flymike, I think your revised statement is reasonable. It's very important to be able to separate out the politics and the science, specifically because this distinction (or lack of) is where things have gone wrong and because it's in the gap between the two that you can really find what's been happening over the last 2 decades.
Roy Spencer's blogged about the thing you're seeing. It's a must-read, I think, because he talks about the point at which science and politics collided (the formation of the IPCC) and gives his observations about how things have played out as a result.
Roy Spencer's blogged about the thing you're seeing. It's a must-read, I think, because he talks about the point at which science and politics collided (the formation of the IPCC) and gives his observations about how things have played out as a result.
Yup. The "other lines of evidence" argument is dead. They always say that there are other lines of evidence, but never say which they are. They're quoting the 2006 NAS report.
As far as I can tell, this is because AFTER the 2006 NAS report, the Mann08 HS itself incorporated the "other lines of evidence" - the same data that McShane and Wyner used in their paper, debunking the hockey stick (they used all the latest available lines of data from Mann).
So those who refer to "other lines of evidence" are harking back to the NAS 2006 report, which itself was superseded in Mann08, which was in turn debunked in M&W10.
There doesn't appear to be any way to escape the fact that the paleo reconstruction can't be relied upon, and that all alternative lines of paleo evidence have been "used up". Yup, the "other lines of evidence" argument is definitely dead.
As far as I can tell, this is because AFTER the 2006 NAS report, the Mann08 HS itself incorporated the "other lines of evidence" - the same data that McShane and Wyner used in their paper, debunking the hockey stick (they used all the latest available lines of data from Mann).
So those who refer to "other lines of evidence" are harking back to the NAS 2006 report, which itself was superseded in Mann08, which was in turn debunked in M&W10.
There doesn't appear to be any way to escape the fact that the paleo reconstruction can't be relied upon, and that all alternative lines of paleo evidence have been "used up". Yup, the "other lines of evidence" argument is definitely dead.
I haven't read the IAC report yet (busy week) but reading the various commentaries, it does seem there is a lot that is pleasing the sceptics in the review, while there is a lot of shut-eyed denial from the CAGW crowd.
On the agendas of MSM, from Fox to the BBC, in the Blogosphere there is broad rejection of the lot. Not of the MSM message directly, but rejection of the presence of an agenda. There is almost no apolitical news reporting in MSM at all, and there is pretty much no trust of it as a result.
Gosselin reports that the German MSM broadly acknowledges that the scientific well has been poisoned, while still claiming that the water is fine to drink. That seems to be pretty common across most of MSM. How do you trust a source that doesn't even blink when it presents such dichotomies?
I definitely agree, yep. It seems to be a direct parallel.
hehe.. no, it's not slipped away at all. It's still reverberating. You probably don't/won't hear the term "Climategate" much any more, but the reason is because Climategate was something of an instant in time but with direction-changing impact.
Any time you hear about climate change, or climate science, or anything associated with it, it's being discussed in the context of Climategate. Nobody in climate sciences is ignorant of Climategate and probably nobody has been left unaffected by its implications. The word "Climategate" need never be mentioned again, the science is still different now because of it.
Cheers for that, Electrik Kar! Verrry interesting!
Dr Curry's just picked up on my analogy of climate science/scepticism juxtaposed with religious knowledge/agnosticism at Keith Kloor's blog ("The Brushback" thread), and seems to broadly concur with it. She's confirmed her sceptical/agnostic position and furthered my proposition with "ontic uncertainty". I hadn't considered ontological uncertainties as a tenable proposition. In fact I hadn't considered ontological uncertainties as a reality at all, so I'm quite excited about how this meta-science discussion will develop.
The Guardian's given Andrew Montford a link-back to his rebuttal, right at the top of Bob Ward's attempted hatchet job.. hot on the heels of giving Richard North a right-of-reply to Monbiot's atrocious piece about him. Strange things are happening at the Guardian.
Dr Curry's just picked up on my analogy of climate science/scepticism juxtaposed with religious knowledge/agnosticism at Keith Kloor's blog ("The Brushback" thread), and seems to broadly concur with it. She's confirmed her sceptical/agnostic position and furthered my proposition with "ontic uncertainty". I hadn't considered ontological uncertainties as a tenable proposition. In fact I hadn't considered ontological uncertainties as a reality at all, so I'm quite excited about how this meta-science discussion will develop.
The Guardian's given Andrew Montford a link-back to his rebuttal, right at the top of Bob Ward's attempted hatchet job.. hot on the heels of giving Richard North a right-of-reply to Monbiot's atrocious piece about him. Strange things are happening at the Guardian.
I gotta go out today but will more than likely be around tomorrow. If it would be useful (let me know), I can rework the interface I used yesterday to accept raw datalogger content pasted in, and to serve up the result in a grid like that one.
I tried copy/pasting the gridded HTML result, that I produced, directly into Excel and it sucked it straight in, ready to plot, so it could potentially be a solution. All you'd need is an internet connection at the track! LOL!
I tried copy/pasting the gridded HTML result, that I produced, directly into Excel and it sucked it straight in, ready to plot, so it could potentially be a solution. All you'd need is an internet connection at the track! LOL!
Yup, I'm in general agreement. I think if they wander too far from the science and back into the hubris, our friend Smith will ring some alarms. I agree, they won't want to screw this up.
... I used just the sample data..
[edit] Ahh.. the datalogger's output is much more comprehensive
[edit] Ahh.. the datalogger's output is much more comprehensive
I'm probably chasing up the wrong tree, but is this the kind of result you're looking for? (It's outputting in HTML, but can be formed in csv, tab delimited or even using an xml schema)
http://www.ukct.net/tristan/dispdata.asp
http://www.ukct.net/tristan/dispdata.asp
Does the datalogger export in XLS format or tab-delimited/comma-separated format?
Can you offer up a file of raw datalogger output, in the 3 column format?
I can't promise a rapid return but it could provide something of a periodic welcome break for me from what I'm working on at the moment.
I can't promise a rapid return but it could provide something of a periodic welcome break for me from what I'm working on at the moment.
Roger Snr has an interesting take on the efforts. He's pretty cynical about the motivation, I think, and points out some glaring scientific inconsistencies in the premise of the project that need addressing.
If they really wanted to win friends and influence people, they ought to invite Watts to the party. His criticisms of the CRN are very relevant to many parts of the discussion.
If they really wanted to win friends and influence people, they ought to invite Watts to the party. His criticisms of the CRN are very relevant to many parts of the discussion.
Electrik Kart, be aware of who Alastair McIntosh is, who wrote that Amazon review. It's the same Alastair McIntosh that wrote quite a bizarre review of HSI at the Scottish Book Review without actually reading the book.
From where I'm sitting, the shame is on LFS members who know better, dragging this forum down. Do what you want on your machine on your own time, but there's no justification or excuse for taking this forum with you - a GAME developer's forum of all places, for goodness sake!
The UK ain't much fun either, but I can imagine that buying a camera in Finland without buying at least one flashgun would be like buying a car without wheels.
On the other hand, I bet your "golden hours", when they happen, last a lot longer than ours! When I lived in Chicago (much further south than the UK), it wasn't so much a "golden hour" as a "golden 15 minutes".
When we got the BF1 in LFS, thousands of new users turned up with no idea about racing etiquette. Some were just there to wreck, but they were a minority. Unfortunately it only takes one or two expert wreckers to decimate an entire server for an evening.
Perhaps you need to think about coordinating a new barricade where servers share information about habitual wreckers. The first time around, it took probably the best part of a month or two to turn the tide. Wreckers couldn't wreck and went back to NFS. Pretty soon there was no need for a barricade.
It only takes one or two people to co-ordinate a barricade, and server operators will be glad of the help cleaning up their servers. There's no better feeling for a server admin than knowing about and being able to ban a wrecker before he even gets on the track. It just takes a bit of cross-server co-operation.
Food for thought, perhaps.
Perhaps you need to think about coordinating a new barricade where servers share information about habitual wreckers. The first time around, it took probably the best part of a month or two to turn the tide. Wreckers couldn't wreck and went back to NFS. Pretty soon there was no need for a barricade.
It only takes one or two people to co-ordinate a barricade, and server operators will be glad of the help cleaning up their servers. There's no better feeling for a server admin than knowing about and being able to ban a wrecker before he even gets on the track. It just takes a bit of cross-server co-operation.
Food for thought, perhaps.
Haven't posted in this thread in quite a long while, so I thought I'd drop a few images in and say HI!
I'm still running the old Nikon D1x, which must be about 10 years old now. Still doing a Project 365, which is proving difficult but very rewarding. Still pottering.
I'm still running the old Nikon D1x, which must be about 10 years old now. Still doing a Project 365, which is proving difficult but very rewarding. Still pottering.
Roger Helmer's withdrawn his apology to John Houghton, in a letter to the Telegraph.
He originally misquoted Houghton, but the actual quote isn't much different from the misquote. I think Houghton probably didn't mean to come across the way he did in the original comment, but he complained that he'd never said anything LIKE the misquote. It turned out that he did.
He originally misquoted Houghton, but the actual quote isn't much different from the misquote. I think Houghton probably didn't mean to come across the way he did in the original comment, but he complained that he'd never said anything LIKE the misquote. It turned out that he did.
This is the purpose of "concern trolling".. to disrupt the discussion by attempting to squeeze the life out of it.
We don't need to know the minutia of Scawen's code to discuss tyre physics in relation to LFS. We don't need to own a super-duper camera, or understand shutter mechanisms, or photons, to discuss someone's photo in the "Camera showoff" thread. If someone turned up in that thread and said that, since nobody in the thread had ever built their own SLR camera, nobody had any business posting their opinions there, would that be acceptable behaviour? No. Should their comment be removed? Hell yes. If they persisted, by posting abusively and insisting that everybody was talking out of bounds, should they be hauled up? Oh yes. Ditto this thread. If you want to participate in this discussion, stick within the normal bounds of a DISCUSSION forum. If you won't, you're out.
Shotglass, you've repeatedly stated that you have absolutely no interest in this topic. Now butt out of the topic and let people who ARE interested in it discuss it, free from your trolling. Starting now.
Last edited by SamH, .
Reason : ...
Converting from being a regular troll to being a "concern troll" doesn't cut it. Stop trolling.
Small point, but actually this is just about the only thing that has been affirmed by the two rather dubious Climategate reviews. Both indicated that scientists have been obstructive and even deliberately obfuscatory, preventing the truth (the data behind the claims) from reaching the public.
It's still continuing even now. I know of several outstanding requests for data which are either being ignored or the UEA are trying to exploit a caveat in the EIR to prevent release. The caveat won't work, since it simply doesn't apply, and even if it did the release would still be mandatory under FOI law, but the protracted efforts of the UEA will successfully delay the release. Stupid thing is, it should be available for download without having to go through FOI/EIR.. and it isn't.
Last comment I'm making, based on anything that Shotglass utters: The reason we know that climate models aren't accurate is because a) they don't hindcast effectively, and b) their projections don't match observed climate behaviour beyond a few weeks - six or seven at the most, before they completely depart from the observational data.
I've no more interest in feeding this troll. DWB, you were right. Shotglass, you're an idiot.
I've no more interest in feeding this troll. DWB, you were right. Shotglass, you're an idiot.
WTF? Since when did I NOT go to university?? Do you even GIVE a damn about making bullshit up?
Oh... my.. GOD!! LOL!!! You actually DON'T know what the "consensus" is, do you?
LMFAO!
Okay, proof positive, you're just a troll. What a sad descent into total irrelevance. You know precisely NOTHING about this subject and you're not worth the effort.
Whether or not you believe it is immaterial, grants are difficult to garner and there is pressure from university seniors for non-tenured researchers not to rock the boat, competition for grant money centres around capacity to deliver. Climate science has been directly affected by this situation and the Penn State enquiry's conclusions regarding Mann implicitly confirm it. You were the one, I recall, who borked at my suggestion that climate science was big business. It is, rightly OR wrongly, and I don't really much care if you delude yourself into thinking that it isn't.
I don't claim to have authority on the subject, I'm simply rejecting your unsupportable assertion that I know nothing of the subject.
No, I simply applied a test of reason and your position failed. If you actually knew what the "consensus" related to, I'd never have taken issue, but you don't.
Ohhh, that's right, I remember now. You're the one that saw my name in the 9/11 thread, where I argued for weeks or months against the conspiracy theories being banded about. You wrongly gathered, because you either didn't pay attention or because there's a disconnect between your eyes and your brain, that my presence in the thread was because I was PERPETUATING the conspiracy theories. And despite repeatedly correcting you on this, you remain singularly ineducable and irrational. And so it continues.
I don't disagree with your assertion, I disagree with your protracted conclusion that, therefore, I can't possibly know anything at all about anything relating to climate science. Do you have a post-graduate degree in politics? Do you think you have any right to form a political opinion or levy it at the next election? You fight so badly with logical fallacies.
See above.
Logical fallacy derived from irrational protraction.
I care. Promise.
You run general circulation models. You don't pretend they're experiments because they're not, they're model runs. They don't produce dependable evidence, they produce predictions with significant uncertainties. The best general circulation models break down beyond a couple of months and are incapable of projecting 100 years into the future - for example no GCMs calculate the effect of phytoplankton on hurricanes (a known effect). And don't pretend they can because you'll be arguing with the climate modellers themselves, and that would make you sound stupid.
Meh. Childish insults from you don't count for diddly, no matter how much you wish they would.
Silly nonsense.
Have to, or want to?
I agree with Electrik Kar, this isn't a left/right thing. I fully appreciate that it's very polarised in the US, courtesy of talk radio etc, but the nitty gritty of it is really science versus post-normalism.
I'm going to recommend a blog that I follow: Roger Pielke Jr.
Roger isn't a climate scientist, he's an environmental policy scientist. In essence, he takes the science and develops policy recommendations based on it. But he's insightful, articulate and he's almost infuriatingly reasonable. I don't agree with him on everything, but he's incisive and his arguments are compelling.
I'm going to recommend a blog that I follow: Roger Pielke Jr.
Roger isn't a climate scientist, he's an environmental policy scientist. In essence, he takes the science and develops policy recommendations based on it. But he's insightful, articulate and he's almost infuriatingly reasonable. I don't agree with him on everything, but he's incisive and his arguments are compelling.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG