Climate-gate
- Thread starter Photizo
- Start date
I know, it's scary...but take a shot at thinking for yourself...
Because nobody else is going to bother, contenting themselves with posting links - to garbage newspapers?link poster said:
If I do, I'll find something else to think about than tabloid articles about conspiracies to conceal Bigfoot, or pretend the glaciers are melting for big money, or hide evidence of Noah's Ark on Mars, or whatever those links were about.
"Ah, the hubris of the defeated."
So to what extent does the simple quoting or linking of tabloid sensationalism actually bear on the relationship between science and society?
Clearly as examples in some kind of discussion of the relationship between tabloids and society, such links have relevance. And science is part of society, one might reasonably propose. But assuming for the moment that scientists themselves do not get their information about their fellow scientists's doings from the tabloids, the relevance of tabloids to the relationship between science and society does not rest on the simple membership of them both in that society.
I mean, how and why does it happen that simply posting a link to a tabloid luridity can appear, to a significant proportion of ordinary people, as a contribution to a discussion of some relationship between science and society?
Clearly as examples in some kind of discussion of the relationship between tabloids and society, such links have relevance. And science is part of society, one might reasonably propose. But assuming for the moment that scientists themselves do not get their information about their fellow scientists's doings from the tabloids, the relevance of tabloids to the relationship between science and society does not rest on the simple membership of them both in that society.
I mean, how and why does it happen that simply posting a link to a tabloid luridity can appear, to a significant proportion of ordinary people, as a contribution to a discussion of some relationship between science and society?
So to what extent does the simple quoting or linking of tabloid sensationalism actually bear on the relationship between science and society?
Clearly as examples in some kind of discussion of the relationship between tabloids and society, such links have relevance. And science is part of society, one might reasonably propose. But assuming for the moment that scientists themselves do not get their information about their fellow scientists's doings from the tabloids, the relevance of tabloids to the relationship between science and society does not rest on the simple membership of them both in that society.
I mean, how and why does it happen that simply posting a link to a tabloid luridity can appear, to a significant proportion of ordinary people, as a contribution to a discussion of some relationship between science and society?
You'll be pleased to know I'm recommending your piece for the next issue of http://vig-fp.pearsoned.co.uk/bigcovers/0136141382.jpg
Here's what I find incredible (and telling) about that link.
It makes no effort, whatsoever,to account for the differences in scaling between the data sets.
I've done some preliminary work with the original data sets, and here's what I've found, once you plot them all on the same scale.
Hansen 1981 and Hansen 1987 are virtually identical - any discrepancies (assuming they are genuine discrepancies) are all before 1920.
Hansen 2007 does differ from these two, however,for the part, and to the best of my ability to tell, this appears to be largely due to a greater number of data points, and is also suggestiveof improved data accuracy. I say this because where 2007 disagrees from 1987 and 1981 (and it's not everywhere), the data generally seems to lie within each others 95% confidence interval.
The thing that I find the most amazing, given what the linked to article is trying to suggest is that Hansen 2007 actually appears to have a lower temperature in 1970 than either Hansen 1981 or Hansen 1987.
The other thing I find highly amusing is that Hansen 2007 has 1900-1880 being warmer than either Hansen 1981 or Hansen 1987. Gee, I wonder why nobody stops to point that out.
On second thoughts, no I don't.
Unlike the author of the link,I have nothing to hide.
Hansen et al 1981
Hansen et al 1987
Addendum:
As near as I can tell, looking at the appropriate papers, Hansen etal 1981 and 1987 were done with approximately 500 stations, I believe the 2007 data set includes something like 1200 stations so...
Addendum:
Something else that I think falls into the 'Funny as fuck' category.
Consider Hansen et al 1987 (specifically figure 6).
What I think is funny as fuck about this in relation to the current 'discussion' is that the warming in the 1940's is not as pronounced in the southern hemisphere as it is in the Northern Hemisphere, and is most pronounced between 64°N and 90°N suggesting that it's probably regional, and probably related to the variations in the arctic highpressure system.
The corrollary of this is that of Hansen et al contains better representation in the southern hemisphere, and the mid northern latitudes then of course it's going to be less pronounced (if it was a regional warming to begin with - incidentaly, the 1965 minima is no lower in the 2007 data set than it is in the 1981 data set for the southern hemisphere) so the article linked to by Photizo is based almost entirely on false premises, apparently wrong assumptions, and either deliberate or accidental misrepresentation.
Last edited:
Mod Hat - Reminder
Mod Hat — Reminder
Members are reminded that in order for any reasonable scientific discussion to take place, people need to express something about their own perspective. Simply putting links before us with a, "Go fish," attitude doesn't suffice. You might be adept at telling us what you think, or don't think, but it is much more conducive to the discussion if you can afford a few words as to why you perceive things as you do, or how you reach your conclusions according to the components of your argument.
Smarmy is as smarmy does, and whether or not that is one's intention, it is the eventual effect. Give us something to work with, and expect the same of those you debate.
Mod Hat — Reminder
Members are reminded that in order for any reasonable scientific discussion to take place, people need to express something about their own perspective. Simply putting links before us with a, "Go fish," attitude doesn't suffice. You might be adept at telling us what you think, or don't think, but it is much more conducive to the discussion if you can afford a few words as to why you perceive things as you do, or how you reach your conclusions according to the components of your argument.
Smarmy is as smarmy does, and whether or not that is one's intention, it is the eventual effect. Give us something to work with, and expect the same of those you debate.
Fair enough. :thumbsup:
Apparently UK Lawmakers are satisfied that there was no deliberate malicous intent.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/03/31/climate.change/index.html?hpt=T2
So what's next?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/03/31/climate.change/index.html?hpt=T2
So what's next?
The fact that they're giving this guy some cover shouldn't be that surprising. The above statement suggests that their excuse was "everybody was doing it so we aren't going to burn our guy at the stake." The AGW community has systemic procedural problems that have threatened the public's faith in the scientific process, REGARDLESS of the truth behind their claims. And if you think that massaging the data or over-hyping the danger is justified in order to affect behavioral change then you are part of the problem.
In principle, I don't disagree with what your saying, but please at least bear in mind that there are factors other than 'public interest' at play here as well, for example not all of the sources of data that HCRU used authorized their raw data for public release.
That's a perfectly reasonable excuse for refusing to share the data, if it's true. However, I've read that the "unauthorized for public release" label was rather arbitrarily assigned for political cover, possibly by the HCRU itself!
Trippy, I respect you, but my experience warns me against getting involved in this thread again. Nobody that cares enough to post here is open enough to having their minds changed so we're all really just spinning our wheels. If I wanted to argue for argument's sake I'd go join that Monte Python skit...
Trippy, I respect you, but my experience warns me against getting involved in this thread again. Nobody that cares enough to post here is open enough to having their minds changed so we're all really just spinning our wheels. If I wanted to argue for argument's sake I'd go join that Monte Python skit...
That's a perfectly reasonable excuse for refusing to share the data, if it's true. However, I've read that the "unauthorized for public release" label was rather arbitrarily assigned for political cover, possibly by the HCRU itself!
Trippy, I respect you, but my experience warns me against getting involved in this thread again. Nobody that cares enough to post here is open enough to having their minds changed so we're all really just spinning our wheels. If I wanted to argue for argument's sake I'd go join that Monte Python skit...
One of several reasons why I typically avoid this thread - and if it turns out that the 'unauthorized for public release' label has been used arbitrarily and inappropriately, well, then I'll review my opinion. :3
Isn't it surprising that the arctic ice cover being the most extensive in 10 years is getting no media coverage?
That the much talk about Bering Strait is back to normal levels? Considering the worldwide coverage of the supposed CAGW implications of less ice, wouldn't more ice at least be worth covering? shouldn't more 'scientists' be talking about this?
Apparently not.
"It's like religion. Heresy [in science] is thought of as a bad thing, whereas it should be just the opposite." - Dr. Thomas Gold
That the much talk about Bering Strait is back to normal levels? Considering the worldwide coverage of the supposed CAGW implications of less ice, wouldn't more ice at least be worth covering? shouldn't more 'scientists' be talking about this?
Apparently not.
"It's like religion. Heresy [in science] is thought of as a bad thing, whereas it should be just the opposite." - Dr. Thomas Gold
The AGW proponents just expand their list of what constitutes "proof" of their claims. First it was Global Cooling (back in the 70's), then it was Global Warming, now it's "Climate Change"...meaning, any time weather "changes" it's a sign that we're all going to die and we are responsible for it.
They are, of course, leaving out the possibility of the absence of change in weather. I therefore submit that, from now on, Global Warming be referred to as Climate Change and/or Stagnation.:thumbsup:
They are, of course, leaving out the possibility of the absence of change in weather. I therefore submit that, from now on, Global Warming be referred to as Climate Change and/or Stagnation.:thumbsup:
No. Not particularly.
Not when you view 15.1 million square miles in the context of historical records (graph below to March 2010):
(Click image to embiggen).
When you're at a minima, whether it be local or global, on a 30 year scale, it doesn't take much to be the 'biggest in 10 years'.
When you can claim the most Sea Ice coverage in 30 years, then I will be impressed.
It's also not surprising that it's happening when you take into account global factors.
Last edited: