Mogrim – so when people refuse access to their raw data, you start to wonder don’t you…

Lifer – irrelevant about how many people are involved, theres only one set of global temperature data, which is an aggregate of selected local/national data – if the data is crap, the entire project is undermined.

Thats not an allegation that AGW has, or has not taken place – its an impartial scientific question on the validity of the data!

If you accept that there is an unknown level of accuracy in the data recording, due to both calibration and external factors, then you accept that the data is fundamentally flawed – If you accept that there are flaws in the data, then you accept that the science is not settled!

Also – if you accept that the data has been modified prior to use in the calculations, than you accept that the science is not settled, and if people refuse to explain their rationale and extent of raw data modification, then you have to accept that that data, in the scientific process, has to be called into question.

Again – simple scientific process, if the data is unreliable, then the results are unreliable – garbage in, garbage out!

Zulu-Eleven – Member

Mogrim – so when people refuse access to their raw data, you start to wonder don’t you…

i work with large amounts of raw data – there’s no way i’d let anyone see it unfiltered/unprocessed – it’s more or less meaningless.

irrelevant about how many people are involved, theres only one set of global temperature data, which is an aggregate of selected local/national data – if the data is crap, the entire project is undermined.

Except there are at least two sets of data, ground and satellite based. Any modifications (clean up or whatever) to the data should be properly documented in any paper written.

ahwiles

when you filter/process it, do you list and explain all modifications made to that raw data, and then retain the unmodified raw data itself for future replication if necessary?

you’ve heard of GLP I presume?

Mogrim – satellite data is calibrated against what? the existing ground data set… oops!

There are myriad and extensive examples of modifications in the published climate data that are not quantified or justified.

One such example here:

GISS manipulates climate data in Mackay (3rd Edition)

Now, if the data homogenisation process can be called into question, then the accuracy and usability of the data is in question, that simple!

Again, not an accusation of faking, or that AGW is false, a realistic and scientifically correct question against the validity of the published data!

the original paper was refuted by scientists

Not only that, it was fairly quickly refuted by all the publishers of the original paper who weren’t Andrew Wakefield, they all retracted their support.

By that point though, the horse had bolted; which is the point I was trying to make originally, that the media are largely to blame for scaremongering rather than checking their facts.

Measels went from ‘practically eradicated’ to ‘epidemic’ levels solely because of Wakefield and the subsequent media furore. It’s disgraceful.

it all goes in the report, and i’m happy to talk about it at length to anyone who’s bothered (no-one ever is).

i’ve no idea what GLP is.

re: the tree-ring thing.

tree-rings aren’t the only proxies used, there’s ice-cores, lake sediments, beetle-poo, etc. etc.

there’s correlation between them, except northern-hemisphere tree-rings have gone a bit wonky since 1960, there’s boffins looking at why, there’s some research which suggests it’s linked to sulphur dioxide (acid rain) and increased ground-level ozone.

there’s also an apparent increase in tree-death in the northern hemisphere, it seems trees have been having a crap time of it in the last 50years.

personally, i find it all fascinating.

Zulus views on this are as blinkered as the rest of his view. Extensively aired on a similar thread a while ago

I have no understanding why he denies that there is man made climate change when there is such good data indicating that there is, when there is no reputable scientists saying there is not. Not one reputable scientist who denies man made climate change.

Its pointless arguing with him. On this like on so much else he is a flat earther.

Where did I say that TJ?

All I’ve said, is that the data is flawed/unreliable!

Changed you view have you then? Last time this was raised you completely denied there was man made climate change and relied on all sorts of discredited swivel eyed loons to back you up

Even now your view is laughable. Some of the data is of poor quality yes. However there is a huge body of high quality data that backs up the man made global warming hypothesis.

I think you need to reread what I said last time TJ!

Have you audited the Data?

I presume you’ve also got a career in QA auditing 🙄 since you’ve so reliably stated that there is a huge body of high quality data

I suggest you go and read the contents of “HARRY_READ_ME.txt”

Weasel words, from the context of the thread you are clearly unconvinced by AGW.

Clearly you are ignoring any unknowns(or evidence to the contrary) and have already formed a view about what I think re: AGW.

😆

Co2 is a greenhouse gas and humans produce/release C02 – There will be an effect on the atmosphere from human activity as long as we keep the fires burning. Its that simple.

Even if people are sceptical, I don’t understand the entrenched position of ‘we’re fine as we are’

Why not make changes to reduce our impact on the environment, you know, just in case?

At the very least it will reduce our reliance on imported power.

I’d rather AGW be proved wrong after reducing impact than proved right having done little/nothing.

as an “intellectual coward” I think that scientific challenge is actually required both led by scientists but also the media who communicate the message.

a lack of challenge and “due diligence” contributed to a media that largely supported the proposition that WMD were in Iraq post 2000

the fiddling of the data by Anglian Uni bears striking similarities to th attitudes of the US to WMD as demonstrated in the infamous Colin Powell speech to the UN

the “climate change” movement further hamper their argument by trying to justify windfarms/ microgeneration projects which by in large will end up carbon positive and do not replace any major generation projects

is pumping large amounts of machine generated CO2 into the atmosphere good? undoubtedly not, destruction of rainforect for biofuel good, no.

cancellation of the Severn Barrage and promotion of solar microgeneration demonstrates that we have a long way to go IMHO

Mogrim – satellite data is calibrated against what? the existing ground data set… oops!

And the ground based data set is (relatively) easy to calibrate correctly against other, separate systems.

Even if people are sceptical, I don’t understand the entrenched position of ‘we’re fine as we are’

Why not make changes to reduce our impact on the environment, you know, just in case?

At the very least it will reduce our reliance on imported power.

This. What is the benefit in continuing to be incredibly wasteful?

Why not make changes to reduce our impact on the environment, you know, just in case?

The same reason I don’t believe in god, just in case.

Now, I do agree that we should be looking to other ways to provide energy for the country and also that the future will come as efficiency. My objections are with man made climate change being reported as fact with seemingly little room for discussion. If you ask questions you’re immediately labeled a skeptic, a term that seems to have been made into a dirty word. A lot of people are going to make a lot of money off the face of climate change and I’m not talking about scientists, I’m talking about energy management firms, climate change levies and the associated taxes that will inevitable come. You only have to look at carbon offsetting to realise the amount of job creation and BS already going on.

TandemJeremy, I come here for discussion, you, by your own admission to argue. Wind your neck in a bit, there’s a good chap.

What is the benefit in continuing to be incredibly wasteful?

On a personal level, if I’m happy with my lifestyle why would I want to change it just in case? Being told I can’t use my tumble drier and should go without my summer holiday in the sun is a definite downgrading of my quality of life.

Note: this is not my point of view, but I can see how it wouldn’t take much to latch on to any reasonable doubt when faced with this kind of lifestyle change…

So if we are wrong about climate change and we still do something about it we will have built a better world for nothing?

cancellation of the Severn Barrage

Because it would have had a major impact on a very fragile ecosystem

Against the Severn Barrage

richmtb – Member
So if we are wrong about climate change and we still do something about it we will have built a better world for nothing?

Nothing except the benefit of all.

Clearly you are ignoring any unknowns(or evidence to the contrary) and have already formed a view about what I think re: AGW.

What you said:

“Scientists” come up with a theory.
They embrace any evidence that supports it.

They ignore any evidence that discredits it.

Who is making money out of this?

OK, perhaps I was too harsh – but the use of inverted commas is unclear, are you referring to real scientists being paid to discredit climate science?

On a personal level, if I’m happy with my lifestyle why would I want to change it just in case? Being told I can’t use my tumble drier and should go without my summer holiday in the sun is a definite downgrading of my quality of life.

OK, but there are lots of things people can do which might make a difference, are probably good things to do anyway, and which have little or no negative impact on lifestyle. Eg insulating your house properly, buying food that hasn’t come halfway across the world (maybe growing some of your own), driving less and walking/cycling more, reusing/recycling etc etc etc

My objections are with man made climate change being reported as fact with seemingly little room for discussion. If you ask questions you’re immediately labeled a skeptic, a term that seems to have been made into a dirty word.

My understanding, and I’m far from an expert, is that the ‘official’ stance is that we are “very likely” to be a major contributing factor towards global warming.

I’m not unconvinced that it wouldn’t be happening to some extent anyway, our little blue-green rock has a history of having a climatic duck fit every (mumble) million years. However, as far as I can gather, the official stance is that this is believed to be less significant that the damage we’re reportedly doing.

I totally agree with your second point though, that people are quick to leap on folk who ask questions. The papers (there’s a theme here) like to publish career-destroying “climate change denier” stories about people who’ve gone “hang on, are we sure?” Johnny Ball leaps to mind here. Surely we should be encouraging scientific people to challenge this stuff, so that their questions can be publicly addressed and explained?

Bottom line is, as a layman, I simply don’t have sufficient knowledge of the facts to draw an informed conclusion. So then we’re down to something as simple as believing what we’re told. How do you know who do you believe?

I’m no tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorist and so I’m prepared to accept that what we’re being told officially is as close to correct as we can expect to be, but I don’t have blind faith in it.

I totally agree with your second point though, that people are quick to leap on folk who ask questions.

But often those questions are things that they have read on the internet (or in the Daily Telegraph) and have already been disproved many many times. No problem with folk asking a question, but asking the same question over and over again when you’ve already been given the answer is just wrong-headed.

The earth is a big ol place. I’m skeptical of anyone who claims to understand it all.

But often those questions are things that they have read on the internet (or in the Daily Telegraph) and have already been disproved many many times. No problem with folk asking a question, but asking the same question over and over again when you’ve already been given the answer is just wrong-headed.

Well, yes. I was trying, perhaps unsuccessfully, to differentiate between people with a reasonable scientific background and people who still think the moon landings were faked and JFK is working at a chippie in Dagenham.

Johnny Ball leaps to mind here. Surely we should be encouraging scientific people to challenge this stuff

Johnny ball is a children tv presenter who presented vaguely number/scientific programmes for kids and has absoloutely no formal qualifications as a scientist.
It is almosts 100% non scientific people and non climate specialists who can see problems with the research …odd that ….makes you think
1. there is a conspiracy that only lay people can see
2. they dont know what they are talking about ewhen they criticise

Johnny ball … has absoloutely no formal qualifications as a scientist.

I have no formal qualifications in IT (well, beyond an A’Level) and I’m a senior engineer at a large communications company, having worked in IT since the early 90’s. I’m not convinced that a lack of qualifications is damning in and of itself. (Which is just as well, cos the current head of the IPCC’s only qualification is a train driver or some such iirc.)

It is almosts 100% non scientific people and non climate specialists who can see problems with the research

Except, it’s not is it. The Former IPCC chairman has spoken out against them, for a start, and plenty of other ‘climate experts’ have too.

But anyway, I’m painting myself into a ‘devil’s advocate’ corner here. I don’t necessarily agree with any of them, and there’s plenty of halfwits in the world, I’m just saying that it’s a minefield and very difficult for us as the great unwashed to know with any certainty.

Junky – two simple examples:

Alfred Wegener and Plate Tectonics

Mary Anning and Fossils

In the former, established scientific consensus was overturned by the ideas of a Krank who passed away twenty years earlier- in the latter, the work of a non-scientific, uneducated, unqualified amateur fossil hunter who was dismissed by “the establishment” became the cornerstone of the entire scientific field!

Just because they’re a crank, doesn’t make them wrong, in just the same way as just because its the consensus, doesn’t make it right! You cannot dismiss arguments on the basis of ad hominem, its against the very ethos of science.

Personally, I’d take climate science far more seriously if I heard people saying “Well, we’re not certain, here’s the things we do know, here’s the uncertainties, and here’s our working hypothesis” – but thats not what we’re being told, we’re being told that the science is settled and anyone who questions it is a loon.

The true status of climate science could be paraphrased quite easily by Donald Rumsfeld:

… as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know

Zulu I see little point in responding to you what TJ said and frankly I pass things out my rear that I hold in higher regard than you and they are less full of crap 😆
Cougar stay on track [ pun intended see later] here – first you claimed Johnny Ball is a scientific type person when he is a childrens tv presenter – you could have just said sorry you know :roll:. Then you claim the only qualification of the current head of the IPCC is as a train driver if you wish to lie and distort reality to that degree may I suggest a career in blogging or writing for the right wing press. It is just not true as I suspect you are aware.
Yes the issue is complicated propably a good reason to leave it to people who understand it better than us eh ?

Point proven Junky – your science is shaky so you resort to ad hominem.

I’ve raised a valid concern over the integrity of the dataset – you’ve done nothing to discuss that, or try in any way to reinforce the reliability of the data, just dismiss anything that counters your zealot like faith in AGW with name calling!

Tell you what Junky – I’ll throw you an easy one

If the rated accuracy of a standard thermometer is +/- one degree – how do you reliably detect a temperature change of 0.7 degrees?

go on, answer that one 😉

first you claimed Johnny Ball is a scientific type person when he is a childrens tv presenter

I deliberately said “scientific people” rather than “scientists.” By this I was meaning people generally with an above average scientific understanding. Johnny Ball fits this category I believe. Perhaps I should have worded it a little better. I’m not suggesting he’s a climate change “expert,” but I’d expect he knows more about it than both you and I do.

Then you claim the only qualification of the current head of the IPCC is as a train driver if you wish to lie and distort reality to that degree may I suggest a career in blogging or writing for the right wing press.

On the back of that comment, I looked it up rather than half-remembering. I stand corrected – as well as being an ex-railway engineer, Rajendra Pachauri also has a PhD in Economics. Wow, that’s me told.

Yes the issue is complicated propably a good reason to leave it to people who understand it better than us eh ?

No arguments here. Interesting to discuss, though. So long as you can keep from attacking me by accusing me of lying etc anyway, I’m neither lying nor intentionally distorting anything. I’m ignorant, perhaps, but I’m not dishonest.

The concept and awareness of climate change has been around for nigh-on 40 years now. If there was massive political motivation and money to be made from promoting “global warming” and the conspiracy theorists claim, we’d have made the transition to low-carbon energy and materials long ago. As it stands, traditional energy generation and use remain firmly entrenched with little (financial) incentive to move away from this status-quo. There is little money to be made in going ‘green’.

If there was massive political motivation and money to be made from promoting “global warming” and the conspiracy theorists claim, we’d have made the transition to low-carbon energy and materials long ago.

Yes, that would be inconceivable! 🙄

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

If the rated accuracy of a standard thermometer is +/- one degree – how do you reliably detect a temperature change of 0.7 degrees?

1. How do you know what the accuracy of the thermometers* used to measure the temperatures in the datasets is +/- 1C?

2. Can I suggest that you learn the meaning of the word “average” or more correctly “mean”.

If you take many measurements and then find an “average” you can quite easily and accurately detect changes that are less than the apparent accuracy of your measuring device. I used similar techniques when I was in school, albeit I was measuring mass rather than temperature.

* They probably don’t use thermometers by the way however I’ll use that word to mean “temperature measuring device”.

If the rated accuracy of a standard thermometer is +/- one degree – how do you reliably detect a temperature change of 0.7 degrees?

Where is it stated that the accuracy of thermometers used to determine the change in average temperature, worldwide was +/-1°C?

Not trying to catch you out, genuine question.

If the rated accuracy of a standard thermometer is +/- one degree, does that mean that the measuring fluid can fluctuate by a degree either way, that the tolerance of the scale could be up to a degree out, or that it’s impossible to read more granularly than one degree? (-:

Not trying to catch you out, genuine question.

Is that what he meant? I assumed it was a hypothetical question. I don’t expect that they measure global warming with a rectal thermometer, they’re more used to measure the exothermic heat in Internet forum discussions.

Gonefishin

I used one degree as an example, the truth is we don’t know what level of resolution the thermometers which have been used carry, since often there are no records – we do know that some places used very, very accurate ones, and some less so – however there are little or no continuing calibration records, so a thermometer that was accurate when new, may well have been significantly out five years later. again, this all goes in the unknown pile.

if you measured a single spot on the planet ( or each spot on the planet) 10 times in the same moment, then that “law of large numbers” increase in precision would mean something. But if you measure a million places once each with a precision of +/- 1 C you can NOT say if things have warmed or cooled by 1/100 C based on the average. You simply do not know in which direction the error terms lie, and to assert that they “all average out” is just another kind of lie, its a guess- you do not know.

Secondly, if the errors are not random normal, your assumption that everything averages out may (I emphasize may) be in trouble. And unfortunately, in the real world, things are rarely that nice. If you send 50 guys out to do a job, there will be errors. But these errors will NOT tend to cluster around zero. They will tend to cluster around the easiest or most probable mistakes, and thus the errors will not be symmetrical, so drawing a point between the two as an average is inaccurate, again, its a guess.

the idea that the green lobby is somehow richer, greedier and more amoral than the oil industry is **** hilarious (- the middle east isnt a war ravaged collection of repressive proxy western dictatorships bevcause of all the windfarms there)

science can never give 100% guarantee that current theories are accurate but considering the overwhelming amount of evidence in peer reviewed literature that global temperatures are rising for the 10th year in a row and that man has an effect on this
you have 2 choices
believe the scientists
or
disregard the entire peer review system and listen to fox news, jeremey clarckson and bellendpole from the telegraph

you wouldnt let some gormless hack who had never read a scientific paper in his life develop new cancer drugs for you
why would you believe his opinionated rantings about climate change?