Beautiful, just beautiful. I love this....
-
Here's the major issue. Assuming that this is genuine, and assuming that one lab falsified some data, how does that prove or disprove global warming as a whole ? Doesn't that mean you just throw out the bad data and look at the other data that is genuine ? Or are you less interested in science than in your own agenda ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
how does that prove or disprove global warming as a whole ?
The whole pile of BS called global warming or climate change came from those scientists. They are the ones peddling that nonsense, and thank God that they have been exposed. The 30k scientists that have real peer reviewed solid science, who the IPCC fraudsters hate, are the ones you need to be looking into.
-
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” Phil JonesAhuh. Where's the rest of the paragraph, see, that's kind of my point, you haven't read over them, you're just spouting what you've seen elsewhere. If this really was falsified, we could just get the temps from the weather service and prove them wrong. But has anyone?
-
Ahuh. Where's the rest of the paragraph, see, that's kind of my point, you haven't read over them, you're just spouting what you've seen elsewhere. If this really was falsified, we could just get the temps from the weather service and prove them wrong. But has anyone?
Distind wrote:
Ahuh. Where's the rest of the paragraph
Download the .zip file I linked to days ago. It has EVERYTHING.
-
Ahuh. Where's the rest of the paragraph, see, that's kind of my point, you haven't read over them, you're just spouting what you've seen elsewhere. If this really was falsified, we could just get the temps from the weather service and prove them wrong. But has anyone?
-
Distind wrote:
Ahuh. Where's the rest of the paragraph
Download the .zip file I linked to days ago. It has EVERYTHING.
-
And yet you can't quote the paragraph. On the other side of things, I'd rather not traffic in stolen materials.
Its public property paid for by taxpayers. If the science were sound, the data would be public.
-
For my own amusement: RETURN FIRE! http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/22/806704/-Trickn[^] I know it's not a youtube video, but give it a shot. Rag that it is, most of this looks about right.
And from Wikipedia (Ironically from the "Climategate" article, which CSS keeps telling us to google)... _An excerpt from one November 1999 email authored by the head of the CRU, Phil Jones, reads, "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."[44][12][45] The RealClimate website, in their response to the CRU hack, characterizes the excerpt as follows:
The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommended not using the post-1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.[46]
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
The facts that come from all sorts of scientific bodies, around the world. Like I said, even if you're right and one body is discredited, that doesn't prove that every scientist who has ever said anything that disagrees with your imaginary worldview, is lying.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
The facts that come from all sorts of scientific bodies, around the world.
Only one is taken as truth and used to convince people that humans are bad and need to be controlled through a global carbon tax and trading system where al gore make mega profits off of his creation that ignorant fools like you soak up like a sponge. Its called IPCC.
-
For my own amusement: RETURN FIRE! http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/22/806704/-Trickn[^] I know it's not a youtube video, but give it a shot. Rag that it is, most of this looks about right.
-
And from Wikipedia (Ironically from the "Climategate" article, which CSS keeps telling us to google)... _An excerpt from one November 1999 email authored by the head of the CRU, Phil Jones, reads, "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."[44][12][45] The RealClimate website, in their response to the CRU hack, characterizes the excerpt as follows:
The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommended not using the post-1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.[46]
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
like vaccinations for instance, or perhaps fluoride in water.
Yes, I assume it's because of your ignorant paranioa regarding some other areas of firm, basic science, that you love to find proof where none exists of conspiracy.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The facts that come from all sorts of scientific bodies, around the world.
Only one is taken as truth and used to convince people that humans are bad and need to be controlled through a global carbon tax and trading system where al gore make mega profits off of his creation that ignorant fools like you soak up like a sponge. Its called IPCC.
Unlike that standard repository of all knowledge and wisodm, YouTube. Go deliver them pizzas, monkey boy.
------------------------------------ In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Stephen J Gould
-
Unlike that standard repository of all knowledge and wisodm, YouTube. Go deliver them pizzas, monkey boy.
------------------------------------ In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Stephen J Gould
Go guzzle the bottle, then pick the "roll jam" out of your lard rolls and lick your ball grease paste off of your hands.
-
I'm no climate scientist, but I don't see any denial that they intentionally altered the "decline." If you actually READ what I quoted instead of mindlessly finding another AJ-inspired link, you'll see that they did that to correct known and generally-accepted inaccuracies in the source data. As in, something like "Well, this data source is uniformly off by about 5 degrees, as is shown in decades X, Y, and Z, when compared to all of our other sources, so we'll extrapolate and correct it so our results are consistent."
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Go guzzle the bottle, then pick the "roll jam" out of your lard rolls and lick your ball grease paste off of your hands.
I have a wife to do that for me, you only have your mother. Come on chimpy, get that brain muscle flexing, we are all a'dither to see what inane act of dimness will spout forth from your ignorant, torpid brain next.
------------------------------------ In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Stephen J Gould
-
I'm no climate scientist, but I don't see any denial that they intentionally altered the "decline." If you actually READ what I quoted instead of mindlessly finding another AJ-inspired link, you'll see that they did that to correct known and generally-accepted inaccuracies in the source data. As in, something like "Well, this data source is uniformly off by about 5 degrees, as is shown in decades X, Y, and Z, when compared to all of our other sources, so we'll extrapolate and correct it so our results are consistent."
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Just an inefficient way of saying that they manipulated the data with imaginary numbers that they made up to make the data look like the earth is catastrophically warming.
-
Just an inefficient way of saying that they manipulated the data with imaginary numbers that they made up to make the data look like the earth is catastrophically warming.
Again, read what I quoted two posts ago.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Go guzzle the bottle, then pick the "roll jam" out of your lard rolls and lick your ball grease paste off of your hands.
-
I have a wife to do that for me, you only have your mother. Come on chimpy, get that brain muscle flexing, we are all a'dither to see what inane act of dimness will spout forth from your ignorant, torpid brain next.
------------------------------------ In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Stephen J Gould
You know it might take a while for him to look up all those $.25 words you used, right? Kudos on the use of chimpy when not refering to G.W.
-
c - continue to believe the fraudulent scientists that were caught manipulating the data and engaging in corrupt policies and malicious tactics to try convince the world that there is a warming trend when in reality there is cooling trend.