Jones and CRU exonerated

[TraneWreck]

If it is unknown, you cannot know how big an issue it is.

And we have evidence that errors of this magnitude have occurred before.

So technically unknown, and errors are known to be of this size. And yes, Halley explains that directly. That it might be a problem.

You can say it a million times for all I care. You are still wrong. You still have no come back to my point that there is evidence of errors of this size in the past. While this does not prove the size of the new unknown error, it certainly means you *cannot* rule it out.

Again, from Halley:

Overall, this paper underlines the importance of LTP models in climate and in particular their application to the attribution problem. It strengthens the findings of Rybski et al. that it is very difficult to explain the current global rise in global temperature through the agency of a natural LTP process. In conclusion, even accounting for the effects of LTP, non-stationarity, aliasing, uncertainties in estimating exponents and issues of variability missing from reconstructions, from a statistical viewpoint it still seems unlikely that the modern instrumental trend can be explained by natural agencies.

The magnitude is unkown, but it's unlikely that the warming trend can be explained with natural variance. That's all I've said. That's what Halley says, despite your comical attempts to pretend like he argues something else. Time will tell whether your buddies can gin up more significance concerning their statistical theory.

As in, I don't know how tall Halley is, but he's not 8'5".

Exact magnitude unknown, but I bet I'm right.

 

[Poptech]

She just makes sure denialist papers get published despite lacking quality.

and poorly edited journals like E&E.

Lies.

I don't work for ISI so I don't know how it doesn't measure up or can't be trusted. I just know that, because it's not listed, it doesn't measure up and can't be trusted.

Then you know very little.

 

[Poptech]

You still haven’t answered why you choose to accept what one company (EBSCO) says while rejecting what another (Thompson Scientific) says…

What does the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation say? Does he multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation index every peer-reviewed journal?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Edited: Text above is not at all clear. Clearly, the 5% chance is assessing how great the bias needs to be (so it is considering the bias), but since the magnitude of the bias is unknown, it is impossible to put a value on it. That's the point being discussed.

Halley nowhere places a p-value on the magnitude of the bias. That is what TraneWreck used the term "significance" to refer to.

Halley calculated how much larger the variability would have to be in order to prevent the natural-variance-explains-the-instrumental-trend hypothesis from being rejected at a p-value of 0.05.

That gives us a quantitative lower bound for the size of any postulated bias that would be worthy of consideration.

As things stand, with no good evidence for a bias in the dArrigo2 series, Halley concludes that the probability of the observed warming trend being generated by natural variability is low or very low (p < 0.01 for TaveNH2v, p < 0.001 for CRUTEM3).

 

[uke2se]

Lies.

Nope, truth.

Then you know very little.

Obviously still more than you.

 

[BenBurch]

...

Obviously still more than you.

Nobody is paying you to believe things, after all.

 

[uke2se]

Does he multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation index every peer-reviewed journal?

No, just the ones that actually matter, and that pass the scrutiny. E&E doesn't.

 

[BenBurch]

No, just the ones that actually matter, and that pass the scrutiny. E&E doesn't.

Note this; Poptech is now on record saying that E&E only publishes papers from people they have heard of - that is in the unlikely event that he is telling the truth. Which if true is cronyism and not scientific impartiality.

We'll find out.

 

[Poptech]

Nope, truth.

Lies.

Obviously still more than you.

You have repeatedly demonstrated how little you know.

No, just the ones that actually matter, and that pass the scrutiny. E&E doesn't.

Subjective nonsense.

 

[Poptech]

Nobody is paying you to believe things, after all.

Are you implying someone is paying me?

Note this; Poptech is now on record saying that E&E only publishes papers from people they have heard of - that is in the unlikely event that he is telling the truth. Which if true is cronyism and not scientific impartiality.

We'll find out.

As in real people. The editors have been notified to your attempted scam. With the irrefutable evidence that E&E is peer-reviewed desperate liars like Ben have no choice but to fail at attempts to discredit them, so sad.

 

[uke2se]

Lies.

Repeating yourself doesn't make you more right.

You have repeatedly demonstrated how little you know.

How's that projection working out for you, Poptech?

Subjective nonsense.

On which planet do you live, Poptech?

 

[Poptech]

uke2se, all you have is subjective nonsense and emotional positions.

 

[uke2se]

uke2se, all you have is subjective nonsense and emotional positions.

And you have nothing at all. Funny how that works out, isn't it?

 

[Poptech]

And you have nothing at all. Funny how that works out, isn't it?

I have objective facts,

EBSCO; Energy & Environment: Peer-Reviewed - Yes, Academic Journal - Yes (PDF)

 

[uke2se]

I have objective facts,

EBSCO; Energy & Environment: Peer-Reviewed - Yes, Academic Journal - Yes (PDF)

And I have the editor saying she selects articles out of her political bias.

Also, you have had peer-review explained to you over and over again over these last few days. I sincerely hope you're not as dense as you come off here.

 

[Poptech]

And I have the editor saying she selects articles out of her political bias.

Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment

Also, you have had peer-review explained to you over and over again over these last few days. I sincerely hope you're not as dense as you come off here.

Explained to me? Please, apparently you are in some sort of delusional state.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Looks like the verdict on the second investigation on Jones and the CRU is in - linky.

Not guilty of fraud.

Of course, this is just evidence that the Royal Society is now also in on the cover-up

 

[uke2se]

Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment

Linking your blog as evidence of your assertions?

Explained to me? Please, apparently you are in some sort of delusional state.

Yes, apparently I deluded myself into thinking you might be intellectually honest.

You asked earlier if we thought someone was paying you for your denialism. I can now say with utmost confidence that no one would ever pay you to take their side in a debate. It's a certain way to lose.

 

[Poptech]

Linking your blog as evidence of your assertions?

Can't handle the truth?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Can't handle the truth?

This time, with video, because that makes it MORE believable!!!11!