I think perhaps you understate the issue, or just don't understand what's going on here. Refer to my post on the 3 million euros given to the guy and organisation who made the claim to study the issue further. I doubt that a 2350 figure would have warranted 3 million euros. It's a happy coincidence for the researchers that this "typo" was made.
What do you mean "it was a typo"? It wasn't a typo, it was cribbed from a New Scientist article, that itself was cribbed from a WWF report. It wasn't "scientific" research at all; they basically published information from a WWF pamphlet! This is a direct and attributable deliberate lie: TERI, the organisation that Pachauri works for was recently awarded 3,000,000 euros to study the Glaciers. The guy representing TERI, Syed Hasnain, was the source of the original 2035 claim. Do you think his grant application referred to 2350 or 2035? I for one intend to FOI the grant applications, if they are available. They should make interesting reading.
I regularly read The Times, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail (I apologise in advance; it's just that I like to know what Fascist Britain is getting up to from time to time) online. I wouldn't read any of these if they were behind a pay wall. I did subscribe to the FT for a month (a free month) but what was contained therein was not compelling enough for me to actually give them a monthly sub. I can get free news elsewhere, e.g. the BBC online website (leftist, ethnic-peace bicycle politically correct news I grant you, but news nonetheless) and various blogs.
The fact of the matter is that most people when compelled to pay, will simply move their viewing elsewhere. As long as there are places to get news online free of charge, pay-walls won't work for the masses. I guess the next step of course, once the pay-walls have gone up, is to claim copyright over any and every story to prevent publication in blogs!
Yes but my point is that there's no link between the scepticism most scientists and a lot of laymen are capable of (including the public at large) and belief in intelligent design. ID is always wheeled out whenever anyone subjects a scientific hypothesis to criticism on a public forum.
...and moreover, why is any expression of scepticism on any scientific issue automatically associated with intelligent design? Scepticism, raising an eyebrow, searching for error, promoting an alternative point of view; these are all part of the process of doing science.
Whatever you say, he's spot on. There are few areas of academia where massaging ego, obtaining research grants and getting tenure are less important than the facts of the matter. This is the problem at the heart of Science that nobody seems to want to address.
Given that both Greenland and Antarctica aren't in Europe, I think your assertion is wrong. Going from NOAA ice-core data, which you can see nicely animated and illustrated here, some eye-brows should be raised at claims of unprecedented warming.
Heat waves will kill some, cold snaps will kill others. Flooded coastal areas will displace some, while droughts and torrential rains will displace others.
So what's new?
Meanwhile, crop and grazing land will be destroyed so that those who do adapt to the changes run the risk of starvation.
I don't think so, no. Actually increasing CO2 causes plants to grow more vigorously. The problem with the food supply at the moment is the turning over of huge tracts of land for growing bio-fuels. This "energy security" measure has had precisely the effects you imagine above.
But, eh, fuck them, right?
The problem here is simply that any and every weather "event" or micro-climate change is attributed to man-made CO2. It's a kind of group think insanity that completely ignores the large natural variations in the system we and our ancestors have been living with for hundreds of millions of years. After viewing the antarctic and greenland core data, showing huge variations over the last 10,000 years, including periods warmer than today, with rapid warmings and coolings, I think a policy of adaptation is probably the only rational option.
I'm afraid open sourcing it would just have ensured it was crap, regardless. At least keeping it in-house they had a chance of producing something decent. For the want of a Gantt chart they might have succeeded!
As I understand it, the chances of it being some other (extra-solar) particle detected is about 1 in 4. They need a 1:1000 to have a valid argument. Although interesting, I can't help but wonder when the next funding cycle starts.
The article says that demand for c# is around 32%, but it should also add in the demand for vb.net, which is less but should be added to the total, as it is in use. In my view, the language features, excellent development environment and comprehensive libraries make.NET a win for most LOB applications - which is the vast majority of all PC applications in use at the moment.
The allegation is that only 25% of the stations were used and that this 25% was cherry picked, not on the basis of data quality, but on the basis of temperature trend. Re-analysis of the data left out will allow this allegation to be easily verified. Really, I don't know what's so "flamebait" about what I said above. Interestingly:
Again the accusation is completely believable, yet is completely unverifiable because CRU has refused to release the data. This data and code release is the subject of illegal blocking of FOIA's is one of the keys in the Climategate emials. We need to know the list of stations used and we must have copies of the raw data.
I wonder what the graph would look like if you plotted it against the deleted bits of Briffa's Yamal series? I'm starting to fully understand the divergence problem now!
It's done in an an automated process that has been analyzed by dozens of peer-reviewed papers.
Regarding your appeal to authority (dozens of peer reviewed papers), I would point out, as I love to on these occassions, the thousands of peer reviewed papers published with respect to the dietary causes of stomach ulcers.
Now on your substantive point that the automated process throws away "bad" stations and only includes "good" ones, let's be clear here:
Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
That reason may well be something similar to Mann's "confirmation bias" method of proxy selection, ie. throw away all data that doesn't match your pre-conceived idea of what the data should look like.
100 to 1 odds says that any data exclusions are due to bad data and incomplete records
This will be easily verified. Bloggers are now, as we speak, trying to find and looking at the various issues with the stations removed from the analysis. It's interesting to note that the scientists aren't! The story so far shows that many stations that had no siting issues or problems whatsoever were removed from the analysis. This is the important point (it wouldn't be a story otherwise).
It's that to say that some random blogger likely doesn't have the tools to correctly analyze the data
On the contrary, if the raw data is available and the method used to massage it, then the tools are readily available. It's interesting to me that when Prof Mann produces a paper where he's fiddled with the data (as shown by Wegman, McIntyre/McIntrick and as verified by Dr North of the NAS in congressional testimony), the paper is not retracted, it's `defended' (mostly by use of blogs). The same is true of Briffa's Yamal chronology and Steigs choice selection of PC's in his Antarctic Warming paper. We aren't talking particle physics here; you don't need a billion dollar accelerator to reproduce this kind of analysis.
I've been sat here at work, with my taskbar-based ALT_TABBED operating system wondering what the fuss is all about? Windows 7 task bar is pretty good. Tabbed apps would use up a little more of my screen real-estate than an auto-hidden taskbar does, so no, I don't think this feature is particularly grand. It works nicely in a browser though.
Do you know so little about Polar Bears that you honestly believe that crap? They are capable of easily swimming 60km or more. The population of bears has actually been increasing, not decreasing. Please go and peddle your lies somewhere else. Try sending Phil Jones an email.
This "incident" involves four scientists. Just four.
I guess the number 4 you've written above has been adjusted by a Climate Scientist:
Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, Tom Wigley, Ben Santer, Rob Wilson, Jonathan Overpeck, Gary Funkhouser, Grant Foster, David Parker, Giorgio Filippo, John Mitchell, (got bored searching... and others). These are all top people in the field. It isn't a small-town bible class, it's a major league scientific fiasco.
Yes and according to your President, the US is going to commit to reducing that to the level it was around 1860, by 2050, with no doubt a similar level of economic prosperity. What's missing from this debate is...as usual, a brain.
You mean like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, first in the queue for a cut of carbon credit trading and hedging? Effectively a tax on everything (because everything needs energy), paid to the investment banks?
I'm prepared to lose my excellent Karma on this issue. To be honest I'm not prepared to lose it over whether Microsoft is better than Linux, or Linux is better than Microsoft:
Research has shown Mount Kilimanjaro has been losing glaciers/snow cap over the last 150 years or so. The reasons for this are micro-climate issues, particularly deforestation around the base on the mountain. Now, will you just shut-up about Mount Kilimanjaro being somehow proof of CO2 based warming hypothesis. It isn't, it never was and it never will be.
Secondly, this whole topic is posted by a Real Climate shill and is nothing more than a propaganda piece to try to limit the damage from the unfolding scandal. The datasets aren't entirely independent as they both take data from the same poorly sited, poor maintained and poorly analysed surface station networks. Moreover, there are big data quality problems with NASA's GISS data. If CRU data agrees with GISS and CRU data has been fixed, I conclude that either GISS data has been fixed too, or that they're both crap.
Much as projections of the height of horse manure in New York said that you'd all be up to your waists in it by the year 2,000? There's so much more to a projection than simply extrapolating a curve.
Slashdot Mirror
I think perhaps you understate the issue, or just don't understand what's going on here. Refer to my post on the 3 million euros given to the guy and organisation who made the claim to study the issue further. I doubt that a 2350 figure would have warranted 3 million euros. It's a happy coincidence for the researchers that this "typo" was made.
What do you mean "it was a typo"? It wasn't a typo, it was cribbed from a New Scientist article, that itself was cribbed from a WWF report. It wasn't "scientific" research at all; they basically published information from a WWF pamphlet! This is a direct and attributable deliberate lie: TERI, the organisation that Pachauri works for was recently awarded 3,000,000 euros to study the Glaciers. The guy representing TERI, Syed Hasnain, was the source of the original 2035 claim. Do you think his grant application referred to 2350 or 2035? I for one intend to FOI the grant applications, if they are available. They should make interesting reading.
I regularly read The Times, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail (I apologise in advance; it's just that I like to know what Fascist Britain is getting up to from time to time) online. I wouldn't read any of these if they were behind a pay wall. I did subscribe to the FT for a month (a free month) but what was contained therein was not compelling enough for me to actually give them a monthly sub. I can get free news elsewhere, e.g. the BBC online website (leftist, ethnic-peace bicycle politically correct news I grant you, but news nonetheless) and various blogs.
The fact of the matter is that most people when compelled to pay, will simply move their viewing elsewhere. As long as there are places to get news online free of charge, pay-walls won't work for the masses. I guess the next step of course, once the pay-walls have gone up, is to claim copyright over any and every story to prevent publication in blogs!
Yes but my point is that there's no link between the scepticism most scientists and a lot of laymen are capable of (including the public at large) and belief in intelligent design. ID is always wheeled out whenever anyone subjects a scientific hypothesis to criticism on a public forum.
...and moreover, why is any expression of scepticism on any scientific issue automatically associated with intelligent design? Scepticism, raising an eyebrow, searching for error, promoting an alternative point of view; these are all part of the process of doing science.
Whatever you say, he's spot on. There are few areas of academia where massaging ego, obtaining research grants and getting tenure are less important than the facts of the matter. This is the problem at the heart of Science that nobody seems to want to address.
Given that both Greenland and Antarctica aren't in Europe, I think your assertion is wrong. Going from NOAA ice-core data, which you can see nicely animated and illustrated here, some eye-brows should be raised at claims of unprecedented warming.
So what's new?
I don't think so, no. Actually increasing CO2 causes plants to grow more vigorously. The problem with the food supply at the moment is the turning over of huge tracts of land for growing bio-fuels. This "energy security" measure has had precisely the effects you imagine above.
The problem here is simply that any and every weather "event" or micro-climate change is attributed to man-made CO2. It's a kind of group think insanity that completely ignores the large natural variations in the system we and our ancestors have been living with for hundreds of millions of years. After viewing the antarctic and greenland core data, showing huge variations over the last 10,000 years, including periods warmer than today, with rapid warmings and coolings, I think a policy of adaptation is probably the only rational option.
I'm afraid open sourcing it would just have ensured it was crap, regardless. At least keeping it in-house they had a chance of producing something decent. For the want of a Gantt chart they might have succeeded!
As I understand it, the chances of it being some other (extra-solar) particle detected is about 1 in 4. They need a 1:1000 to have a valid argument. Although interesting, I can't help but wonder when the next funding cycle starts.
If I had points, I'd mod you up. Great post.
The article says that demand for c# is around 32%, but it should also add in the demand for vb.net, which is less but should be added to the total, as it is in use. In my view, the language features, excellent development environment and comprehensive libraries make .NET a win for most LOB applications - which is the vast majority of all PC applications in use at the moment.
Oh dear!
I wonder what the graph would look like if you plotted it against the deleted bits of Briffa's Yamal series? I'm starting to fully understand the divergence problem now!
Regarding your appeal to authority (dozens of peer reviewed papers), I would point out, as I love to on these occassions, the thousands of peer reviewed papers published with respect to the dietary causes of stomach ulcers.
Now on your substantive point that the automated process throws away "bad" stations and only includes "good" ones, let's be clear here:
That reason may well be something similar to Mann's "confirmation bias" method of proxy selection, ie. throw away all data that doesn't match your pre-conceived idea of what the data should look like.
This will be easily verified. Bloggers are now, as we speak, trying to find and looking at the various issues with the stations removed from the analysis. It's interesting to note that the scientists aren't! The story so far shows that many stations that had no siting issues or problems whatsoever were removed from the analysis. This is the important point (it wouldn't be a story otherwise).
On the contrary, if the raw data is available and the method used to massage it, then the tools are readily available. It's interesting to me that when Prof Mann produces a paper where he's fiddled with the data (as shown by Wegman, McIntyre/McIntrick and as verified by Dr North of the NAS in congressional testimony), the paper is not retracted, it's `defended' (mostly by use of blogs). The same is true of Briffa's Yamal chronology and Steigs choice selection of PC's in his Antarctic Warming paper. We aren't talking particle physics here; you don't need a billion dollar accelerator to reproduce this kind of analysis.
Ah yes, that olde chestnut: if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear!
I've been sat here at work, with my taskbar-based ALT_TABBED operating system wondering what the fuss is all about? Windows 7 task bar is pretty good. Tabbed apps would use up a little more of my screen real-estate than an auto-hidden taskbar does, so no, I don't think this feature is particularly grand. It works nicely in a browser though.
Do you know so little about Polar Bears that you honestly believe that crap? They are capable of easily swimming 60km or more. The population of bears has actually been increasing, not decreasing. Please go and peddle your lies somewhere else. Try sending Phil Jones an email.
I guess the number 4 you've written above has been adjusted by a Climate Scientist:
Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, Tom Wigley, Ben Santer, Rob Wilson, Jonathan Overpeck, Gary Funkhouser, Grant Foster, David Parker, Giorgio Filippo, John Mitchell, (got bored searching... and others). These are all top people in the field. It isn't a small-town bible class, it's a major league scientific fiasco.
Yes and according to your President, the US is going to commit to reducing that to the level it was around 1860, by 2050, with no doubt a similar level of economic prosperity. What's missing from this debate is...as usual, a brain.
You mean like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, first in the queue for a cut of carbon credit trading and hedging? Effectively a tax on everything (because everything needs energy), paid to the investment banks?
I'm prepared to lose my excellent Karma on this issue. To be honest I'm not prepared to lose it over whether Microsoft is better than Linux, or Linux is better than Microsoft:
Research has shown Mount Kilimanjaro has been losing glaciers/snow cap over the last 150 years or so. The reasons for this are micro-climate issues, particularly deforestation around the base on the mountain. Now, will you just shut-up about Mount Kilimanjaro being somehow proof of CO2 based warming hypothesis. It isn't, it never was and it never will be.
Secondly, this whole topic is posted by a Real Climate shill and is nothing more than a propaganda piece to try to limit the damage from the unfolding scandal. The datasets aren't entirely independent as they both take data from the same poorly sited, poor maintained and poorly analysed surface station networks. Moreover, there are big data quality problems with NASA's GISS data. If CRU data agrees with GISS and CRU data has been fixed, I conclude that either GISS data has been fixed too, or that they're both crap.
Here's a brief analysis of data quality issues with GIStemp. Here's information about the poor quality of the surface station network.
Much as projections of the height of horse manure in New York said that you'd all be up to your waists in it by the year 2,000? There's so much more to a projection than simply extrapolating a curve.