a realization of what other bloggers like (Steve) McIntyre (of Climate Audit) are actually up to. This isn't a Merchants of Doubt, oil-company-funded effort. It's a grassroots effort. These are people who are interested, they want to see accountability. They have a certain amount of expertise and they want to play around with climate data. There's no particularly evil motives behind all this.

We really don't understand the potential or impact the blogosphere is having. I think it's big and growing. The sites that are growing in popularity are Watts Up With That, which really have huge traffic. I think there's a real interest in the subject. I think there's a hunger for information. I think there's a huge potential here for public education. People say it's polarizing, and sure, you have Climate Progress and Climate Depot on the two extremes, but in the middle you've got all these lukewarmer blogs springing up. So I can also see a depolarizing effect. There seems to be a lot more stuff building up in the middle right now. With the IPCC, and the expectation that scientists hew to the party line, it was getting pretty evangelical. When I speak up about maybe there's more uncertainty, some people regard that as heresy. That's not a good thing for either science or policy. We've got to lose that.

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Sat, 21 Aug 2010 00:14.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

the batshit conspiracy elements

I totally agree. There's a ton of **** out there. But it's on both sides. I think your sensibilities are getting in the way of an objective view here. I understand, I wouldn't want to be lining up with Glenn Beck, Rush Limb or any of those loonies. But I was horrified to find out that the right wing commentator in our Herald Sun newspaper was actually making more informed points on very specific issues related to GW than the more progressive ones which I usually trusted. I'd written a lot of angry letters to that guy. A LOT of angry letters. I've had to deal with that, and it doesn't mean I accept everything this guy says- I still think he's 99% batshit, but every now and again he has a point and it's usually a point that is not being articulated by those I've generally trusted in media.

This is not a right/left thing, but still people are uncomfortable stepping outside of their own communities of opinion to look at the other side of things. Before I left for Turkey, my friends group was basically 100% green/hippy/activist. There was no space there to develop an objective opinion on GW. I just accepted it as given. I shared the concerns of everybody I was hanging out with. When I moved to Turkey, I was free to really develop my own opinion on GW and I actually started doing research. Before I was convinced (and hadn't done any research), and now you would label me as a sceptic (and I've done a ton of research). That's how it's gone.

The last thing I want to say, and I've already said it- is, put the newspapers down. You are better off at visiting the pro warmist blogs if you're looking for consensus opinion on climate. The newspapers are HOPELESS. I would also recommend very strongly streching out a bit and visiting some sceptic blogs as well. Climate Audit is the most technical and What's Up with That is a good site with a lot of content and some diverse views. It's a 'warmist' friendly site if people go there in good faith and ask sensible questions. If you're going there only to attack or mouth off in the way Shotglass has been doing you won't get far.

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Fri, 20 Aug 2010 23:53.

Quote from SamH :

Funny innit?

I don't know what to call it. I wouldn't call it being objective.

Quote :

I have no problem with evidence from peer-reviewed/reliable sources.

You've only offered newspaper articles. The whole way through.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

I think you might be swallowing too much of the other sort.

So those graphs I posted up are bunk? It really is the 'hottest year on record evah!!!1!11' for you? Gee, I thought you were more the alternative type.

They never did find those WMD's did they?

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Fri, 20 Aug 2010 23:12.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

Shotglass is here to make the point that there's a reason these climatologists go through years and years of schooling to be able to understand/interpret the data they're working with, and to point out that you lack that understanding. That's all.

If you think that schooling is useless, or just indoctrination into some kind of secret club/cult, you're willfully deluding yourself.

Accept that there are things you can't understand without the proper training, because it's a fact. Don't be afraid of authority just because you lack it.

Just don't listen to the statisticians, they're a secret cult right?

Climatologists also tend not to play well with historians, archaeologists, geologists, meteorologists, solar physicists, polar bear experts and certain paleo geophysicists either.

Just sayin...

Quote :

(Feels just as much that you lot are blindly following whatever evidence will prove the AGW "establishment" is an evil pack of liars trying to suck you dry for tax dollars.)

I think you might be swallowing too much commercial news.

Quote from SamH :

Sam's post...

I chortled

Quote :

do realises that there are more climatologists in this world than that one guy and his colleagues?

Of course I don't ascribe the behaviour of one or a few men to be representative of the behaviour of the entire field. But on the other hand we were not talking about these other men/women- I don't think we have the entire thread, which is probably a great shame. In fairness, the point should be made that the people we have been talking about do enjoy great power and influence within the climate community- they are lead authors of IPCC, head of CRU, etc. My opinion on that is that it is regrettable. As leaders in their field they should acknowledge some kind of responsibility in being better role models for openness and transparency and fairer play with critics. My problem with climatologists is really a problem with these few people, and you are certainly right to point out that not everybody is like this.

Quote :

while you may not have said it as such you certainly did imply that it had any sort of relevance in the ongoing scientific discourse

I believe it's relevant. It was made up of scientists who were critiquing and giving recommendations on the current state of science at the time. In my definition that is a scientific discourse (if it wasn't relevant I don't think they would have bothered).

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Fri, 20 Aug 2010 21:30.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

Yes, because climate change means massive temperature change year to year. Idiot.

And anyway: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... 8/13/AR2010081306090.html

The article is correct but only by taking into consideration certain datasets. Reality is a little bit more complicated than that. Makes a good headline though...

Here's GISS




Here's Had_Crut



Here's UAH



Here's RSS


3 out of 4 data sets disagree about the announcement that "So far, this has been the hottest year in recorded history."

I'd suggest an actual check of the data before believing what the papers tell you. But I understand you're a smart guy, you already know that. I agree completely that this is a hot year globally. No complaints there.

(not having a dig at you, just providing perspective and data).

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Fri, 20 Aug 2010 17:00.

Quote from amp88 :

What would you say about practices such as selecting data specifically to fit an ideology (as occurred with the Yamal sampling)? If the raw data you pass on is intentionally filtered to fit a particular ideology then no amount of good, honest work in the future can account for this. Fruit of the poisonous tree.

What you call cherry picking Keith Briffa would probably call a problem arising from a limited sampling of cores. Steve M has recently posted on the issue of the existence of another set of data (an updated Polar Urals chronology) which has been available since 2000. These are valid measurements according to Briffa and should really be used to gain a more reliable result in his reconstruction. So far, Briffa has not done any re-analysis taking into account these other measurements.

http://climateaudit.org/2010/0 ... ndertaken-any-reanalysis/

Remember, this data has been available since 2000. But according to Briffa (in answer to Muir Russel), there has been no time in which to do the work, and alternatively (to Steve Mc) that he hadn't even considered it. This is all very strange. I'd recommend reading through the post linked above. If you come away from it with the feeling that Briffa isn't interested in updating his data, which might then give differing results to those included in IPCC, ie- it's basically a case of cherry picking and ignoring evidence- then I wouldn't hold it against you. I also get the same feeling.

Quote from amp88 :

The problem with this approach is that as has been demonstrated in the past (e.g. hockeystick graph) some of the people who are supposedly experts in the field are not being objective in their methods or analyses. When you have people being given research grants and funding from governments (e.g. the CRU) the chances of getting data back that's objective are in question. I'm not saying that "citizen scientists" have the expert knowledge in the field (or even the authority to attempt to invalidate what has already been published). What I'm saying is that one of the foundations of scientific research (namely objectivity) is compromised when governments are funding research when they already have extensive work under-way that relies on a particular outcome from that research.

I would disagree with this. I see the problem as being one where a branch of experts, in this case the statisticans, are not being given their proper dues- and then people are not being objective about their arguments or are made simply unaware of or are willfully unaware of the arguments, for whatever reasons. On blogs and in the media you hear an awful lot of people defending climate scientists from the point of 'when I need my car fixed I don't call a climate scientist. I call the mechanic. But when I need to know about the science of climate change, I listen to and trust the climatologists'. Similarly, in this new paper, the statisticians have made no judgment on the quality of the data being used...

Quote :

“We assume that the data selection, collection, and processing performed by climate scientists meets the standards of their discipline. Without taking a position on these data quality issues, we thus take the dataset as given.”

What the statisticians have done is simply attend to the area of their expertise. If you can't accept statements made by the statisticians on the quality of statistics being performed by non statisticians, that their arguments are invalid because they are not climate scientists, but then you are also making arguments on the authority of climate scientists, then you are not being symmetrical in your argument.

This 'citizen scientists' term is misleading here. Both the Wegman panel and the North panel were in sum representative of the top experts in the fields of both paleoclimatology and statistics. They both came to similar conclusions.

Quote :

The Wegman panel was made up of three statisticians from three different universities, none of whom had any professional connection to paleoclimatology or the AGW debate. The North panel was made up of eleven paleoclimatologists and two statisticians, most of whom had been professionally connected to the IPCC or the Hockey Team, some of them closely connected. So this jury was well and truly stacked in Mann’s favour. He acknowledged this to Keith Briffa in an e-mail urging him to appear before it as a witness:


I think you really should do this if you possibly can. The panel is entirely legit[im]ate, and the report was requested by Sherwood Boehlert, who as you probably know has been very supportive of us in the whole Barton affair … The panel is solid. Gerry North should do a good job in chairing this, and the other members are all solid. Christy is the token skeptic, but there are many others to keep him in check.


But despite its AGW bias, when the North panel presented its report in June 2006 it acknowledged that the Hockey Stick’s depiction of temperatures before 1600 was invalid. It reported that the Hockey Stick depended on bristlecone pine proxies that “should be avoided for temperature reconstructions”. That its reliance on single validation statistics was unacceptable. That its short-centring methodology was biased, towards a hockey stick shape. That it used methodology that was “unconventional” and “problematical” such that it “introduced certain distortions”—that is, was wrong. And more. It concluded that: “Some of these criticisms are more relevant than others, but taken together, they are an important aspect of a more general finding of this committee, which is that uncertainties of the published reconstructions have been underestimated.” This was a highly euphemistic summary of the report’s specific findings. The panel made no criticism of McIntyre or McKitrick or of the papers they presented.

Quote :

The Wegman report identified a hard core of seven authors and a “social network” of forty-three authors with direct ties to Mann, and reported that this network had compromised independent research, perverted the peer review process, and so tied researchers to their public positions that they had become incapable of reassessing them. It criticised the team’s isolation from mainstream statisticians in other disciplines, and its grudging and haphazard release of the data required for verification of its findings. Most importantly it found that “the decentered methodology” used to produce the Hockey Stick “is simply incorrect mathematics”, that the Hockey Stick has “a validation skill not significantly different from zero”, and that its obliteration of the Medieval Warm Period and contention that the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium were “essentially unverifiable”.
The team attacked the Wegman report on the grounds that it was not peer reviewed, which was ridiculous since it was a peer review—a proper independent one by three of the most distinguished statisticians in the country.

Let's be real here. Critics of Mann are not simple backyard statisticians with delusions of grandeur. They are respected in their field. They have shown to be correct, even by scientists in close personal connection to Mann. Where Mann's supporters generally tend to differ is in their take on whether the criticisms matter... not that they are somehow wrong.

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:14.

Quote from Shotglass :

and im trying to point out to you that since you lack any education in any relevant field to the subject you should do the only smart thing there is and wait things out while the topic is still under discussion from people who do know the math instead of flapping your mouth in support for one side when in fact you dont understand either side

also for what its worth a congressional hearing is not a scientific publication

I'm extremely happy to wait things out. Where was I 'flapping my mouth off?' or where did I say this paper was correct beyond reproach? All I offered was that this papers conclusions are consistent with previous papers in the lit, and then I pointed out that you seemed to be unaware of this. You can check that my 'enthusiasm' for this paper lies in the fact that the authors haven't hidden anything away to be second guessed by anyone else. All data and methods are available, and I contrasted this with the prior behaviour of Mann, which I find deplorable in this regard. This 'discussion' as you put it has been ongoing since 1998, in the literature and outside of the literature, and I've tried to follow it all the way along and I've listened to both sides with extreme interest. I am educated on the issue, even if the finer mathematical points elude me. But there is nothing at all 'shocking' about this paper for me to assume that it is a wrong footed approach. Again I point out that these things have been said time and time and time again. I will wait for an official rebuttal from the original authors along with everyone else. That's what you do.

Quote :

also for what its worth a congressional hearing is not a scientific publication

Where did I say that it was?

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:45.

A John Adams rehearsal/doco on youtube.

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:18.

Quote from Shotglass :

nice way to brush away reality
you dont even know if its dodgy math because you dont ****ing understand the math

You lack the proper context for this paper and where it fits into the overall history of the hockeystick controversy and the literature. I forgive you for imagining that this is something which has just come out of left field, but I can assure you that's not the case. Various conclusions and concerns of this paper have already been articulated through previous papers, expert panels and congressional hearings. For the lazy, here's a wiki entry for the history of the hockeystick so far. Of course, this can only begin to scratch the surface.

All I'm conveying to you are the conclusions that I've been able to draw from my reading on the robustness of these constructions. They do not look good. This is pretty much confirmed even by the original authors themselves. They admit a great deal of uncertainty and have recently quietly admitted that sans a number of contentious proxies (bristlecone pines and the contaminated Tiljander series) the reconstructions show no statistical skill prior to 1500. Statisticians have consistently been at pains to point out that the proxies are pretty much useless as indicators of past temperature, and this new paper is further verification of that. I'm just telling you what they told me

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Thu, 19 Aug 2010 08:08.

Quote from Shotglass :

i was under the impression that these already "established" results were published on a blog
dont blame the scientific community for ignoring someone who isnt willing to use the proper channels

If you'd read the new paper you could have simply checked the supplied references for yourself. This is the last time I'm going to hand you out information you could have easily gotten yourself. You've shown nothing but laziness and offered nothing but impressions and assumptions all the way though this discussion.

Quote :

McIntyre, S. and McKitrick, R. (2003). Corrections to the mann et al. (1998) proxy base and
northern hemispheric average temperature series. Energy and Environment 14, 751–771.
McIntyre, S. and McKitrick, R. (2005a). Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious
44
significance. Geophysical Research Letters 32.
McIntyre, S. and McKitrick, R. (2005b). The m&m critique of mbh98 and northern hemispheric
climate index update and implications. Energy and Environment 16, 1, 69–100.
McIntyre, S. and McKitrick, R. (2005c). Reply to comment by huybers on ”hockey sticks,
principal components, and spurious significance”. Geophysical Research Letters 32.

Quote :

which means that any properly educated climatologist will have been taught a strong foundation in statistic methods during his math education
it seems a little like youre missing something important here but climatology is a physical sciences branch
these people know how to do math very well

I've never said they weren't good at math. I'm saying that statisticians should be able to do statistics better.

Quote :

it seems like you predictably arent familiar with the way science works
are you aware of the process of how an idea evolves through the stages of conjecture to hypothesis to theory?
the same process applies to papers that try to do soemthing truely new
at this point this singular paper represents something between the stages of conjecture and hypothesis
as neither i or you are familiar enough with the subject to form any sort of educated oppinion on the content of the paper i choose the only sensible thing to do which is to wait things out until the paper either gets debunked or gets backed up by a lot more work on the subject

if the latter happens the thing has matured to the point where it can be compared to the stage of theory
then and only then will be the right time for anyone not specialised in the content of said paper to get on the bandwagon and accept it as correct without replicating the results himself

This isn't plate techtonics. This is shining a light on some dodgy math.

Quote :

while i agree that is a bit shakey the fact of the matter is there is no point in sharing data with citizen "scientists" who wouldnt know the first thing what to do with it

How about sharing the data with scientists?

Quote :

you do realise that the material is there for scientists who know the math not for dick and jane to add further noise to the debate without having anything of value to say?

Who cares what I say. The point is that CRU and others have a history of not providing their data to anyone, scientists included. Unless you're friends with the guy who wrote the paper. Then that's o.k.

Quote :

which talk about one single reasearch group in a rather large field

If you'd read Wegmen then you'd have some idea just how incestuous the paleoclimate field possibly is. But of course you haven't read it. I can't be bothered hunting it out for you.

Quote :

right.........

Yep.

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:52.

Thanks for all your one liners Shot. Although I assume you're just being snarky, I'll try to answer them.

Quote :

Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrik Kar
The conclusions of the paper are understandable

which are to be considered meaningless or at least questionable before youve been able to replicate the results of the paper

What is immediately interesting about this paper (and what was interesting to me) is that it is independent confirmation/replication of the conclusions that Steve McIntyre came to when auditing Mann, that the proxies used were found to be unreliable indicators of past temperature, confirmed by the authors result that random (red) noise actually gives a better model fit than when using the actual proxies. Really, this is a replication of an already established result, though ignored by climate scientists.

Since all the data and code are provided, there's no issue that this paper can't be replicated. This is already behaviour worlds away from the long drawn out fights over basic data and methods that has extensively been covered in Climategate and elsewhere. As I said, anybody with the chops to do so can do this work. It's certainly not going to be done by me. But cheers for pointing that out again.


PS, the intention of the authors is not in offering up their own version of the hockeystick- which is a point being missed on various pro-climate blogs. They are saying that the proxies are useless for the purpose assigned to them, that of determining historical temperatures with any degree of certainty or skill. The proxies fail.

Quote :

My eyes blurred over at the statistics but these guys are professionals in their field

so are all the climatologists

Climatology relies on statistics. (edit: and perhaps in this case, not being climatologists should really work to the benefit of the authors as they would likely be immune to any potential biases and preconceived notions about results).

Quote :

What's great about this paper is that all methods and data are laid out for anybody to check.

which you and everybody else who seems to like that paper arent intellectually able to

See above. Also, I did have a go at reading the paper. Did you? Just how many papers have you been able to replicate before you accepted the findings of the authors? Do you not accept anything that you haven't put in the work to replicate personally? Let's see where you show Mann is right and these new authors wrong. Do you not 'like' the new paper? Why?

Apparently there's this maxim in science which goes something like 'trust, but verify'. Which sounds sensible. What I don't accept (and you can see that this has been my basic argument in this whole thread) is this new idea of 'trust, I'm a scientist', and then withholding the means by which to verify. As far as I can tell, anyone can get on board that, you don't need to be a scientist to see there's something wrong with that. Verification is a straight forward process. If you can't verify, then it makes it that much harder to trust.

Quote :

You don't need to guess about what these guys have done.

theoretically no
but unless youve beeen able to replicate the results yourself its impossible to know whether the paper is honest or not (the peer reviewers usually have to assume the results are honest due to time constraints and focus more on the correctness of the methods described in the paper)

Explained above. (the author's honesty is relatable to them immediately putting up all material and methods for easy public access). The paper itself may be heavily contested in both climate and statistics journals.

Quote :

This can only be positive as there was no prior communication with statisticians.

and youre basing this on what exactly?

From the recent Oxburgh enquiry.

Quote :

“The panel found that the statistical tools that CRU scientists employed were not always the most cutting-edge, or most appropriate. “We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians. Indeed there would be mutual
benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a
much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of
temperature specialists.

and

Quote :

“The Report points out where things might have been done better. One is to engage more with professional statisticians in the analysis of data. Another, related, point is that more efficacious statistical techniques might have been employed in some instances...

...we do see the sense in engaging more fully with the wider statistics community to ensure that the most effective and up-to-date statistical techniques are adopted and will now consider further how best to achieve this.”

The Wegman report, 2006

Quote :

Conclusion 3. As statisticians, we were struck by the isolation of communities such as
the paleoclimate community that rely heavily on statistical methods, yet do not seem to
be interacting with the mainstream statistical community. The public policy implications
of this debate are financially staggering and yet apparently no independent statistical
expertise was sought or used.

Plus the fact that, they don't.

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:11.

The conclusions of the paper are understandable, and the paper itself is atleast readable (even providing a bit of history on the story so far) . My eyes blurred over at the statistics but these guys are professionals in their field and I didn't get past high school math. Of course I'm going to struggle. What's great about this paper is that all methods and data are laid out for anybody to check. You don't need to guess about what these guys have done. It's also the first major paper in a statistics journal that has seriously engaged the assumptions of Mann and others. This can only be positive as there was no prior communication with statisticians. There was the lone voice of Steve Mc and his contributors over at Climate Audit but that was really it- and the climate community ignored (publicly) Steve for as long as they possibly could. Perhaps this new paper will work to foster better communications across disciplines, but history as a guide I can only foresee climatologists bristling at the idea, which doesn't reflect well on climatologists in my book. It will be interesting to see.

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Wed, 18 Aug 2010 06:28.

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

So, let me get this straight, you need a degree on the subject to actually understand whatever it is you are reading? F*ck off...

I can tell you, I don't need to read a lot of scientific papers to understand that individual governments and NGO's are covering up big time. It's people like you and wsinda with your "I'm smarter than you" bullshit, that think the lesser "educated" just don't have the understanding to know what's going on. It's people like you who are keeping this propaganda bullshit alive... attempting to intimidate anyone who can't flash a degree or whatever...

There's no need for that kind of tone.

This isn't an argument about a group of people having more understanding than another group. If anything it's an opportunity to offer up some humility and modesty over the limits of knowledge in the face of bewildering complexity. You know, the known unknowns and all that..

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:33.

Quote from wsinda :

The link doesn't work (page not found).

Try this link-

http://www.e-publications.org/ ... ile/6695?confirm=63ebfddf

Quote from Racer X NZ :

No, people are reading it but the " aaahhh, your a looney" brigade can't argue with the info actually being made publc.

Hmm.. nah I reckon people have lost interest. It's a very strange argument really, this fight over 10ths of a degree. It's incredible how much energy has gone into this over the last 20/30 years or so. It's actually really bizarre.

I'm just interested really in clarifying a few simple questions. The question 'how much has it warmed?', isn't nearly as interesting as the question 'how much can we rely on what our data are telling us about how much it's warmed?'. To me, that question should really come first before drawing any hard conclusions or getting too excited. It's a fairly straight forward and logical question to ask. The arguments over the hockeystick and the issue of the NIWA temperature data are examples of the asking of this question. There are many others. The problem for the warmers/warmists/whatever is that these questions are now being asked in a very straight forward fashion by fairly normal people. This NIWA court case thing is a very extreme and unfortunate example in the search for answers to some basic questions of science. It shouldn't have come to this, it shouldn't have happened- but on the other hand it's not surprising- this has been a nonsense situation from the beginning, this weird socially engineered climate where asking questions has you pegged as some kind of moral degenerate...

And to be honest, I have a lot of 'green' friends, and I hesitate to talk about 'climate change' (although I'm genuine in my opinions). My politics might actually agree with a lot of the things the climate change movement is trying to accomplish, but I've long given up on it as a social issue and prefer to take it on instead as a personal interest/hobby. It's fairly abstracted away from issues of social policy and that kind of thing. I'm more just interested in how the Arctic/Antarctic sea ice is doing.

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:14.

You mean this thread? I thought that one might be a good one to post on here alongside the Judy Curry one previously at Keith's, but I'm also starting to feel that people are losing interest in this stuff. Anyway, was actually decent of Gavin to allow an interview outside the comfort zone of his own RC blog, although I too felt his arguments were fairly weak. Amazingly he just keeps on keeping on... but that's Gavin.

You've probably just heard they're getting serious in NZ over the NIWA temp adjustments?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-pre ... -data-accuracy-challenged

Ken Stewart has also finished his analysis of the Australian BOM adjustments to our own data (the 'high quality' record as opposed to raw). His final conclusion is an introduced 40% warming bias to the data via individual station adjustments. The BOM's official line is that any changes are basically random and therefore will tend to equalise out across the board. But Ken's analysis shows otherwise... (no way as severe an alteration as the NZ data, but significant and interesting in its own right).



http://kenskingdom.wordpress.c ... d-part-8-the-big-picture/


PS, which name do you go by on the climate blogs? I don't think I've ever seen a SamH. I'm just a 'Stu'

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Sun, 15 Aug 2010 20:59.