Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

[Yoink]

He is being investigated by his own staff?

No, he isn't.

Are these not the same (type) people who peer reviewed it in the first place?

No, they're not.

Is not their reputation also on the line?

No, the reputation of their institution is on the line; the people running the inquiry have no personal stake in this issue at all. They have no reason to stand behind this guy if they think he's a fraud.

Is nothing in this field independant?

Are all the denialists simply allergic to actually doing any research? The report is right there for you to read.

 

[Geckko]

Text of the key finding from the report re the "trick":



But they used the word "trick"!!!! No one uses the word "trick" unless they're evil!!!!

That report would be far more useful if this following statement could have been more fully expanded upon:

The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field

• To include exactly what the enquiry beleives this statistical method to be and
• And a more complete appraisal of expert opinion on the correctness of this statistical method

Unfortunately this statement has as much explanation as "move along nothing to see here" on this specific issue.

 

[Geckko]

So what do they, in financial circles, do to the DOW industrial average when one of the DOW companies undergoes a merger or gets kicked out of the DOW?

I'm sure they use some sort of mathematical "trick"

Huh? how is that equivalent? Let's try something using proxy data series.

What happens in financial circles when a researcher at an investment bank find a putative correlation between some variable in the past and equity market retuns? It looks like it has decent explanatory power over periods in the past, but over the last 10 years the proxy goes down and equity retuns keep going up.

So the researcher and the investment bank publish the paper minus the last 10 years and suggest to their clients that they should use this research as a basis for investing.

I can tell you exactly what happens in that case. In the US, the SEC walks in cuffs more than one individual and marches them off to jail. Their defence rests on a claim that while they were using a "trick" to "hide the decline", it was a valid statistical method and the language used in their internal emails on the subject was innocent use of collocquial language commonly used in the area.

The judge laughs and the prosecution have a field day.

 

[Geckko]

The other strange thing about this is that the extent of the enquiry was:

To interview Mann himself.
"Have some views conveyed" from North and Foley.

That's it.

 

[BenBurch]

A hallmark of Conspiracy Theorists is to focus on textual anomalies and awkward language as proof of conspiracy.

 

[mhaze]

Of course it is a splice. How do you not have a "splice" when you drop one company's stock price from your data-set and add another?

And yes of course it involves "dissimilar data sets." By what bizarre denier logic do you say that the stock price of a railway company is the "same" data set as the stock price of a sugar company?

It's hilarious to see that the deniers inability to think clearly replicates itself at every single level of debate.

If you think some kind of fraud was perpetrated, produce the paper which contained the fraud. The fact that all you've got is a couple of emails that you have to consistently and blatantly misinterpret in order to make them seem vaguely disquieting makes it abundantly clear that you've got no case whatsoever.

Well, all I can say to that is that your definition of "splice" and "dissimilar" data sets is a broad enough brush to make your point, and my definitions are more restrictive and precise. For example, "dissimilar" would be proxy by tree rings vv. instrumental temperature measurements (just one example).

But meanwhile, we have ever more self-takedowns from the IPCC:

• A prediction about the impact of sea level increases on people living in the Nile Delta was taken from an unpublished student dissertation.
• The Dutch government has demanded that the IPCC correct its erroneous assertion that half of the Netherlands is below sea level.
• the Synthesis Report contains a major scare prediction — 50% shortfall in North African food production just ten years from now — and there is no serious, peer-reviewed evidence that the prediction is true.

Now, Yoink, what is and was a Denier? Was it someone who was skeptical of IPCC sea level increasees? Of impacts of climate change on the Nile Delta? Of the effect of climate change on African food production?

We know the answers.

 

[GreyICE]

Huh? how is that equivalent? Let's try something using proxy data series.

What happens in financial circles when a researcher at an investment bank find a putative correlation between some variable in the past and equity market retuns? It looks like it has decent explanatory power over periods in the past, but over the last 10 years the proxy goes down and equity retuns keep going up.

So the researcher and the investment bank publish the paper minus the last 10 years and suggest to their clients that they should use this research as a basis for investing.

I can tell you exactly what happens in that case. In the US, the SEC walks in cuffs more than one individual and marches them off to jail. Their defence rests on a claim that while they were using a "trick" to "hide the decline", it was a valid statistical method and the language used in their internal emails on the subject was innocent use of collocquial language commonly used in the area.

The judge laughs and the prosecution have a field day.

Um, see where your analogy diverges? It's the part where they suggest using the data for predicting future trends.

But they didn't. They used the data to estimate past trends. These trends are estimated several different ways, and they have a good general correlation.

A lot has happened since 1960. Including a hell of a lot of pollution and other stuff we've tossed into the environment.

Lets use another analogy. You have a thermometer outside your window. It agrees strongly with other thermometers, as well as what you observe. One day, it starts to diverge from other thermometers and what you observed. It says it is below freezing when you're watching ice melt, it says it's 50 when people are walking around in T-Shirts. Do you conclude:

A) The thermometer broke
B) The thermometer is accurate, the world is insane
C) The thermometer was always broken, and the fact that it matched all the other thermometers up until recently was a coincidence

Deniers seem to like B or C, and they can't decide...

 

[Geckko]

Um, see where your analogy diverges? It's the part where they suggest using the data for predicting future trends.

But they didn't. They used the data to estimate past trends. These trends are estimated several different ways, and they have a good general correlation.

I did not say anything about predicting the future.

I said, quite clearly, "left out the last 10 years because the proxy and return diverged". And this is what the "trick" entailed. Your attempt to misrepresent my post only trivialises your response.

The inconvenient 1981- data and 1960- data for Briffa was excluded, to be replaced by physuical tmeperature measurement. Rather than show the "divergance problem" and deal with a scientific discussion about whether the proxies used were in fact stable temperature proxies, the entire group cooperated to "hide the decline", which is a more specific description of "hiding the divergence - the divergence in this case being the decline.

What is most ironic is that Michael Mann swore blind that it would be completely inappropriate to splice actual temperature records ono proxy series and further swore blind that no paleo reconstructions had or would do that.

And again with the nonsense analogies. They were replacing tree rings with thermometers. And they didn't even replace it because "the thermometer broke" 9i.e. data wasn't available. They replaced it because it didn't look right to them - but proceed to keep all the preceding data.

It is shokcing in the extreme and can not be defended by anything other than the absurd analogies we are seeing here.

 

[GreyICE]

I did not say anything about predicting the future.

I said, quite clearly, "left out the last 10 years because the proxy and return diverged". And this is what the "trick" entailed. Your attempt to misrepresent my post only trivialises your response.

And then, lets check your own words:

and suggest to their clients that they should use this research as a basis for investing.

But the proxy isn't the basis for our data on increasing temperatures, or our predictions. Thermostats are responsible for our data on increasing temperature, our predictions are based off sound science.

So yes, your transparent attempt to hide your poor methodology is trivial.

The inconvenient 1981- data and 1960- data for Briffa was excluded, to be replaced by physuical tmeperature measurement. Rather than show the "divergance problem" and deal with a scientific discussion about whether the proxies used were in fact stable temperature proxies, the entire group cooperated to "hide the decline", which is a more specific description of "hiding the divergence - the divergence in this case being the decline.

Except it wasn't hidden. They just replaced it with a thermostat that worked.

What is most ironic is that Michael Mann swore blind that it would be completely inappropriate to splice actual temperature records ono proxy series and further swore blind that no paleo reconstructions had or would do that.

Of course providing a link so we know the context and that you're not making stuff up would be would be 'trivial'

And again with the nonsense analogies. They were replacing tree rings with thermometers. And they didn't even replace it because "the thermometer broke" 9i.e. data wasn't available. They replaced it because it didn't look right to them - but proceed to keep all the preceding data.

It is shokcing in the extreme and can not be defended by anything other than the absurd analogies we are seeing here.

No, the data was available. The data was wrong.

It can't be defended except by, y'know, the truth and science. Which is absurd, if you're a denier. Keep looking for those space lasers...

 

[Geckko]

And then, lets check your own words:
But the proxy isn't the basis for our data on increasing temperatures, or our predictions. Thermostats are responsible for our data on increasing temperature, our predictions are based off sound science.

So yes, your transparent attempt to hide your poor methodology is trivial.
Except it wasn't hidden. They just replaced it with a thermostat that worked.

Of course providing a link so we know the context and that you're not making stuff up would be would be 'trivial'
No, the data was available. The data was wrong.

It can't be defended except by, y'know, the truth and science. Which is absurd, if you're a denier. Keep looking for those space lasers...

You are the one in denial here.

The data was "wrong", but only the data for the last 20-40 years. Curious to know how they knew that conversely the data fromt he same series a few hundred years ago was "correct".

You keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into this stinking cesspit. i can only surmise at this point that you are being intentionally stupid.

 

[GreyICE]

You are the one in denial here.

The data was "wrong", but only the data for the last 20-40 years. Curious to know how they knew that conversely the data fromt he same series a few hundred years ago was "correct".

You keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into this stinking cesspit.

Wow, the AAAlfie style of debating. Every time anyone responds to you, you post that they're 'digging themselves in deeper.'

Actually, rhetoric aside... oh wait, that would make your posts blank.

'Digging it in deeper.' Meanwhile, temperatures keep rising, two data sets utterly independent of this agree with it, and the deniers aren't taken seriously by anyone in any position of power short of a few crackpots in the House (the same renown body that includes Ron Paul).

 

[Yoink]

Well, all I can say to that is that your definition of "splice" and "dissimilar" data sets is a broad enough brush to make your point, and my definitions are more restrictive and precise. For example, "dissimilar" would be proxy by tree rings vv. instrumental temperature measurements (just one example).

No, your definition of dissimilar is entirely arbitrary. Where dissimilarities serve your argument you see them, and where they don't you choose not to. The stock price of a sugar company is not the "same" data set as the stock price of a railway company by any possible definition. They are dissimilar; they can move quite independently of each other. It is possible for railway stock to plummet to zero and sugar stock to soar into the heavens (and vice versa). If you create a continuous chart from two dissimilar data sets, then you have to "splice" those two dissimilar sets at some point. That's really all there is to it.

Tree ring data and instrumental temperature data are actually more similar than the stock prices of companies in unrelated industries. They will tend to have a much stronger correlation over a longer period than the runs of stock price data do.

But meanwhile, we have ever more self-takedowns from the IPCC:

• A prediction about the impact of sea level increases on people living in the Nile Delta was taken from an unpublished student dissertation.
• The Dutch government has demanded that the IPCC correct its erroneous assertion that half of the Netherlands is below sea level.
• the Synthesis Report contains a major scare prediction — 50% shortfall in North African food production just ten years from now — and there is no serious, peer-reviewed evidence that the prediction is true.

Now, Yoink, what is and was a Denier? Was it someone who was skeptical of IPCC sea level increasees? Of impacts of climate change on the Nile Delta? Of the effect of climate change on African food production?

We know the answers.

What's a denier, mhaze? Just look in a mirror. It's someone who looking at the above report doesn't say "hmm, interesting--one small and relatively insignificant part of their data on sea-level rise has been shown to be flawed" but instead chooses to seize gleefully on the flawed study and to willfully ignore all the many, many other studies that remain unchallenged. It's a person who reads about the utterly insignificant error (as it pertains to climate science) of describing more of the Netherlands as "below sea level" than is actually the case and who dances a little dance of joy because they've found an "error" in the dreaded IPCC report--utterly regardless of the fact that it's an error that changes not a single thing about the climate predictions in the report.

You're the equivalent of someone who has just been soundly thrashed in an online argument (an experience with which I know you to be very, very familiar, mhaze) who sees a typo in one of the posts of his interlocutor and who goes on and on and on and on about that typo. You know you've lost the substance of the argument, so you seize on irrelevancies in the desperate hope of discrediting your opponent in the eyes of people too stupid to follow the actual substance of the argument.

 

[GreyICE]

On the Netherlands thing, it's entirely accurate to say that half of the Netherlands' population is below sea level. It's only like 30% of the land, but that 30% has about 60% of the population.

 

[Yoink]

On the Netherlands thing, it's entirely accurate to say that half of the Netherlands' population is below sea level. It's only like 30% of the land, but that 30% has about 60% of the population.

I believe what happened in the IPCC report is that someone added together the figures for "below sea-level" and "at risk of flooding" (which included riverine flood plains). Shock, horror.

 

[lomiller]

That report would be far more useful if this following statement could have been more fully expanded upon:

Not so fast there cowboy, first you need to substantiate your own claim of wrongdoing. woo-woo types like to think they can raise whatever wild ideas you come up with and the world needs to stop until they are debunked to your satisfaction, and of course no debunking ever suffices. In the real world, however, you need to provide some compelling evidence for your claim before it’s worth wasting time on.

 

[mhaze]

No, your definition of dissimilar is entirely arbitrary. Where dissimilarities serve your argument you see them, and where they don't you choose not to. The stock price of a sugar company is not the "same" data set as the stock price of a railway company by any possible definition. They are dissimilar; they can move quite independently of each other. It is possible for railway stock to plummet to zero and sugar stock to soar into the heavens (and vice versa). If you create a continuous chart from two dissimilar data sets, then you have to "splice" those two dissimilar sets at some point. That's really all there is to it.

Tree ring data and instrumental temperature data are actually more similar than the stock prices of companies in unrelated industries. They will tend to have a much stronger correlation over a longer period than the runs of stock price data do. ....

Really? So a proxy of a temperature and an instrumental measurement of temperature are "less dissimilar than different stocks"?

Proxy and actual are completely different.

You would do better to argue proxy vs proxy than proxy vs actual, in my opinion.

....

What's a denier, mhaze? Just look in a mirror. It's someone who looking at the above report doesn't say "hmm, interesting--one small and relatively insignificant part of their data on sea-level rise has been shown to be flawed" but instead chooses to seize gleefully on the flawed study and to willfully ignore all the many, many other studies that remain unchallenged. It's a person who reads about the utterly insignificant error (as it pertains to climate science) of describing more of the Netherlands as "below sea level" than is actually the case and who dances a little dance of joy because they've found an "error" in the dreaded IPCC report--utterly regardless of the fact that it's an error that changes not a single thing about the climate predictions in the report.

......

Flawed study? Isn't it not about "flawed study" but "NO STUDY"?

So you are saying then, that one who objects to the making up of numbers and facts, as with the African rain, the Himilayan glaciers, the Netherland sea level rise, and so forth, is "A DENIER"?

Here your "broad brush" won't work. Let's hear what you've got to say on the specific cases cites, as to the application of the phrase DENIER in those cases. Your attempt to move the goalposts from these specifics to some overall opinion about the IPCC won't fly.

 

[Yoink]

Really? So a proxy of a temperature and an instrumental measurement of temperature are "less dissimilar than different stocks"?

Proxy and actual are completely different.

You would do better to argue proxy vs proxy than proxy vs actual, in my opinion.

Except that in the case of the DOW, both sets of data are "proxies" for the state of the stock market overall. Try to keep up.

Flawed study? Isn't it not about "flawed study" but "NO STUDY"?

So you are saying then, that one who objects to the making up of numbers and facts, as with the African rain, the Himilayan glaciers, the Netherland sea level rise, and so forth, is "A DENIER"?

Here your "broad brush" won't work. Let's hear what you've got to say on the specific cases cites, as to the application of the phrase DENIER in those cases. Your attempt to move the goalposts from these specifics to some overall opinion about the IPCC won't fly.

Of course these specific cases are flawed. Some of them are flaws that even matter a teensy weensy bit (no more than that, mind you). What makes you a "denier," mhaze, is that you cling obsessively to the flaws and deliberately ignore the overall picture.

I'm quite sure that if you went looking you could find discredited papers relating to any branch of science you care to name. For some reason, though, you don't leap up and down shouting that, say, there's really no such thing as genetic science because you can show that Mendel falsified some of his findings, however. You don't claim that there's no such thing as nuclear fusion because tabletop fusion proved to be a bust (hey, those guys were nuclear physicists and they wrote a bad paper--therefore the whole science of nuclear physics is proved to be a big scam!).

Yes, there are a few bad papers on climate science. It's your absurd attempt to infer from that that the entire field is bogus that shows you to be a "denier," mhaze. You're clearly not remotely interested in the overall validity of the IPCC report. All you want to know is can you find a few errors in it. If you do, that's your excuse to jettison the entire thing. No attempt to show that the errors matter. No attempt to argue that they were or were not central to the overall claims of the report. No attempt to show that they were ever even relied upon for any of the report's findings. Just: "ooh, look, I found an error!!! Nyah nyah nyah-naa-naaa! You're all a bunch of poopy-heads!!!"

It's nothing more than typo-spotting, mhaze.

 

[BenBurch]

January numbers in for Arctic Sea Ice - right on the trend line.

OK, those of you who think that warming has ended; Explain this graph?

ETA: Courtesy NSIDC http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

 

[Yoink]

January numbers in for Arctic Sea Ice - right on the trend line.

OK, those of you who think that warming has ended; Explain this graph?

ETA: Courtesy NSIDC http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

Don't you understand? Someone misreported the percentage of the Netherlands that lies below sealevel! That means you don't HAVE to explain graphs like this because it proves that the entire concept of global warming is false!

 

[BenBurch]

Don't you understand? Someone misreported the percentage of the Netherlands that lies below sealevel! That means you don't HAVE to explain graphs like this because it proves that the entire concept of global warming is false!

I am trying (uselessly, probably) to bring this back to the position stated in post #1;

Suppose we throw away all of the data that the reality-denying Right is calling into question as a result of hacking some email accounts.

What is left?

Everything.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistem...end/plot/esrl-co2/from:1980/to:2010/normalise