"Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt"
-
Major Defect wrote:
But it is written by a Dr Jones.
Dr. Evans's ghost writer? Nothing new here, but Dr. Evans does a good job of displaying the sceptics' arguments to advantage, and concludes (inevitably) that: "The western climate establishment does not want you to know [that the temperature and other data has become unfavorable to their climate theory], presumably for fear of losing the considerable income, perks, status, and influence that has come their way since they started promoting their theory. So they have taken to bamboozling us with 'science', and to cheating." I think that the British Establishment was pretty relieved when the "Copenhagen" was torpedoed by that leaky rust bucket, HMS CRU. Indeed, I would not put it past our duplicitous Civil Servants to have leaked the documents themselves.
Yeah, I think the whole worlds governments were relieved that they didnt have to take GW seriously, and could just pay it lip service to gain votes. Soon after Sarkozy scrapped the much heralded carbon tax in France for example, and the UKs Brown OKed coal powered generating stations which shows what their real sentiments are. In fact, tlaking of sentiment and Copenhagen, Chavez'z speach was a hoot. 'There is an elephant in the room, and its called capitalism' to general applause. Eh? And people say GW isnt a political movement!
Je m'en fous
-
Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note.[^] We'll never see his like again. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/western_climate_establishment_corrupt.pdf[^] Let me save some of you the effort by stating ahead of time that this is form the SPPI, that well known hotbed of right wing fanatics who believe tobacco is harmless. It is also probably not peer reviewed, heck, no science journal today would ever publish such a paper. But it is written by a Dr Jones. Havent a clue who he is but aparently he is a believer turned sceptic. OK? So lets not waste time rubbishing the source or the website it happens to be published on. OK, and here is my statement before the usual assholes try to put words into my mouth: Yes, CO2 should cause warming but so far a finger print cant be detected. Any warming (and extra CO2) will bring known benefits. Warming is NOT linked to an increase in violent or extreme weather. (Yes, there have bee published studies stating this. If you want a source here it is www.google.com) Alternative energy is a good thing because it will reduce the wests dependency on politically/reliously unstable regions. The environment should be conserved. OK? So lets not make up crap or pretend you know better then me what I think eh? Oh, and I will get this in ahead of time too: LunaticFringe, go fuck yourself. ;P
Je m'en fous
I'm just not going to get into it with you dude. Clearly, you know what should be expected from a paper (peer reviewed, reputable journal, minimal overt bias, reputable author working in the field) but I think you're adjusting your expectations of quality if someone is supporting your viewpoint. But this PDF has got to be one of the most hilariously badly written texts I've seen in awhile. Choice quotes:
He refers to himself in the third person:
Dr Evans is a scientist who was on the climate gravy train, and was horrified by what he saw.
He commends himself on the quality of the paper:
Ok, until now this paper has been simple and direct as possible (though accurate and well referenced).
He does things like using the references section to editorialize instead of, you know, reference?
Willis decided to recalibrate the Argo data by omitting readings from some floats that seemed to be giving readings that were too cold. (36)
(36) This is an example of a general problem with data in climate science: believers hold all the authority positions in climate science and own (manage) all the datasets. Datasets that contradict their theory have a habit of being recalibrated or otherwise adjusted for technical reasons, and the changes to the datasets always make them more supportive of the theory of man-made global warming. It has happened several times now—but by chance alone you would expect technical adjustments to make the data less supportive of any given position about half the time. Don’t be surprised if the Argo data for the last few years is “revised” at some stage to show warming instead of slight cooling.
This is just awful. Trust me - the content isn't the only reason why this is only published on the internet.
- F
-
I'm just not going to get into it with you dude. Clearly, you know what should be expected from a paper (peer reviewed, reputable journal, minimal overt bias, reputable author working in the field) but I think you're adjusting your expectations of quality if someone is supporting your viewpoint. But this PDF has got to be one of the most hilariously badly written texts I've seen in awhile. Choice quotes:
He refers to himself in the third person:
Dr Evans is a scientist who was on the climate gravy train, and was horrified by what he saw.
He commends himself on the quality of the paper:
Ok, until now this paper has been simple and direct as possible (though accurate and well referenced).
He does things like using the references section to editorialize instead of, you know, reference?
Willis decided to recalibrate the Argo data by omitting readings from some floats that seemed to be giving readings that were too cold. (36)
(36) This is an example of a general problem with data in climate science: believers hold all the authority positions in climate science and own (manage) all the datasets. Datasets that contradict their theory have a habit of being recalibrated or otherwise adjusted for technical reasons, and the changes to the datasets always make them more supportive of the theory of man-made global warming. It has happened several times now—but by chance alone you would expect technical adjustments to make the data less supportive of any given position about half the time. Don’t be surprised if the Argo data for the last few years is “revised” at some stage to show warming instead of slight cooling.
This is just awful. Trust me - the content isn't the only reason why this is only published on the internet.
- F
-
So does the fact he does all this detract from the fact that weqther stations are badly placed and contaminated with UHI?
Je m'en fous
Well, the fact that he makes such an effort to make it appear to laypeople like it belongs in the scientific literature (by, say, having a references section) and then foul it up so completely makes me suspect his methods and conclusions are less than rigorous and his intentions less than honorable. Is this supposed to be a scientific paper or the PDF form of a blog? It feels like the latter but he's put some effort into making it look like the former - but without objectivity, education, peer review, and authorial credibility, it's intellectually dishonest at worst and playtime for an engineer pretending to be a scientist at best. This document is totally unworthy of serious consideration. Come on - the only reason you're giving this a shred of credibility is because you agree with the author's viewpoint. BTW, did you retract your statement that statistics has nothing to do with science or do you want to have another go-around about that?
- F
-
Well, the fact that he makes such an effort to make it appear to laypeople like it belongs in the scientific literature (by, say, having a references section) and then foul it up so completely makes me suspect his methods and conclusions are less than rigorous and his intentions less than honorable. Is this supposed to be a scientific paper or the PDF form of a blog? It feels like the latter but he's put some effort into making it look like the former - but without objectivity, education, peer review, and authorial credibility, it's intellectually dishonest at worst and playtime for an engineer pretending to be a scientist at best. This document is totally unworthy of serious consideration. Come on - the only reason you're giving this a shred of credibility is because you agree with the author's viewpoint. BTW, did you retract your statement that statistics has nothing to do with science or do you want to have another go-around about that?
- F
-
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/western_climate_establishment_corrupt.pdf[^] Let me save some of you the effort by stating ahead of time that this is form the SPPI, that well known hotbed of right wing fanatics who believe tobacco is harmless. It is also probably not peer reviewed, heck, no science journal today would ever publish such a paper. But it is written by a Dr Jones. Havent a clue who he is but aparently he is a believer turned sceptic. OK? So lets not waste time rubbishing the source or the website it happens to be published on. OK, and here is my statement before the usual assholes try to put words into my mouth: Yes, CO2 should cause warming but so far a finger print cant be detected. Any warming (and extra CO2) will bring known benefits. Warming is NOT linked to an increase in violent or extreme weather. (Yes, there have bee published studies stating this. If you want a source here it is www.google.com) Alternative energy is a good thing because it will reduce the wests dependency on politically/reliously unstable regions. The environment should be conserved. OK? So lets not make up crap or pretend you know better then me what I think eh? Oh, and I will get this in ahead of time too: LunaticFringe, go fuck yourself. ;P
Je m'en fous
Major Defect wrote:
OK? So lets not make up crap or pretend you know better then me what I think eh?
After that statement what would be the point of responding as it shows that your not really going to listen unless you agree! BUT hell I need 5 minutes off from my current project to clear my head. After reading most of this document I can honestly say that this document, I feel and not your views on this article. 1. The document didn't really give any back up to its claims for example, the airport in norway it shows on the diagram that the writer / scientist hasn't really backed up his statement with why the measuring point should be moved. 2. your question earlier stated is the weather stations poorly stationed, again for me this article never really showed me evidence that there was! yes there was a few but he never really stated where they should of been in that location or why they couldn't of been!
As barmey as a sack of badgers Dude, if I knew what I was doing in life, I'd be rich, retired, dating a supermodel and laughing at the rest of you from the sidelines.
-
Again, even if his point of view is biassed and badly presented does it detract from the fact that many weather stations, such as those detialed in the paper, are contaminated by UHI?
Je m'en fous
Major Defect wrote:
Again, even if his point of view is biassed and badly presented does it detract from the fact that many weather stations, such as those detialed in the paper, are contaminated by UHI?
Again, I think my answer was pretty clear: I don't recognize it as a "fact" or that there is "contamination" if it's presented as such by an improperly educated, clearly objectively compromised author in an unclear, unscientific, messy fashion. The author has given me absolutely no reason to trust his evidence or conclusions. Statistics? Crucial to science? Yes or no?
- F
-
Major Defect wrote:
Again, even if his point of view is biassed and badly presented does it detract from the fact that many weather stations, such as those detialed in the paper, are contaminated by UHI?
Again, I think my answer was pretty clear: I don't recognize it as a "fact" or that there is "contamination" if it's presented as such by an improperly educated, clearly objectively compromised author in an unclear, unscientific, messy fashion. The author has given me absolutely no reason to trust his evidence or conclusions. Statistics? Crucial to science? Yes or no?
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
I don't recognize it as a "fact" or that there is "contamination" if it's presented as such by an improperly educated, clearly objectively compromised author in an unclear, unscientific, messy fashion.
So have you looked into UHI efects on weather stations presented by other authors in more scientific tidier papers?
Je m'en fous
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
I don't recognize it as a "fact" or that there is "contamination" if it's presented as such by an improperly educated, clearly objectively compromised author in an unclear, unscientific, messy fashion.
So have you looked into UHI efects on weather stations presented by other authors in more scientific tidier papers?
Je m'en fous
Major Defect wrote:
So have you looked into UHI efects on weather stations presented by other authors in more scientific tidier papers?
Why is it my responsibility to chase down the validity of every potential argument made by wannabes on the internet? Proponents have the responsibility for appropriately arguing their case if they want to be taken seriously. And answer my question, mister evasive: statistics, important to science or not?
- F