General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OddOne View Post
And now comes the leaked files from Hadley CRU, which includes E-mails and datafiles discussing such gems as:

Ok, I'll bite, let's make the gigantic assumption that the blogs you've read are right and look at the importance of each of your "points".

Quote:
[*]how to "massage" temp data to fit expectations when the data shows exactly the opposite of expectations;
To analyze data you do often have to "massage" it. That usually means something like a linear/logarithmic transformation, applying randomization tests, randomly subsampling the data, putting the data into a matrix...all things which preserve the essential elements of the data but which are necessary to run high level statistics.

Quote:
[*]how best to make people rely on the (now known to be running on bad data) climate models instead of the direct observations, which are not supporting AGW;
You're editorializing here. Current climate models do support direct observations. If you believe otherwise, post the SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL ARTICLE(S) (not blogs) which outline the differences.

Quote:
[*]how to recover missing data thanks to a few inept coders writing modeling programs without commenting or documenting them at all;
Gathering data can be very expensive. Recovering data makes perfect sense. You don't have to document data recovery unless there's a question of the integrity of the recovered data. If, for instance, I misplace my field book for a week and then "recover" it from a dumpster, you can bet your boots I don't have to include that in my scientific report.

Quote:
[*]what data to destroy in response to a FOI request;
They're probably talking about destroying irrelevant data that is taking up space on the servers. One weather station can transmit gigabytes of data every hour. Data storage isn't free you know.

Quote:
[*]how to avoid IRS reporting rules on "donations;"
(Why would the English be concerned about the IRS?..) This point has nothing to do with the AGW argument. You're probably misrepresenting their side of it anyway. Scientists frequently seek funding and are obviously going to do what they can to minimize the tax burden of their projects.

Quote:
[*]how to marginalize AGW skeptics and drive specific skeptics out of the scientific community.
Discrediting loudmouth, money-grubbing (they're always trying to sell their book/website) morons who know nothing about climate science sounds like a good idea to me.
__________________
TheMorlock: "i have a 140+ IQ"

OH RLY?

TheMorlock: "Any atmosphere will trap heat. the CO2 in Venus's atmosphere is a RESULT of the high temps"

Ahahahahaha
Old 11-21-2009, 10:27 AM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1156  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

OddOne
LED Gawd <3 t33cael
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
(Blather snipped.)

My position is that global warming is a proven phenomenon, but not a human-caused one. From what I've seen researching the subject for myself the only result human activity has is either making natural climate processes accelerate slightly or making these processes reach a slightly larger deviation, or both, and there seems to be no real consistency in data to support either hypothesis as being "law."

Is human activity harming the planet? Of course! Is it harming the planet by increasing global temps? Signs are pointing to "no." Instead of using AGW as a convenient excuse for every pet political project anyone has (and let's be frank, the vast majority of action on AGW has been blatantly political in nature, and has been to advance various agendas that have fuck-all to do with helping the planet - to assert otherwise requires a disconnect from reality) we as a species have far more pressing eco-issues to deal with, like large regions of ex-Soviet Russia that are hideously toxic, the pollution problems in China, etc. etc. etc. AGW is a red herring, a straw man, a distraction from more immediate and more pressing issues. (IOW, I don't disagree at all with the idea of global warming. It's the anthropogenic side that is questionable.)


Oh, as for your comment about "massaging" data, if you tamper with the data to fit your hypothesis instead of shaping your hypothesis to fit the observation, you're worshiping your hypothesis, not proving it. These people were pushing in half- to whole-degree changes into data that was supposed to look for tenth-of-a-degree-or-less average deviations, which means the data becomes statistically useless. If your margin for error is one or two orders of magnitude larger than the pattern you seek, how are you going to find anything meaningful?


BTW, before anyone gets a hard-on about my post about Hadley is not about AGW being true or false so much as it is the deliberate effort to make data prove a hypothesis it wasn't proving. Basic rigor and basic scientific method were being ignored, and the results were used by policymakers to make global policy decisions. That ain't gonna fly.
__________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Last edited by OddOne; 11-21-2009 at 11:16 AM..
Old 11-21-2009, 10:42 AM OddOne is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1157  

Renork
 
Renork's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
A few things:

a) Until non-blog sites start posting the emails that are apparently filled with proof of the Great Science Conspiracy, the story doesn't mean anything. Every month your group tries to pass off some non-issue as proof that there isn't warming.

b) The Hadley Centre is the body that said a few weeks ago (in that awful BBC blog article) that the British climate had cooled slightly this past year. So if you believe they're fakes, you should retract anything you've said about it.

c) Hadley data is NOT the be all and end all of the massive body of evidence in support of AGW. Even morons like you know this, so stop pretending otherwise.



And for the 10000000th time...be clear about your position. Are you:

1) Arguing that there is no warming

2) Arguing that the warming is not due to CO2 emissions?

You guys keep flipflopping between these two positions (which are mutually exclusive).


WTF are you quoting me? I simply told him to provide some sources for his wall of text that, for all anyone here knows, could have come from a 12 year olds science fiction fantasy.
__________________
.
Old 11-21-2009, 11:15 AM Renork is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1158  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
[QUOTE=OddOne;24035111]My position is that global warming is a proven phenomenon, but not a human-caused one. [/quote[

So far so good.

Quote:
From what I've seen researching the subject for myself the only result human activity has is either making natural climate processes accelerate slightly or making these processes reach a slightly larger deviation, or both, and there seems to be no real consistency in data to support either hypothesis as being "law."
Is a 10 degree rise in Arctic temperatures by 2080 a "slight" acceleration by your definition? If it is, we have much to discuss.

Quote:
Is human activity harming the planet? Of course! Is it harming the planet by increasing global temps? Signs are pointing to "no."
What signs? Be explicit. I've been quite clear in presenting some of the evidence linking CO2 release to rising temperatures so please do the same.

Quote:
Instead of using AGW as a convenient excuse for every pet political project anyone has (and let's be frank, the vast majority of action on AGW has been blatantly political in nature, and has been to advance various agendas that have fuck-all to do with helping the planet - to assert otherwise requires a disconnect from reality)
The issue has been politicized, that's true. Doesn't mean you can discount thousands of independent scientific studies.

Quote:
we as a species have far more pressing eco-issues to deal with, like large regions of ex-Soviet Russia that are hideously toxic, the pollution problems in China, etc. etc. etc. AGW is a red herring, a straw man, a distraction from more immediate and more pressing issues.
You're right that there are many eco-issues to deal with. Nitrogen deposition, land use change, shrub encroachment, and bioinvasions are significant drivers of global change. These tend to be localized phenomena, however, and require region-specific regulations (regulations which should be put in place, mind you). CO2 emissions have global effects and thus require a intergovernmental solution.

Quote:
Oh, as for your comment about "massaging" data, if you tamper with the data to fit your hypothesis instead of shaping your hypothesis to fit the observation, you're worshiping your hypothesis, not proving it.
You're automatically assuming that "massaging" means "tamper". As I have already pointed out, "massaging" usually refers to transforming your data so that it can analyzed with high level statistics. If you do it properly, the essential elements of the data are preserved. Ask any data analyst.

Quote:
These people were pushing in half- to whole-degree changes into data that was supposed to look for tenth-of-a-degree-or-less average deviations, which means the data becomes statistically useless. If your margin for error is one or two orders of magnitude larger than the pattern you seek, how are you going to find anything meaningful?
Unsubstantiated garbage. Get back to us when you have proof.

Quote:
BTW, before anyone gets a hard-on about my post about Hadley is not about AGW being true to false so much as it is the deliberate effort to make data prove a hypothesis it wasn't proving. Basic rigor and basic scientific method were being ignored, and the results were used by policymakers to make global policy decisions. That ain't gonna fly.
Keep telling yourself that. I don't see you criticizing the flawed methodology of McIntyre's recent paper, which lacks more rigor than almost any scientific paper I've ever read.
__________________
TheMorlock: "i have a 140+ IQ"

OH RLY?

TheMorlock: "Any atmosphere will trap heat. the CO2 in Venus's atmosphere is a RESULT of the high temps"

Ahahahahaha
Old 11-21-2009, 11:40 AM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1159  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Some credible information on the hacking:
Quote:
Originally Posted by realclimate.org
As many of you will be aware, a large number of emails from the University of East Anglia webmail server were hacked recently (Despite some confusion generated by Anthony Watts, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Hadley Centre which is a completely separate institution). As people are also no doubt aware the breaking into of computers and releasing private information is illegal, and regardless of how they were obtained, posting private correspondence without permission is unethical. We therefore aren’t going to post any of the emails here. We were made aware of the existence of this archive last Tuesday morning when the hackers attempted to upload it to RealClimate, and we notified CRU of their possible security breach later that day.

Nonetheless, these emails (a presumably careful selection of (possibly edited?) correspondence dating back to 1996 and as recently as Nov 12) are being widely circulated, and therefore require some comment. Some of them involve people here (and the archive includes the first RealClimate email we ever sent out to colleagues) and include discussions we’ve had with the CRU folk on topics related to the surface temperature record and some paleo-related issues, mainly to ensure that posting were accurate.

Since emails are normally intended to be private, people writing them are, shall we say, somewhat freer in expressing themselves than they would in a public statement. For instance, we are sure it comes as no shock to know that many scientists do not hold Steve McIntyre in high regard. Nor that a large group of them thought that the Soon and Baliunas (2003), Douglass et al (2008) or McClean et al (2009) papers were not very good (to say the least) and should not have been published. These sentiments have been made abundantly clear in the literature (though possibly less bluntly).

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the though.

Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.

It’s obvious that the noise-generating components of the blogosphere will generate a lot of noise about this. but it’s important to remember that science doesn’t work because people are polite at all times. Gravity isn’t a useful theory because Newton was a nice person. QED isn’t powerful because Feynman was respectful of other people around him. Science works because different groups go about trying to find the best approximations of the truth, and are generally very competitive about that. That the same scientists can still all agree on the wording of an IPCC chapter for instance is thus even more remarkable.

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental. But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn’t much to it.

There are of course lessons to be learned. Clearly no-one would have gone to this trouble if the academic object of study was the mating habits of European butterflies. That community’s internal discussions are probably safe from the public eye. But it is important to remember that emails do seem to exist forever, and that there is always a chance that they will be inadvertently released. Most people do not act as if this is true, but they probably should.

It is tempting to point fingers and declare that people should not have been so open with their thoughts, but who amongst us would really be happy to have all of their email made public?

Let he who is without PIN cast the the first stone
__________________
TheMorlock: "i have a 140+ IQ"

OH RLY?

TheMorlock: "Any atmosphere will trap heat. the CO2 in Venus's atmosphere is a RESULT of the high temps"

Ahahahahaha
Old 11-21-2009, 11:45 AM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1160  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
"Is a 10 degree rise in Arctic temperatures by 2080 a "slight" acceleration by your definition? If it is, we have much to discuss."

You mean like the five c rise in NA temps by 1985?
__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323
Old 11-21-2009, 01:21 PM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1161  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMorlock View Post
"Is a 10 degree rise in Arctic temperatures by 2080 a "slight" acceleration by your definition? If it is, we have much to discuss."

You mean like the five c rise in NA temps by 1985?

Are you still pretending my 2-year old misread of one of your ridiculously malinformed posts has any bearing on the AGW debate? Run out of ammunition, huh?

Have you published your theories about the Venus atmosphere yet?

The 10 degree figure for Arctic warming is pretty well agreed upon by most current climate models.
__________________
TheMorlock: "i have a 140+ IQ"

OH RLY?

TheMorlock: "Any atmosphere will trap heat. the CO2 in Venus's atmosphere is a RESULT of the high temps"

Ahahahahaha
Old 11-21-2009, 01:42 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1162  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
Are you still pretending my 2-year old misread of one of your ridiculously malinformed posts has any bearing on the AGW debate? Run out of ammunition, huh?

Have you published your theories about the Venus atmosphere yet?

The 10 degree figure for Arctic warming is pretty well agreed upon by most current climate models.

Are you still washing sand out of your vagina?

You still think your sig is mocking ME???

Damn but you are an imbecile


Once again venus is hot because it is close to the sun. It has a high co2 atmoshpere because it was Too Fucking Hot to support carbon sequestering life.

When Earth has a a 90% co2 atmosphere and 1120lb+ atmospheric pressure and we can talk about co2's greenhouse effect.



Get it yet shithead?
__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323
Old 11-21-2009, 04:00 PM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1163  

OddOne
LED Gawd <3 t33cael
 
Time to play a game...

Since folks here that are enamored with the AGW theory will almost always say "don't bother debating this unless you've read the 28302742834 pages of documentation on the topic," let's do the corollary.

Don't bother arguing that the Hadley CRU leak is not going to do incredible damage to the credibility of all of its researchers, and call all of the data it's ever released/published into question, unless you've read the leaked files and seen these very researchers discussing how to commit scientific fraud in the name of the Most Holy Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. These educated idiots committed fraud, and since other educated idiots use their fraudulent data as the basis for very far-reaching decisions (e.g., the summit in Copenhagen next month), this kind of fraud will harm people greatly.

You folks that hold AGW dear are so willing to whip out docs to try to prove your position, so go download the ZIP file and read the contents,and consider how things might change if some (or worse, all) of those docs end up discredited. Analyze the raw datasets it includes. Investigate the dark side of AGW research for a bit. Hell, I'll help you - here's a searchable database someone whipped up when the files first hit the innertubes. Read the leaked files and tell me nothing will change on the topic of AGW research, and I will happily laugh at you and call you an idiot.
__________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
Old 11-21-2009, 09:26 PM OddOne is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1164  

joemama
Watch Toomer burn those cowboys. How bout them cowboys?
 
joemama's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OddOne View Post
My position is that global warming is a proven phenomenon, but not a human-caused one. From what I've seen researching the subject for myself the only result human activity has is either making natural climate processes accelerate slightly or making these processes reach a slightly larger deviation, or both, and there seems to be no real consistency in data to support either hypothesis as being "law."

Is human activity harming the planet? Of course! Is it harming the planet by increasing global temps? Signs are pointing to "no." Instead of using AGW as a convenient excuse for every pet political project anyone has (and let's be frank, the vast majority of action on AGW has been blatantly political in nature, and has been to advance various agendas that have fuck-all to do with helping the planet - to assert otherwise requires a disconnect from reality) we as a species have far more pressing eco-issues to deal with, like large regions of ex-Soviet Russia that are hideously toxic, the pollution problems in China, etc. etc. etc. AGW is a red herring, a straw man, a distraction from more immediate and more pressing issues. (IOW, I don't disagree at all with the idea of global warming. It's the anthropogenic side that is questionable.)


Oh, as for your comment about "massaging" data, if you tamper with the data to fit your hypothesis instead of shaping your hypothesis to fit the observation, you're worshiping your hypothesis, not proving it. These people were pushing in half- to whole-degree changes into data that was supposed to look for tenth-of-a-degree-or-less average deviations, which means the data becomes statistically useless. If your margin for error is one or two orders of magnitude larger than the pattern you seek, how are you going to find anything meaningful?


BTW, before anyone gets a hard-on about my post about Hadley is not about AGW being true or false so much as it is the deliberate effort to make data prove a hypothesis it wasn't proving. Basic rigor and basic scientific method were being ignored, and the results were used by policymakers to make global policy decisions. That ain't gonna fly.
Thank you for typing up what is basically my position on this thing...but wording it much better than I ever could.
__________________
Rapid-fire double bass of the GenMay dru[M]mers collective

Syndrome of a Downs- drums/songwriter
._--_|\
/········\
\_.--Bumfuck Egypt
.......v
Old 11-21-2009, 09:31 PM joemama is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1165  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renork View Post
WTF are you quoting me? I simply told him to provide some sources for his wall of text that, for all anyone here knows, could have come from a 12 year olds science fiction fantasy.

Oh yeah, sorry about that Renork. I should have quoted him.
__________________
TheMorlock: "i have a 140+ IQ"

OH RLY?

TheMorlock: "Any atmosphere will trap heat. the CO2 in Venus's atmosphere is a RESULT of the high temps"

Ahahahahaha
Old 11-21-2009, 09:36 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1166  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMorlock View Post
Once again venus is hot because it is close to the sun. It has a high co2 atmoshpere because it was Too Fucking Hot to support carbon sequestering life.

You can rewrite history all you want, bro. You were responding to a comment about the impact of CO2 on temperatures on Venus and tried to pass off some about how temperatures were always that high and that they caused the CO2 to be high. Now you're trying to fill in the holes months later with some carbon sequestering argument you picked up off the Venus Wikipedia page. We know WHY there's CO2 on Venus, but you seem to not understand that the CO2 that is there amplies the temperature considerably.

Let's play a game we've played before...Fill in the blanks: Venus is hotter than Mercury because it has a lot of ____ in the atmosphere. I'll give you hint, it starts with "c" and ends with "arbon dioxide".

Or do you still want to pretend that CO2 isn't one of the primary reasons Venus is hotter than Mercury?

Quote:
When Earth has a a 90% co2 atmosphere and 1120lb+ atmospheric pressure and we can talk about co2's greenhouse effect.
Wait a second...is this a tacit admission that CO2 in an atmosphere can have a warming effect?!?

Whats sad is that that will probably be as close to not sounding like a poor, drunk retard as you'll ever get.
__________________
TheMorlock: "i have a 140+ IQ"

OH RLY?

TheMorlock: "Any atmosphere will trap heat. the CO2 in Venus's atmosphere is a RESULT of the high temps"

Ahahahahaha

Last edited by Fuckyouformakingmeregister; 11-21-2009 at 09:58 PM..
Old 11-21-2009, 09:43 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1167  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
No you stupid fuck as I told you the first time around, ANY atmosphere retains heat.

The only holes I am filling is the ones in your skull. Just keep trying to repaint things how you imagined they were said and you will be ok.
__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323
Old 11-21-2009, 10:51 PM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1168  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
You're a fun one, that's for sure.
__________________
TheMorlock: "i have a 140+ IQ"

OH RLY?

TheMorlock: "Any atmosphere will trap heat. the CO2 in Venus's atmosphere is a RESULT of the high temps"

Ahahahahaha
Old 11-21-2009, 11:00 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1169  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
You on the other one are a boring lump of pure stupid.
__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323
Old 11-22-2009, 04:15 AM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1170  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:51 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.