Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Global Warming Research Center Hacked (Page 18)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 32 pages: 1  2  3  ...  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  ...  30  31  32   
Author Topic: Global Warming Research Center Hacked
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
You and Daruma have concluded that anybody and everybody who reads and relegates those revelations to a lesser importance than the overwhelming evidence for AGW is either dishonest, deluded or gullible. You've put me in that category (yes, you started calling us 'denier deniers' names first) so feel free to ignore my insane ravings on the subject.

G2 did a search Al, G2 can't find the term "denier" in his posts except for 3 - only once in this thread. That post was quoting TomDavidson, he used the term "denier". G2 think you're confusing me with someone else (or perhaps relating it to you previous login id?). You clearly want to go from basing your support of AGW on various logical fallacies to simply playing the victim to garner sympathy for your cause. It's a good fall back in modern America, tried and true, but as obvious and invalid as all the other logical fallacies you're relying on.

G2 has been pretty careful to address you in exactly the same way you address him and, as far as G2 can recall, has not called you anything. G2 understands you don't like it when your logical fallacies are pointed out and when the "science" you like is shown to be a fraudulent hoax based not on a consensus but on a conspiracy orchestrated by a few well placed and prominent researchers.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
G2 understands you don't like it when your logical fallacies are pointed out and when the "science" you like is shown to be a fraudulent hoax...
Again, let me point out that the "science" has not been "shown" to be anything of the kind. You really, really, don't understand what those emails actually say. Please go outside of your comfort zone for a minute and read up on the topic. I implore you.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2, I did a little wandering through the beginnings of this thread, too. I got a little sick of it after about 10 pages and didn't even come across any posts from me (my first one is on p14). You have been on the attack against anyone and everyone who doesn't swallow your argument whole since the very beginning. Rereading some of these gems I thought of what breed of dog bringer might assign to you. Somewhere between a tiny yipper that won't shut up and a snarler that will kill anything that even looks at his food bowl.

One conclusion I can draw is that you did not insult or disparage someone on every single page. My guess is that's because you didn't post on every page.

--------------------
P1 of this thread, quoting from your posts about people who don't accept your rabid anti-AGW polemicism:

If you read the OP, you'll see that any data contradicting AGW is being destroyed and discussion is being censored. Open, honest scientific debate of *all* the data will destroy AGW.

...you've been played for witless fools

You whine about intellectual integrity and hypocritically show us the perfect example of how a real self-righteous, know-it-all without it behaves.

This is what some here call "real" science.

You mock because you fear. You're being proven more and more wrong every day while I'm being proven right.

P2:

With any luck, a few of the big names in AGW research will get some jail time but with this kind of evidence there should at least be a criminal investigation.

Don't think this is just one small incident, the conspiracy is large and involved RealCimate - supposedly an objective website at which global warming activists and skeptics can engage in an impartial debate.

P3:

Holding onto the faith to the bitter end I see.

P5:

What you're doing here is exactly what AGW proponents have been trained to do. Insult, personal attack, etc. Predictions of transiting the Northwest Passage were proof that these predictions are true when actually this has been done before. You think pointing that out is stubborn and should be dismissed. You should apply for a job with Phil Jones ...

P6:

If Exxon scientists came out with anti-AGW research conclusions and refused to tell anyone how they came to that conclusion, you'd scoff - probably already have.

So when others, like G2, do the work, there is no warming much less any that can be attributed to man.

P9:

However, the pro-AGW forces still want the "science" to be "right":

P10:

Instead, we've had a cabal of scientists and politicians alter the data so that the hypothesis looks real.

Gee Al [Gore], maybe just this once you should get a handle on what the hell you're talking about.
...
But you know what? More than a few people are going to believe what Al just said. You will see this parroted on blogs and probably in the media. It's a complete fabrication but it supports the great lie so it's too good to check.

Those dirty, evil skeptics! Will they stop at nothing!?!?!

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you just stick with the basics like limiting pollution in the air that makes it hard for people to breath, and cleaning up mercury in the water so our fish aren't dangerous to eat, that's something measurable...
You know, I'd buy this kind of argument from people if any of the biggest opponents of AGW research were also out there crusading for, say, mercury abatement or pollution controls. But they aren't.

When such people say, "I'm all for helping the environment where we really need it," I call bulls**t. If they really felt that way, they'd be doing it already.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
If you just stick with the basics like limiting pollution in the air that makes it hard for people to breath, and cleaning up mercury in the water so our fish aren't dangerous to eat, that's something measurable...
You know, I'd buy this kind of argument from people if any of the biggest opponents of AGW research were also out there crusading for, say, mercury abatement or pollution controls. But they aren't.

When such people say, "I'm all for helping the environment where we really need it," I call bulls**t. If they really felt that way, they'd be doing it already.

So if you aren't for me, your against me, eh?
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's actually the exact opposite of what I said. My point, of course, is that people who say "it's one thing for us to devote resources to recycling or mercury abatement, but it's ridiculous for us to spend money on carbon containment" weaken their own argument immensely when they do not -- and, by and large, they do not -- actually devote or advocate devoting resources to recyling, mercury abatement, or any environmental cause that isn't AGW.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
My point, of course, is that people who say "it's one thing for us to devote resources to recycling or mercury abatement, but it's ridiculous for us to spend money on carbon containment" weaken their own argument immensely when they do not -- and, by and large, they do not -- actually devote or advocate devoting resources to recyling, mercury abatement, or any environmental cause that isn't AGW.

That's a completely silly statement. The US coal industry is definitely not pro-AGW, but they contribute, by far, the largest amount of resources for mercury abatement. Industry is the primary source of all environmental funds.

[ January 18, 2010, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The US coal industry is definitely not pro-AGW, but they contribute, by far, the largest amount of resources for mercury abatement.
Heh. Do you think they would if they were not required by law to do so, as they're one of the worst mercury polluters in the country?

(News flash: they would not. The coal industry is loudly lobbying against stricter mercury regulations, and achieved under Bush their goal of laxer mercury regulation.)

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
G2 understands you don't like it when your logical fallacies are pointed out and when the "science" you like is shown to be a fraudulent hoax...
Again, let me point out that the "science" has not been "shown" to be anything of the kind. You really, really, don't understand what those emails actually say. Please go outside of your comfort zone for a minute and read up on the topic. I implore you.
Tom, it very clear that you really, really, don't understand what those emails actually say. Please go outside of your comfort zone for a minute and read up on the topic. [Roll Eyes]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Heh. Do you think they would if they were not required by law to do so, as they're one of the worst mercury polluters in the country?

No, I don't, but that's beside the point. You argued that the anti-AGW groups don't contribute any resources to stopping mercury pollution. I pointed out that's the complete opposite of the truth, they contribute the most.

You basically asserted that all of the anti-AGW groups/posters don't contribute and that's factually not true. Furthermore, since it can be assumed that almost all the direct cost of AGW legislation will be borne by industrial groups, they've got every right to weigh in on the discussion.

Would you deny the right of anti-War protestors to protest on the grounds that they don't contribute, enough? The overwhelming majority aren't soldiers after all. I wouldn't, they're as much a part of this society as anyone else.

I actually like to hear everyone's point of view. Let the market place of ideas determine the winner.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I recently moved from Logan, UT to Orange county, CA. I think most would agree I moved to a more liberal place. I think most would agree I moved to a place that is more accepting of AGW science. Yet as far as I can tell, recycling was much bigger in Logan than here in Orange county. I don't think I've seen a recycle bin since I've moved here. Yet where I lived in Utah I saw them everywhere. Cardboard, cans, bottles of various types. Each household has a city trash can and recycle can. The people there seem fine with it. If you look in a trash can around town, you likely won't see any soda cans in it. People actually use the right can for things.

Logan has a free public transportation system set up. Anyone can get on any bus free of charge. Frequently a local political topic is what changes should be made to the system. Should we close down buses that aren't used much? Should we create a new path somewhere? Among these discussions, pollution is a very real and important topic to many people there.

So maybe I can buy your argument in the case of businesses. But I don't think you're right with regards to other people.

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
G2, I did a little wandering through the beginnings of this thread, too. I got a little sick of it after about 10 pages and didn't even come across any posts from me (my first one is on p14). You have been on the attack against anyone and everyone who doesn't swallow your argument whole since the very beginning. Rereading some of these gems I thought of what breed of dog bringer might assign to you. Somewhere between a tiny yipper that won't shut up and a snarler that will kill anything that even looks at his food bowl.

One conclusion I can draw is that you did not insult or disparage someone on every single page. My guess is that's because you didn't post on every page.

Many of G2's posts you quote have absolutely no insult or even remote intent for it except for someone who's trying to set themselves up as the victim. Is that really what you're going to go for here? If that's what you think proves the "science" of AGW then you might as well stop now. I am very familiar with your personal attack style, it's common here. As G2 has pointed out, what G2 has written is mild in the extreme compared to the attacks he is subjected to on a regular basis - indeed, even those that don't immediately swallow AGW theory who are threatened with loss of career accreditation and with criminal charges. If you think what G2 has written is over the top, then you're not paying attention. Remove the plank from your own eye before you criticize the speck of sawdust in G2's. [Roll Eyes]

G2 continues to humor you because you represent the uninformed, logically bankrupt, faith based side of the argument so well and it's all that's left of this fraud called AGW. You trot out logical fallacy after logical fallacy then cry for victimhood when those don't work. Now you're looking to get into a little name calling and go on the personal attack. Well G2 says be man damn it and go for it! Pull out another roll of that word of the day toilet paper and hit G2 with some multisyllabic disparagement that validates your superior contemplative abilities. G2 has been targeted by much better than you.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"G2 continues to humor you because you represent the uninformed, logically bankrupt, faith based side of the argument so well and it's all that's left of this fraud called AGW. You trot out logical fallacy after logical fallacy then cry for victimhood when those don't work. [...]"

Yes, thank you for proving my point.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Roll Eyes] [LOL]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
Yes, but the term Advanced Heat Shield struck me as rather exotic

I agree. Which makes me wonder why you introduced the term yourself (since nobody else on this thread has used it).
quote:
All new materials are going to be picked to avoid changes in temperature.
First off, I would dispute the basic premise - that companies will not try to build a better mouse trap and claim their insulation is better than another company's. You are in effect confusing one of the uses of this data (long term temperature reading consistency) with the major use of weather stations (current reading of weather data). Secondly, even if it was a goal avoiding any change in behaviour is impossible to achieve in practice, which still leaves you with adjustments to make even if smaller in amplitude.
quote:
However, it will always be a net neutral
over a long enough time span, yes, but since temperature is recorded as often as every hour (depending on the station type) and is collated daily and monthly, such adjustments are required as a result of the existence of the variations. Unfortunately, the mathematical analysis does not take into consideration when each and every station is maintained, in what way it is maintained, nor what are the expected variances due to the maintenance.
quote:
you yourself admit they do it every two years
Actually, no, I didn't say this either.

Finally, you are making some assumptions about the frequency of certain changes, as well as the independence of certain variables. But even if all the veriables that you put into your 'heating effects' list were independent (which they are not) these also would only be one time adjustments; whereas temperature station changes, be they new hardware or maintenance, will occur many times throughout the station's history.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
Yes, but the term Advanced Heat Shield struck me as rather exotic

I agree. Which makes me wonder why you introduced the term yourself (since nobody else on this thread has used it).
You used the phrase:
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Heat shielding screens have become more effective, not less so, as technology improved over time.

Technology improved heat shielding screens seemed a tad long so I abbreviated it to Advanced Heat Shield. I admit I was making light of the advances in shielding screens, since most weather enclosures I've seen our just wood or plastic enclosures.

quote:
First off, I would dispute the basic premise - that companies will not try to build a better mouse trap and claim their insulation is better than another company's.
Actually, with respect to solar radiation, I think you are probably right. As you'll note I added it to possible cooling factors.

quote:
JW: However, it will always be a net neutral over a long enough time span
quote:

Originally posted by DonaldD:
over a long enough time span, yes, but since temperature is recorded as often as every hour (depending on the station type) and is collated daily and monthly, such adjustments are required as a result of the existence of the variations.

We are talking long time spans here! A decade at a minimum and in most cases many decades. So no adjustment should be made for periodic events, particularly an hourly adjustment, any adjustments will almost certainly add in errors to the data and a series of hourly adjustment is 87,660 adjustments per decade. It makes no sense to adjust for periodic events that are minor and will not have a net effect.

quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
In general, screens require repainting every two years and replacement every 15 (depending on environment).

quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
quote JW:you yourself admit they do it every two years

Actually, no, I didn't say this either.

Actually, yes you did say this.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You argued that the anti-AGW groups don't contribute any resources to stopping mercury pollution. I pointed out that's the complete opposite of the truth, they contribute the most.
*sigh* Did you perhaps miss my point -- that in saying, "why aren't we spending resources on X, instead of resources on Y," the groups opposing spending resources on Y are not actually interested in spending resources on X, but are simply throwing it out there so that they don't look like they're completely uninterested in environmental issues?

quote:
Would you deny the right of anti-War protestors to protest on the grounds that they don't contribute, enough?
If an anti-war protester were saying, "Why don't we spend money on nerve gas instead of on sending soldiers to the front," I would indeed question whether or not they actually support spending money on nerve gas.

[ January 18, 2010, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We are talking long time spans here! A decade at a minimum and in most cases many decades.
It sounds like you do not understand how adjustments are calculated. It is in large part an automated calculation based on comparing short-term station temperature sets for one station to other local temperature sets (including ground based, satellite, and ocean) and from there calculating when an adjustment needs to be made to a station. Adjustments are of necessity not a decade spanning process, but rather corrections based on short-term discontinuities within a data set (in relation to other linked datasets.)

I'll give you an example. Say you have 4 stations or measurement sets within a small area. Imagine they have the folowing monthly trends:
1: 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, 5.5, 4.5, 3.5, 2.5, 2.5, 2.5
2: 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 6.0, 5.0, 4.0, 3.0, 3.0, 3.0
3: 2.7, 3.7, 4.7, 5.7, 5.7, 3.7, 2.7, 1.7, 1.7, 1.7
4: 3.2, 4.2, 5.2, 6.2, 6.2, 5.2, 4.2, 3.2, 3.2, 3.2.

Granted, this is simplistic, but it is suggestive that data set 3 has a discontinuity in the 6th month. This has nothing to do with yearly or multi-decadal averages.
quote:
Actually, yes you did say this.
No, I didn't. Go back and re-read what I actually wrote. I see that you quoted me correctly: now actually read what the words mean, not what you think they mean.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.

quote:
The IPCC’s reliance on Hasnain’s 1999 interview has been highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview for the New Scientist. Pearce said he rang Hasnain in India in 1999 after spotting his claims in an Indian magazine. Pearce said: “Hasnain told me then that he was bringing a report containing those numbers to Britain. The report had not been peer reviewed or formally published in a scientific journal and it had no formal status so I reported his work on that basis.

“Since then I have obtained a copy and it does not say what Hasnain said. In other words it does not mention 2035 as a date by which any Himalayan glaciers will melt. However, he did make clear that his comments related only to part of the Himalayan glaciers. not the whole massif.”


This really deserves to not be buried under a bunch of semantics about heat shields.

A link for those who are so inclined:
timesonline.co.uk

Quality science by the IPCC.

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, several contributors to IPCC reports have tracked down inconsistencies in some of the source information relating to a particular claim that probably way overstated the rate of loss of ice in the Himalayas.

While noting the sarcasm, this actually is an example of 'quality science' - not the original claim, but the more recent analysis and the likely forthcoming correction.

The question is whether such misattributions are widespread, or whether they are rare exceptions. There is nothing yet to suggest that such mistakes are widespread, as the vast majority of IPCC citations actually have peer-reviewed scientific journals as their source. The inclusion of this particular claim does however illustrate a possible systemic issue in the inclusion parameters for scientific papers.

I would be surprised if the process is not reviewed very publicly in the near future, for obvious reasons - we'll see soon enough.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This doesn't sound like science gone wrong at all, but reporting gone wrong. Either way it's a bad thing, but it isn't really relevant to a discussion about the merits of the underlying science. In following philnotfil's link and googling I read about on the ground "observations" that argue that most of the glaciers are not in retreat, but I also read about recent space measurements that say they are. The IPCC says they have recommissioned the research, so maybe we'll get a more clear cut answer to the question.

[ January 19, 2010, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: Al Wessex ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As far as the IPCC peer review of the kind done on Himalayan glaciers, that was some stellar science and review from the IPCC there wasn't it? A report of a claim made during an interview wass good enough for the IPCC only until they got caught.

How many of the IPCC claims are of similar quality science? Oh no, it's a one time deal right Al? Everything else is all good, yeah, that's right, all good. Now we can trust them to do what they claimed they did. Sure.

Except we know that's not true don't we? We know that a significant amount of research was peer reviewed improperly by reviewers who "know what to do without being told" so that a "tidy story" of warming could be created and that editors not conforming to AGW views were successfully targeted and eliminated. Is this the kind of peer review you're looking for instead of simply an interview about an article in a weekly magazine? One of them has a little thicker veneer of legitimacy and maybe that's what's really important.

The peer review process applied to AGW so far has allowed "science" like Briffa's tree ring study to pass and then be applied to a number of other peer reviewed studies - invalidating all of them that relied on Briffa's conclusions. Let me tell you about G2's "special peer review process" ... well, it's remarkably similar to what's on Wikipedia! That's crazy huh! Of course, that kind of peer review is hard to do and takes time which is probably why the IPCC's "special peer review process" was just to quote from weekly magazines.

Which process do you prefer, this or the IPCC's?

[ January 20, 2010, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As far as the IPCC peer review of the kind done on Himalayan glaciers, that was some stellar science and review from the IPCC there wasn't it? A report of a claim made during an interview wass good enough for the IPCC only until the got caught.
But who was it that "caught it"? It turns out that IPCC contributor Graham Cogley, a glaciologist, has long been at odds with that prediction, and has spent time researching the question. So the IPCC in fact caught itself. This is generally known as "science". That politics had a role in the original claim is a question that needs to be asked, but this correction is an example of the system working.

And it will certainly be an opportunity to clean up certain aspects of the IPCC that need corrective measures.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
[QB] It sounds like you do not understand how adjustments are calculated.

Sigh, we are to some degree talking past each other. I've read up on the process, I understand the concept of using the nearest 4 stations to average the results.

But you are missing my point! We shouldn't be performing adjustments automatically. We should only perform adjustments for well documented, significant events.

Otherwise, you are going to end up with cases like the Darwin airport, where your adjusted values have no apparent relation to reality. GIGO!

quote:
No, I didn't. Go back and re-read what I actually wrote. I see that you quoted me correctly: now actually read what the words mean, not what you think they mean.
Look, I said that painting a screen every two years is a periodic process and the net long term temperature adjustment will be a net zero. If you disagree, you can just say so, versus quibbling about the words.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hmmmm, a timeline is bring built around that fraudulent Himalayan glacier "science" the IPCC pushed. Roger Pielke Jr. has it laid out:
quote:


1. In 2007 the IPCC issues its Fourth Assessment Report which contains the false claim that the Himalayan glaciers are expected to disappear by 2035.

2. The basis for that statement was a speculative comment made to a reporter by Syed Hasnain in 1999, who was then (and after) a professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

3. Following the publication of the IPCC report, and the widespread media coverage of the false claim about Himalayan glaciers, Dr. Hasnain joins TERI as a Senior Fellow, where Dr. Pachauri is the director.

4. Drs. Pachauri and Hasnain together seek to raise fund for TERI for work on Himalayan glaciers, justified by the work of the IPCC, according to Dr. Pachauri just last week:
quote:
Scientific data assimilated by IPCC is very robust and it is universally acknowledged that glaciers are melting because of climate change. The Energy & Resources Institute (TERI) in its endeavor to facilitate the development of an effective policy framework and their strategic implementation for the adaptation and mitigation of climate change impacts on the local population is happy to collaborate with the University of Iceland, Ohio State University and the Carnegie Corporation of New York,
5. When initially questioned about the scientific errors Dr. Pachauri calls such questions "voodoo science" in the days leading up to the announcement of TERI receiving funding on this subject. Earlier Dr. Pachauri criticized in the harshest terms the claims made by the Indian government that were contrary to those in the IPCC
quote:
Pachauri said that such statements were reminiscent of "climate change deniers and school boy science".
6. Subsequent to the error being more fully and publicly recognized, when asked by a reporter about the IPCC's false claims Dr. Pachauri says that he has no responsibility for what Dr. Hasnain may have said, and Dr. Hasnain says, rather cheekily, the IPCC had no business citing his comments:
quote:
It is not proper for IPCC to include references from popular magazines or newspapers.
Of course, neither Dr. Pachauri nor Dr. Hasnain ever said anything about the error when it was receiving worldwide attention (as being true) in 2007 and 2008, nor did they raise any issues with the IPCC citing non-peer reviewed work (which is a systemic problem). They did however use the IPCC and its false claims as justification in support of fund raising for their own home institution. At no point was any of this disclosed.

If the above facts and time line is correct (and I welcome any corrects to details that I may have in error), then what we have here is a classic and unambiguous case of financial conflict of interest. IPCC Chairman Pachauri was making public comments on a dispute involving factual claims by the IPCC at the same time that he was negotiating for funding to his home institution justified by those very same claims. If instead of climate science we were instead discussing scientific advisors on drug safety and funding from a pharmaceutical company to the advisory committee chair the conflict would be obvious.

They were in it together and getting money off of it! Oh man, talk about corrupt. But such is the nature of the AGW hoax ...
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That pushed by the IPCC in a get rich quick scheme?
I'm curious. How are we defining "rich," here?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
But you are missing my point! We shouldn't be performing adjustments automatically.

That's a perfectly defensible position. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether there is a biased trend in the adjustments, which is what you were suggesting earlier, and which was shown to be inaccurate. That you wish that anomalies due to station maintenance were not accounted for by data adjustments has nothing to do with the fact that such changes in stations do currently trigger adjustments, and as such make for a large number of overall adjustments. As a side note, such statistical adjustments are essentially globally neutral and as such have very little effect on global analysis. But that does not stop some folks from taking specific stations out of context in order to 'prove' that all station data or adjustments are bogus.
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
Look, I said that painting a screen every two years is a periodic process and the net long term temperature adjustment will be a net zero. If you disagree, you can just say so, versus quibbling about the words.

Actually, you claimed that I said something that I did not - now you are dancing around your statement in order not to admit it. There is a huge difference between what I said (that screens require regular painting/maintenance, in general every two years) and what you claimed that I said (that all screens are actually repainted on a set schedule every two years). Especially in the context of a thread where we are discussing the effects of unpredictable events. Suggesting that I 'admitted' the opposite (that station errors due to maintenance must be small because of across the board, consistent and predictably-scheduled maintenance as you initially interpreted me to have said) was somewhat perverse on your part.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
That pushed by the IPCC in a get rich quick scheme?
I'm curious. How are we defining "rich," here?
G2 bets you are ... why look at the culture of corruption that is becoming clear in the IPCC when you nitpick at inconsequential word choices. [Roll Eyes]

[ January 19, 2010, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, I'm serious. What do you think these schemers are gaining? It's a lot of work. Are they making piles of money?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
No, I'm serious. What do you think these schemers are gaining? It's a lot of work. Are they making piles of money?

The non-profit Pachauri is the director of, The Energy and Resources Institute's (TERI), just got £10 million funding over the next five years from the Department for International Development in the UK. Pachauri's salary for this position is secret, as are their accounting methods (which are being called into question).

TERI has received funding from other branches of the British Government and has built up a worldwide network of business interests since his appointment as chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2002. TERI has received payments from a number of organisations and businesses he has advised in recent years including 100,000 euros (£88,400) from Deutcshe bank, $80,000 (£49,000) from Toyota Motors and $580,000 (£357,000) from Yale University, where he serves as head of its new Climate and Energy Institute.

But ... in its [TERI's] early years, between 2001 and 2003, TERI Europe reported to Companies House an annual income of about £60,000. In 2006 it gave its income as exactly £7,000, against expenditure of £5,100. In 2007 the figures were £9,000 and £5,000. In 2008 they were £8,000 and £3,000. That radical drop in reported income is because new European Union rules were introduced in 2005 to exempt small companies from the need to show detailed accounts, small companies being those with annual turnover of less than £10,000. And coincidence of coincidences, TERI income suddenly dropped below that level.

Yeah, no wonder someone wants to take a little closer look at the books. Meanwhile:
quote:
But he [Dr Pachauri] certainly enjoys a lavish personal lifestyle; his Delhi home [referred to as a mansion in other reports] is in the Golf Links area, the most expensive stretch of residential real estate in India, and he is famous for his "$1,000 suits".
So yeah, piles of money.

ADDITION: Wikipedia says, " It [the Golf Links area] is one of the most expensive places to live in India; the cheapest houses sell for millions of US dollars."

So piles and piles of money ...

[ January 19, 2010, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
[QB]
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
But you are missing my point! We shouldn't be performing adjustments automatically.

That's a perfectly defensible position. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether there is a biased trend in the adjustments, which is what you were suggesting earlier, and which was shown to be inaccurate.

Do you have a source that shows it was inaccurate? I didn't see any proof of that. I saw several statements to the effect the data wasn't representative with no proof.

quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
As a side note, such statistical adjustments are essentially globally neutral and as such have very little effect on global analysis.

Again do you have any proof? That's an assertion. I've seen one site that showed a graph that attempted to show this, but there was no actual data involved and the graph was nebulous at best.

quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
But that does not stop some folks from taking specific stations out of context in order to 'prove' that all station data or adjustments are bogus.

That's a straw man argument. No one contends that all station data is bogus. What was contended was that at least some of the data was bogus, and therefore all the data is suspect.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pachauri's salary for this position is secret, as are their accounting methods (which are being called into question).
Is that even legal for a non-profit?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Pachauri's salary for this position is secret, as are their accounting methods (which are being called into question).
Is that even legal for a non-profit?
It's based in India, so yeah, probably.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Pachauri's salary for this position is secret, as are their accounting methods (which are being called into question).
Is that even legal for a non-profit?
The 2005 rules for small companies only require them to report income and expenses. Any further breakdown is not required. Consequently, that's all TERI does.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bringer
Member
Member # 6546

 - posted      Profile for bringer   Email bringer       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Donald at 10:55 said:

"That politics had a role in the original claim is a question that needs to be asked, but this correction is an example of the system working."

This about the disappearing of glaciers in the Himalayas promoted as true by the IPCC then later retracted. Qualifying it as a "correction" and a good example of the balanced "system".

But is it? The bullhorn was at full volume when the disappearing of glaciers in the Himalayas was first announced, and probably echos in the ears of school children the world over. In several languages. Possibly there are Sherpa guides whose livelihoods seem to be threatened but who still don't know.

So...Al, Donald, could you please prove to us that word has got out? You know, post a webcam for us. You and the Sherpas, all friends now even though science did yodel throughout every canyon and crack the world over with the megaphone of the IPCC. But that its "corrected" and 'balanced' now.

In every language, please.

Could you have that for us by 2035?

[ January 20, 2010, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]

Posts: 328 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
Pachauri's salary for this position is secret, as are their accounting methods (which are being called into question).

But ... in its [TERI's] early years, between 2001 and 2003, TERI Europe reported to Companies House an annual income of about £60,000. In 2006 it gave its income as exactly £7,000, against expenditure of £5,100. In 2007 the figures were £9,000 and £5,000. In 2008 they were £8,000 and £3,000. That radical drop in reported income is because new European Union rules were introduced in 2005 to exempt small companies from the need to show detailed accounts, small companies being those with annual turnover of less than £10,000. And coincidence of coincidences, TERI income suddenly dropped below that level.

Yeah, no wonder someone wants to take a little closer look at the books. Meanwhile:
quote:
But he [Dr Pachauri] certainly enjoys a lavish personal lifestyle; his Delhi home [referred to as a mansion in other reports] is in the Golf Links area, the most expensive stretch of residential real estate in India, and he is famous for his "$1,000 suits".

G2, come now. Dr. Pachauri is a scientist. His motives are as clear as the snow on a disappearing Himalayan glacier. Obviously, he just took a pay cut. He's probably giving all of his income to charity anyway. [Wink]
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
That's a straw man argument. No one contends that all station data is bogus. What was contended was that at least some of the data was bogus, and therefore all the data is suspect

No, you misunderstand what a straw man argument is. If I was creating an exaggerated or weak position in order to construct an argument against it, that would be a straw man argument. But I was not actually arguing against what you consider to be an exaggeration. I was simply making an observation. You will also note the words "some folks" and " 'prove' " (notice the scare quotes?) that I used; obviously, not all people hold this position, and those who pretend to probably don't do so honestly, but there are a select few who actually do use such misdirection in order to sway their 'followers' into rejecting all temperature data.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some of the disparaging remarks exchanged by Al Wessex and G2 have been deleted. But in order for the discussion to make sense, it would be better to avoid such remarks in the first place. Furthermore the possibility of mistakes exists, as at one point I thought I had accidentally deleted the last ten pages of this thread. So I prefer not to make such alterations to the historical record, and those who post here should prefer that also.
Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OrneryMod:
Some of the disparaging remarks exchanged by Al Wessex and G2 have been deleted. But in order for the discussion to make sense, it would be better to avoid such remarks in the first place. Furthermore the possibility of mistakes exists, as at one point I thought I had accidentally deleted the last ten pages of this thread. So I prefer not to make such alterations to the historical record, and those who post here should prefer that also.

Why would you do that? G2 has been saying all along that these were nothing - especially when compared to the average exchange on this topic (among others) with a few other posters.

G2 is confused as to what you think is overaly disparaging. For example, "you have no excuse for your lack of intellectual integrity" to which G2 responded with the "witless fools" comment is apparently OK since it didn't warrant your intervention nor a deletion. If that wasn't over the line, there's nothing that went between Al and me that could have been because neither Al nor G2 got anywhere near that far in our exchange, or maybe it was so inconsequential G2 doesn't recall it? G2 supposes that could happen.

[ January 20, 2010, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2, I have not been reading this thread. When my attention was called to some of the exchanges on it today, I edited them somewhat. If there were earler ones which also exceeded the bounds of courtesy, I have not read them. And if you and Al Wessex avoid such remarks in the future, that should not be necessary.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 32 pages: 1  2  3  ...  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  ...  30  31  32   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1