|
Post by enquirer on Nov 23, 2010 19:45:12 GMT 1
I think many people can see that there has been a rapid rise in the number of people using the internet to examine the science around global warming. Here's a blog from a chap that has done just that tamino.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/all-that-data/#more-3160It's an excellent read from somebody who "didn’t just take somebody’s word for it. I didn’t just look at some graph of some cherry-picked data set and believe the story that went along with it. I analyzed the data myself. All of it" His conclusion? "You know what? I found out that the mainstream climate scientists had the right interpretation. Every time. The ones who keep telling us that global warming is real, is man-made, and is dangerous — they’re the ones who were right about what the data indicated, not the so-called “skeptics” who claimed otherwise. Every goddamn time. Of course, I can only testify about the data I’ve actually analyzed myself. But rest assured that’s a helluva lot. The results are consistent: confirming global warming. Every time."
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Nov 23, 2010 20:14:13 GMT 1
Well, others seem to say Taomino admits to being a mathematician, s/he seems tio know quite a bit about data analysis, so hardly an amateur, even if not a professional climatologist.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Nov 23, 2010 20:17:31 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Nov 23, 2010 20:26:44 GMT 1
He has been offered the chance to post at WUWT but chickened out, apparently. So once again you didn't read my link so I'll post a couple of relevant paras here "Readers may recall that not too long ago, I personally analyzed all the data in the entire GHCN (global historical climate network). I did this because Anthony Watts and Joe D’Aleo published a document claiming that the GHCN data, and the way it was processed, exaggerated estimates of how much the globe has warmed over the last century or more. They even claimed that the scientists who managed, and who processed, these data had deliberately manipulated both the data (by selectively removing or retaining data locations) and the analysis (by their methods of applying “adjustments”) to exaggerate the warming trend. Although I trust the scientists who managed the data and did the analysis, and have no reason to mistrust them, I tested the claims anyway. I processed the entire GHCN, to compare the temperature from the stations which had stopped reporting to those which continued to report, and to compare the temperature according to the raw (unadjusted) data to that according to the adjusted data. I discovered that both claims by Watts & D’Aleo were wrong. Station dropout did not exaggerate the warming at all (it had almost no effect), and the adjustments didn’t exaggerate warming either (in fact they reduced it). I challenged Watts to apologize, not for getting it wrong but for accusing the scientists involved of fraud. His only response, as far as I know, has been to plead ignorance because he didn’t do the analysis — nor did D’Aleo. They published a document claiming fraud, but they hadn’t even done the analysis. I did. I didn’t just take somebody’s word for it. I didn’t just look at some graph of some cherry-picked data set and believe the story that went along with it. I analyzed the data myself. All of it. Doing so, I started a minor “ripple” in the internet, because about half a dozen other bloggers decided to reproduce my results — they actually analyzed the data! All of them came to the same conclusions that I did." (I find it odd that you think that I consider this chap an 'authority figure' - he's a blogger, just like your hero from wattsrightwiththat so I thought you would appreciate his DIY approach)
|
|
|
Post by helen on Nov 23, 2010 20:31:50 GMT 1
Why should any scientist choose to post at WUWT rather than.....whoooom? Scratching my head here. I was a research scientist for the oil industry and if we formulated papers, where were we directed to publish them? Gosh......no wait a minute, not WUWT but publications sponsored or authorised by the company for which I worked. When I was doing research in 'fingerprinting' oil for my post grad research, where were we directed to publish......erm....WUWT? No again no. Where Mary? Where the bloody hell do credible researchers post their findings? If their findings go against the grain they're happy to have their findings tested and the results reported. Look. There are some good things posted at WUWT but mostly it is untestable garbage. Post some real science woman and not some sociological interpretation of truth!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Nov 24, 2010 4:10:26 GMT 1
Others can judge who posts the more informative messages and links on this board, Helen.
|
|
|
Post by helen on Nov 24, 2010 13:13:08 GMT 1
Oh Mary, please!!!!!! Everytime you glue a 'paper' from WUWT here or anywhere else we know where you are coming from. It's not provoking argument or encouraging discussion. Whenever you become engaged with some correspondent or other and they counter your opinions, you just ignore them and start a different thread; I know this from experience. We all know where WattsUpWithThat is and Digging The Clay and Bishophill. Why do you keep posting their articles without commentary?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Nov 24, 2010 13:32:04 GMT 1
I judge people on their actions, not their words...or press hype. Mann, Jones, Briffa, Amman etc don't inspire confidence - to say the least.
Their opponents are quite the opposite. Compare the openess and inclusivity of "Climate Audit" and "Wattsupwithat" to the sneering censorship and closed door policy of "realclimate". A small piece of evidence that speaks volumes.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Nov 24, 2010 13:39:46 GMT 1
So, when you stop someone posting something because it is utter bollocks, that is censorship, and so is peer-review, I presume.........................
As usual, from a certain side, it just ends up as a popularity contest, and nothing to do with actually testing the claims and data-analysis techniques. Of course, the problem with proper tests is that sometimes they give you an answer some don't like.
|
|
|
Post by helen on Nov 24, 2010 13:42:59 GMT 1
RSmith, there's no inclusivity with RealClimate and their readers. You are conflating understanding with opinion. Wish you would read SkeptialScience as well as WUWT, The Guardian as well as The Mail and then make an informed opinion - sorry that's all press hype.
From where, RSmith, do you glean knowledge of the world (The Icelandic Met Office doesn't count, nor seaweed, pinecones or stories that your dad told you)?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Nov 24, 2010 13:47:47 GMT 1
The tests were done by Steve McKintyre and the hockey team were found seriously wanting. Before you embark on a pompous ceromony on statistics please answer this question: Why were the hockey team so reluctant to share their data and methodology on this serious subject of crucial importance to the future of the planet?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Nov 24, 2010 13:50:08 GMT 1
RSmith, there's no inclusivity with RealClimate and their readers. You are conflating understanding with opinion. Wish you would read SkeptialScience as well as WUWT, The Guardian as well as The Mail and then make an informed opinion - sorry that's all press hype. From where, RSmith, do you glean knowledge of the world (The Icelandic Met Office doesn't count, nor seaweed, pinecones or stories that your dad told you)? Personal records, personal observation, personal experience and personal judgement. They have served me well. How's the teaching going?
|
|
|
Post by helen on Nov 24, 2010 13:53:56 GMT 1
Why they were reluctant to share their data at the time is something worthy of investigation but really, it's all rather academic as the data is now available for any Tom, Dick or Harry to analyse and many have done it and it's caused notable blogs such as WUWT to change tack. Come on RSmith, give us some facts!
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Nov 24, 2010 13:54:10 GMT 1
It was your personal judgement that welded you to UKIP Mr Smith, and look how that turned out....
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Nov 24, 2010 14:00:31 GMT 1
If you are refrring to the whole PCA thing, that has been gone over in the academic lietrature, and it's not the 'they were all wrong' scenario that you seem to think.
If you are going to mention one criticism, you should also mention the answers to that criticism, that is the way science works.
As others have said, much of the data now out there, other people are checking data analysis, and so far, seem to agree with previous results. Perhaps this openess isn't going to be the bombshell the deniers thought it would be...........................
|
|