It's global cooling, not warming!

That report predates the invasion by 8 days, the final Blix interview in the desert made it clear he had visited al the sites as requested. Even a month earlier he had expresssed his doubts WMDs would be found to Blair.

From your favourite paper

The difference in News content between the BBC, Eins Extra and TF1 made it clear to me the BBC was exaggerating the threat and withholding information such as Blix' interviews when he visited sites and found nothing.

ACtually Edukator, you'll be surprised to hear I don't read the mail – still, not to let stereotyping and jumping to conclusions get in the way of facts eh?

He expressed doubts?

I note that my point stands, Blix "quite categorically did not say there were not any weapons"

edukator use his own link it said this
All my bold
he did say this though

As I noted on 14 February, intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks and, in particular, that there are mobile production units for biological weapons. The Iraqi side states that such activities do not exist. Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities. Food testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen, as well as large containers with seed processing equipment. No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found……

I should note that the working document contains much information and discussion about the issues which existed at the end of 1998 – including information which has come to light after 1998. It contains much less information and discussion about the period after 1998, primarily because of paucity of information. Nevertheless, intelligence agencies have expressed the view that proscribed programmes have continued or restarted in this period

Of course he did not say there were no weapons you cannot prove a negative can you he could only ever say he had not found any …not this point again on a different subject. Again no eviodence was found …seems clear to me he say he has found nothing but the intelligence agencies are making claims.
Vaguely back OT
you said re correlation that i should look at what you said so I did

Edited to add – I'm afraid you might want to look at what I actuallysaid Junkyard.

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/search.php?q=correlation&x=0&y=0
all I see is that you said that my graph was a correlation as well and then repeated this error /mistake when you posted yours – do you have another interpretation of the data? You do accepot they are not correlations now?

I said that he said he had visited all the sites he had requested access to and found nothing.

Blix did categorically say he had found nothing more than a few old shells from the Iran/Irak war despite having had access to all the suspect sites. Blix as an intelligent, honest and rigous man could say no more. You cannot state "categorically" that any nation doesn't have WMDs. You are asking the impossible of Blix, as did Blair, who then manipulated that lack of certainty there weren't any into absolute certainty there were for the consumption of the British public.

Why do you think the french and Germans were so outraged by Blair's claim but the British public were not? Because we were better informed.

all I see is that you said that my graph was a correlation as well

No, I said that the graph did not show a correlation, not that it was one – below the graph I said "look at the correlation" referring to the data shown in the graph.

Are you denying that it is accepted practice to visually express the correlation between two sets of variables by drawing a diagram in which each result is plotted on a standard X-Y graph?

Well Z11, I'm glad you've moved back to the topic of the thread. If you want to start a WMD thread go ahead, but for the sake of all our sanity lets just stick to the one contentious topic at once here eh?

Anyway, I note also that you said this a while back:

Actually Hainey – I think the biggest problem is that AGW theory is based on faith, with science used to back up the argument.

Just as a matter of interest, who do you think started advancing an AGW theory before there was ANY science to back it up?

This is a serious question BTW – one of the main objections of skeptics seems to be that there is some sort of conspiracy going on, so it would be interesting to get to the root of that.

I dont think its a deliberate conspiracy – I think its mass delusion/hysteria – a bunch of people truly and honestly being convinced that what they're doing is the right thing and finding patterns and proof where there is only chaos.

I dont think its helped by Greenpeace et al using it as a to push their agenda, which of course had its origins in the anti nuclear movement of the 1960's

Another parallel would be that of satanic/ritual abuse

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=in_the_back&article=99&issue=1244

You're doing it again.

How do you think that bringing yet another highly emotive topic into the discussion will help foster rational debate?

You are priceless. You say 'only the facts' then you try to draw a parallel between climate science and ritual child abuse.

Don't you see the irony?

Best example of recent mass hysteria by a group of supposedly experienced professionals I could think of RPRT!

I said that the graph did not show a correlation, not that it was one

your exact words in reply to my graph were

the correlation only applies if the NASA GISS global anomaly data is correct

Clearly you are calling it a correlation in that sentence!

Are you denying that it is accepted practice to visually express the correlation between two sets of variables by drawing a diagram in which each result is plotted on a standard X-Y graph?

Of course I am not denying that a correlation can be represented graphically. However it has some obvious differences that would enable any observer with a rudimentary grasp of statistics to notice
1.If it was a correlation between temperature and C02 there would be only one line on the graph
2. X-Y would be labelled as per the variable correlated – temp on one C02 on the other.
gcse stats

Now you apparently want a debate about poor data sets whilst claiming the reason for global warming is mass hysteria. Am I really expected to conclude the scenario with the most evidence is that we are all, unintentionally, experiencing mass hysteria rather than global warming?

Junkyard – further up the page, before you posted the graph from skepticalscience – I had already used the "C" word.

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/its-global-cooling-not-warming/page/17#post-1040918

Quite clearly talking about the data, before a graph was used – but you jumped on your little high horse thinking I'd said something I hadn't!

Mass Hysteria and psychology: Junkyard, I suggest you go and learn about clustering illusions and the Representativeness heuristic

-zulu – your arguments make about as much sense as flat earthers or creationists.

so I think you are right – there is a illusion – but its the sceptics not the people who actually understand the science that are under the illusion.

You are so obviously selecting facts and twisting them to fit your ideas.

quite honestly you never had much credibility and now you have non.

I do hope you have your tin foil hat on.

Nicely said TJ.

Thanks for that link it is an even better reference. I like the bit where you are arguing about a correlation as cause and effect – that is not even a schoolboy error – thanks for highlighting it.

But the whole point is that the rate of loss is supposed to correlate with, and has been used as evidence of an unprecedented rate of temperature increase, which is itself correlated with an unprecedented rate of rise in CO2 – cause and effect.

Is there a scientist anywhere who does not know that correlation does not mean causality – look at the pirates graph as a good example of why not. Clearly the data sets would correlate as entirely random things will correlate. I suggest you go and learn about science, data and when to admit you have [repeatedly] made an error.

Now you are confusing me again what have I got then mass hysteria or your latest notion of the clustering illusions MY BOLD

The clustering illusion refers to the tendency to erroneously perceive small samples from random distributions as having significant "streaks" or "clusters", caused by a human tendency to underpredict the amount of variability likely to appear in a small sample of random or semi-random data due to chance.[

I am fairly confident that the vast array of equations – data analysis we perform on the raw data – data manipulation you call it iirc – is precisely to avoid this human error. That effect cannot possibly explain this.
It is immense fun countering your increasingly wacky claims for the cause of the "global warming illusion" are the lizard people involved?

correlation does not mean causality

Halle Fooking Lulleah!

Now we're getting somewhere Junkyard!

So, why did you post a graph of CO2 matching Temperature rise?

What evidence do you have that CO2 drives temperature change, given the fact that you yourself concede that correlation does not mean causality!

I am fairly confident that the vast array of equations – data analysis we perform on the raw data – data manipulation you call it iirc

data analysis is not manipulation, manipulation is the process of adjusting raw data:

What evidence do you have that CO2 drives temperature change, given the fact that you yourself concede that correlation does not mean causality!

You're doing it again. Muddying the waters. Correlation does not mean causality, but neither does it NOT mean causality. That statement by itself means nothing.

As you well know, lots of us do think there is causality, and have been bombarding you with evidence. At the moment the experiment is still running and so we have to make a judgement as to the outcome, but in my opinion the trouble with your argument is that you give too much weight to (inevitable) idiosyncrasies in the data over the mass of coherent data.

too much weight to (inevitable) idiosyncrasies in the data over the mass of coherent data.

But thats my exact point about clustering Illusions and representativeness – that you're giving huge weight to the inevitable coherences that occur in a huge mass of otherwise incoherent data, and attaching no weight to the flaws in the data that cannot be explained by the theory. You choose to ignore the data thats been adjusted, you choose to ignore the cloud cover correlation data and all the evidence in respect of internal forcing to justify the CO2 causation

As you well know, lots of us do think there is causality, and have been bombarding you with evidence

Seriously, other than the fact that there is a (limited) correlation between temperature rise data and CO2 data in the past few decades, what evidence has anyone offered that CO2 levels drive temperature in a real world environment with all its complex feedback systems and external inputs – your own petard is the phrase that "correlation does not mean causality"

attaching no weight to the flaws in the data that cannot be explained by the theory

What flaws in the data have been adjusted with no good reason?

But on your other point:

Seriously, other than the fact that there is a (limited) correlation between temperature rise data and CO2 data in the past few decades, what evidence has anyone offered that CO2 levels drive temperature in a real world environment

Seriously, it's a measurable effect. More CO2 = more longwave radiation at the surface, less infrared radiation out into space. (We did this about 2 months ago). There you go – no historical data required.

your own petard is the phrase that "correlation does not mean causality"

It is not really ours it is just a fundamental point of statistics that you have failed to grasp – hence why you asked me to corelate them , what a foolish question if you understand stats. We cant claim credit for it all we are is not ignorant of it.

what evidence has anyone offered that CO2 levels drive temperature in a real world

I think we can all agree on this one – it is the big fiery ball in the sky that we orbit that is the primary driver of temperature iirc. Do you want some evidence of this? I shall call it night time and winter or am I seeing a pattern that is not there again? 😉
The real question we need to ask is what does C02 do to the energy when it arrives
a. Nothing
b. Trap some of it
c.Trap it all
If we have more C02 does it

1.Make no difference
2.Increase the amount of energy stored
3.Decrease the amount of energy stored

I am going for b and 2 – is anyone atually disputing this anywhere? ANy credible scientist claiming C02 is NOT a grenhouse gas or arguing with this acount?

Now the only way this simple account can be wrong is if you have a begating factor from

all its complex feedback systems and external inputs

i await the great negating system we have all forgotten about

Can I wager that you ignore the question and argue about the data or hysteria again?

it is the big fiery ball in the sky that we orbit that is the primary driver of temperature iirc.

Well, thats a fairly significant variable that you've just thrown into your simple common sense equation Junkyard

Can I wager that you ignore the question and argue about the data or hysteria again?

nearly won that eh you did ignore them though and – you have leanrt well from Hainey that when the answer is obvious and it counters your opinion ignore it and try to change the subject

Could you answer the question ?
The real question we need to ask is what does C02 do to the energy when it arrives
a. Nothing
b. Trap some of it
c.Trap it all
If we have more C02 does it

1.Make no difference
2.Increase the amount of energy stored
3.Decrease the amount of energy stored
your answers are?

But thats really not the point is it? the earth is not a test tube – its the real world effects that we're discussing.

If it were that simple, then we would have seen an increase in temperature over the past decade, since at the same time there has been a significant increase in CO2 levels – that has demonstrably not happened, ergo something must be happening that is not factored into your nice simple equation.

It may have been posted already, i can't be arsed to read what i only assume is pub science, but this is a fascinating analysis of the 'climategate' emails:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf

I'd suggest nobody post again until they've read it.

fascinating you really have learnt well from Hainey ……ignore questions debate something different. Answer the question please I am happy to reciprocate and have answered yours.

The real question we need to ask is what does C02 do to the energy when it arrives
a. Nothing
b. Trap some of it
c.Trap it all
If we have more C02 does it

1.Make no difference
2.Increase the amount of energy stored
3.Decrease the amount of energy stored
your answers are?
Once you answer that I look fwd to you elaborating on your scientifically defined and evidenced "something" – it should be fascinating

ergo something must be happening that is not factored into your nice simple equation.

cpt at 150 pages it will certainly keep us quiet for a bit 😀

I'd suggest nobody post again until they've read it.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute

I'd suggest nobody post again until they've read it.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute

??

Junkyard – ok, answers to yours

in a test tube environment with a constant input and no other variables – B and 2

So why, please explain to me, have we not seen the same outcome in the real world over the past few years?

If it were that simple, then we would have seen an increase in temperature over the past decade

You're letting yourself down Z11.

At one point in this discussion I thought you were actually making reasonable points, but now you're getting silly.

I think everyone on my side of the argument agrees that there are many factors forcing climate change and that there are natural cycles at work. Maybe temperatures might fall for 10 years (although I don't believe they have) but still do that within a longer term upward trend. Would you admit that that is a possibility?

CaptJon said

It may have been posted already, i can't be arsed to read what i only assume is pub science, but this is a fascinating analysis of the 'climategate' emails:

You couldn't be arsed to read all of our witty repartee, but you could be bothered to read that?

Sorry, I didn't do more than skim it. Once I got to the words

most disciplines of science are, to a greater or lesser extent, controlled by fashions, biases, and dogma.

I could see which way the wind was blowing and stopped reading.

"fascinating analysis" – are you related to the author?

rightplacerighttime – Member
CaptJon said

It may have been posted already, i can't be arsed to read what i only assume is pub science, but this is a fascinating analysis of the 'climategate' emails:
You couldn't be arsed to read all of our witty repartee, but you could be bothered to read that?

Sorry, I didn't do more than skim it. Once I got to the words

most disciplines of science are, to a greater or lesser extent, controlled by fashions, biases, and dogma.
I could see which way the wind was blowing and stopped reading.

"fascinating analysis" – are you related to the author?

Touche – i've had a brief skim and there does appear to be some proper science. I'm sure you can forgive my shortsightedness given the forum and the topic.

Do you believe science isn't, if not controlled, but influenced by fashions? Monies from funding councils/agencies is heavily politicised.

I'd hazard a guess that as you're on this thread you're interested in and/or involved in science. If you are you might like to return to the above document and read the stuff about peer review on pages 28-80. It is quite scary the attitude some of those involved in the emails appear to take.

Oh BTW CaptJon re' your "??" – the link from Dave is to a page about the publishers of the report you linked to.

It casts doubt on their veracity.

I think everyone on my side of the argument agrees that there are many factors forcing climate change and that there are…

Wait for it!

…natural cycles at work.

Wahey, now we're pulling it in, bang on the money Junkyard! 😈

Maybe temperatures might fall for 10 years (although I don't believe they have) but still do that within a longer term upward trend. Would you admit that that is a possibility?

That is JUST as much a valid statement as

Maybe temperatures might rise for 10 years (although I don't believe they have) but still do that within a longer term downward trend. Would you admit that that is a possibility?

or, even more prosaically

Maybe temperatures might rise for 30 years (although I don't believe they have) but still do that without forming any discernible longer term trend,

Junkyard – Would you admit that that is also a possibility? 🙂

Now do you understand my comments regarding the psychology of looking for patterns where there is, in actual fact, chaos? now do you understand my comments regarding the clustering illusion?

I'd hazard a guess that as you're on this thread you're interested in and/or involved in science.

Artually, I'm more interested in my future well-being.

I'm sure you're right that there are some scientists out there with less than perfect moral codes. But most of them are in it because they are genuinely interested in finding stuff out. Sorry, but I'm not reading that paper – it looks like a bad A-level project in textual analysis.

Maybe temperatures might rise for 10 years (although I don't believe they have) but still do that within a longer term downward trend. Would you admit that that is a possibility?

Yep. I would admit that that is a possibility. I just don't happen to think that that is what is happening now.

Now then, are you going to admit that temperatures might fall for 10 years but still do that within a longer term upward trend?

Of course its possible, but its a logical illusion to think that you can draw any form of conclusion either way – otherwise you're like fleas on a dogs arse arguing over when the next mysterious smell might appear!

rightplacerighttime – Member
Oh BTW CaptJon re' your "??" – the link from Dave is to a page about the publishers of the report you linked to.

It casts doubt on their veracity.

Interesting, that is an approach Mann, Jones et al take, i.e. forming an opinion based on assumed bias than challenging the argument being made aka strawman. An extract (formatting isn't great, you might want to read it in its original form (p.28):

March 11, 2003: email 1047388489

A paper by astrophysicists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas was published by Climate Research, which concluded that “the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.” Phil Jones writes a number of emails to his colleagues. In the first:

Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore probably, so don’t let it spoil your day. I’ve not looked at it yet. It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in New Zealand. He has let a few papers through by (skeptics) Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere.

His conclusions are remarkable, given that he admits that he hasn’t even looked at the paper as yet. His next email is sent after having read a small amount:

I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling … I’ll have time to read more at the weekend …
The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper determine the answer they get. They have no idea what multiproxy averaging does.

In other words, because these astrophysicists don’t use the mathematically and statistically incorrect method of “averaging” the various temperature proxies to hide the variability of temperature in the past, they’re not a member of the club!

He continues:

Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do something …
I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A Climatic Research Unit person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.

Recall, this action is being taken before he has even read the whole paper even a single time.
Mike Mann replies:

The Soon and Baliunas paper couldn’t have cleared a “legitimate” peer review process anywhere. That leaves only one possibility—that the peer-review process at Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn’t just De Freitas; unfortunately, I think this group also includes a member of my own department… The skeptics appear to have staged a “coup” at Climate Research (it was a mediocre journal to begin with, but now it’s a mediocre journal with a definite “purpose”).

In other words, the publication of a single paper critical of their work—which is how any healthy discipline of science is supposed to work—is, automatically, evidence of a “hijacking” of an entire peer-reviewed journal.

Mann urges his colleagues to start a witch-hunt:

Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors:
link to a page on Climate Research’s website listing the editors
Despite the paper having barely been looked at, Mann immediately starts to plan their retribution:
I told Mike MacCracken that I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They’ve already achieved what they wanted—the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want todo is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the community on the whole…

It is pretty clear that the skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton, Goodess, …). My guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he’s an odd individual, and I’m not sure he isn’t himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and with Von Storch on their side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision.
There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon and Baliunas paper, that couldn’t get published in a reputable journal.

This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal!

We now see what Mann and colleagues are so upset about: they believed that their cosy club was safe from intruders, as the only way to challenge them was to be published in a “peer-reviewed” journal—which they themselves controlled. But now that the fortifications were breached, the entire house of cards was in danger of falling down.

Mann immediately suggests black-balling the journal that dared to challenge their authority:

So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…

So it’s OK for their gang to control the “peer review” process, but not OK for sceptics to have any say?

rightplacerighttime – Member
I'd hazard a guess that as you're on this thread you're interested in and/or involved in science.
Artually, I'm more interested in my future well-being.

I'm sure you're right that there are some scientists out there with less than perfect moral codes. But most of them are in it because they are genuinely interested in finding stuff out. Sorry, but I'm not reading that paper – it looks like a bad A-level project in textual analysis.

What if those 'some scientists' are the leading proponents of global warming andhave gained positions of power which means they can reinforce their positions based, not on scientific method, but politics, pressuring people, excluding findings they don't like and fiddling their data?

There is stuff wrong with the report i posted, but in my opinion (as an academic interested, but not directly involved in the science of climate) it is worthy of note. Open your mind and give it a chance.

FFS slow down people attack his stats they are as cr@p as usual

Well if it was true you would have a point but I do not accept you assertion that it is cooling. In fact I think that you have actually picked a date on order to distort the atual data to show what you wish and it is another clear and deliberate attempt to cherry pick your dates to show what you want – yet you claim everyone else is delusional odd, very odd. Here is the exact same data as you used but for a longer time frame as it shows there is a clear upward trend

Here is your data time frame with the long term trend attached

I am not arguing with the data just your selective use of it. The first decade of this century was still the warmest on record. despite your downward trend. i was correct eh lies, damn lies, statistics and Z-11 statistics. Very, very poor. You have no credibility left with me.

natural cycles at work.
Wahey, now we're pulling it in, bang on the money Junkyard!

I have repeated ad nauseum tha clrearly there are natural cycles at work but no natural cycle includesman made C02 release stherefore they would not be a valid explantion of the current situation due to the NEW variable – radical science eh new variable changes things. My other clearly radicl aview is that climate has changed naturally – without the influence of man – we did all this sh1t with Hainey new variable changes natuaral account etc.

Junkyard – what makes 1978, 1978, 2002, 2003 or 2004 into a "more valid" date to start your own analysis from?

You can draw any pattern you like in the data – this is my exact point! this is the ridiculousness of the entire concept – you're choosing the data that suits your own ends, just the same as I was – this is the very essence of the clustering illusion!

I could choose the year 1934, 35BC or one million years BC as my start point, it would be just as valid!