Thread: Climategate!

OK here is what I see of the "Data", you tend to believe the data that supports your personal opinion, period end of story, there have actually been studies done on just that too... So basically what I am saying is we can all put forth all the data in the world, and we will discount the stuff that doesn't support our own personal point of view....
Those my friends are the facts of life, and if you are naive enough to believe that these scientists are immune to human nature, then as the saying goes "There is a sucker born every minute"

Right now though, coming up is a conference that could very well make suckers out of all of us...

So here is the same statement that has been out there on bumper stickers for years now

"When you are cold, in the dark, and starving, Eat an Environmentalist"

BTW note the "Cold" part because when that bumper sticker came out we were going to have an ice age....according to the climatologists of the day...

Originally Posted by 59caddy

why is it that any data i show you is a misrepresentation without fail

I did not say the data is misrepresentation, I said the article surrounding it is. As to why it is, if you would like my guess that would be because you are looking for a narrative that fits your already made opinion.
So far you are not very critical in picking your sources, which doesn't give me much hope about how critical you are about the data analysis. That is once we get to discuss that, if we ever do. It's not me who is setting the pace for the discussion, it's the failure to meet the most basic criteria of objectivity and rigor to even start a data based discussion.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

and yours is perfect?

I think you're slightly confused, so far I have not showed you any data, or narrative based on it. If I have please point me to it because I will have to bring that to the doctor as evidence that I'm loosing my memory.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

i see a trend of 25 years or so in the charts.

I see many trends and a small signal to noise ratio. You are the one drawing conclusions and so far I just pointed out that they are wild extrapolations of the graphs you are showing. Your insistence that your conclusions are valid, despite me pointing out the most obvious holes seems to indicate that you either don't understand the issue at all, don't want to do the work to understand it, or are just not interested in understanding it perhaps because it may turn out the other way. I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and throw out the possibility that you are intentionally doing it despite understanding the issues.

Originally Posted by gugi

I did read that last link you posted and all I could find is misrepresentation and misinterpretation of the actual data.
I did not see any discussion on how the data was averaged and why it should represent 'global' temperature.
And no, the links were not pointing to NOAA, but to a private blog with a name which leads me to believe it's biased. The graphs may have been taken from NOAA, but constructing a narrative from cherry picked data is not what I call science.

Here's the website you want to reference NCDC: * National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) *
When you have looked at not only the October data for US, but all other months we can start having a discussion on what happens with the climate in US. And before I'd discuss global you will have to have looked at data from the whole globe, not just 2% of it.

With the greatest respect to all opinions, anything concerning global warming is based on models of very recent data. Since global temperature change occurs on an evolutionary time scale, the science is unclear and not factual. It is not junk science, but its one step short.
Now if you have a degree in climatology, meteorology, or biology then you can talk about data since you understand the dynamic at which its taken. If you have one of those, which I do, then you should reveal when and where you received your degree. Mine was a B.S. in Biology with concentration in cell biology and biochemistry, Samford University 2005 Cum Laude. My research was specifically in heavy metal contamination of local water sources. If you are just a statistician, then you need to learn the actual science put into the stats and then you can be qualified to speak on the subject. Some people on this forum would have you believe they are experts and use derogatory comments about what others believe. Its not fair, but hey, we can't all get away with it.
I have looked at much of the data. Based on models, global warming will lead to polar ice melting and cooling the oceans and then cause a temporary global cooling. Since this is expected over the next 500 years or so, then the model is flawed or accelerated. The fact is the data is just that, its data. I do not claim that it isn't legitimate, or real, but the claim it is being used to support needs 1000's of years of collecting to draw a legitimate conclusion. It has no real significance and any credentialed scientist with knowledge of climatology will tell you that until 10000 of years of data are collected, what is currently known is worthless.
Al Gore has no scientific background,he is not qualified to speak on anything scientific. His education is in government. I voted for him the first time because I thought he was smarter than the alternative, but the truth is he just wants to push his own agenda. The only reason global warming is being pushed is so that wealthy countries can join a pack and buy carbon credits. Its really just a way to influence another tax which is all carbon credits are. Then the small countries can be treated as our equals. Guess which company that helped elect our current president will be the front-runner to more energy efficient products that you will be forced to buy? Thats right folks General Electric Company, plus now the they have their president elected, they no longer needed their news channel to promote him, so they sold it. Global warming is not really a liberal hoax, its just stupidity to the Nth degree and people who buy into it or global cooling are the same people that think antibiotics cure colds.
The behavior in this thread of is not very nice. The rudest of them all would have you believe that they know what they are talking about, when clearly they are not a brilliant as they think since they can not tell the difference between random data, and hard factual science based on enough data to draw a conclusion. They put out these websites and data and fancy words and above all else their arrogant attitude and then get upset if you don't agree with them.
As the Great Chinese proverb says,
"He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool. Shun Him!"

Originally Posted by gugi

I did not say the data is misrepresentation, I said the article surrounding it is. As to why it is, if you would like my guess that would be because you are looking for a narrative that fits your already made opinion.
So far you are not very critical in picking your sources, which doesn't give me much hope about how critical you are about the data analysis. That is once we get to discuss that, if we ever do. It's not me who is setting the pace for the discussion, it's the failure to meet the most basic criteria of objectivity and rigor to even start a data based discussion.


I think you're slightly confused, so far I have not showed you any data, or narrative based on it. If I have please point me to it because I will have to bring that to the doctor as evidence that I'm loosing my memory.


I see many trends and a small signal to noise ratio. You are the one drawing conclusions and so far I just pointed out that they are wild extrapolations of the graphs you are showing. Your insistence that your conclusions are valid, despite me pointing out the most obvious holes seems to indicate that you either don't understand the issue at all, don't want to do the work to understand it, or are just not interested in understanding it perhaps because it may turn out the other way. I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and throw out the possibility that you are intentionally doing it despite understanding the issues.

well then, show me the facts as you see them. instead of just saying no, no, no to everybody that disagrees with you. you have pointed to several so called facts on this issue, but now you say you have not. make up my mind. either say whats on your mind or say nothing at all if it is not helpful to the conversation. i said a few posts back i wanted to learn. you are not a very good tutor with no, no, no, i am right and you are wrong mentality.
the ball is in your court, now show me the facts...

We have gone through Alice's looking glass. Everything is now backwards...
The Fiction Of Climate Science - Forbes.com.

Originally Posted by TexasBob

We have gone through Alice's looking glass. Everything is now backwards...
The Fiction Of Climate Science - Forbes.com.

I stopped subscribing to this thread as nothing new seemed to be discussed. I vented my steam! But when I saw that article I had to post it. I lived through that time and that helps put today's AGW dogmatism in perspective.

Note that very few people actually *care* about this. Polls show that most people think it is hogwash: Americans Skeptical of Science Behind Global Warming - Rasmussen Reports™. Now don't tell me there is a huge amount of data that shows global warming is "true". I know. It's the "A" in "AGW" that's bogus, not the "GW".

The problem is few people understand the potential harm that it can do. "It" being the measures being proposed (e.g. Cap and Trade), not global warming itself. Polls also show this: Congress Pushes Cap and Trade, But Just 24% Know What It Is - Rasmussen Reports™.

Oddly enough, our lawmakers do (or did) understand all this. I think the vote to ratify the Kyoto treaty was actually 100% against. (Would need to look it up to be sure.) I suspect a vote today would be different but still fall short of ratification.

Originally Posted by treydampier

With the greatest respect to all opinions, anything concerning global warming is based on models of very recent data. Since global temperature change occurs on an evolutionary time scale, the science is unclear and not factual. It is not junk science, but its one step short.

Actually global temperature change occurs on timescales of minutes as well. Studying all this does not come anywhere close to junk science. It is indeed possible to collect data and form fairly realistic models capable of predicting future temperature. I don't think you've missed these advances in technology, you simply don't recognize them. That's called the weather forecast and is very very important for the world as you know it, far beyond the triviality of whether you have to pick an umbrella or a sweater. Of course predictions further in the future are harder, but attempting them is not automatically junk science.

Originally Posted by treydampier

Now if you have a degree in climatology, meteorology, or biology then you can talk about data since you understand the dynamic at which its taken.

No I do not have a degree in any of these disciplines. I have plenty of advanced degrees from several institutions, and I have had to conduct research, write a thesis and defend it for every single one of them, but that is completely irrelevant. If somebody's degree would be enough to convince you about something you haven't learned much earning your degree. I have enough experience with science that when I read a well written paper on a subject I'm not expert on, I can get an idea what is the problem, what are the methods utilized to solving it and how rigorous that is.

Since you earned a degree in science you should know that science is modeling taking measurements and putting down numbers is not science, the actual work is analyzing the meaning of these and making a simplified model that captures just enough of the most important phenomena to describe your observations correctly with the precision you have available. I don't understand why you are so quick to brush off a discussion of the actual science and prefer to resort to conspiracy theories and politics as arguments.
Opinions are fine, but for some reason I had the impression that these threads are supposed to go a bit beyond of 'I just like global warming' and 'I don't like it'.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

well then, show me the facts as you see them. instead of just saying no, no, no to everybody that disagrees with you. you have pointed to several so called facts on this issue, but now you say you have not. make up my mind. either say whats on your mind or say nothing at all if it is not helpful to the conversation. i said a few posts back i wanted to learn. you are not a very good tutor with no, no, no, i am right and you are wrong mentality.
the ball is in your court, now show me the facts...

I didn't ever claim I'm a good tutor, in fact I already knew for a fact I'm not a very good one.
The only way to learn actually is to go and read the actual research publications. TexasBob already had a post with dozens of references in research journals. Read those and the ones that they refer to and especially the ones that reference them for rebuttal purposes. Then you'll start getting an idea where the actual disagreement between scientists are. It usually boils down to disagreement over something that has to be estimated and so different people will have different estimate leading to different results.

As a first step start doubting everything you read. For example when somebody tells you 'global' usually they mean 'local'. Global happens when you take all locals together, so 'local' is important but on itself is pretty much meaningless.
Second when you see a statement that a measurement of something means that something else is equal to that you have to examine this claim closely. For example sticking out a thermometer in front of your house will tell you the average temperature of about five cubic inches of air over the last half a minute. If you believe that you just measured the temperature of your country or your city you are in big trouble.
When you are not closely familiar with something read the research and the conclusions of people who are experts in the field. As I said earlier especially useful are dissents, because they usually distill the core of the argument.

The thing is that I don't feel the need to take side A or side B so that I can fit in somebody's model of friends and enemies. I am interested in figuring out what the correct answer is, or the best approximation to it.

Oh, and the journals Nature and Science are pretty good place to start. They're sort of the newspapers of the scientific community, so anything that's big news gets there. Being targeted to a broader audience the papers are written in much more accessible language, but the lack of space limits the rigor. The essense of any observations and models are correct though, and the additional technicalities can be found in more specialized journals.

gugi, without quoting your entire last post. i will respond as best i can.
i have read science journals from both sides. i only see one side that seems to scream we are in immediate danger. the other side says wait and let us do more research. this to me seems the most logical thing to do, to be sure of each and every step we take without scaring people into ones belief of their "science" and dismissing all others work.
some of the proposals from the "global warming" side will do great harm to our economy and may not do any good for the planet. trying to stop all of our so called green house gasses has not to me been proven to be factually the best way to go. even china who now has agreed to the treaty, says that if any, even the least bit of downturn with their economy, will result in them doing away with the agreement in whole.. so are we in this to help ourselves as mankind or line our pockets with gold?

You know that gold is king.

Climatologists under pressure : Article : Nature