Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Mr. Miyagi

Hide The Decline Laid Bare

Recommended Posts

Interesting. If someone in my lab did that they would lose their job.

Look forward to seeing what the new study shows.

This is not about AGW but about the way the scientists behind the research have conducted themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not about AGW but about the way the scientists behind the research have conducted themselves.

In total agreement! Politicians or otherwise should not dictate the results before the research is conducted! :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally...what i deduce from climategate is exactly the same as what i deduce from the banking crisis.

That is, humans behave like sheep.

The banksters had the best education on the face of the earth, some (all?) must have known what was really going to happen, but they dont want to rock the boat. They dont want to be the boy who cried wolf. Why go against the grain when youre paid to shut up and keep doing what youre employed to do; sell stuff, whether that stuff is worth its salt or not.

Similarly, and i dont care whether theyre scientists, doctors, accountants or anything else - same basic human instinct - ignorance is bliss - prevails, the climatologists know the money will keep flowing so long as they dont break from the exisitng status quo narrative; that CO2 is the cause of all climate change and weather patterns, and that taxing it is the only way to save mankind (but not taxing it to the extent that is actually falls!)

I bet it exists in a thousand industries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. If someone in my lab did that they would lose their job.

Look forward to seeing what the new study shows.

+1 Completely disingenuous and very, very bad science. That graph misled a lot of people, including myself, which p*sses me off no end. The fact that the proxies diverged from recent temperatures raises issues about their validity elsewhere in the temperature series. Mann and the CRU people have done immense damage to the AGW case, by raising extreme suspicion about research and reporting practices in that field. Up until this kerfuffle, like many scientists who aren't experts in this area, I took the AGW case at face value. I don't anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Video is a really bad way to discuss climate change, nothing is written down and unless you transcribe it really hard to argue against.

Watch the video. It is a very simple point, and not a complicated argument. The issue is well known and discussed elsewhere ad nauseum. The graph is fraudulent. The authors removed sections of proxy data series and replaced them with temperature measurements without indicating it on the graph. It is a "trick" in the perjorative sense and they did attempt to hide an "inconvenient truth." You would fail an undergraduate thesis for this sort of duplicity. "The debate has been settled," to use a the catastrophic AGW camp's favorite phrase.

This has no bearing on the reality or not of AGW. However, it has huge bearing on the credibility of some of the researchers involved, who happen to be leaders in the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 Completely disingenuous and very, very bad science. That graph misled a lot of people, including myself, which p*sses me off no end. The fact that the proxies diverged from recent temperatures raises issues about their validity elsewhere in the temperature series. Mann and the CRU people have done immense damage to the AGW case, by raising extreme suspicion about research and reporting practices in that field. Up until this kerfuffle, like many scientists who aren't experts in this area, I took the AGW case at face value. I don't anymore.

You still dont get it do you? There is no AGW case!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You still dont get it do you? There is no AGW case!

Don't be ridiculous. Of course there is an AGW case. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is increasing. That increase in CO2 is probably due to man.

Whether we are at an "optimum" climate or whether there is the potential for catastrophic AGW and this extra CO2 is inducing a positive feedback...well, that is another thing entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was hoping to see an explanation of what exactly "Mike's trick' is. Can anyone explain?

They replaced proxy temperature data from 1961 until the present with smoothed real temperature data, yet this replaced data was presented as if it was part of the proxy time series - suggesting there were 3 time series all following the rise in temperature over the past 50 years. The proxies did not rise over that time scale, and one actually dropped off significantly. Watch the video. He explains it quite well, and the original really is a deceitful graph.

You can find a discussion here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be ridiculous. Of course there is an AGW case. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is increasing. That increase in CO2 is probably due to man.

Whether we are at an "optimum" climate or whether there is the potential for catastrophic AGW and this extra CO2 is inducing a positive feedback...well, that is another thing entirely.

For everyone that still believes that there are at least an equal number that do not. I have read more than enough to convince me that CO2 is not an issue and does not cause warming as proven by the instances of higher CO2 during earth's history without man and the evil 4x4.

There is a wealth of info/studies/papers and scientists that will not do as they are told. A quick google turns up a pile of things to read, just did it now and this was on the first page....something that I remember reading and was interesting iirc http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Jaworowski_interview.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They replaced proxy temperature data from 1961 until the present with smoothed real temperature data, yet this replaced data was presented as if it was part of the proxy time series - suggesting there were 3 time series all following the rise in temperature over the past 50 years. The proxies did not rise over that time scale, and one actually dropped off significantly. Watch the video. He explains it quite well, and the original really is a deceitful graph.

You can find a discussion here.

so what happened after 1961 then for temperatures to drop off? If man made CO2 causes warming then was it the disappearance of motor cars/planes/intensive farming/volcanoes or man?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For everyone that still believes that there are at least an equal number that do not. I have read more than enough to convince me that CO2 is not an issue and does not cause warming as proven by the instances of higher CO2 during earth's history without man and the evil 4x4.

Except the government is brainwashing the children in schools (more so than usual) to believe that it is real and there is no debate and that it is happening.

Thus overtime there are more believers much like when parents force their children to join a religion. Couple months ago there was even propaganda about how non believers should be killed. Thats how fundamentalist they are putting it across in the media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except the government is brainwashing the children in schools (more so than usual) to believe that it is real and there is no debate and that it is happening.

You have no idea. There is a full on assault at the moment and it starts in the reception years at the age of 5 ffs. I was disgusted to learn that at 6 my daughter was shown that idiot al gore's propaganda movie and told all about the drowning polar bears etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so what happened after 1961 then for temperatures to drop off? If man made CO2 causes warming then was it the disappearance of motor cars/planes/intensive farming/volcanoes or man?

Perhaps the tree ring proxies are just not an accurate tool when examining temperature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have no idea. There is a full on assault at the moment and it starts in the reception years at the age of 5 ffs. I was disgusted to learn that at 6 my daughter was shown that idiot al gore's propaganda movie and told all about the drowning polar bears etc etc.

My child will start school in the next couple of years. I will be informing the school that he does not get taught AGW Al Gore style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so what happened after 1961 then for temperatures to drop off? If man made CO2 causes warming then was it the disappearance of motor cars/planes/intensive farming/volcanoes or man?

It is a physical fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Whether one wants to believe that it is the cause of warming that has been measured (if there is any) is a separate question to what is being raised here. There are all sorts of questions as to what the temperatures have done and by how much etc., but that is all irrelevant. It is barking up the wrong tree, and just paints you as someone who wants to deny basic physics, which is on a hiding to nowhere. CO2, all other things being equal, causes some warming - therefore there is AGW. The magnitude and significance of it relative to other factors and whether or not we are in a positive or negative feedback state is what is in question.

Assuming the temperatures rose after 1961, then the proxy data was not tracking the temperatures. What Jones did in the 1999 WMO report was make the proxies seem like they were reacting to significant warming by replacing them with temperature data. That was a deceitful act.

One can be a "denier" or a CAGW fanboy, it doesn't matter; what Jones did with those proxy series in the 1999 WMO report is scandalous. Other CRU members have, instead of splicing on temperature data, just deleted the recent history to hide declines in the proxies. Both sides should condem these actions without reservation...and yet one side does not, which just goes to show that the whole issue has been taken over by ideology...the sort of stuff that got excommunicated, imprisoned and worse 500 years ago for believing in heliocentric theories of the solar system.

Nice forensic analysis here by Steve McIntyre.

The problem is that these guys at CRU are leaders in the field and one of the 3 main sources of historical temperature series. If they are willing to behave this way, then what work of theirs can be trusted? It certainly makes me very skeptical. However, I don't know whether CAGW is true or not. It's not my field of expertise, and not yours either. What I do know is that these guys have dissembled which is deceitful advocacy and not science, and that is a real crime as the climate issue is very important, whatever the truth of the matter is. For this they should be drummed out of the business in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My child will start school in the next couple of years. I will be informing the school that he does not get taught AGW Al Gore style.

Social services will be after you for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a physical fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Whether one wants to believe that it is the cause of warming that has been measured (if there is any) is a separate question to what is being raised here. There are all sorts of questions as to what the temperatures have done and by how much etc., but that is all irrelevant. It is barking up the wrong tree, and just paints you as someone who wants to deny basic physics, which is on a hiding to nowhere. CO2, all other things being equal, causes some warming - therefore there is AGW. The magnitude and significance of it relative to other factors and whether or not we are in a positive or negative feedback state is what is in question.

Assuming the temperatures rose after 1961, then the proxy data was not tracking the temperatures. What Jones did in the 1999 WMO report was make the proxies seem like they were reacting to significant warming by replacing them with temperature data. That was a deceitful act.

One can be a "denier" or a CAGW fanboy, it doesn't matter; what Jones did with those proxy series in the 1999 WMO report is scandalous. Other CRU members have, instead of splicing on temperature data, just deleted the recent history to hide declines in the proxies. Both sides should condem these actions without reservation...and yet one side does not, which just goes to show that the whole issue has been taken over by ideology...the sort of stuff that got excommunicated, imprisoned and worse 500 years ago for believing in heliocentric theories of the solar system.

Nice forensic analysis here by Steve McIntyre.

The problem is that these guys at CRU are leaders in the field and one of the 3 main sources of historical temperature series. If they are willing to behave this way, then what work of theirs can be trusted? It certainly makes me very skeptical. However, I don't know whether CAGW is true or not. It's not my field of expertise, and not yours either. What I do know is that these guys have dissembled which is deceitful advocacy and not science, and that is a real crime as the climate issue is very important, whatever the truth of the matter is. For this they should be drummed out of the business in my opinion.

Yes, ofc you are right CO2 is a greenhouse gas and will cause warming, I automatically wrote from the end of where that was going.

I will read the attachment now, what did you think of that piece that I linked? I just read it again fully and found it quite refreshing tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, ofc you are right CO2 is a greenhouse gas and will cause warming, I automatically wrote from the end of where that was going.

I will read the attachment now, what did you think of that piece that I linked? I just read it again fully and found it quite refreshing tbh.

The real problem of course is that to fully understand any of this you really need to work at it full time - the range of proxies and measurements and whatever being brought to bear is vast. Despite being a professional scientist I can read through the paper you linked and the only way I will really know if it is relevant is to go to primary sources myself. That is why scientific honesty is so important. You have to be able to trust the data published in peer reviewed papers. It is why this CRU business is so damaging - it has nothing to do with the AGW case or not, but it will make it far harder to know what the truth of it is. The whole debate has become politicised to such an extent that it is no longer science (on any side) (even in the case that it is science - because these days how do you know - you have to check everything back to primary sources now and who has the time for that).

I worked in a lab once where a guy faked one graph in one paper. He took the results of a simulation that referred to one thing and said it was another. Someone spotted this after the guy had left our lab and moved on elsewhere. It caused tremendous amounts of work to sort things out. All the original data had to be found, notebooks read through etc etc. When it was established that the issue was genuine, the lab had to publicly withdraw the paper. When it was subsequently found that there was no real possibility that it could have been an honest mistake, every other paper the guy had been involved in at our lab and previous labs had to be checked. Further more he was fired from his new job at the different lab and has not had a science job since as far as I understand. Good scientists take this kind of thing very seriously.

By all means they could have produced that graph, but they should have been very clear what the data sources were - should have indicated the disconnect on the graph - certainly shouldn't have smoothed the direct readings to make it look like the proxy - should have been fully cited in terms of data sources and should have shown the proxy divergence or or at least referred to papers mentioned in the video above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is why this CRU business is so damaging - it has nothing to do with the AGW case or not, but it will make it far harder to know what the truth of it is. The whole debate has become politicised to such an extent that it is no longer science (on any side) (even in the case that it is science - because these days how do you know - you have to check everything back to primary sources now and who has the time for that).

No it is damaging because despite the fraud the CRU members kept their jobs rather than say being fired and never being allowed to be part of science or research ever again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real problem of course is that to fully understand any of this you really need to work at it full time - the range of proxies and measurements and whatever being brought to bear is vast. Despite being a professional scientist I can read through the paper you linked and the only way I will really know if it is relevant is to go to primary sources myself. That is why scientific honesty is so important. You have to be able to trust the data published in peer reviewed papers. It is why this CRU business is so damaging - it has nothing to do with the AGW case or not, but it will make it far harder to know what the truth of it is. The whole debate has become politicised to such an extent that it is no longer science (on any side) (even in the case that it is science - because these days how do you know - you have to check everything back to primary sources now and who has the time for that).

I worked in a lab once where a guy faked one graph in one paper. He took the results of a simulation that referred to one thing and said it was another. Someone spotted this after the guy had left our lab and moved on elsewhere. It caused tremendous amounts of work to sort things out. All the original data had to be found, notebooks read through etc etc. When it was established that the issue was genuine, the lab had to publicly withdraw the paper. When it was subsequently found that there was no real possibility that it could have been an honest mistake, every other paper the guy had been involved in at our lab and previous labs had to be checked. Further more he was fired from his new job at the different lab and has not had a science job since as far as I understand. Good scientists take this kind of thing very seriously.

By all means they could have produced that graph, but they should have been very clear what the data sources were - should have indicated the disconnect on the graph - certainly shouldn't have smoothed the direct readings to make it look like the proxy - should have been fully cited in terms of data sources and should have shown the proxy divergence or or at least referred to papers mentioned in the video above.

I agree. It is damaging but has also done a lot of good in exposing the situation and waking up the public. The data should be presented as it is. What was done has exposed the fact that many scientists now have an agenda and that their funding and employment depends on that.

I think that the trust has been lost for anyone that relies on government funding or grants.

It is very hard though to really know anything. Nothing on the internet can be trusted anymore but people are just about out of trust now so that is unlikely to matter much now and is why the governments have embarked on a full scale brainwashing campaign of our young.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.