Goto page 1, 2 Next
brent
Guest
Thu Sep 02, 2010 7:50 pm
Imagine that the "best" scientists in the world were actually
employing shoddy practices. Fortunately, the global warming hoax is
melting away.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown_of_the_climate_consensus_G0kWdclUvwhVr6DYH6A4uJ
Beryl
Guest
Thu Sep 02, 2010 8:46 pm
brent wrote:
Quote:
Imagine that the "best" scientists in the world
were actually employing shoddy practices. Fortunately, the global warming hoax is
melting away.
Here, one of the best talks about a hoax.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493>
Richard Henry
Guest
Fri Sep 03, 2010 1:18 am
On Sep 2, 9:50 am, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
Quote:
Your spelling and grammar indicates that you are a reasonably
intelligernt fellow, so I must assume that you did not read the actual
InterAcademy Council report before forming you opinion, or, at least,
deciding to accept the NY Post's opinion.
Here is a link to the Conclusions chapter of the report:
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Chapter%205%20-%20Conclusions.pdf
Please read and report back to us.
Guest
Fri Sep 03, 2010 2:33 am
On Sep 2, 5:18 pm, Richard Henry <pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
It's all about the science:
"The goal of having proportional representation by developing
countries, both at the government level and among scientists,
is not disputed either by the IPCC or the Committee. But clearly
there is still some way to go if the increased number of
developing country participants is not to be construed by some
as geographic window-dressing rather than meaningful
participation."
Oh, it's not about the science after all. But we already knew that--
we've seen the Climategate source code.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
brent
Guest
Fri Sep 03, 2010 4:53 am
On Sep 2, 6:18 pm, Richard Henry <pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
The conclusions document you posted does seem to conflict with where
the NY Post was going.
Bill Sloman
Guest
Fri Sep 03, 2010 5:21 am
On Sep 3, 11:25 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 2, 5:18 pm, Richard Henry <pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 2, 9:50 am, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
Imagine that the "best" scientists in the world were actually
employing shoddy practices. Fortunately, the global warming hoax is
melting away.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown_of_the_c....
Your spelling and grammar indicates that you are a reasonably
intelligernt fellow, so I must assume that you did not read the actual
InterAcademy Council report before forming you opinion, or, at least,
deciding to accept the NY Post's opinion.
Here is a link to the Conclusions chapter of the report:
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Chapter%205%20-%20Co...
Please read and report back to us.
It's all about the science:
"The goal of having proportional representation by developing
countries, both at the government level and among scientists,
is not disputed either by the IPCC or the Committee. But clearly
there is still some way to go if the increased number of
developing country participants is not to be construed by some
as geographic window-dressing rather than meaningful
participation."
Oh, it's not about the science after all. But we already knew that--
we've seen the Climategate source code.
James Arthur is too ill-informed - and too ideologically blinkered -
to be aware that Climategate did not involve any source code. The e-
mail files that were stolen and published did reveal a fair amount of
anger and impatience amongst the climate scientists who had been
swapping the e-mails - they were (not unreasonably) irritated by the
denialists who were asking for vast volumes of raw data with a view to
mining it for stuff that they could tout as contradictions, and
occasionally let fly inappropriately intemperate outbursts, but there
was nothing there that suggested that anthropogenic global warming
isn't as well established as an scientific theory can be.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
Guest
Fri Sep 03, 2010 5:26 am
On Sep 3, 11:53 am, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 2, 6:18 pm, Richard Henry <pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 2, 9:50 am, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
Imagine that the "best" scientists in the world were actually
employing shoddy practices. Fortunately, the global warming hoax is
melting away.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown_of_the_c....
Your spelling and grammar indicates that you are a reasonably
intelligernt fellow, so I must assume that you did not read the actual
InterAcademy Council report before forming you opinion, or, at least,
deciding to accept the NY Post's opinion.
Here is a link to the Conclusions chapter of the report:
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Chapter%205%20-%20Co...
Please read and report back to us.
The conclusions document you posted does seem to conflict with where
the NY Post was going.
Sure. The NY Post article concentrated on the few lapses that have
been found in the IPCC report. The Inter-Academy Council mentioned
them, but in the context that the IPCC was under-funded and under-
staffed for the task it was now being expected to handle.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Guest
Fri Sep 03, 2010 5:42 am
On Sep 2, 8:53 pm, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 2, 6:18 pm, Richard Henry <pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 2, 9:50 am, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
Imagine that the "best" scientists in the world were actually
employing shoddy practices. Fortunately, the global warming hoax is
melting away.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown_of_the_c....
Your spelling and grammar indicates that you are a reasonably
intelligernt fellow, so I must assume that you did not read the actual
InterAcademy Council report before forming you opinion, or, at least,
deciding to accept the NY Post's opinion.
Here is a link to the Conclusions chapter of the report:
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Chapter%205%20-%20Co...
Please read and report back to us.
The conclusions document you posted does seem to conflict with where
the NY Post was going.
The commentator overreached a bit. Or, maybe you don't read
bureaucratese--it's a dead language.
Here's how Goggle translates it:
TEXT: "The IPCC should develop and adopt a rigorous conflict of
interest policy[...]"
TRANSLATION: There were conspicuous conflicts of interest.
TEXT: "The Committee found that some existing IPCC review procedures
are not always followed and that others are weak."
TRANSLATION: The science is firm, peer review is strong, and those
Himalayan glaciers?--looks they're toast.
TEXT: "The IPCC should encourage Review Editors to fully exercise
their authority to ensure that reviewers’ comments are adequately
considered by the authors and that genuine controversies are
adequately reflected in the report."
TRANSLATION: Review editors routinely ignore peer-reviewers'
criticism.
TEXT: "The IPCC should adopt a more targeted and effective process for
responding to reviewer comments[...]"
TRANSLATION: Review editors routinely ignore peer-reviewers'
criticism.
TEXT: "[...] many statements in the Working Group II Summary for
Policy Makers that are assigned high confidence, but are based on
little evidence."
TRANSLATION: "IPCC-harvested science is of the highest caliber."
TEXT: "IPCC’s guidance [...] urge[sic] authors to [...] apply
subjective probabilities of confidence to conclusions[...]"
TRANSLATION: "All the IPCC's statements are factual beyond controversy
or dispute, with a strong nose and a hint of cherry and oak, mixed
with wild flowers."
TEXT: "Moreover, the apparent need to include statements of 'high
confidence' [...] led authors to make many vaguely defined statements
that are difficult to refute, making them therefore of 'high
confidence.' Such statements have little value."
TRANSLATION: "The IPCC's Summary For Policy-Makers is golden. You can
take this s**t to the bank, Bro."
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Guest
Fri Sep 03, 2010 7:40 am
On Sep 2, 9:21 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 3, 11:25 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sep 2, 5:18 pm, Richard Henry <pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 2, 9:50 am, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
Imagine that the "best" scientists in the world were actually
employing shoddy practices. Fortunately, the global warming hoax is
melting away.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown_of_the_c...
Your spelling and grammar indicates that you are a reasonably
intelligernt fellow, so I must assume that you did not read the actual
InterAcademy Council report before forming you opinion, or, at least,
deciding to accept the NY Post's opinion.
Here is a link to the Conclusions chapter of the report:
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Chapter%205%20-%20Co....
Please read and report back to us.
It's all about the science:
"The goal of having proportional representation by developing
countries, both at the government level and among scientists,
is not disputed either by the IPCC or the Committee. But clearly
there is still some way to go if the increased number of
developing country participants is not to be construed by some
as geographic window-dressing rather than meaningful
participation."
Oh, it's not about the science after all. But we already knew that--
we've seen the Climategate source code.
James Arthur is too ill-informed - and too ideologically blinkered -
to be aware that Climategate did not involve any source code.
Your sources are impeccable, as usual. There was source code, and I
read some of it. Horrible.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/
"The archive - a carefully curated 160MB collection of source code,
emails and other documents from the internal network of the Climatic
Research Unit at the University of East Anglia - provides grim
confirmation for critics of climate science. But it also raises far
more troubling questions."
We discussed it here, you included. Other analysis located actual
cheating in the code, mere fudging, and comments on the sad and
confused nature of their methods and data.
Anyway, thanks for trying.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
J. Todd
Guest
Fri Sep 03, 2010 3:39 pm
In article <868fba4d-6365-490c-ac08-
a08af2e5d7ca_at_l6g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, bulegoge_at_columbus.rr.com
says...
Quote:
---
news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news_at_netfront.net ---
Rich Grise
Guest
Fri Sep 03, 2010 6:53 pm
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:46:29 -0700, Beryl wrote:
Quote:
brent wrote:
Imagine that the "best" scientists in the world
were actually employing shoddy practices. Fortunately, the global warming hoax is
melting away.
Here, one of the best talks about a hoax.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493
According to Alcoholics Anonymous, coincidence is just God's way
of keeping his anonymity. ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
Richard Henry
Guest
Fri Sep 03, 2010 11:56 pm
On Sep 2, 6:53 pm, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 2, 6:18 pm, Richard Henry <pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 2, 9:50 am, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
Imagine that the "best" scientists in the world were actually
employing shoddy practices. Fortunately, the global warming hoax is
melting away.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown_of_the_c....
Your spelling and grammar indicates that you are a reasonably
intelligernt fellow, so I must assume that you did not read the actual
InterAcademy Council report before forming you opinion, or, at least,
deciding to accept the NY Post's opinion.
Here is a link to the Conclusions chapter of the report:
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Chapter%205%20-%20Co...
Please read and report back to us.
The conclusions document you posted does seem to conflict with where
the NY Post was going.
Indeed.
Guest
Sat Sep 04, 2010 7:31 pm
On Sep 3, 4:56 pm, Richard Henry <pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 2, 6:53 pm, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
On Sep 2, 6:18 pm, Richard Henry <pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 2, 9:50 am, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
Imagine that the "best" scientists in the world were actually
employing shoddy practices. Fortunately, the global warming hoax is
melting away.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown_of_the_c...
Your spelling and grammar indicates that you are a reasonably
intelligernt fellow, so I must assume that you did not read the actual
InterAcademy Council report before forming you opinion, or, at least,
deciding to accept the NY Post's opinion.
Here is a link to the Conclusions chapter of the report:
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Chapter%205%20-%20Co....
Please read and report back to us.
The conclusions document you posted does seem to conflict with where
the NY Post was going.
Indeed.
Reviewers reviewing reviewers who review reviewers.
It would be a lot nicer if independent groups--using their own
programs and data--could just duplicate one another's results. You
know, science.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Bill Sloman
Guest
Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:07 pm
On Sep 3, 2:40 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 2, 9:21 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sep 3, 11:25 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sep 2, 5:18 pm, Richard Henry <pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 2, 9:50 am, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
Imagine that the "best" scientists in the world were actually
employing shoddy practices. Fortunately, the global warming hoax is
melting away.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown_of_the_c...
Your spelling and grammar indicates that you are a reasonably
intelligernt fellow, so I must assume that you did not read the actual
InterAcademy Council report before forming you opinion, or, at least,
deciding to accept the NY Post's opinion.
Here is a link to the Conclusions chapter of the report:
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Chapter%205%20-%20Co...
Please read and report back to us.
It's all about the science:
"The goal of having proportional representation by developing
countries, both at the government level and among scientists,
is not disputed either by the IPCC or the Committee. But clearly
there is still some way to go if the increased number of
developing country participants is not to be construed by some
as geographic window-dressing rather than meaningful
participation."
Oh, it's not about the science after all. But we already knew that--
we've seen the Climategate source code.
James Arthur is too ill-informed - and too ideologically blinkered -
to be aware that Climategate did not involve any source code.
Your sources are impeccable, as usual. There was source code, and I
read some of it. Horrible.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/
"The archive - a carefully curated 160MB collection of source code,
emails and other documents from the internal network of the Climatic
Research Unit at the University of East Anglia - provides grim
confirmation for critics of climate science. But it also raises far
more troubling questions."
We discussed it here, you included. Other analysis located actual
cheating in the code, mere fudging, and comments on the sad and
confused nature of their methods and data.
Anyway, thanks for trying.
Hell, graduate students have been writing bad code since 1964 and
probably earlier - I wrote some bad code back then, and subsequently
corrected a lot of bad code written by other - younger - graduate
students. Science seemed to manage to survive back then, and
presumably the system has a had a little more practice at coping with
the problem since then.
Your desire to discard anthropogenic global warming as a whole because
you don't like some of the code you found is just one more example of
your enthusiasm for wishful thinking.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
Guest
Sun Sep 05, 2010 1:53 pm
On Sep 3, 12:42 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 2, 8:53 pm, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
On Sep 2, 6:18 pm, Richard Henry <pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 2, 9:50 am, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
Imagine that the "best" scientists in the world were actually
employing shoddy practices. Fortunately, the global warming hoax is
melting away.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown_of_the_c...
Your spelling and grammar indicates that you are a reasonably
intelligernt fellow, so I must assume that you did not read the actual
InterAcademy Council report before forming you opinion, or, at least,
deciding to accept the NY Post's opinion.
Here is a link to the Conclusions chapter of the report:
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Chapter%205%20-%20Co....
Please read and report back to us.
The conclusions document you posted does seem to conflict with where
the NY Post was going.
The commentator overreached a bit. Or, maybe you don't read
bureaucratese--it's a dead language.
Here's how Goggle translates it:
James Arthur is posing - unconvincingly - as a Google translating
engine, while acting as an obviously biassed commentator
Quote:
TEXT: "The IPCC should develop and adopt a rigorous conflict of
interest policy[...]"
TRANSLATION: There were conspicuous conflicts of interest.
There were occasional points where a conflict of interest could not be
excluded.
Quote:
TEXT: "The Committee found that some existing IPCC review procedures
are not always followed and that others are weak."
TRANSLATION: The science is firm, peer review is strong, and those
Himalayan glaciers?--looks they're toast.
The claim about the Himalayan glaciers melting soon was ill-founded,
and nobody - except James Arthur - has claimed anything different.
Quote:
TEXT: "The IPCC should encourage Review Editors to fully exercise
their authority to ensure that reviewers’ comments are adequately
considered by the authors and that genuine controversies are
adequately reflected in the report."
TRANSLATION: Review editors routinely ignore peer-reviewers'
criticism.
Editors do ignore peer-review comments from time to time. Referees
don't always agree, and when this happens one of the refereees reports
has to be discarded. In an ideal world, the editors get a third
referee, but this does require finding a third, independent, expert
who is prepared to take the time to do the job - and finding two
referees in the first place can be difficult enough.
Quote:
TEXT: "The IPCC should adopt a more targeted and effective process for
responding to reviewer comments[...]"
TRANSLATION: Review editors routinely ignore peer-reviewers'
criticism.
Senior academics in high prestige positions forget how difficult it is
for people with less clout to find people to produce peer-reviews, and
have similarly exaggerated ideas about the quality of the referee's
reports that editors have to work with.
Quote:
TEXT: "[...] many statements in the Working Group II Summary for
Policy Makers that are assigned high confidence, but are based on
little evidence."
TRANSLATION: "IPCC-harvested science is of the highest caliber."
Real translation - the statements in the working group summary are
produced by fallible human beings. The peer review process catches a
lot of errors, but can't be expected to catch every error.
Quote:
TEXT: "IPCC’s guidance [...] urge[sic] authors to [...] apply
subjective probabilities of confidence to conclusions[...]"
TRANSLATION: "All the IPCC's statements are factual beyond controversy
or dispute, with a strong nose and a hint of cherry and oak, mixed
with wild flowers."
Real translation - the conclusions to working group summary are
produced by fallible human beings. The peer review process catches a
lot of errors, but can't be expected to catch every error.
Quote:
TEXT: "Moreover, the apparent need to include statements of 'high
confidence' [...] led authors to make many vaguely defined statements
that are difficult to refute, making them therefore of 'high
confidence.' Such statements have little value."
TRANSLATION: "The IPCC's Summary For Policy-Makers is golden. You can
take this s**t to the bank, Bro."
Real translation - the apparent need to include statements of 'high
confidence' lead the authors to produce unspecific generalities that
don't mean much, don't tell anybody anything useful and aren't worth
disagreeing with.
James Arthur's desire to convert this into a blanket comment about
IPCC's Summary for Policy Makers has lead him to slightly more
flagrant-than-usual example of wishful thinking, or - as I see it -
outright lying.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Goto page 1, 2 Next
