John Galt wrote:I am not surprised that the non-thinkers on this board have not mentioned Climate Gate-
DAR
What is there to mention? You've got nothing (and this is why you post nothing). Why am I not surprise that you shoot your little gun off but again we find you forgot to bring any ammo?
Here is what I wrote the just other day in response to rightwinger who actually did try to make some claims.
If you would like to put a case together (yeah right) and make a case for your claims (yeah right), please give it a try. I promise to make an example out of you. But you're such a coward you won't even try. All you've got is hit and run bullshit.
Give it a try Galt. Try to make a case for something, anything. Let's see what you've got.
D.
----------------------
[Climate Gate claims from Big Dog]
DAR
I figured you'd fall for this one, and you did. Let's give it a quick spank before off to work.
Bigd: "it paints a picture of deception and cover-up.">>
DAR
You're careful not to give any specific examples. That's probably smart. None of them change "the science."
Bigd: "...discussed tricks to manipulate data to get the results they wanted,">>
DAR
That one looks troublesome until you
unpack it and consider the context.
Excerpt:
"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 plot 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 plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens." --ibid
Bigd: lamented over data that showed a cooling trend,>>
DAR
Dealt with above. There is no overall cooling trend. Quite the opposite. Note:
"The rise in global surface temperature has averaged more than 0.15 °C per decade since the mid-1970s. Warming has been unprecedented in at least the last 50 years, and the 17 warmest years have all occurred in the last 20 years."
Link
Bigd: cheered the death of a scientist critical of global warming,>>
DAR
Well that's not very nice. And this effects the science how? Maybe he was an ass. Maybe if someone stole and published your private emails there would be some uncomfortably stupid comments and not very nice things in there.
Bigd: "...and discussed ways of breaking the law to avoid freedom of information requests...">>
DAR
And this from the same Bigd that was whining like a puppy that someone (no one around here) were speaking too hastily about the census worker who killed himself? Amazing.
Bigd: "...as well as ways to keep critics from publishing peer reviewed papers.">>
DAR
Why don't you learn a little about the background of these issues before you begin?
You might start here.
Bigd: "Not that any of this has been thoroughly investigated by the main stream media.>>
DAR
Thoroughly investigated in less than a week? And none of it effects the science. And you have Inhoffe on the case!
Bigd: leaked emails show a group of people who manipulated science to push an agenda>>
DAR
If you had that, you would have something. But you don't have that. Note:
"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 plot 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." --ibid
Bigd: The hockey stick graph has been discredited>>
DAR
Actually, because of all the noise those two unqualified fellows made it was reexamined exhaustively (they took 27 swings at it an failed every time), and it was found to be as robust as ever. I am surprised the rightwing sites you hang around didn't tell you about that! (not)
And besides, it wouldn't have changed anything even if it was wrong.
What If … the “Hockey Stick” Were Wrong?
The hockey stick is a bit of a specialty of mine.
Bigd: and now the scientists involved in global warming study have been discredited as well.>>
DAR
You wish. Try again.
Next time try bringing some science for me to nuke.
D.
------------------
Global Warming's Impacts Have Sped Up, Worsened Since Kyoto
WASHINGTON — Since the 1997 international accord to fight global warming, climate change has worsened and accelerated – beyond some of the grimmest of warnings made back then....
The message on the science is that we know a lot more than we did in 1997 and it's all negative," said Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. "Things are much worse than the models predicted."
Link
