Heath_h49008 wrote:Many arguments are getting complicated due to the "raw" data being missing, and "Value added" data being the only available temp readings.
Who dumps raw data!!
Yes, you are right that many of the "Climate Skeptics" arguments lack citations.
But Josh - dumping the raw data? It is not just an embarrassment. It is not just wrong. If it can be pinned on Jones he may do time.
Norwich's flagship university was at the centre of a new row today after it emerged it broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny in the climate change row over stolen emails.
I can see why you would rather avoid the question.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Oh I don't defend Hadley in any way whatsoever. I said Phil Jones should lose his job. He allowed politics to get in the way of good science. But I have been harassed by asinine FOIA requests and if you had to deal with a daily barrage of such things you probably would have no good intent, either. (And I don't think you believe that you would act that way, but I don't think you know yourself well enough.)
I defend GISS/Gaven/Hansen more than I would defend those silly Brits who can't even release their model code (which runs on thousands of computers).
But I am having a hard time replying to many of "The Climate Skeptics" arguments because he doesn't have citations, and I don't want to simply assume where his claims are coming from. Most of them are blatant generalizations. When he does provide links they're trivially shown to be in error.
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.
Josh Cryer wrote:Oh I don't defend Hadley in any way whatsoever. I said Phil Jones should lose his job. He allowed politics to get in the way of good science. But I have been harassed by asinine FOIA requests and if you had to deal with a daily barrage of such things you probably would have no good intent, either. (And I don't think you believe that you would act that way, but I don't think you know yourself well enough.)
I defend GISS/Gaven/Hansen more than I would defend those silly Brits who can't even release their model code (which runs on thousands of computers).
But I am having a hard time replying to many of "The Climate Skeptics" arguments because he doesn't have citations, and I don't want to simply assume where his claims are coming from. Most of them are blatant generalizations. When he does provide links they're trivially shown to be in error.
Of course they have no citations - the e-mails - which are now at the base of a legal inquiry have never been denied. And they show that the Team worked as hard as they could to keep opposing views out of the literature.
So lack of citations hardly holds water.
No matter. Fear for their jobs and the fear of prosecution is starting to allow sceptic papers through. There have been a flood in the last two months. And from my totally unscientific survey the rate seems to be increasing. In a couple of years I expect things will be more even.
But one thing is for sure - the public will no longer accept blindly the word of scientists. Which is all good.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
MSimon wrote:Of course they have no citations - the e-mails - which are now at the base of a legal inquiry have never been denied. And they show that the Team worked as hard as they could to keep opposing views out of the literature.
No, no, I must have explained myself poorly. The Climate Skeptic PDF file which I am rebutting (exqusitely, might I add), does not cite some claims. Such as "5 degrees, 10 degrees."
So lack of citations hardly holds water.
I don't want to do his research for him, but I'm being compelled to because I want to give an honest response.
No matter. Fear for their jobs and the fear of prosecution is starting to allow sceptic papers through. There have been a flood in the last two months. And from my totally unscientific survey the rate seems to be increasing. In a couple of years I expect things will be more even.
If by flood you mean a few papers at most...
But one thing is for sure - the public will no longer accept blindly the word of scientists. Which is all good.
The public never accepts that which changes their views considerably and even might impact their lifestyle.
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.
Just a few years ago the public was convinced AGW is a problem.
WASHINGTON — Americans seem to be cooling toward global warming.
Just 57 percent think there is solid evidence the world is getting warmer, down 20 points in just three years, a new poll says. And the share of people who believe pollution caused by humans is causing temperatures to rise has also taken a dip, even as the U.S. and world forums gear up for possible action against climate change.
For the first time in more than two and a half years, a majority of the American public no longer believes global warming is a "proven fact" that is mostly caused by man, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research.
Only 45% of those surveyed agreed with the statement that "Global warming is a proven fact and is mostly caused by emissions from cars and industrial facilities such as power plants and factories." That number is down from 54% who agreed with the statement in June of last year and in May of 2007.
A drop in 12%, mostly along party lines. Note that during Al Gore's pinnacle of propaganda there was a lot of awareness, this has declined significantly since that world concert they did.
It was a fad.
Give it 5 more years and it'll go the other way again, then when seasonal cycles set in again, 5 years after that. I don't see anyone taking it seriously until CLARREO provides numbers no one can deny. They might even be lower than IPCCs 3.0C, in which case the "skeptics" will proclaim victory. But I find it highly, utterly unlikely it will be outside of the 1.5C-4.5C boundary.
AR5 should tell us where in the boundary is is to a very good degree ot confidence, since new models and new data since IPCC AR4 has deluged the scientific journals.
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.
BTW, I'm working on responding to the initial allegations (it's 90 pages of nonsense). I've found that The Climate Skeptic is right about 5-10% of the time, usually on trivial stuff. All in all his allegations are preposterous and it will be nice to respond to them all since they are all in one place.
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.
Yep. Only the Lebensraum Party still falls for it. The neo-Malthusians.
BTW we have entered the negative part of the PDO cycle. The current era of global warming is over. The global warming scare will not come back before about 2050. You will be 60 before it comes around again.
Hang on to the material you have worked on. Recycling is good.
You are aware we get these fads every 30 years or so? The last one was cooling. Ice ages.
It doesn't matter what the satellite shows if the cooling continues.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.