Re: OT: interesting global warming quote found elsewhwere



Joerg wrote:

Kris Krieger wrote:
bill.sloman@xxxxxxxx wrote in
Joerg >> wrote:

Ah, the usual. When arguments and evidence fails the person gets
attacked.

The evidence hasn't failed. McIntyre found a serious defect in Mann's
data-filtering procedure, which meant Mann's hockey stick curve should
have had more and bigger noise spikes down the handle, even though the
shape remained much the same.

Here are my questions.

(1) Why does the entire anti-GW argument always comme down to two people,
Mann and McIntyre?

It doesn't actually. That's just an extreme example of the IPCC and the
contributor being caught with their pants down and cooking the books.

Hansen too has fiddled with the data.

Read Loehle's paper for a more reasoned approach to temperature records in the
last 2000 years. A short precis is here.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/

If you want some interesting and confusing comparisons read this !
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=63


I don't know Mann btu I did look at McIntyre's website,
and it's just that - a website. I read teh link to his criticism of
something written by ?Hegerle?, but that wasn't a "paper", it was in teh
*letters* section of Nature. That makes it a very differnt animal - I
personally found the article deficient, but that's what it was - an
article. Not a full-blown paper. I don't recall that articles are
reviewed, at least nowhere near as rigorously as are papers, and any
sceintific professional knows that. So what's the big deal?


Letters and the like in magazines by scientists are to be taken as
seriously as papers. After all, the scientist has put his/her name right
above or under it. AGW and anti-AGW argumentation includes many other
scientists, plus whole institutes.

(2) When did this fellow Mann make his "hockey stick"? If it was some
years back, well, of course new data would have ceom pout,

No. It was taken as the 'ultimate truth' for years. It figures as a central plank
of Gore's comedy film. In fact AFAIK Loehle is the first comprehensive study
since Mann.


an dof course
pele whould have looked at his data and discovered any problems with its
interpretation - that is how sceince works. SOmeone does a study, other
peopl eread it, then go do their own studies, and then come back and
confirm what can be confirmed, and correct that which cannot. So what's
the big deal?

The big deal is: A scientist _and_ an organization must officially
acknowledge "Yes, I/we are wrong on that issue". Anything less is IMHO
not honest. Yeah, it'll result in a few black eyes and bruised egos but
that is still better for an organization than being pointed at along the
lines of "Here, see, that's just one example where they are dead wrong".
Of course the latter will make it much easier for their adversaries to
discredit them in the eyes of body public (a.k.a. voters).

Sorry but, as someone who formerly worked in a research lab (biochemistry),
and who is in close contact with people doing ongoing R&D science, it seems
to me that this stuff shouldn't even be an issue, and only is an issue
because of pique.

It is an issue because:

a. The old curve is still being used as a doomsday justification by
influential people.

b. Some politicians base their decisions on that. Decisions that can
(and I am afraid will) cost you and I in terms of tax Dollars, big time.
I am firmly opposed to that and will do whatever is legally in my might
to counter. For example by explaining stuff to others.

And contrary to what Bill may believe, not releasing data can only mean
three things:

a. Too much was asked for. Then the right thing to do is to tell the
requester. Not answering at all is usually seen as rude or suspicious,
or both.

b. It isn't available in an organized file format where it could be sent
off with a few mouse clicks. That could be an indicator that the work
done with such data may not be, ahem, based on much organization either.

c. They don't want the requester to see that data. That would be highly
suspicious.

For example, some of the data I requested was merely the same stuff as
on web pages, just that I wanted the Excel data instead of a way too
small graph. Since the graph came from data it ought not to be hard to
just fire that off to a requester. Or even go a step further, put it on
the web site. Not too much to ask for, isn't it? If I can't back up my
research with such data I'd probably hang up my job and brew beer or
something.
--
Regards, Joerg

An excellent response.

Graham

.

Quantcast