Jones and the CRU exonerated again

[Poptech]

Well, the Royal Society disagrees with you. So do other scientific institutions such as the National Academies of Science, the AAAS, NOAA, and NASA. You know, seeing as how those are all organizations which agree with the scientific consensus on climate change, and many of those organizations have research which confirms the findings by Jones and the CRU.

Can you provide a complete poll of any of those organization's membership bodies in support of the position statement released by a handful of council members?

 

[uke2se]

Yes for the lurkers,

IPCC reviewer: "don’t cover up the divergence" (Watts Up With That?)
Mike's Nature Trick (Climate Audit)
Mike’s Nature Trick (Watts Up With That?)
The Deleted Data from the "Hide the Decline" Trick (Watts Up With That?)
How “The Trick” was pulled off (Watts Up With That?)

Thanks for demonstrating just how dishonest your side of this issue is.

 

[Poptech]

Thanks for demonstrating just how dishonest your side of this issue is.

People can read the truth for themselves.

 

[uke2se]

Can you provide a complete poll of any of those organization's membership bodies in support of the position statement released by a handful of council members?

No, but we can provide a report from a body of scholars appointed by the Society to look into this.

Can you provide a complete poll from the US senate to see if their opinions correspond to the Inhofe minority report that you claim is a US senate publication?

 

[uke2se]

People can read the truth for themselves.

Indeed they can. For that reason, don't count on people reading your blog.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Can you provide a complete poll of any of those organization's membership bodies in support of the position statement released by a handful of council members?

Can you? You know, since you think there's something to that, apparently.

And, in the case of the American Physical Society (of which I'm a member), I can say that about 0.45% of the APS membership signed onto a GW-denier petition a year or so back. Linky (to my own blog, btw) - check out "Exhibit B" at that post.

0.45% ...? That's not too many, PopTech, is it?

 

[uke2se]

Can you? You know, since you think there's something to that, apparently.

And, in the case of the American Physical Society (of which I'm a member), I can say that about 0.45% of the APS membership signed onto a GW-denier petition a year or so back. Linky (to my own blog, btw) - check out "Exhibit B" at that post.

0.45% ...? That's not too many, PopTech, is it?

Popularity only counts when it's in his favor, don't ya know?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Can you provide a complete poll from the US senate to see if their opinions correspond to the Inhofe minority report that you claim is a US senate publication?

Silly squidface, everyone knows that Inhofe IS the Senate!

 

[little grey rabbit]

I don't want to rehash a debate again, so I won't deal with "hide the decline" directly but just tell an anecdote from my own experience.

A group I knew had a theory the sugar chains were important for the formation of a particular protein complex, so they removed the sugars and looked at the affinity curve of binding and showed decreased binding and published this result. What actually had happened was when the sugars were removed the protein stuck to everything, including the walls of the eppendorf and their non-specific binding went up to 90% and so their affinity curve was based entirely on the area between 90 and 100 per cent. If you looked at the raw data you would hesitate to conclude anything at all. So what they did was graphed the data AFTER subtracting the non-specific bindings with a very impressive saturation curve taking up the full area of the graph and duly noted that Nonspecific bindings had been subtracted in the figure legend in fine print.

No scientific fraud was conducted but the data was being presented in a less than transparent way.

Thats what I feel about "hide the decline". Sure if you read the fine print, you might pick up what had happened, but ideally science shouldnt be presented this way and when it is, it should be frowned upon.

Well, the Royal Society disagrees with you. So do other scientific institutions such as the National Academies of Science, the AAAS, NOAA, and NASA. You know, seeing as how those are all organizations which agree with the scientific consensus on climate change, and many of those organizations have research which confirms the findings by Jones and the CRU.

I'm thinking you lose on this one.

I have no one on my side, but reality. I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[MattusMaximus]

People can read the truth for themselves.

 

[Poptech]

And, in the case of the American Physical Society (of which I'm a member), I can say that about 0.45% of the APS membership signed onto a GW-denier petition a year or so back. Linky (to my own blog, btw) - check out "Exhibit B" at that post.

0.45% ...? That's not too many, PopTech, is it?

It was not a denier petition liar. We already went over this in the thread you started about it.

But Matt what are you going to do though, the polls keep tanking with public support away from alarm?

 

[MattusMaximus]

I don't want to rehash a debate again, so I won't deal with "hide the decline" directly but just tell an anecdote from my own experience.

Oh yeah, you have an anecdote. Well, that trumps all the science on climate change - you win!

 

[little grey rabbit]

I guess you are not a scientist, MattusMaximus. Or at least not an experimental scientist

 

[MattusMaximus]

It was not a denier petition liar. We already went over this in the thread you started about it.

But Matt what are you going to do though, the polls keep tanking with public support away from alarm?

Did anyone else hear that? I thought it sounded like a mosquito...

 

[MattusMaximus]

I guess you are not a scientist, MattusMaximus. Or at least not an experimental scientist

That's right, because anecdote equates to experimental science... oh wait, it doesn't.

You lose.

Btw, I'm a physics professor.

 

[uke2se]

It was not a denier petition liar. We already went over this in the thread you started about it.

It is a denialist petition, liar.

But Matt what are you going to do though, the polls keep tanking with public support away from alarm?

I'm going to be able to load a metaphorical machine gun with Poptech quotes that show that he doesn't care about science. Keep it coming.

 

[little grey rabbit]

The reason I ask is most practicing scientists who read literature to try and do their job, usually recognize the problem of presenting data non-transparently and usually can identify with the anecdote I just told.

Whereas with you it went sailing over your head

 

[MattusMaximus]

The reason I ask is most practicing scientists who read literature to try and do their job, usually recognize the problem of presenting data non-transparently and usually can identify with the anecdote I just told.

Whereas with you it went sailing over your head

Nope, still no evidence of scientific fraud. But, by all means, keep the meaningless anecdotes coming.

And the analogy didn't go over my head. Just because you worked in a lab with or knew a research group run by less-than-honest people, doesn't mean that all scientists operate that way. Logic 101, pal.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Nope, still no evidence of scientific fraud. But, by all means, keep the meaningless anecdotes coming.

And the analogy didn't go over my head. Just because you worked in a lab with or knew a research group run by less-than-honest people, doesn't mean that all scientists operate that way. Logic 101, pal.

I wouldnt call them dishonest, things can sometimes be not always black and white. The paper wasnt significant

In the case of the "hide the decline" I would agree that it was "less than honest"

 

[uke2se]

In the case of the "hide the decline" I would agree that it was "less than honest"

In your words, tell us what "hide the decline" meant in the context it was delievered.