Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: You think?
I sure as hell recognise flaming when I see it. On yer bike. |
| |
|
|
quote: All GW research is funded by someone..be it oil company's, governments or independent company's, the face value of the document is a list of peer-reviewed papers..i.e reviewed papers by their peers (other scientists) not joe blogs down the road who has a little understanding of the issues, if you dismiss the report out of hand because somewhere along the line an oil company funded the research into compiling the list then surly you can equally dismiss the IPCC reports out of hand because it's government funded.
Quite true. But having had the time to review more deeply some of the work of some of these organisations, I have found that they are quite happy to misrepresent the results of scientific papers. co2science.org is the one I've looked at most, and I am in the fortunate position of having easy access to the scientific papers they cite so that I can compare my reading of them with their interpretation. As you can see from the above, it wasn't too difficult to identify a misreading of the scientific literature within this document. I'm sure that there are useful and interesting papers within it, but I feel I have grounds not to trust FoS's interpretation of them, particularly after a rather vigorous discussion I had with Tom Harris, one of their PR people, on this forum (which unfortunately got removed by the moderators) |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Dr Ian B:
robmb
Briffa happens to be closely related academically with Mann (see Wegman and his network analysis about the close collaboration within the limited world of climate reconstructions), used a virtually identical dataset (including the particular bristlecone pines that are not generally accepted as being a proxy for temperature) and used a statistical method that is also abnormal.
I know that Steve McIntyre is currently looking at their method, but is having trouble obtaining the data to evaluate the method.
Obviously, the Friends of Science paper is not a neutral reflection, but has a bias to highlight those papers that agree with its position. Similarly TGGWS was not meant as a balanced doc, but was a polemic looking at a topic from one side (a bit similar to the average Michael Moore film). However, the whole field is full of cherry-pickers, emphasising the things that support one argument over another (e.g. why do most climate reconstructions only start at 1900 or later when the general warming started in the mid 18th century, with a dip in the 1850s and a fairly consistent upward trend since?)
It is worth remembering that the MWP and LIA were generally accepted before MBH98 and 99, and there have subsequently been a number of papers which agree with their existence as well as some that agree with Mann et al. (Indeed, there is the well known graphical representation in IPCC SAR showing the MWP as about as hot as currently, with teh LIA being a degree or so colder)
I got involved i this because someone posted a alink that suggested it was .......... 'Whats relevant is that these are published peer- reviewed papers..not random assumptions from discredited maverick scientists.' i agree that both sides seem to cherry pick the data and the papers that fit their argument. This does strick me as a very important issue - proved or umproved. Cant the scientific community come up with a consensus opinion that non-scientists (the vast majority of us) can take a look at and argue over and then come to our own conclusions. Or is that what the IPCC was? i keep ontripping up on great big propaganda roots like the one Retsuin posted. Fine to post it but it would be helpful to flag the colour of their strip as well. |
| |
|
|
quote: i keep ontripping up on great big propaganda roots like the one Retsuin posted. Fine to post it but it would be helpful to flag the colour of their strip as well.
sourcewatch describes some of these organisations. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Steve_M:
sourcewatch describes some of these organisations.
But not the government funded ones or the green lobby funded ones. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by real scientist:
All you need to do now is put your views in the form of a scientific paper and survive peer review, and I might just believe you.
Easy enough. Get a load of your mates to peer review it. It's what the AGW lobby do all the time. |
| |
|
|
Where do I get a degree in putting pretensious newbies in their place ?
|
| |
|
|
quote: Probably because when you question evidence people expect you to listen to the answer and try to understand it. quote: Oh dear.....yet more resort to ad hominem rather than science. quote: I'm sorry I didn't realise that you wanted me to prove scientifically that you aren't listening.
I will have to agree. From the context, Chi Squared, it was not immediately obvious you wanted MindCrime to prove scientifically that you don't listen. Had you made it clear, I'm sure MindCrime would have happily written a scientific paper that would have passed peer review with no problems. |
| |
|
|
quote: Easy enough. Get a load of your mates to peer review it. It's what the AGW lobby do all the time.
What in your opinion is the intellectual difference between scientific conspiracy theories, Jewish conspiracy theories, mormon conspiracy theories, free mason conspiracy theories and aliens from another planet conspiracy theories? |
| |
|
|
And if you are going to make up a conspiracy theory, couldn't you have based it on something more plausible than the idea that physics geeks have mates?
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Chi Squared:
My God.....you AGW fanatics truly take the biscuit.
In the US, we call them 'lunatics'. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by real scientist:
What in your opinion is the intellectual difference between scientific conspiracy theories, Jewish conspiracy theories, mormon conspiracy theories, free mason conspiracy theories and aliens from another planet conspiracy theories?
Quite simple. I don't think there is a scientific conspiracy. It's just the way the scientific world works. In the relatively small world of climate science, you know which journals are most receptive to which theories, and you have a shrewd idea from that who their reviewers will be. And you will know them, because you meet up at conferences. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by real scientist:
And if you are going to make up a conspiracy theory, couldn't you have based it on something more plausible than the idea that physics geeks have mates?
You are the one who has made up a conspiracy theory. I have never claimed there is one. All I have said is that most AGW articles are "peer reviewed" by your mates, which makes "peer review" relatively meaningless as a test of the value of an article. |
| |
|
|
quote: You are the one who has made up a conspiracy theory. I have never claimed there is one. All I have said is that most AGW articles are "peer reviewed" by your mates, which makes "peer review" relatively meaningless as a test of the value of an article.
That's a mischaracterisation. Scientists are competitive and enjoy pointing out flaws in their peers. Furthermore, once the paper is out there it is open to attack from anyone. Papers survive not only through the initial peer review but also on the basis as to whether other readers think they are any good, and can test the results themselves. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Steve_M:
That's a mischaracterisation.
Really? I think not quote: Originally posted by Steve_M:
Furthermore, once the paper is out there it is open to attack from anyone. Papers survive not only through the initial peer review but also on the basis as to whether other readers think they are any good, and can test the results themselves.
True, except that if you are sceptical of AGW, then some journals will not print your response. Which makes this also not a good test. |
| |
|
|
quote: True, except that if you are sceptical of AGW, then some journals will not print your response.
Which makes this also not a good test.
I think you are wrong, and you've not provided any evidence. But anyway responses to papers can be made without publishing in the same journal, yet from a scientific basis the attacks are usually without much merit (from my personal observation). |
| |
|
|
it doesnt take a real scientist to see that the hockey stick graph is a staight-up lie....a person of average inteligence with some time to devote,say an 90 min. a night for 4 nights on the net will be able to conferm the hockey stick is a lie.
|
| |
|
|
Dearest boo2u,
I've missed your constructive input this past week.
Sincerely yours,
Steve
|
| |
|
|
quote: Quite simple. I don't think there is a scientific conspiracy.
It's just the way the scientific world works. In the relatively small world of climate science, you know which journals are most receptive to which theories, and you have a shrewd idea from that who their reviewers will be. And you will know them, because you meet up at conferences.
You are quite correct when you say "you know which journals are most receptive to which theories. For AGW, scientific journals, rather than history or political science journals, will be more likely to publish them because AGW is scientific fact. Whilst anti AGW theories might end up in political science journals or history Journals or oil sponsered (non scientific) magazines because they represent denial of unarguable scientific fact. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by papertiger0: Real Scientist asserts, quote: Scientists predict completely uninhabitable.
A few properties of methane. Methane is lighter then air. Methanes critical temperature is minus -115.8 degrees. It is a non polar molecule and is insoluable in water. So when a guy comes on here and says he speaks for the scientific community, then asserts that "methane will rise from the sea and kill us all if the temperature goes up 10 degrees" you can be pretty certain he is a kook.
Have a look at realclimate.org's http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=227 |
| |
|
|
Interesting little article just brought to my attention. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/wardhunt/QUOTE When the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf originally formed, it blocked the mouth of Disraeli Fiord, cutting it off from the Arctic Ocean. In the process, the ice shelf trapped driftwood inside the epishelf lake and kept other pieces of driftwood from entering. Pieces of driftwood found along the shores of Disraeli Fiord have been there since the ice shelf formed, and by radiocarbon dating the wood, researchers have been able to estimate the minimum age of the ice shelf. “There simply are no radiocarbon dates more recent than 3,000 years before present,” said Jeffries. This ice shelf, in existence for at least three millennia, has now encountered conditions it can no longer survive QUOTE 3000 years! So that proves it then. Present day's temperatures ARE greater than the Medieval Warming Period. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by realprimate: Interesting little article just brought to my attention. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/wardhunt/QUOTE When the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf originally formed, it blocked the mouth of Disraeli Fiord, cutting it off from the Arctic Ocean. In the process, the ice shelf trapped driftwood inside the epishelf lake and kept other pieces of driftwood from entering. Pieces of driftwood found along the shores of Disraeli Fiord have been there since the ice shelf formed, and by radiocarbon dating the wood, researchers have been able to estimate the minimum age of the ice shelf. “There simply are no radiocarbon dates more recent than 3,000 years before present,” said Jeffries. This ice shelf, in existence for at least three millennia, has now encountered conditions it can no longer survive QUOTE 3000 years! So that proves it then. Present day's temperatures ARE greater than the Medieval Warming Period.
Now, who was it counselling us not to take observations in isolation????????? Present day temperatures at one location might well be the warmest for 3,000 years. This is clearly not the case everywhere! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by JL(SFC58,AFCB):
Now, who was it counselling us not to take observations in isolation?????????
Present day temperatures at one location might well be the warmest for 3,000 years. This is clearly not the case everywhere!
Probably me (also look at trends) so how about the Larsen B ice shelf? The-other-side-of-the-planet-Earth. http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/deep-...ntarctic-survey.htmlQUOTE The area under Larsen B has been capped by ice since the last ice age. "The break-up of these ice shelves opened up huge, near pristine portions of the ocean floor, sealed off from above for at least 5000 years, and possibly up to 12,000 years in the case of Larsen B," says Julian Gutt, a marine ecologist at Germany’s Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research and chief scientist on the Polarstern expedition. "Until now, scientists have glimpsed life under Antarctica's ice shelves only through drill holes." QUOTE Come on JL. This MWP was a mere blip. |
| |
|
|
I've just been to an exhibition in Berlin, where part of what they showed had been uncovered when perma frost melted. So clearly people must have lived there at some stage before perma frost, and therefore it must have been at least as warm at some stage in the past.
We could swap stories all day.
|
| |
|
|
