BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Sparklet

Listed below are comments made by Sparklet between Friday, 4th December 2009 and Saturday, 5th December 2009 (3 Hours Ago) .

«Newer
Older»

Copenhagen Countdown: 2 days 5:09pm on 05 Dec 2009 54. At 4:46pm on 05 Dec 2009, infinity

Infinity,

You've avoided answering my simple, basic question -

Why on earth would the CRU be producing code such as this?
Copenhagen Countdown: 2 days 4:13pm on 05 Dec 2009 Re #36. At 2:34pm on 05 Dec 2009, infinity
Infinity,
This blogger who declares himself to be "a scientist and engineer with an agnostic stand on global warming" puts forward a theory, shows his detailed workings to all with conclusions and then invites comment. In the debate he concedes that his analysis "doesn’t prove anything except the fact that[as far as the CRU is concerned] we need to throw out the existing research and start over."
but that it is "evidence enough to show the potential for foul play and they they deliberately hand-coded methods that skewed climate data towards a hockey-stick type shape"

and yet you declare this process to be 'skim-reading' !!!

And the 'sceptic' stance as portrayed by Anthony Watts
"NOTE: While there are some interesting points raised here, it is important to note a couple of caveats. First, the adjustment shown above is applied to the tree ring proxy data (proxy for temperature) not the actual instrumental temperature data. Second, we don’t know the use context of this code. It may be a test procedure of some sort, it may be something that was tried and then discarded, or it may be part of final production output. We simply don’t know. This is why a complete disclosure and open accounting is needed, so that the process can be fully traced and debugged. Hopefully, one of the official investigations will bring the complete collection of code out so that this can be fully examined in the complete context. – Anthony"

Compare this to the hockey stick Team who have consistently refused to show their data and detailed workings and the AGW proponents who declare the science to be 'settled' .

[Although many, many scientists disagree with them -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
]

Now tell me - who have been the more 'scientific'?

And again the question - why was the CRU producing code such as this?
Copenhagen Countdown: 2 days 2:19pm on 05 Dec 2009 Al Gore before Congress

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNzBRiAyn8o
Copenhagen Countdown: 2 days 1:06pm on 05 Dec 2009 17. At 12:36pm on 05 Dec 2009, infinity

But infinity you've simply cited a link given in one of the comments in my original link, so a detailed analysis is indeed ongoing which is exactly what this needs and what Steve McIntyre has been trying to achieve since he first started looking at the AGW reports some years ago, and has met with strong resistance from the AGW camp who refused to allow access to the data.

And look at what Anthony Watts (one of the blogs AGW supporters love to criticise) said about the original article

"NOTE: While there are some interesting points raised here, it is important to note a couple of caveats. First, the adjustment shown above is applied to the tree ring proxy data (proxy for temperature) not the actual instrumental temperature data. Second, we don’t know the use context of this code. It may be a test procedure of some sort, it may be something that was tried and then discarded, or it may be part of final production output. We simply don’t know. This is why a complete disclosure and open accounting is needed, so that the process can be fully traced and debugged. Hopefully, one of the official investigations will bring the complete collection of code out so that this can be fully examined in the complete context. – Anthony "

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/

So I repeat - this is hardly 'skim-reading'

My question would be why on earth was CRU producing such code anyway.
Copenhagen Countdown: 2 days 12:21pm on 05 Dec 2009 Re #12. At 12:13pm on 05 Dec 2009, infinity

Hardly 'skim-reading' Infinity,

http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/the-proof-behind-the-cru-climategate-debacle-because-computers-do-lie-when-humans-tell-them-to/
Copenhagen Countdown: 2 days 11:37am on 05 Dec 2009 Excellent coverage on Newswatch this morning - Richard Black and two members of the public who very ably put the viewers perspective on the 'Climategate' coverage.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/video_and_audio/8396579.stm
Copenhagen Countdown: 10 days 00:13am on 05 Dec 2009 Re #746. At 10:08pm on 04 Dec 2009, Yorkurbantree

Up to your usual standard still I see, York, and still you haven't managed to produce just one paper from those 'hundreds' or 'thousands' of papers that you referred to, that satisfactoriy proves the AGW science or even just one paper that proves the causal link between athropogenic carbon emissions and global warming.

And why do you assume I'm a 'he', 'old boy'!!
Copenhagen Countdown: 10 days 00:03am on 05 Dec 2009 Re #677. At 08:51am on 04 Dec 2009, infinity wrote:
Re Sparklet 672:

One thing you won't hear from pseudosceptic blogs like WUWT is that the reversed Tiljander series doesn't affect the results whether it is included or not. In fact iirc Mann's own paper cited that series as a possible problem and did the analysis both with and without it.

Of course pseudosceptics prefer to ignore this context and instead imply that the upside down data makes a different to the result, or even that it is the sole reason for the result.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes you're quite right, Infinity, the data won't affect the results, which will always be a hockey stick whatever data is used!!! Because isn't that how they always rig it.
Just like the Yamal series where ....
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/30/yamal-treering-proxy-temperature-reconstructions-dont-match-local-thermometer-records/

Not to mention the several other discredited hockey sticks - just how many of these do you need before you realise there is something seriously wrong with this 'science'.
Copenhagen Countdown: 10 days 7:22pm on 04 Dec 2009 THERE'S NOTHING TO SEE HERE MOVE ALONG
Copenhagen Countdown: 10 days 08:06am on 04 Dec 2009 Re #660. At 11:54pm on 03 Dec 2009, Yorkurbantree

So back to this tired old argument.
We 'sceptics' have already pointed out the many errors underlying the so-called 'science' of AGW.
Watch the Finnish film posted at #602 and see how the hockey sticks have been utterly discredited and how the graph provided by Finns scientists data (showing the MWP to be much warmer than temperatures now) was turned UPSIDE DOWN by these cowboys to give the required hockey stick.
Film and transcript provided here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=finnish+tv

Read what the Finnish scientist had to say about that!!!

"Dr. Atte Korhola, professor of environmental change at the University of Helsinki, is an expert in lake sediment studies.

Atte Korhola: “Some curves and data have been used upside down, and this is not a compliment to climate science. And in this context it is relevant to note that the same people who are behind this are running what may be the world’s most influential climate website, RealClimate. With this they are contributing to the credibility of science – or reducing it. And in my opinion this is alarming because it bears on the credibility of the field, and if these kinds of things emerge often – that data have been used insufficiently or even falsely, or if data series have been truncated or they have not been appropriately published (for replication), it obviously erodes the credibility, and this is a serious problem.” "

I'm afraid this is now the 'real world', York., the scientific fraud has been exposed for all to see as many on this board have very ably shown.
Produce just one paper from these 'hundreds' or 'thousands' of papers that you refer to that satisfactoriy proves the AGW science or even just one paper that proves the causal link between athropogenic carbon emissions and global warming.
And as for your attempt to silence posters here - well pretty pathetic -and I for one are very grateful to them and others - I have learned much.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

Sparklet