[JCDNWarrior]

The problem with the climategate e-mail concerning the "trick" wasn't the "trick" itself. It was the "hide the decline" part. Many apologists came out defending the "trick" because it was only a "mathematical technique", forgetting the obviously more relevant part of "hiding" stuff to the readers. What did they hide? This:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

Notice, I'm not exactly what you'd call a "skeptic" much less a "denier". But facts are facts and there are stains on climate science. Just like in any other science. Doesn't mean global warming isn't happening, doesn't mean evolution is a lie by atheistic biologists. And I'm pretty sure where Ron's paranoia is going to fall on.

Also, watch this one, for depressive thoughts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNm1-GMWdlw&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_883854

A very good post, though I disagree with your last sentence before the link.

The first video also shows something people don't discuss - a possible relative mini-ice age, probably more likely than -raising- temperatures. And if so, this mini-ice age is also part of the Earth's cycle. Some responses on the videos also come with a few great pointers:

"If there is one known divergence problem how can you be confident that there are not any more in the past? Justifying the present divergence problem as due to human contamination is also BS (Bad science)"

And the final sentence of the second video:

"No matter what we do, it'll be irrelevant". If you can 'hide the decline', you can also fool people by giving fake information about how spending billions on CO2 taxes just saved the world from evil carbon dioxide.

Combined with the conflict of interests and leaving China and India, and many other countries out of CO2 emission rules. It's easy to see it's flat on it's face. And you show it in only two videos, I'm impressed.

It's important to return to the real environmental issues, to adress our time, attention and money to -actually- improve our environment and nature. Yet in the meantime huge oil spills continue out of sight and Fukushima only seems to become worse - and you don't hear any of these scientists mention plans or methods to filter or perhaps even eliminate radiation. It would be funny if it was satire.

Though we'll have to be careful, we've become rather off-topic suddenly.

[Spicious]

The problem with the climategate e-mail concerning the "trick" wasn't the "trick" itself. It was the "hide the decline" part. Many apologists came out defending the "trick" because it was only a "mathematical technique", forgetting the obviously more relevant part of "hiding" stuff to the readers. What did they hide? This:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

Hard to take seriously given the omissions in the quote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us

Notice, I'm not exactly what you'd call a "skeptic" much less a "denier".

Given your lack of examination of other source you definitely aren't a sceptic, but do seem to be quite easily led.

[Luis Dias]

The problem with the climategate e-mail concerning the "trick" wasn't the "trick" itself. It was the "hide the decline" part. Many apologists came out defending the "trick" because it was only a "mathematical technique", forgetting the obviously more relevant part of "hiding" stuff to the readers. What did they hide? This:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

Hard to take seriously given the omissions in the quote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us

Instead of linking a 20 minute video you could just have given me the so called "omission". My question to you sir would be, before linking me a 20 minute video, did you even bothered to see the 5 minute video I've just linked?

Because I'm not even linking to a "denier" (calling professor Muller a denier would be quite hilarious).

Now I will listen to your video later. But do know that I am perfectly "aware" of what exactly happened wrt the "trick". If you want to discuss it, we can. If you want to just steamroll your superiority over the others, I'm not interested.


EDIT: I've seen the video. Interestingly enough, it doesn't address the criticism of prof. Muller and instead goes on a rampage over the rigorosity of the quote, despite the fact that prof Muller describes correctly what was the procedure.

It has other incorrections. It states that the raw data was given for the paleontological studies. This is false. Many "data" was given, but in no means it was "raw". Only in 2010 was the raw data of Briffa's study released, which gave rise to the problems of Yamal. I've yet to see the complete raw data from Mike's various studies.

It then goes on how BEST is actually discovering that the warming of the last century is real. Well I'll be damned, but that's utterly irrelevant to the question of the e-mails. So the video blogger is either being disingenuous or just trying to score points against the deniers. I have no problems with that as long as we are clear that this is what he is doing.

Notice, I'm not exactly what you'd call a "skeptic" much less a "denier".

Given your lack of examination of other source you definitely aren't a sceptic, but do seem to be quite easily led.

I'd slap you in the face for that.

I wouldn't, but I would be tempted to. Try not to insult me and we'll be fine.

[Spicious]

Instead of linking a 20 minute video you could just have given me the so called "omission". My question to you sir would be, before linking me a 20 minute video, did you even bothered to see the 5 minute video I've just linked?

Nice double standard. I did in fact watch your video. Imagine my surprise and amusement upon discovering that another video covering this subject happened to critically examine the content of your video.

Because I'm not even linking to a "denier" (calling professor Muller a denier would be quite hilarious).

Who said you were?

But do know that I am perfectly "aware" of what exactly happened wrt the "trick".

Well done. You can skip the first few minutes of the video.

I think your keyboard may be defective; it seems to have littered your post with unnecessary quotation marks.

[JCDNWarrior]

I can positively taste the anger and hatred coming from 'climatecrocks' towards scientists with different opinions, even if they're in their camp. Also typical usage of 'denier' (to try to affiliate such with holocaust deniers), 'flat earthers' and other derogative terms is a little tactic used to make people feel guilty for having opposing views.

I definitely respect Professor Muller's views, I hope he'll continue to explore how deep the rabbit hole goes. I'd really like to see his conclusions on the entire subject of global warming when he does.

EDIT:

To return on-topic, I ran into this particular thing a few moments ago.

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/14-reasons-why-rick-perry-would-be-a-really-really-bad-president

Curious if that helps to get a better idea of Mr. Perry.

[Luis Dias]

Instead of linking a 20 minute video you could just have given me the so called "omission". My question to you sir would be, before linking me a 20 minute video, did you even bothered to see the 5 minute video I've just linked?

Nice double standard. I did in fact watch your video. Imagine my surprise and amusement upon discovering that another video covering this subject happened to critically examine the content of your video.

And were you satisfied? Do you think that video did a good job at providing an answer to prof. Muller's accusations?

Because saying that he didn't quoted them entirely is just stupid. He was correct in his quotation. The omission would only be relevant if he didn't actually explain what they did. And his explanation could be taken out from the so-called "omission", it's exactly the same thing. The problem with the "hide the decline" trick is that they substituted the results from their study with "real temps", and then smoothed them out.

The fact that this divergence issue was known in climatology circles is irrelevant: the "hide the decline" was submitted to the WMO as visual evidence for all the scientists in the world (who won't read every paper ever written on the subject) for the type of paleontological narrative that the climatologists in question were writing.

Further, there were 3 instances of this "trick". And this type of shenanigan is well known coming from the self-proclaimed "Team" (mike, briffa, etc), who are proliferate at "tricking" their audiences.

[Spicious]

If nothing else, it demonstrates that Muller's presentation is at least as dishonest as it claims its subjects to be. His holier than thou performance is just icing on the cake.

[Luis Dias]

If nothing else, it demonstrates that Muller's presentation is at least as dishonest as it claims its subjects to be. His holier than thou performance is just icing on the cake.

Have you read what I said? He wasn't dishonest. He explains the email's "technique" perfectly well without any intent of deceit. I don't care about his performance. Nor should you. The facts are there and all I see are self-proclaimed "skeptics" ignoring it completely.

What you should do is ask the right questions. What does this malpractice mean? Does it mean that global warming is a scam? Does it mean that there are people who are conspiring to bring the world into a communist global state?

I mean, if that's the kind of reasoning, then we might just give up. If not, the questions are a lot more mundane and trivial, and they, at least to me and given way more evidence than this snippet discussed here, point towards the existence of a clique that thinks they own science. But that they also sincerely believe we have a real problem. And they don't want to "share" their doubts, their caveats, to give deniers "food".

Problem is, that kind of attitude backfired tremendously. Climate science community should get their feet together and realize that the solution is to be completely transparent, not function as gatekeepers of the truth.

[Spicious]

How it was dishonest (ways I can remember without looking at it again):

• Chopping up quotes to further an agenda
• Claiming that the picture would not stand up to the scrutiny of peer review, when
  
  • it was in fact not published in a journal
  • the papers seemed to clearly divide up the data sources
  • too good for Nature?
• Claiming the data was withheld when it had been available for several years

All in all, it seems like a publicity stunt to get funding for his research.

[Luis Dias]

The data *was* withheld for years. In Briffa's case, ten bloody years. Educate yourself in the issue before judging the other's inability to "check the sources". Just because a video blogger said otherwise only shows his ignorance on the subject matter.

Now you are also saying that the WMO STATEMENT ON THE STATUS OF THE GLOBAL CLIMATE IN 1999 wasn't peer reviewed? Who cares? Did Muller lied and say that it was peer-reviewed?

I don't understand your point regarding Nature.

All in all, it seems like a publicity stunt to get funding for his research.

And then the deniers are the ones with paranoia.

[StarSlayer]

Which is a good point, without the American Revolution the hows, ifs and whens of the French Revolution could be completely different.

Doubtful. France's money issues weren't going to go away because the American Revolution didn't happen; the republican impulse was already well-entrenched in political thought before the American Revolution as a result of scholarship on Rome.

You might delay it a year or two but the assertion it would be completely different doesn't hold up to the economic condition of France.

Most things I've seen cite the funding of the AWI as putting France into the financial crisis it found itself leading up to the Revolution.  While their economic issues probably would still have occurred the timing and acuteness would have been different had they not pretty much bank rolled and eventually militarily supported the American effort.  The French Revolution would still probably occur sans the AWI, however the when and how it plays out more then likely would change.  If its enough of a change to interrupt a certain Corsican Artillery Officer's rise to power I think we could all agree that European History would be dramatically different.

In any case, tonnage rates

[karajorma]

Instead of linking a 20 minute video you could just have given me the so called "omission". My question to you sir would be, before linking me a 20 minute video, did you even bothered to see the 5 minute video I've just linked?

Nice double standard.

Indeed. I've already warned Luis about this kind of bollocks once during this thread. Do not do it again.

[Luis Dias]

So it's not fair to ask him if he saw the video before he posted a replying video?

And there's a difference between a video of 5 minutes and one of 20.

EDIT: notice that he linked a 20minute video because of an omission in a quote.

I linked a 5 minute video explaining the whole shenanigan.

[achtung]

So it's not fair to ask him if he saw the video before he posted a replying video?

And there's a difference between a video of 5 minutes and one of 20.

EDIT: notice that he linked a 20minute video because of an omission in a quote.

I linked a 5 minute video explaining the whole shenanigan.

I wonder which one did a better job of explaining its position.


This thread is starting to look like some sort of conspiracy nut circle jerk.

[Grizzly]

So it's not fair to ask him if he saw the video before he posted a replying video?

And there's a difference between a video of 5 minutes and one of 20.

EDIT: notice that he linked a 20minute video because of an omission in a quote.

I linked a 5 minute video explaining the whole shenanigan.

You only need to watch the first 8 minutes (after it is explained, it goes on about how other people reacted to it). Which explains that the explenation of the shenanigan is in fact, a shenanigan (what a difficult word!). 'The decline' is not a decline in temperature, but a decline in what usually is used to measure the temperature, which started to diverge from the actual temperature around 1960. HOwever, since real temperature has been measured since 1900 or so, they added in the real temps so that people who read the article (which was NOT published for a scientific journal but for purposes of the general public) could see the actual temps instead first seeing an imagine, and then read through the whole paper rather confused why that graph seems rather off.

[Luis Dias]

I refer to the post where I first commented on the video being 20 minutes long. I don't agree with you about the video being a shenanigan, and your explanation shows that you really didn't understand the fuss, but ok.

edit: quick note about this:

....and then read through the whole paper rather confused why that graph seems rather off.

But that's exactly the point. The fact that the graphs go down is odd, and explanations for it are pretty much ad hoc (the trend fits in the middle of the century where the calibrations occurred), and sure the confidence level that you'd get from your audiences would be completely different.

Perhaps you think that the job of a scientist is to fool the audience into thinking that his particular vision of the truth is the truth, and that caveats are too "messy" to give to an "idiotic" audience. Well I disagree.

[Grizzly]

I refer to the post where I first commented on the video being 20 minutes long.

What's so wrong about a 20 minute vid anyway?

But that's exactly the point. The fact that the graphs go down is odd, and explanations for it are pretty much ad hoc (the trend fits in the middle of the century where the calibrations occurred), and sure the confidence level that you'd get from your audiences would be completely different.

The graph goes down is odd, and it has been explained in that 20 minute vid (And probably in the paper as well, although we are talking about the front image of a paper. Nobody of us has actually read the bloody paper, so we do not know if it was actually explained or not, thus we should not be drawing conclusions wether or not the sceintists were transparant. (ANd since they have been asked for explenations several times (also seen in that 20 minute video) and have been very transperant, and the goverments and instances then saw that they were being honest and that no fraud had been commited. Unless there is a global conspiracy going on, i'd say that there's no fuss.

[Luis Dias]

I refer to the post where I first commented on the video being 20 minutes long.

What's so wrong about a 20 minute vid anyway?

It isn't. I refer to it because I commented on it.

The graph goes down is odd, and it has been explained in that 20 minute vid (And probably in the paper as well, although we are talking about the front image of a paper. Nobody of us has actually read the bloody paper, so we do not know if it was actually explained or not, thus we should not be drawing conclusions wether or not the sceintists were transparant. (ANd since they have been asked for explenations several times (also seen in that 20 minute video) and have been very transperant, and the goverments and instances then saw that they were being honest and that no fraud had been commited. Unless there is a global conspiracy going on, i'd say that there's no fuss.

Talk for yourself. I've seen these papers for a long time now. The "fuss" is one of lack of transparency. As I said previously, it's no conspiracy to "take over the world", it's just a clique of professionals with really bad MO (this is merely the tip, there are plenty of cases of malfeasance and bad faith, see for instance this very good summary of just one of the stories, which I followed at the time, Caspar and the Jesus paper, it's quite the read.

[Turambar]

We should split the global warming stuff and go back to talking about Perry and how much he sucks.

[achtung]

We should split the global warming stuff and go back to talking about Perry and how much he sucks.

Yes.