Top Scientists: "Warming Exagerated"

[asterism]

What's your point Aster? Do you think you're better at model writing than all the people doing it? Do you think you know something they do not? Do you think there is nothing they know that you do not? Do you think they are secretly lying to us all and that you are the only one that can detect it?

What IS your point?

ps: 2+3 = 11 in base 4. Math is a model in that it maps the abstract onto arbitrary symbols and defined operations. The symbols used may be varied and, per the rules of the model, the output will vary in response.

I don't think I'm better than all the people writing models. I know I'm better than the amateur that wrote the code documented here.

What is your point about 2+3?

I never made any mention of that, you've lost track of the people in this thread.

 

[asterism]

What's your point Aster? Do you think you're better at model writing than all the people doing it? Do you think you know something they do not? Do you think there is nothing they know that you do not? Do you think they are secretly lying to us all and that you are the only one that can detect it?

What IS your point?

ps: 2+3 = 11 in base 4. Math is a model in that it maps the abstract onto arbitrary symbols and defined operations. The symbols used may be varied and, per the rules of the model, the output will vary in response.

Mathematics is NOT a "model". It is, in fact, the purest form of language there is, unadulterated by semantics, or regional dialect. It is the one language that can be used universe wide. Mathematical models abound wherein math is used to predict the outcome of experiments to be run in the physical world. But to claim that math itself is a model is simply funny.

Asterism can answer her own questions and a great deal better than can you. Same to you Paddy.

ps: if you want something to chew on, what's the definition of 3?

Her?

What gave you that impression? Is that some lame attempt at being clever?

 

[PMZ]

What's your point Aster? Do you think you're better at model writing than all the people doing it? Do you think you know something they do not? Do you think there is nothing they know that you do not? Do you think they are secretly lying to us all and that you are the only one that can detect it?

What IS your point?

ps: 2+3 = 11 in base 4. Math is a model in that it maps the abstract onto arbitrary symbols and defined operations. The symbols used may be varied and, per the rules of the model, the output will vary in response.

I don't think I'm better than all the people writing models. I know I'm better than the amateur that wrote the code documented here.

What is your point about 2+3?

I never made any mention of that, you've lost track of the people in this thread.

There are no amateurs modeling IPCC climate science.

 

[asterism]

Tell you what. I'm sick of posting links to the data. Go find it yourself instead of constantly whining.

How are you sick of doing something you haven't done?

You posted links to massaged data. I get that you don't understand the significance, but that's your bias and ignorance.


Have you ever written a computer model? I bet not and that's why you don't understand the difference between raw data and summarized data.

What I posted clearly identified the sources of the data that Trenberth used in his calculations.

Unless data comes from a single source it has to be massaged in order to compensate for the differences between sources.

I have built many computer models.
Here's a model that even most conservatives can understand.

2+3=5

All math is modeling. Running math on a computer is merely a tool to speed the calculations.

You are typical of the denialists who know nothing but want to claim knowing more than the world's leading climate scientists.

You may fall for crap like that but not me.

You keep saying that I know nothing, while continuing to show your lack of understanding about the problem. Non-programmers have botched these studies and it's because Hydrology isn't a discipline that teaches data management.

Of course you don't appear to have any experience or education in those disciplines either so that's why you don't get it.

 

[asterism]

What's your point Aster? Do you think you're better at model writing than all the people doing it? Do you think you know something they do not? Do you think there is nothing they know that you do not? Do you think they are secretly lying to us all and that you are the only one that can detect it?

What IS your point?

ps: 2+3 = 11 in base 4. Math is a model in that it maps the abstract onto arbitrary symbols and defined operations. The symbols used may be varied and, per the rules of the model, the output will vary in response.

I don't think I'm better than all the people writing models. I know I'm better than the amateur that wrote the code documented here.

What is your point about 2+3?

I never made any mention of that, you've lost track of the people in this thread.

There are no amateurs modeling IPCC climate science.

What makes Phil Jones an expert in data management?

 

[PMZ]

I don't think I'm better than all the people writing models. I know I'm better than the amateur that wrote the code documented here.

What is your point about 2+3?

I never made any mention of that, you've lost track of the people in this thread.

There are no amateurs modeling IPCC climate science.

What makes Phil Jones an expert in data management?

What makes you an expert in climate science?

 

[asterism]

There are no amateurs modeling IPCC climate science.

What makes Phil Jones an expert in data management?

What makes you an expert in climate science?

Nothing. That's why I don't debate the actual science. The concept seems valid, so let's see if the data matches the theory. So far, it's murky because of the poor data management and programming of the original models. Much of that data is gone:

We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: We Lost the Original Data

 

[asterism]

More on Phil Jones and why you don't put a Hydrologist in charge of data:

Part five: Changing weather posts in China led to accusations of scientific fraud | Environment | theguardian.com

 

[asterism]

Oh and the famous "Hockey Stick?" That data is gone too.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

 

[Abraham3]

What's your point Aster? Do you think you're better at model writing than all the people doing it? Do you think you know something they do not? Do you think there is nothing they know that you do not? Do you think they are secretly lying to us all and that you are the only one that can detect it?

What IS your point?

ps: 2+3 = 11 in base 4. Math is a model in that it maps the abstract onto arbitrary symbols and defined operations. The symbols used may be varied and, per the rules of the model, the output will vary in response.

I don't think I'm better than all the people writing models. I know I'm better than the amateur that wrote the code documented here.

What is your point about 2+3?

I never made any mention of that, you've lost track of the people in this thread.

The code at your link doesn't appear to be a climate model. Therefore, I don't understand it's pertinence to this conversation.

My point about the math wasn't really intended for you. I'm pretty sure you know the definition of 3.

Just keep in mind that when you do nothing but look for flaws, you're pretty well guaranteed to find them. Remember, though, to keep track of the scale of things. If you're sizing up Olympus Mons, losing track of a bag of gravel isn't going to screw your answer.

 

[PMZ]

Oh and the famous "Hockey Stick?" That data is gone too.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

Even if you are the greatest data keeper in the world, you are still apparently susceptible to conspiracy theories.

 

[asterism]

What's your point Aster? Do you think you're better at model writing than all the people doing it? Do you think you know something they do not? Do you think there is nothing they know that you do not? Do you think they are secretly lying to us all and that you are the only one that can detect it?

What IS your point?

ps: 2+3 = 11 in base 4. Math is a model in that it maps the abstract onto arbitrary symbols and defined operations. The symbols used may be varied and, per the rules of the model, the output will vary in response.

I don't think I'm better than all the people writing models. I know I'm better than the amateur that wrote the code documented here.

What is your point about 2+3?

I never made any mention of that, you've lost track of the people in this thread.

The code at your link doesn't appear to be a climate model. Therefore, I don't understand it's pertinence to this conversation.

My point about the math wasn't really intended for you. I'm pretty sure you know the definition of 3.

Just keep in mind that when you do nothing but look for flaws, you're pretty well guaranteed to find them. Remember, though, to keep track of the scale of things. If you're sizing up Olympus Mons, losing track of a bag of gravel isn't going to screw your answer.

I agree, and that's why I have said that I'm encouraged by some sanity being brought into Climatology. I don't look for nothing but flaws, I look for flawed science. Fund studies? YES! Fund programs to study how to effectively tax carbon dioxide? Not until the correlation is proven without citing studies that have missing data.


And sorry, but if your data is "lost" your conclusions are suspect. This isn't a "conspiracy theory," it's just basic Science. If your results can't be reproduced, then they aren't exactly authoritative. That is not a basis to discredit all input, but it's not a basis for policy.

Oh and the code at the link I cited actually is one for a climate model. Sad huh?

 

[asterism]

Oh and the famous "Hockey Stick?" That data is gone too.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

Even if you are the greatest data keeper in the world, you are still apparently susceptible to conspiracy theories.

It's not a conspiracy, it's rank incompetence.

Jones says so himself:

‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’

He really just doesn't understand how to manage data. It's not a conspiracy and it's not a character flaw. He was probably just doing the best he could and didn't know that there were techniques and processes that would prevent this problem. I get the irony that a Scientist is dumbfounded by data and computers and modern devices, but that sentiment is hardly unique.

There was a very difficult learning curve for astronomers converting from film to digital. Lack of expertise in data management in that endeavor didn't mean that we all thought dark matter didn't exist just because we couldn't prove it. However it didn't mean that we could definitely prove it because most astronomers had the opinion that dark matter exists either.

Dark matter is "settled science" based on a compendium of data and calculations that are all freely available to anyone, open to scrutiny, subject to revolutionary modifications, and most definitely not handed down by experts saying "you're too stupid to understand."

Why is that?

 

[Abraham3]

Oh and the famous "Hockey Stick?" That data is gone too.



Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

Even if you are the greatest data keeper in the world, you are still apparently susceptible to conspiracy theories.

It's not a conspiracy, it's rank incompetence.

Jones says so himself:

‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’

He really just doesn't understand how to manage data. It's not a conspiracy and it's not a character flaw. He was probably just doing the best he could and didn't know that there were techniques and processes that would prevent this problem. I get the irony that a Scientist is dumbfounded by data and computers and modern devices, but that sentiment is hardly unique.

There was a very difficult learning curve for astronomers converting from film to digital. Lack of expertise in data management in that endeavor didn't mean that we all thought dark matter didn't exist just because we couldn't prove it. However it didn't mean that we could definitely prove it because most astronomers had the opinion that dark matter exists either.

Dark matter is "settled science" based on a compendium of data and calculations that are all freely available to anyone, open to scrutiny, subject to revolutionary modifications, and most definitely not handed down by experts saying "you're too stupid to understand."

Why is that?

1) The famous hockey stick was not produced by Phil Jones nor his data. Try Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes.

2) The data from which it was produced has been available ever since it was published and it has not been in the custody of Dr Jones.

3) Jones' specialty is the instrumented record. The hockey stick, as you know, it primarily a reconstruction from proxy data.

4) There is not the slightest indication that any of Jones' lost or missing data would have overturned current conclusions regarding climate trends.

So, Ms Aster, are you going to ignore the fire alarms because you can't find your personal thermometer?

 

[IanC]

What makes Phil Jones an expert in data management?

What makes you an expert in climate science?

Nothing. That's why I don't debate the actual science. The concept seems valid, so let's see if the data matches the theory. So far, it's murky because of the poor data management and programming of the original models. Much of that data is gone:

We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: We Lost the Original Data

Jones suffers from the Peter Principle. he was given more and more responsibility, to the point where he was no longer competent to do his job.

 

[IanC]

Even if you are the greatest data keeper in the world, you are still apparently susceptible to conspiracy theories.

It's not a conspiracy, it's rank incompetence.

Jones says so himself:

‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’

He really just doesn't understand how to manage data. It's not a conspiracy and it's not a character flaw. He was probably just doing the best he could and didn't know that there were techniques and processes that would prevent this problem. I get the irony that a Scientist is dumbfounded by data and computers and modern devices, but that sentiment is hardly unique.

There was a very difficult learning curve for astronomers converting from film to digital. Lack of expertise in data management in that endeavor didn't mean that we all thought dark matter didn't exist just because we couldn't prove it. However it didn't mean that we could definitely prove it because most astronomers had the opinion that dark matter exists either.

Dark matter is "settled science" based on a compendium of data and calculations that are all freely available to anyone, open to scrutiny, subject to revolutionary modifications, and most definitely not handed down by experts saying "you're too stupid to understand."

Why is that?

1) The famous hockey stick was not produced by Phil Jones nor his data. Try Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes.

2) The data from which it was produced has been available ever since it was published and it has not been in the custody of Dr Jones.

3) Jones' specialty is the instrumented record. The hockey stick, as you know, it primarily a reconstruction from proxy data.

4) There is not the slightest indication that any of Jones' lost or missing data would have overturned current conclusions regarding climate trends.

So, Ms Aster, are you going to ignore the fire alarms because you can't find your personal thermometer?

asterism was simply quoting the article.

how many examples of shoddy, deceptive, or just plain wrong climate science are needed before you start losing confidence in the whole global warming doomsday scenario?

my math and physics teachers told me that even if you get the right answer by the wrong method, you are still wrong! climate science uses bad data, bad methodology and gets the wrong answers to boot.

 

[bripat9643]

1) The famous hockey stick was not produced by Phil Jones nor his data. Try Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes.

2) The data from which it was produced has been available ever since it was published and it has not been in the custody of Dr Jones.

3) Jones' specialty is the instrumented record. The hockey stick, as you know, it primarily a reconstruction from proxy data.

4) There is not the slightest indication that any of Jones' lost or missing data would have overturned current conclusions regarding climate trends.

So, Ms Aster, are you going to ignore the fire alarms because you can't find your personal thermometer?

2) The data from which it was produced has been available ever since it was published and it has not been in the custody of Dr Jones.

Not true. Steve McIntyre went to great efforts to get the data from Mann who did everything he could to avoid producing it. The data was finally made available after several years of requesting it.

4) There is not the slightest indication that any of Jones' lost or missing data would have overturned current conclusions regarding climate trends.

How can you possibly know that?

 

[PMZ]

Oh and the famous "Hockey Stick?" That data is gone too.



Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

Even if you are the greatest data keeper in the world, you are still apparently susceptible to conspiracy theories.

It's not a conspiracy, it's rank incompetence.

Jones says so himself:

‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’

He really just doesn't understand how to manage data. It's not a conspiracy and it's not a character flaw. He was probably just doing the best he could and didn't know that there were techniques and processes that would prevent this problem. I get the irony that a Scientist is dumbfounded by data and computers and modern devices, but that sentiment is hardly unique.

There was a very difficult learning curve for astronomers converting from film to digital. Lack of expertise in data management in that endeavor didn't mean that we all thought dark matter didn't exist just because we couldn't prove it. However it didn't mean that we could definitely prove it because most astronomers had the opinion that dark matter exists either.

Dark matter is "settled science" based on a compendium of data and calculations that are all freely available to anyone, open to scrutiny, subject to revolutionary modifications, and most definitely not handed down by experts saying "you're too stupid to understand."

Why is that?

I'm afraid that as Dunning-Kruger proved, you're not equipped to see that conspiracy theory is exactly what you do. You find something that could be misconstrued out of context, then build it into the case that you want, proving, you believe, that you are relevant to the science. In the science of climate science, you and I and everyone else here are not. Just as we aren't, in many specialties.

We are, in the politics, we aren't, in the science.

That defines the two ''sides'' here.

Those that base their politics on IPCC science. And those who deny IPCC science because it's inconvenient to their politics.

 

[PMZ]

It's not a conspiracy, it's rank incompetence.

Jones says so himself:



He really just doesn't understand how to manage data. It's not a conspiracy and it's not a character flaw. He was probably just doing the best he could and didn't know that there were techniques and processes that would prevent this problem. I get the irony that a Scientist is dumbfounded by data and computers and modern devices, but that sentiment is hardly unique.

There was a very difficult learning curve for astronomers converting from film to digital. Lack of expertise in data management in that endeavor didn't mean that we all thought dark matter didn't exist just because we couldn't prove it. However it didn't mean that we could definitely prove it because most astronomers had the opinion that dark matter exists either.

Dark matter is "settled science" based on a compendium of data and calculations that are all freely available to anyone, open to scrutiny, subject to revolutionary modifications, and most definitely not handed down by experts saying "you're too stupid to understand."

Why is that?

1) The famous hockey stick was not produced by Phil Jones nor his data. Try Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes.

2) The data from which it was produced has been available ever since it was published and it has not been in the custody of Dr Jones.

3) Jones' specialty is the instrumented record. The hockey stick, as you know, it primarily a reconstruction from proxy data.

4) There is not the slightest indication that any of Jones' lost or missing data would have overturned current conclusions regarding climate trends.

So, Ms Aster, are you going to ignore the fire alarms because you can't find your personal thermometer?

asterism was simply quoting the article.

how many examples of shoddy, deceptive, or just plain wrong climate science are needed before you start losing confidence in the whole global warming doomsday scenario?

my math and physics teachers told me that even if you get the right answer by the wrong method, you are still wrong! climate science uses bad data, bad methodology and gets the wrong answers to boot.

I think that what it will take to discredit the IPCC is more than conspiracy theory. It will take science, and so far none, no exaggeration, has been forthcoming.

There is simply zero science based alternatives that have been offered by anyone that offer a plausible alternative to the connections that the IPCC has offered for fossil fuel consumption, atmospheric GHG concentrations, radiation energy imbalance, and therefore AGW.

Maybe someday you'll be the one to define that science. But with your total lack of resources, it's unlikely.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's not a conspiracy, it's rank incompetence.

Jones says so himself:



He really just doesn't understand how to manage data. It's not a conspiracy and it's not a character flaw. He was probably just doing the best he could and didn't know that there were techniques and processes that would prevent this problem. I get the irony that a Scientist is dumbfounded by data and computers and modern devices, but that sentiment is hardly unique.

There was a very difficult learning curve for astronomers converting from film to digital. Lack of expertise in data management in that endeavor didn't mean that we all thought dark matter didn't exist just because we couldn't prove it. However it didn't mean that we could definitely prove it because most astronomers had the opinion that dark matter exists either.

Dark matter is "settled science" based on a compendium of data and calculations that are all freely available to anyone, open to scrutiny, subject to revolutionary modifications, and most definitely not handed down by experts saying "you're too stupid to understand."

Why is that?

1) The famous hockey stick was not produced by Phil Jones nor his data. Try Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes.

2) The data from which it was produced has been available ever since it was published and it has not been in the custody of Dr Jones.

3) Jones' specialty is the instrumented record. The hockey stick, as you know, it primarily a reconstruction from proxy data.

4) There is not the slightest indication that any of Jones' lost or missing data would have overturned current conclusions regarding climate trends.

So, Ms Aster, are you going to ignore the fire alarms because you can't find your personal thermometer?

asterism was simply quoting the article.

how many examples of shoddy, deceptive, or just plain wrong climate science are needed before you start losing confidence in the whole global warming doomsday scenario?

my math and physics teachers told me that even if you get the right answer by the wrong method, you are still wrong! climate science uses bad data, bad methodology and gets the wrong answers to boot.

My math and science teachers were fanatics about notebooks and observations and reproducibility of experiments.. Was Jones educated differently?

NOBODY IN PURE AND OPEN SCIENCE gets a pass for "not showing their work".

I'm spend most time in the slightly diff. world of science for industry where proprietary info is a reality. Our conferences are not generally "peer reviewed" except in the liquor lounge. But in the world of pure science --- Abraham cannot make the statement that "there are no indications that presenting the data would make a diff".. OF COURSE it makes a diff if you asserting a result as fact..