The 10:10 Climate Change Pledge. Will you be signing up?

Volcano

thescouselander wrote: »

You might not like the journalism in the Telegraph but the artical I linked to was factual. Steve McIntyre seems to have proved the Hadley Data Centre and CRU have massaged data to create a graph that was used as a major piece of evidence to support their point of view.

No, all that's happened is that McIntyre has written a piece of personal opinion, on his own website. No attempt at publication, no attempt at peer review.

Such staggering news: "The climate change data is wrong, I'm right!" would doubtless have at least one journal desperate to publish it, even if it was something like "The Petrochemical Journal of Profitability". That the only people interested are sensationalist journalists points to him being incorrect right from the beginning.

To date Steve McIntyre's alligations have yet to be proved wrong.

It's unlikely that McIntyre will admit it even if/when they are, as he corrects/deletes his website content as and when his claims are disproved. His allegations have been addressed already, although the analysis of his interpretation of the data is still ongoing I think.

The only conclusion I am drawing from this is that there seems to be evidence that suggests biases within those two organisations are affecting the scientific rigour which they apply to their work.

Which is probably a not unexpected conclusion as realclimate.org have stated:

An unverified accusation of malfeasance is made based on nothing, and it is instantly ‘telegraphed’ across the denial-o-sphere while being embellished along the way to apply to anything ‘hockey-stick’ shaped and any and all scientists, even those not even tangentially related. The usual suspects become hysterical with glee that finally the ‘hoax’ has been revealed and congratulations are handed out all round. After a while it is clear that no scientific edifice has collapsed and the search goes on for the ‘real’ problem which is no doubt just waiting to be found. Every so often the story pops up again because some columnist or blogger doesn’t want to, or care to, do their homework. Net effect on lay people? Confusion. Net effect on science? Zip.

thescouselander wrote:

I feel questions should be asked as the output from these organisations is being used to drive policy that will have major impact on every one of us. It is essential we get a balanced view based the robust application of scientific process so the correct response can be taken.

I absolutely agree.

thescouselander

Volcano wrote: »

No, all that's happened is that McIntyre has written a piece of personal opinion, on his own website. No attempt at publication, no attempt at peer review.

Such staggering news: "The climate change data is wrong, I'm right!" would doubtless have at least one journal desperate to publish it, even if it was something like "The Petrochemical Journal of Profitability". That the only people interested are sensationalist journalists points to him being incorrect right from the beginning.

Hang on a minute, thats not what is being said at all - its not just oppinion either. No one is saying the data is "wrong", it is the analysis that is being called into question.

McIntyre demonstrated that if you analyse the larger set of data that was available rather than the sub set that was used (which also appeared to contain one particular tree sample that was unusual) the result comes out completely different.

Both the data he used and his method are freely available on the internet for anyone to review.

The question is - was it valid for Briffa et al to select only the data which produced the most extream case when a much larger data set was available?

I dont know the answer but it definately seems like something that needs to be looked at. You have to admit it looks very suspicious given the lenghts that were gone to in order to prevent access to the information.

To me this suggests that climate scientists are not policing themselves properly and some level of third party critical review needs to be introduced. This would be far better done properly rather than leaving it up to bloggers on the internet.

Volcano

thescouselander wrote: »

Hang on a minute, thats not what is being said at all - its not just oppinion either. No one is saying the data is "wrong", it is the analysis that is being called into question.

It makes no difference if you insert 'analysis' into ""The climate change data analysis is wrong, I'm right!" he's still not taken seriously by reputable people and this is why he only gets a voice through a) his own website or b) poor quality journos desperate for something they can sensationalise.

McIntyre demonstrated that if you analyse the larger set of data that was available rather than the sub set that was used (which also appeared to contain one particular tree sample that was unusual) the result comes out completely different. Both the data he used and his method are freely available on the internet for anyone to review.

and in preliminary response, Keith Briffa has stated:

"The basis for McIntyre’s selection of which of our (i.e. Hantemirov and Shiyatov’s) data to exclude and which to use in replacement is not clear but his version of the chronology shows lower relative growth in recent decades than is displayed in my original chronology. He offers no justification for excluding the original data; and in one version of the chronology where he retains them, he appears to give them inappropriate low weights. I note that McIntyre qualifies the presentation of his version(s) of the chronology by reference to a number of valid points that require further investigation. Subsequent postings appear to pay no heed to these caveats. Whether the McIntyre version is any more robust a representation of regional tree growth in Yamal than my original, remains to be established."

and they are looking at the points raised by him to see if they contain any validity, which is unduly generous I feel given McIntyre's track record of being incorrect.

To me this suggests that climate scientists are not policing themselves properly and some level of third party critical review needs to be introduced. This would far better be done properly rather than leaving it up to bloggers on the internet.

Climate scientists are monitored no differently to other scientists, their work is available for peer-review and if mistakes or inaccuracies are found, then there are various official channels to be followed including the publishing of opposing papers, correction of existing papers, submittance of letters relating to the paper and even the option of withdrawing papers in extreme circumstances. None of which McIntyre chooses to follow, (perhaps fearing that his mistakes will be immortalised in print rather than the option of being so swiftly edited as with his own website.)

TenerC_2

hope the "free" energy monitor is nothing to do with british gas, they had 2 offers going this year with papers we applied on both offers, not once did we get the monitor, and a cheque we sent off to cover postage on one offer was cashed, when we phoned up the paper to get it refunded they refused and said we had to put a claim in to royal mail for lost package!!!

thescouselander

So in essence Briffa acknowlages there are issues that warrent looking into.

I think to suggest that McIntyre isn't respected by reputable people is ridiculous - he certainly got the attention of the US congress and has been proved correct on many occsions even if he has been wrong at other tiimes. Its a pitty the AGW community has to resort to personal attacks when the hear something they dont like - it is not the behaivour becoming a group of supposedly professional people.

With regards to peer review - I think the system has its problems, clearly things seem to slip through. One problem is that many of the peers are vary close to the work and group think can set in; they are also not motivated to find fault in a theory which provides them with research funding.

One has to wonder why there isn't a paid group of professionals outside of the climate change science comunity that audit the work of the IPCC scientists and look for mistakes - for example statistitions that could check the proper application of statistical processes. They could be incentiveised through bonuses paid when mistakes are identified. Its I technique I have used myself on certain scientific studies with some success.

Perhaps then we could get away from childish charicter assassination and focus on the facts.

bert&ernie

Cardew wrote: »

...

So just what are you saying?

Global Warming ain't a problem?

ditto Population increase?

OK I think I can see where you are trying to go with this:

Global Warming is a problem; global warming is caused by carbon emissions; carbon emissions are caused by people; ergo, more people is a problem?

As an aside, you might like to check out these guys:
"Families with more than 10 children are becoming the norm among a group of traditionalist US Christians. The so-called Quiverfull families believe they are carrying out God's work, and providing a new generation of moral leaders. The BBC's religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott went to Illinois to meet some of them."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8287740.stm

moonrakerz

bert&ernie wrote: »

global warming is caused by carbon emissions;

Is it ?

What has caused the "globe" to warm (and cool) many times in the past ?
Why is Mars warming at very much the same rate as Earth ?

I would just like some reasonably produced answers, NOT the hysterical half-truths that are all too readily leapt upon by the "man made global warming" lobby.

Over population IS a far bigger problem !

Cardew

bert&ernie wrote: »

OK I think I can see where you are trying to go with this:

Global Warming is a problem; global warming is caused by carbon emissions; carbon emissions are caused by people; ergo, more people is a problem?

Not quite: What I am saying is:

IF Global Warming is a problem; IF global warming is caused by MAN MADE carbon emissions; then on those assumptions it follows that carbon emissions are caused by people; ergo, more people is a problem?

I am still not sure what you are saying in the context of this thread.

bert&ernie

Cardew wrote: »

Not quite: What I am saying is:

IF Global Warming is a problem; IF global warming is caused by MAN MADE carbon emissions; then on those assumptions it follows that carbon emissions are caused by people; ergo, more people is a problem?

I am still not sure what you are saying in the context of this thread.

You sure you're happy with that - don't want to add any more ifs, buts, qualifications or assumptions? I wasn't trying confirm any of the premises - just to formalise the logic used to arrive at the conclusion.

Cardew

bert&ernie wrote: »

You sure you're happy with that - don't want to add any more ifs, buts, qualifications or assumptions? I wasn't trying confirm any of the premises - just to formalise the logic used to arrive at the conclusion.

I can add dozens more, ifs/buts/maybes if you wish.;) Cos I along with most other people have no idea who is correct in the great global warming debate.

All that seems certain, is that if man is causing Global Warming, more men will cause more global warming.

If you do arrive at a conclusion, please let our political masters and the scientific world have the details - it will save a hell of a lot of arguing.