Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[westwall]

So what? Weren't we in a solar minimum?

What? We need to take the sun into account when discussing "climate change"?
Man-made CO2 isn't the only factor?

Everyone knows that! Why are you just catching up now? This just proves how hypocritical the deniers are. They say the sun isn't taken into account by "warmers", but when you do take it into account, they act as if it's news to them!!!

Everyone knows that? I only hear the "deniers" talk about the Sun.

What influence does water vapor have on "Climate Change"?
Or are the only two factors worth considering the Sun and man-made CO2?

Oh, don't ask them hard questions like that. It takes real scientific ability to answer those questions. These guys rely on entrail reading for their predictions.

 

[RollingThunder]

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones: Yes...

Too bad you anti-science denier cult retards have no idea what 'statistically significant' actually means.

But, at this point in time, that is not all that important since your denier cult taking point just got blown out of the water. It was specious before because you didn't understand what the terms mean but now.......LOLOLOL

Global warming since 1995 'now significant'
By Richard Black Environment correspondent
BBC News
10 June 2011
(excerpts)

Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair. Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not "statistically significant" - a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change. But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real". Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis.

By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance. If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20. Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line. "The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News.

"Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years. "It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis." Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.

BBC © 2011

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

So much proof for AGW, why do they keep getting caught fudging data?

Why are warmer periods called optimums?

Well toadster, here's the thing, you're a clueless and very retarded dupe of the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign and you believe in a lot a crap that just ain't so. Like your denier cult myth about scientists "fudging data". Didn't happen.

"Climategate" Scientists Exonerated
(excerpts)
* An inquiry by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee concluded that the CRU scientists’ “actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community” and that “the scientific reputation of [former CRU director] Professor Jones and CRU remains intact.” Further, the committee “found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus … that ‘global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity.’" While the CRU’s scientific practices were “in line with common practice in the scientific community,” the committee “suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies.” While I would say that climatology is already one of the most transparent fields of science, the committee makes the point that, “A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science [since it must] provide the planet's decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future.” With so much at stake, climate scientists naturally face more scrutiny than those in other fields and should strive to be beyond reproach for their own protection and to avoid the appearance of misconduct.

* A report by an international Science Assessment Panel requested by the UEA found “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work” and “that the CRU tree-ring work has been carried out with integrity, and that allegations of deliberate misrepresentation and unjustified selection of data are not valid.” That said, the panel described the CRU researchers as “slightly disorganized” and complained that they did not consult adequately with professional statisticians in analyzing temperature data.

* An independent review of the contents of the emails, also requested by the UEA, said of the CRU scientists, “Their rigour and honesty as scientists is not in doubt.” The review found no evidence that the scientists had manipulated their research to support any preconceived notions about climate change. Nor did the scientists withhold data necessary to validate their findings or attempt to subvert the peer-review process. The panel did criticize individual scientists for refusing to release their personal computer files in response to Freedom of Information requests. In reference to a graph that CRU scientists produced for a non-peer-reviewed climate report of the World Meteorological Organization, the review found the graph to be “misleading” because it was not clear that the authors had truncated a tree-ring data set and spliced tree-ring data to thermometer data. They did not find that these procedures were inappropriate, but only that they should have been disclosed clearly to the reader.

* A summary of two investigations by Penn State University Professor Michael Mann – a frequent correspondent with CRU scientists in the hacked emails – concludes “that there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann” that he engaged or participated in, “directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities.” The one caveat is that the investigative committee found that Dr. Mann sent unpublished manuscripts by other authors who were his close colleagues to other close colleagues without obtaining the express consent of the authors. He said he believed that the authors would not mind, but the committee concluded that he should have obtained express permission in any case.


Summarizing the Investigations on Climate Science

Climate Scientist Cleared of Altering Data

British Panel Clears Scientists

Climate scientists exonerated in 'climategate'

 

[edthecynic]

Please show us where the globe is still warming. BEST says that warming hasn't occured for the last 10 to 11 years.

This is a perfect example of why no honest person has any respect for CON$. Even after it was pointed out to you that the chart is NOT from BEST, you just continue to lie and say that it is from BEST. The chart is from the denier think-tank the Global Warming Policy Foundation. It says so right on the graph, so you knew you were lying when you said "BEST says."

I see you have a problem with reading comprehension as well. I stated that the graph showed what BEST has discovered. The data was posted by BEST on their website and someone else took THEIR data points and came up with the graph I posted.

A point for you to consider here edthefool, anyone who refers to a group of individuals as Con$ has allready lost whatever credibility they may have had. Of course you lost all crediblility long ago, but that's besides the point I'm making. My point is, if you wish to be taken seriously divorce yourself from your blatant partisanship, it doesn't serve you in the slightest.

You're such a pathological liar. You said the GRAPH was from BEST!!!!!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4341492-post271.html
Look at the bottom graph. That is from BEST.

And if you actually do look at the bottom graph and compare it to the part of the upper graph it is supposed to represent, they do not match. In the upper graph there is a rise after 2000 and in the bottom graph there is not.

And one last thing, CON$ervatism is not a Party, it is an ideology! To be against the hate religion of CON$ervatism does not make me for or against a political party.

 

[RollingThunder]

Really? Where prey tell is that "evidence"? Oh, wait, don't tell m it's a computer model right?

It is sooooo typical of your retarded posts, walleyed, that you demonstrate so clearly that you didn't even bother to look at the evidence and so you have to guess (and guess wrong) what it is. You are such a clueless idiot!

Yes I thought so. Those are useless. Remember those same computer models were telling there would be no snow in winter and hurricanes would be more powerful and frequent. OOOOOPPPPS!

Wrong again, cretin. The 'evidence' involves direct observation and measurement of atmospheric CO2 levels, outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere across the spectral bands, and downward radiation flux at Earth's surface.

They don't have much to do with this evidence I've cited but as far as the actual climate models go, you have your head up your azz, as usual, and are just repeating debunked denier cult myths.

Why should we trust a computer model?

Is Climate Modelling Science?

How reliable are climate models?

‘Climate models are unproven’—Actually, GCM’s have many confirmed successes under their belts

Yes, yes, yes. Please show me a single computer model that can recreate the weather that occured(sic) one week ago. We have absolutely perfect data on the conditions that existed and they CAN'T DO IT you idiot! When a computer model can't recreate what WE KNOW OCCURED(sic) with perfect information, how on earth do you think it can predict anything!

A more perfect example of faith based belief doesn't exist anywhere on this planet. At least the religious folks get to point to the occasional miracle to reinforce their faith, but you? You've got NOTHING!

Actually, you poor deluded retard, the models the weather people use can accurately recreate the weather that has occurred and they can make pretty accurate predictions of the weather to come for about six days in advance. Accuracy fades after that.

But you are too stupid to understand the difference between 'weather' and 'climate' anyway. For the ones reading this who have more than a couple of brain cells to rub together though, here is a good explanation of just why 'climate models' are different from 'weather models'.

Climate models vs weather models
(excerpts)

You can find a lot of discussion on the net with arguments like:

"If we cannot predict the weather next week, how can we predict the climate over the next century?"​

While this sounds like a reasonable argument, there are in fact good reasons to accept 100-year climate forecasts even though we cannot predict the weather more than a few days out.

Predicting the weather is hard because you have to get the exact details of a weather system right. If your prediction of a storm track is 100 km off, then a giant snowstorm predicted to bury a city might fall harmlessly offshore. If your temperature is 3 deg C off, then what you predicted as rain turns into snow. If your initial conditions are off, then precipitation predicted to fall during rush hour falls at midnight. All of these things mean that you've blown the forecast, and people will mumble about how weather forecasters don't know what they're doing.

For the climate, these things generally don't matter. What matters is that, in the long run, one gets the statistics of the weather right. If one storm in a climate model is 100 km too far East, that won't matter if the long-term statistics of the storm track is right. This is quite a different problem than predicting the EXACT evolution of a single atmospheric disturbance.

One simple way to think about the difference in predicting weather and climate is to think about rolling a six-sided die. Predicting the weather is like predicting what the next roll will be. Predicting the climate is like predicting what the average and standard deviation of 1000 rolls will be. The ability to predict the statistics of the next 1000 rolls does not hinge on the ability to predict the next roll. Thus, one should not dismiss climate forecasts simply because weather forecasts are only good for a few days.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Too bad you anti-science denier cult retards have no idea what 'statistically significant' actually means.

But, at this point in time, that is not all that important since your denier cult taking point just got blown out of the water. It was specious before because you didn't understand what the terms mean but now.......LOLOLOL

Global warming since 1995 'now significant'
By Richard Black Environment correspondent
BBC News
10 June 2011
(excerpts)

Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair. Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not "statistically significant" - a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change. But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real". Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis.

By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance. If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20. Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line. "The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News.

"Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years. "It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis." Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.

BBC © 2011

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

So much proof for AGW, why do they keep getting caught fudging data?

Why are warmer periods called optimums?

Well toadster, here's the thing, you're a clueless and very retarded dupe of the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign and you believe in a lot a crap that just ain't so. Like your denier cult myth about scientists "fudging data". Didn't happen.

"Climategate" Scientists Exonerated
(excerpts)
* An inquiry by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee concluded that the CRU scientists’ “actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community” and that “the scientific reputation of [former CRU director] Professor Jones and CRU remains intact.” Further, the committee “found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus … that ‘global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity.’" While the CRU’s scientific practices were “in line with common practice in the scientific community,” the committee “suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies.” While I would say that climatology is already one of the most transparent fields of science, the committee makes the point that, “A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science [since it must] provide the planet's decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future.” With so much at stake, climate scientists naturally face more scrutiny than those in other fields and should strive to be beyond reproach for their own protection and to avoid the appearance of misconduct.

* A report by an international Science Assessment Panel requested by the UEA found “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work” and “that the CRU tree-ring work has been carried out with integrity, and that allegations of deliberate misrepresentation and unjustified selection of data are not valid.” That said, the panel described the CRU researchers as “slightly disorganized” and complained that they did not consult adequately with professional statisticians in analyzing temperature data.

* An independent review of the contents of the emails, also requested by the UEA, said of the CRU scientists, “Their rigour and honesty as scientists is not in doubt.” The review found no evidence that the scientists had manipulated their research to support any preconceived notions about climate change. Nor did the scientists withhold data necessary to validate their findings or attempt to subvert the peer-review process. The panel did criticize individual scientists for refusing to release their personal computer files in response to Freedom of Information requests. In reference to a graph that CRU scientists produced for a non-peer-reviewed climate report of the World Meteorological Organization, the review found the graph to be “misleading” because it was not clear that the authors had truncated a tree-ring data set and spliced tree-ring data to thermometer data. They did not find that these procedures were inappropriate, but only that they should have been disclosed clearly to the reader.

* A summary of two investigations by Penn State University Professor Michael Mann – a frequent correspondent with CRU scientists in the hacked emails – concludes “that there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann” that he engaged or participated in, “directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities.” The one caveat is that the investigative committee found that Dr. Mann sent unpublished manuscripts by other authors who were his close colleagues to other close colleagues without obtaining the express consent of the authors. He said he believed that the authors would not mind, but the committee concluded that he should have obtained express permission in any case.


Summarizing the Investigations on Climate Science

Climate Scientist Cleared of Altering Data

British Panel Clears Scientists

Climate scientists exonerated in 'climategate'

Trick the data.
Hide the decline.
Yeah, honest scientists use those terms all the time.

 

[konradv]

Trick the data.
Hide the decline.
Yeah, honest scientists use those terms all the time.

Hide the decline of what? The sun? You have to to show man's contribution. How dense can you be? Never heard the term "tricks of the trade"? Hablas Ingles?

 

[westwall]

It is sooooo typical of your retarded posts, walleyed, that you demonstrate so clearly that you didn't even bother to look at the evidence and so you have to guess (and guess wrong) what it is. You are such a clueless idiot!



Wrong again, cretin. The 'evidence' involves direct observation and measurement of atmospheric CO2 levels, outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere across the spectral bands, and downward radiation flux at Earth's surface.

They don't have much to do with this evidence I've cited but as far as the actual climate models go, you have your head up your azz, as usual, and are just repeating debunked denier cult myths.

Why should we trust a computer model?

Is Climate Modelling Science?

How reliable are climate models?

‘Climate models are unproven’—Actually, GCM’s have many confirmed successes under their belts

Yes, yes, yes. Please show me a single computer model that can recreate the weather that occured(sic) one week ago. We have absolutely perfect data on the conditions that existed and they CAN'T DO IT you idiot! When a computer model can't recreate what WE KNOW OCCURED(sic) with perfect information, how on earth do you think it can predict anything!

A more perfect example of faith based belief doesn't exist anywhere on this planet. At least the religious folks get to point to the occasional miracle to reinforce their faith, but you? You've got NOTHING!

Actually, you poor deluded retard, the models the weather people use can accurately recreate the weather that has occurred and they can make pretty accurate predictions of the weather to come for about six days in advance. Accuracy fades after that.

But you are too stupid to understand the difference between 'weather' and 'climate' anyway. For the ones reading this who have more than a couple of brain cells to rub together though, here is a good explanation of just why 'climate models' are different from 'weather models'.

Climate models vs weather models
(excerpts)

You can find a lot of discussion on the net with arguments like:

"If we cannot predict the weather next week, how can we predict the climate over the next century?"​

While this sounds like a reasonable argument, there are in fact good reasons to accept 100-year climate forecasts even though we cannot predict the weather more than a few days out.

Predicting the weather is hard because you have to get the exact details of a weather system right. If your prediction of a storm track is 100 km off, then a giant snowstorm predicted to bury a city might fall harmlessly offshore. If your temperature is 3 deg C off, then what you predicted as rain turns into snow. If your initial conditions are off, then precipitation predicted to fall during rush hour falls at midnight. All of these things mean that you've blown the forecast, and people will mumble about how weather forecasters don't know what they're doing.

For the climate, these things generally don't matter. What matters is that, in the long run, one gets the statistics of the weather right. If one storm in a climate model is 100 km too far East, that won't matter if the long-term statistics of the storm track is right. This is quite a different problem than predicting the EXACT evolution of a single atmospheric disturbance.

One simple way to think about the difference in predicting weather and climate is to think about rolling a six-sided die. Predicting the weather is like predicting what the next roll will be. Predicting the climate is like predicting what the average and standard deviation of 1000 rolls will be. The ability to predict the statistics of the next 1000 rolls does not hinge on the ability to predict the next roll. Thus, one should not dismiss climate forecasts simply because weather forecasts are only good for a few days.

Really? Show us ONE that can do what you claim. Here's what the experts hve to say....



"How accurate are severe weather forecasts? Even with all the advances in science and computers, forecasting weather, particularly severe weather is still much of an educated guessing game. Topics that are very important in forecasting are data collection, analysis, prediction, and verification. Since thunderstorms are a small scale system that are driven by the larger systems, this investigation will start on a large scale synoptic view of the atmosphere and the forecasting problems on that scale which produce thunderstorms.

First of all, we need to know how a thunderstorm develops before we can analyze it. There are three stages to a thunderstorm: cumulus, mature, and dissipating. The lifecycle of a thunderstorm can be learned about here.

Before computers were invented and also before their introduction to science, analysis of weather and prediction was all done by hand. This was a very errorneous process, due to the way different people think and how tedious and complex the calculations are. Since we are all human, we think differently in different situations. People tend to look at things from different viewpoints and have different results from the same set of data. Even the same person can have different results if they reanalyzed the data, just because they tend to be thinking differently at that moment in time. Analysis of any scientific data is subjective when it comes down to the viewpoint of any person. When a computer looks at the data it sees it objectively because it's just looking at raw data, or numerical data.

Today computers are quite advanced and are capable of completing large computational tasks rapidly. But, our reliability in them gives us this false sense of security. There are many advantages to using a computer to solve problems and analyze data. They increase our overall speed of computing equations that would probably take at least an hour to complete. They are much more user friendly than the human mind, paper, and pen. For the forecaster this can be crucial. While the computer crunches numbers, the forecaster can be doing other things like prepare the forecast for the day. Another good thing about letting the computer do data analysis is that it is unbiased. It doesn't "wishcast." This is a result of man's subjectivity. It analyzes according to the model algorithm.






How Accurate Are Computer Model Severe Weather Forecasts

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Trick the data.
Hide the decline.
Yeah, honest scientists use those terms all the time.

Hide the decline of what? The sun? You have to to show man's contribution. How dense can you be? Never heard the term "tricks of the trade"? Hablas Ingles?

Why don't you ask the man what he was hiding?

What was man's contribution? The exact percentage it you could? Thanks!

 

[RollingThunder]

So much proof for AGW, why do they keep getting caught fudging data?

Why are warmer periods called optimums?

Well toadster, here's the thing, you're a clueless and very retarded dupe of the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign and you believe in a lot a crap that just ain't so. Like your denier cult myth about scientists "fudging data". Didn't happen.

"Climategate" Scientists Exonerated
(excerpts)
* An inquiry by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee concluded that the CRU scientists’ “actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community” and that “the scientific reputation of [former CRU director] Professor Jones and CRU remains intact.” Further, the committee “found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus … that ‘global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity.’" While the CRU’s scientific practices were “in line with common practice in the scientific community,” the committee “suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies.” While I would say that climatology is already one of the most transparent fields of science, the committee makes the point that, “A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science [since it must] provide the planet's decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future.” With so much at stake, climate scientists naturally face more scrutiny than those in other fields and should strive to be beyond reproach for their own protection and to avoid the appearance of misconduct.

* A report by an international Science Assessment Panel requested by the UEA found “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work” and “that the CRU tree-ring work has been carried out with integrity, and that allegations of deliberate misrepresentation and unjustified selection of data are not valid.” That said, the panel described the CRU researchers as “slightly disorganized” and complained that they did not consult adequately with professional statisticians in analyzing temperature data.

* An independent review of the contents of the emails, also requested by the UEA, said of the CRU scientists, “Their rigour and honesty as scientists is not in doubt.” The review found no evidence that the scientists had manipulated their research to support any preconceived notions about climate change. Nor did the scientists withhold data necessary to validate their findings or attempt to subvert the peer-review process. The panel did criticize individual scientists for refusing to release their personal computer files in response to Freedom of Information requests. In reference to a graph that CRU scientists produced for a non-peer-reviewed climate report of the World Meteorological Organization, the review found the graph to be “misleading” because it was not clear that the authors had truncated a tree-ring data set and spliced tree-ring data to thermometer data. They did not find that these procedures were inappropriate, but only that they should have been disclosed clearly to the reader.

* A summary of two investigations by Penn State University Professor Michael Mann – a frequent correspondent with CRU scientists in the hacked emails – concludes “that there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann” that he engaged or participated in, “directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities.” The one caveat is that the investigative committee found that Dr. Mann sent unpublished manuscripts by other authors who were his close colleagues to other close colleagues without obtaining the express consent of the authors. He said he believed that the authors would not mind, but the committee concluded that he should have obtained express permission in any case.


Summarizing the Investigations on Climate Science

Climate Scientist Cleared of Altering Data

British Panel Clears Scientists

Climate scientists exonerated in 'climategate'

Trick the data.
Hide the decline.
Yeah, honest scientists use those terms all the time.

You are a clueless retard, toadster, and you have no idea what scientists do or don't do. Scientists use the term 'trick' all the time. It means a clever way of solving a problem.

Try googling "trick the data"

About 249,000,000 results
1.
Data Page Trick

3.
Why climatologists used the tree-ring data 'trick' : Pharyngula

5.
30 fast mental math Tricks : EasyCal Secrets of Mental Math ...

6.
C Preprocessor Trick For Implementing Similar Data Types

7.
Data URIs | CSS-Tricks

14.
Excel Magic Trick 548: Data Validation Drop-Down List In A Cell ...

15.
Excel Magic Trick 549: Dynamic Data Validation List Drop-Down ...

17.
Code Capers | .NET Trick - Persisting Data Without Using a Database

19.
Quick data recovery using HOT SWAP trick in Data ... - SalvationDATA

29.
Airtel 3G free 10GB data trick | Geeky Mob

31.
150 MB Free Internet Data Trick

32.
Microsoft Excel Blog: A PivotTable trick that brings data validation to ...

33.
Excel Magic Trick 253: Data Table 1 Variable What If Analysis - Free ...

39.
Excel Magic Trick #506: Summarize Data – Multiple Sheets & Banks ...

42.
Card Trick Leads to New Bound on Data Compression - Technology ...

44.
Excel Magic Trick 334: VLOOKUP & Data Validation for Invoice ...

45.
HTC EVO 4G :: Calculator Trick - Holding C Button Clear Stored Data

48.
How to transfer your iPad 1 data to iPad 2 [VIDEO] ~ Trick Books-Web Tips and Social-Media News

49.
uImbibe - Excel Magic Trick 185 Dynamic Formula Extract Data ...

51.
Excel Magic Trick 644: Recorded Macro And Formulas To Re ...

52.
Tata Photon 3g 3.5g Hack – Officially Trick Gives 5 Gb Data at Only ...

53.
Tutorial: A little trick that makes your data easier to read

54.
Trick Free Data Plan New Bsnl Sim Activate | New 2011 tricks

55.
Maintain Your Data Usage : A Network Counter For ... - ABC Trick

56.
3 tricks to using less data when browsing on Android | How To - CNET

57.
Excel Magic Trick #83- Extract Sample Data Advanced Filter ...

58.
PBBI's Hat Trick: Billing, Location Intelligence & Customer Data ...

59.
Mr Excel Excelisfun Trick 82 Allow Below Limit Data Validation Or ...

60.
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET HAT TRICK® THREE WAY ...

61.
Quick data recovery using HOT SWAP trick in Data Compass

62.
Proc SQL vs. the Data Step – Trick or Treat? | Home | www.pnwsug.org
Simple tricks in the DATA step and some PROC's will be seen to translate into
juicy treats in PROC SQL. PROC SQL topics will include the basics of SELECT, ...

64.
Formulating Distance Functions via the Kernel Trick

66.
"Trick" Registry to speed up the copy data between computers and ...
The data base trick… Building a multi-format logical file over a single physical file

Here's a good simple basic explanation of the toadster's denier cult myth.

Thoughts on ‘Climate-gate’
By Pete Wyckoff
Sun-Tribune
December 11, 2009
(excerpts)

Is the planet cooling? “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick…to hide the decline,” writes climate scientist Phil Jones in a stolen 1999 e-mail which has caused a frenzy. FoxNews.com tells us that we finally have a ‘smoking gun’—proof that scientists are manufacturing a global warming crisis so that they can… they can…(I’ve never really understood the goals of the evil scientific conspirators).

The planet is warming. The data are unequivocal and based on measured temperatures (corrected for things like the “heat island” effect, so please don’t write an angry response claiming that the thermometers are wrong). What Phil Jones was referring to is something else: past temperatures estimated via tree rings. Since 1960, the rings in trees seem to have lost some of their power to record temperature.

Why should tree rings indicate temperature at all? As most of us learned in childhood, the trunks of trees at our latitude tend to put on a distinct growth ring every year. All other things being equal, when the trees are happy, they put on a large ring. When the going gets tough, the rings get thin. What makes a tree happy? Light, nutrients, lack of disease, and warmth (to a point). What do trees despise? Drought. By careful interpretation of past tree growth patterns, we can learn a lot about past climates.

Scientists have spent many years developing the techniques needed to reconstruct climate via tree rings. The problem is that in the past few decades, the tree ring-climate relationships seem to have become “decoupled” in many areas. Why? The main cause seems to be increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. While carbon dioxide is famously a gas that heats the planet (the greenhouse effect is real and uncontroversial), carbon dioxide also directly impacts plants. Carbon dioxide fuels photosynthesis, and increased carbon dioxide in the air can both speed-up plant growth and make plants less sensitive to drought.

 

[Bigfoot]

There is not one item in this thread that shows the thread's title to be accurate. Just the same old man made global warming nonsense. Keep on trying to hide the decline.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well toadster, here's the thing, you're a clueless and very retarded dupe of the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign and you believe in a lot a crap that just ain't so. Like your denier cult myth about scientists "fudging data". Didn't happen.

"Climategate" Scientists Exonerated
(excerpts)
* An inquiry by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee concluded that the CRU scientists’ “actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community” and that “the scientific reputation of [former CRU director] Professor Jones and CRU remains intact.” Further, the committee “found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus … that ‘global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity.’" While the CRU’s scientific practices were “in line with common practice in the scientific community,” the committee “suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies.” While I would say that climatology is already one of the most transparent fields of science, the committee makes the point that, “A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science [since it must] provide the planet's decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future.” With so much at stake, climate scientists naturally face more scrutiny than those in other fields and should strive to be beyond reproach for their own protection and to avoid the appearance of misconduct.

* A report by an international Science Assessment Panel requested by the UEA found “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work” and “that the CRU tree-ring work has been carried out with integrity, and that allegations of deliberate misrepresentation and unjustified selection of data are not valid.” That said, the panel described the CRU researchers as “slightly disorganized” and complained that they did not consult adequately with professional statisticians in analyzing temperature data.

* An independent review of the contents of the emails, also requested by the UEA, said of the CRU scientists, “Their rigour and honesty as scientists is not in doubt.” The review found no evidence that the scientists had manipulated their research to support any preconceived notions about climate change. Nor did the scientists withhold data necessary to validate their findings or attempt to subvert the peer-review process. The panel did criticize individual scientists for refusing to release their personal computer files in response to Freedom of Information requests. In reference to a graph that CRU scientists produced for a non-peer-reviewed climate report of the World Meteorological Organization, the review found the graph to be “misleading” because it was not clear that the authors had truncated a tree-ring data set and spliced tree-ring data to thermometer data. They did not find that these procedures were inappropriate, but only that they should have been disclosed clearly to the reader.

* A summary of two investigations by Penn State University Professor Michael Mann – a frequent correspondent with CRU scientists in the hacked emails – concludes “that there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann” that he engaged or participated in, “directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities.” The one caveat is that the investigative committee found that Dr. Mann sent unpublished manuscripts by other authors who were his close colleagues to other close colleagues without obtaining the express consent of the authors. He said he believed that the authors would not mind, but the committee concluded that he should have obtained express permission in any case.


Summarizing the Investigations on Climate Science

Climate Scientist Cleared of Altering Data

British Panel Clears Scientists

Climate scientists exonerated in 'climategate'

Trick the data.
Hide the decline.
Yeah, honest scientists use those terms all the time.

You are a clueless retard, toadster, and you have no idea what scientists do or don't do. Scientists use the term 'trick' all the time. It means a clever way of solving a problem.

Try googling "trick the data"

About 249,000,000 results
1.
Data Page Trick

3.
Why climatologists used the tree-ring data 'trick' : Pharyngula

5.
30 fast mental math Tricks : EasyCal Secrets of Mental Math ...

6.
C Preprocessor Trick For Implementing Similar Data Types

7.
Data URIs | CSS-Tricks

14.
Excel Magic Trick 548: Data Validation Drop-Down List In A Cell ...

15.
Excel Magic Trick 549: Dynamic Data Validation List Drop-Down ...

17.
Code Capers | .NET Trick - Persisting Data Without Using a Database

19.
Quick data recovery using HOT SWAP trick in Data ... - SalvationDATA

29.
Airtel 3G free 10GB data trick | Geeky Mob

31.
150 MB Free Internet Data Trick

32.
Microsoft Excel Blog: A PivotTable trick that brings data validation to ...

33.
Excel Magic Trick 253: Data Table 1 Variable What If Analysis - Free ...

39.
Excel Magic Trick #506: Summarize Data – Multiple Sheets & Banks ...

42.
Card Trick Leads to New Bound on Data Compression - Technology ...

44.
Excel Magic Trick 334: VLOOKUP & Data Validation for Invoice ...

45.
HTC EVO 4G :: Calculator Trick - Holding C Button Clear Stored Data

48.
How to transfer your iPad 1 data to iPad 2 [VIDEO] ~ Trick Books-Web Tips and Social-Media News

49.
uImbibe - Excel Magic Trick 185 Dynamic Formula Extract Data ...

51.
Excel Magic Trick 644: Recorded Macro And Formulas To Re ...

52.
Tata Photon 3g 3.5g Hack – Officially Trick Gives 5 Gb Data at Only ...

53.
Tutorial: A little trick that makes your data easier to read

54.
Trick Free Data Plan New Bsnl Sim Activate | New 2011 tricks

55.
Maintain Your Data Usage : A Network Counter For ... - ABC Trick

56.
3 tricks to using less data when browsing on Android | How To - CNET

57.
Excel Magic Trick #83- Extract Sample Data Advanced Filter ...

58.
PBBI's Hat Trick: Billing, Location Intelligence & Customer Data ...

59.
Mr Excel Excelisfun Trick 82 Allow Below Limit Data Validation Or ...

60.
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET HAT TRICK® THREE WAY ...

61.
Quick data recovery using HOT SWAP trick in Data Compass

62.
Proc SQL vs. the Data Step – Trick or Treat? | Home | www.pnwsug.org
Simple tricks in the DATA step and some PROC's will be seen to translate into
juicy treats in PROC SQL. PROC SQL topics will include the basics of SELECT, ...

64.
Formulating Distance Functions via the Kernel Trick

66.
"Trick" Registry to speed up the copy data between computers and ...
The data base trick… Building a multi-format logical file over a single physical file

Here's a good simple basic explanation of the toadster's denier cult myth.

Thoughts on ‘Climate-gate’
By Pete Wyckoff
Sun-Tribune
December 11, 2009
(excerpts)

Is the planet cooling? “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick…to hide the decline,” writes climate scientist Phil Jones in a stolen 1999 e-mail which has caused a frenzy. FoxNews.com tells us that we finally have a ‘smoking gun’—proof that scientists are manufacturing a global warming crisis so that they can… they can…(I’ve never really understood the goals of the evil scientific conspirators).

The planet is warming. The data are unequivocal and based on measured temperatures (corrected for things like the “heat island” effect, so please don’t write an angry response claiming that the thermometers are wrong). What Phil Jones was referring to is something else: past temperatures estimated via tree rings. Since 1960, the rings in trees seem to have lost some of their power to record temperature.

Why should tree rings indicate temperature at all? As most of us learned in childhood, the trunks of trees at our latitude tend to put on a distinct growth ring every year. All other things being equal, when the trees are happy, they put on a large ring. When the going gets tough, the rings get thin. What makes a tree happy? Light, nutrients, lack of disease, and warmth (to a point). What do trees despise? Drought. By careful interpretation of past tree growth patterns, we can learn a lot about past climates.

Scientists have spent many years developing the techniques needed to reconstruct climate via tree rings. The problem is that in the past few decades, the tree ring-climate relationships seem to have become “decoupled” in many areas. Why? The main cause seems to be increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. While carbon dioxide is famously a gas that heats the planet (the greenhouse effect is real and uncontroversial), carbon dioxide also directly impacts plants. Carbon dioxide fuels photosynthesis, and increased carbon dioxide in the air can both speed-up plant growth and make plants less sensitive to drought.

…(I’ve never really understood the goals of the evil scientific conspirators).


Grant money and power.

 

[RollingThunder]

…(I’ve never really understood the goals of the evil scientific conspirators).


Grant money and power.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....

Spoken like a true anti-science retard who is totally clueless about science and scientists. Way too clueless to understand that not everybody is driven by the same base obsessions that drive him.

BTW toadster, do you even understand that "grant money" doesn't go into the scientists' pockets but rather it is used for their research and it is fully accounted for?

Please try to show us some scientists who have gained "power". Bwaahaahaa....

You are a real nutjob, toadster.

Sooooo, no real response to having your little "trick to hide the decline" myth debunked???? As usual.

 

[SAT]

Several investigations into "Climategate" have been conducted, every one of them exonerated the scientists involved.

"Hide the decline" is math talk for math that's well over my head, and even further over the denier's heads.

 

[Si modo]

Several investigations into "Climategate" have been conducted, every one of them exonerated the scientists involved.

"Hide the decline" is math talk for math that's well over my head, and even further over the denier's heads.

What is a denier denying?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

…(I’ve never really understood the goals of the evil scientific conspirators).


Grant money and power.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....

Spoken like a true anti-science retard who is totally clueless about science and scientists. Way too clueless to understand that not everybody is driven by the same base obsessions that drive him.

BTW toadster, do you even understand that "grant money" doesn't go into the scientists' pockets but rather it is used for their research and it is fully accounted for?

Please try to show us some scientists who have gained "power". Bwaahaahaa....

You are a real nutjob, toadster.

Sooooo, no real response to having your little "trick to hide the decline" myth debunked???? As usual.

How much has Al Gore made with his anti-science books and films?
Grant money doesn't pay the salaries of the researchers and their assistants?
The government is outlawing incandescent bulbs in favor of CFLs.
Sounds like the government has more power.
Who gets to hand out billions in tax dollars to support money losing "green" technology?

Why did he need to hide the decline (his words, not mine)?
Why did the hockey stick hide the MWP?
Why are the warmer periods called optimums?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Several investigations into "Climategate" have been conducted, every one of them exonerated the scientists involved.

"Hide the decline" is math talk for math that's well over my head, and even further over the denier's heads.

Yeah, scientists that have truth on their side often have to "hide the decline".

 

[SAT]

That makes the claim that the increased CO2 levels are attrributable to man, but makes no real effort to prove it.

So what is the reason for the increased levels of CO2?

OMFG!!

15 year...not significant, but 16 years = significant

That was a Warmer attempt at humor, right?

Are you one of the alleged scientists on the board?

As I said, because it demonstrates a relationship.

Good job.

I can, but I won't.

I have no desire to do something that silly.

Priceless.

Why?

Because it's like something out of children's movie-where the bratty kid claims that they can fly, but they just don't want to right now.

 

[Trajan]

Global warming skeptics suspected climate change scientists were hiding data. So the skeptics paid for a new study to find the real truth. The results are in! And they're identical to previous results: Humans are heating up the earth.

University of California physics professor Richard Muller, one of the most vocal skeptics, gathered a team of 10 scientists, mostly physicists, including 2011 Nobel Physics Prize winner Saul Perlmutter, to create the Berkeley Earth Project.

Muller et. al. thought that data from weather stations used for previous studies may have been off because those located close to cities would record artificially warm temperatures. So the Berkeley Earth Project used new methods to re-analyze data from 40,000 weather stations. And guess what? The resulting graph looks almost exactly the same as the graphs from previous studies.

Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

not so fast, contain your misplaced glee.



Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague

By David Rose

Last updated at 6:11 PM on 30th October 2011


snip-



Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.

Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.

Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious ‘Climategate’ scandal two years ago. …

In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

more at-
Scientists who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague | Mail Online

 

[Si modo]

That makes the claim that the increased CO2 levels are attrributable to man, but makes no real effort to prove it.

So what is the reason for the increased levels of CO2?

OMFG!!

15 year...not significant, but 16 years = significant

That was a Warmer attempt at humor, right?

Are you one of the alleged scientists on the board?



Good job.

Priceless.

Why?

Because it's like something out of children's movie-where the bratty kid claims that they can fly, but they just don't want to right now.

Wharrrrrrgggggbbbbblllle.

Obviously, you cannot even talk about science. Your input is useless.

 

[SAT]

That makes the claim that the increased CO2 levels are attrributable to man, but makes no real effort to prove it.

So what is the reason for the increased levels of CO2?



Are you one of the alleged scientists on the board?



Good job.

Why?

Because it's like something out of children's movie-where the bratty kid claims that they can fly, but they just don't want to right now.

Wharrrrrrgggggbbbbblllle.

Obviously, you cannot even talk about science. Your input is useless.

I've got your lame self beat.