Skip to comments.
Storm clouds gather over leaked climate e-mails
www.nature.com ^
| 11-24-2009
| Quirin Schiermeier
Posted on 11/24/2009 10:25:48 AM PST by Red Badger
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-58 last
To: Red Badger
"If anyone thinks there's a hint of tweaking the data for non-scientific purposes, they are free to produce an analysis showing that Earth isn't warming" Using that wonderful data from the CRU no doubt, oh that's right, they delete any data that doesn't support AGW.
41
posted on
11/24/2009 11:17:01 AM PST
by
Brett66
(Where government advances, and it advances relentlessly , freedom is imperiled -Janice Rogers Brown)
To: Cletus.D.Yokel
Even before this latest revelation of collaborative calamity-mongering, Lil' Mikey's "hockey stick" graph was proven to be a fraud. Researchers have demonstrated conclusively that he created it only by omitting two crucial anomalous time periods from his calculations: the so-called "Little Ice Age" and the "Medieval Warm Period". Whoops. Where
did I put those five hundred years?
And about those famous tree core samples from the Ural Mountains (not, as popularly supposed, from Al Gore): over three hundred samples were collected, but they used only ten of them, from a total of three (3) trees. It must have been an oversight. Yep, that was it. Couldn't possibly be the work of a bunch of cherry-picking, grant-grabbing socialist hacks, now could it?
42
posted on
11/24/2009 11:17:01 AM PST
by
andy58-in-nh
(America does not need to be organized: it needs to be liberated.)
To: ExTexasRedhead
To: agere_contra
"The raw climate data which has been requested belongs to meteorological services around the globe and restrictions are in place which means that we are not in a position to release them. We are asking each service for their consent for their data to be published in future."How in Hell is meteorological data "restricted". This claim by itself should raise all kinds of red flags that there is something devious about the whole climate science establishment.
To: Red Badger
"If anyone thinks there's a hint of tweaking the data for non-scientific purposes, they are free to produce an analysis showing that Earth isn't warming," adds Michael Oppenheimer, a climate scientist and policy researcher at Princeton University in New Jersey. "In fact, they have been free to do so for decades and haven't been able to." The disinguous bastard doesn't understand science only progresses when scientists open their data and algorithms for inspection and challenge. Or maybe he understands it thoroughly and fears the result.
45
posted on
11/24/2009 11:22:46 AM PST
by
jimfree
(Freep and ye shall find! - I am Joe Wilson)
To: DouglasKC
We all know why now. It's because the data doesn't show warming until you massage, twist, and manipulate it . That is what is misleading, their data does show warming. Here are the the most disturbing things about their data...
1) The hockeystick and all subsequent science was "proof" that the industrial age spewed CO2 and started MMGW. Problem is, they left out data that would have shown that it was cooling during the industrial age, not warming. The other problem was that about 1,000 years ago, during the medieval period, it was actually warmer for some time and the graph will the deleted data would have shown flux, punching holes in the Man Made portion of global warming. It would have been a non-starter.
2) The method of collecting the "average" temperatures included, among other things, rainfall amounts in tree rings, global data collectors positioned (and moved) and then satellite data. The tree ring studies assumed temps based on rainfall and drought. The positioned earthly data collectors had to be moved as urban sprawl caused island heating results. Rural data collectors had to be measured manually (site visits) and the records were suspect. Satellite data didn't seem to line up with other means and methods of collecting temperature records. Soooooo....they apparently either A) Cherry picked the data that helped their cause or B) performed algorithms to "balance" the means where they didn't think they got "good" data.
3) It is now apparent that they filled gaps or weak data points with extrapolations, means, averages, etc. which are all subject to subjectivity.
I for one do not doubt that the earth has gotten warmer. We went through the little ice age following the medieval warming period. Before both there were glaciers in North America. We have likely been in a global warming cycle. Ooorrr....we may have peaked and are turning back toward a long cold spell. Who knows? One thing is for sure, they do not know.
46
posted on
11/24/2009 11:23:24 AM PST
by
Tenacious 1
(Government For the People - an obviously concealed oxymoron)
To: stayathomemom
This whole scandal gives Al Gore an out.
“THEY LIED TO ME! THEY PLAYED ON MY FEARS!”
47
posted on
11/24/2009 11:24:48 AM PST
by
Tenacious 1
(Government For the People - an obviously concealed oxymoron)
To: Lovely-Day-For-A-Guinness
Ah yes. Perhaps it’s time to rename him AlPiltdown, or PiltGore.
To: andy58-in-nh
You seem to be in the know. Can you explain the process in which “tree ring data” is converted into temperature data?
From what little I know, they can measure the growth and health of a tree which tells something about the rainfall or dormacy of the tree. But do you know how they calculate to a degree what the temp was for a certain time period?
I could use some knowledge here.
49
posted on
11/24/2009 11:31:36 AM PST
by
Tenacious 1
(Government For the People - an obviously concealed oxymoron)
To: Red Badger
"If anyone thinks there's a hint of tweaking the data for non-scientific purposes, they are free to produce an analysis showing that Earth isn't warming," adds Michael Oppenheimer, a climate scientist and policy researcher at Princeton University in New Jersey. "In fact, they have been free to do so for decades and haven't been able to."The "Hockey Stick": A New Low in Climate Science
50
posted on
11/24/2009 11:36:36 AM PST
by
Cincinatus
(Omnia relinquit servare Rempublicam)
To: DManA
"There are apparently lots of people who really do think that global warming is an evil socialist plot, and that many scientists are part of the plot and deliberately faking their science," adds Tom Wigley, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, and former director of CRU. No Tom, we USED to think that.....now we KNOW.
To: Red Badger
"If anyone thinks there's a hint of tweaking the data for non-scientific purposes, they are free to produce an analysis showing that Earth isn't warming," adds Michael Oppenheimer, a climate scientist and policy researcher at Princeton University in New Jersey. "In fact, they have been free to do so for decades and haven't been able to." Um, I think this scientist dude forgot something. The GW controversy is not first and foremost about whether the earth is warming, it is about whether the precludable activities of man can affect global climate to a catastrophic extent.
52
posted on
11/24/2009 11:59:21 AM PST
by
fightinJAG
(Mr. President: Why did you appoint a bunch of Communists to your Administration?)
To: Red Badger
I’m waiting for Norah O’Donnell or Katie Couric to ambush Mr Oppenheimer with note cards in hand and some really tough questions.
/sarcasm
53
posted on
11/24/2009 12:01:08 PM PST
by
Kandy Atz
("Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want for bread.")
To: Red Badger
"If anyone thinks there's a hint of tweaking the data for non-scientific purposes, they are free to produce an analysis showing that Earth isn't warming," adds Michael Oppenheimer, a climate scientist and policy researcher at Princeton University in New Jersey. "In fact, they have been free to do so for decades and haven't been able to."
Poor Oppenheimer, a denier denier.
54
posted on
11/24/2009 12:01:23 PM PST
by
aruanan
To: Cicero
And to say that the word trick stands out is kind of like saying that one of Stalins murders was worse than the others. Amen to that. They didn't mention (at least in the excerpt posted) the statement by Jones that he would destroy the data rather being forced to release it. When he was finally backed into a corner, he said the data had been lost. He should go to jail.
55
posted on
11/24/2009 12:13:38 PM PST
by
Rocky
(Obama's ego: The "I's" have it.)
To: Tenacious 1
To the extent that I understand the science behind the use of tree rings in climate analysis, there is a good deal of controversy involved. Now, I'm not a scientist but a business process analyst, which means I understand how statistics work - as well as how they can be abused. That study has led to my interest in climatology (I've also been a weather buff since I was a kid).
There are many things that can affect tree growth (and therefore ring width). Among them are:
- The age of the tree (the rate of growth varies through its life)
- Weather (in addition to temperature, there is also precipitation amounts, wind speed and solar exposure)
- Previous years' growth (many trees tend to naturally alternate growth cycles)
- Atmospheric conditions (particularly variances of CO2 concentration at altitude)
- Competition (other trees nearby or other plants can rob a particular tree of nutrients or light)
- Parasites (Insects and/or fungi infestation can slow growth)
The standard analytical process seems to involve an attempt to normalize some of the factors, including serial correlations (normal year-over-year deviations) and locational persistency.
There are so many factors at play here and such a large standard deviation derived from statistically significant samples that one begins to understand the desire of researchers to take "shortcuts" - by which I mean making blanket assumptions that reduce variability to a tolerance within which they are comfortable drawing conclusions.
It's only my opinion, but that might not be the best method for drawing conclusions that involve the potential expenditure of trillions of dollars and which might affect billions of lives.
56
posted on
11/24/2009 12:38:33 PM PST
by
andy58-in-nh
(America does not need to be organized: it needs to be liberated.)
To: Red Badger
"If anyone thinks there's a hint of tweaking the data for non-scientific purposes, they are free to produce an analysis showing that Earth isn't warming," adds Michael Oppenheimer, a climate scientist and policy researcher at Princeton University in New Jersey. "In fact, they have been free to do so for decades and haven't been able to." "Of course, we won't give them access to any of the key data. And if they did manage to get data, and put something together, we would see that either it wasn't published; or that any journal editor who did publish it was fired," he added.
57
posted on
11/24/2009 4:01:50 PM PST
by
ApplegateRanch
(Islam: a Satanically Transmitted Disease, spread by unprotected intimate contact with the Koranus.)
To: DManA
There are apparently lots of people who really do think that global warming is an evil socialist plot" If the shoe fits.
58
posted on
11/24/2009 4:05:29 PM PST
by
denydenydeny
(The Left sees taxpayers the way Dr Frankenstein saw the local cemetery; raw material for experiments)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-58 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson