"Climategate" Explained

[Mr. Shaman]

(So, even Palin-fans can understand.........maybe. )​

"Central to the claims Dr Mann manipulated and withheld data was the use of the word 'trick' in an email exchange discussing a graph to be presented in a World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) report.

In the inquiry the University found the contrary to claims of falsification, the scientists involved were merely trying to explain data.

"In fact to the contrary, in instances that have been focused upon by some as indicating falsification of data, for example in the use of a 'trick' to manipulate the data, this is explained as a discussion among Dr Jones and others including Dr Mann about how best to put together a graph for a World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) report," the inquiry said.

"They were not falsifying data; they were trying to construct an understandable graph for those who were not experts in the field." (See: Freepers/Dead-O-Heads/Birthers/Oathers/Tea-Baggers/etc.)

"The so-called 'trick' was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."

 

[dogtowner]

oh wow so thats the trick ?

not the intentional manipulation and ommission of data compounded by discarding the data used then ?

well thats certainly a relief.

 

[MrSheepish]

oh wow so thats the trick ?

not the intentional manipulation and ommission of data compounded by discarding the data used then ?

well thats certainly a relief.

Trick as in "something clever", not as in "something deceptive". It is replacing indirect data about temperature (tree-rings) with direct temperature measurements during the recent time periods when tree ring temperatures have been shown to be wrong. Both Stalin and I have explained this several times now.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Trick as in "something clever", not as in "something deceptive".

Nice try....but, you're addressing one o' those folks who're genetically-predisposed to deception; people who see such a trait, as clever, as being more an elitist-characteristic.

​

 

[dogtowner]

Trick as in "something clever", not as in "something deceptive". It is replacing indirect data about temperature (tree-rings) with direct temperature measurements during the recent time periods when tree ring temperatures have been shown to be wrong. Both Stalin and I have explained this several times now.

direct temperature measurement with the thermometers that make for the desired result ommitting those that to not.

this has been pointed out to you boys before as well.

 

[MrSheepish]

direct temperature measurement with the thermometers that make for the desired result ommitting those that to not.

this has been pointed out to you boys before as well.

Pointing something out does not make it correct. You can say whatever you want, but what they were omitting was not a direct temperature measurement; and they were not omitting it because it did not give the desired result. They were omitting it because it was wrong. It was wrong compared to every direct measurement you could make, satellite, weather station, or ocean. Climate skeptics even acknowledge this. Maybe if I keep repeating this it will eventually sink in?

 

[dogtowner]

Pointing something out does not make it correct. You can say whatever you want, but what they were omitting was not a direct temperature measurement; and they were not omitting it because it did not give the desired result. They were omitting it because it was wrong. It was wrong compared to every direct measurement you could make, satellite, weather station, or ocean. Climate skeptics even acknowledge this. Maybe if I keep repeating this it will eventually sink in?

yes, they were busted on ommitting actual temp readings.

In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.
Worse, only one station -- at Eureka on Ellesmere Island -- is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.
The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada

Also busted in Russian readings and I believe Chinese as well.

 

[MrSheepish]

yes, they were busted on ommitting actual temp readings.

First of all, you have completely changed topics. This has nothing to do with the "hide the decline" lie we were discussing. Secondly, you have swallowed yet another lie by the skeptics. The decline in the number of Canadian Stations used is not caused by cherry-picking of the stations. It is caused because people have to compile the temperature records for those stations by hand, and it has historically taken decades for people to do this. The stations from the 1970s are only recently being included. So maybe in 2030 or 2040 all of the stations recording today's temperatures will be included. Further, if they *were* cherry picked, the ones that are not included would be the with colder temperature records. This is absolutely not the case. See here.

This is not the sort of false accusation that someone makes by accident. If the accusers just asked why the stations weren't being used it would be obvious that there is a rational explanation for it. It is clearly a malicious lie that is very effective because it looks damning and convincing, just like with the lie about the New Zealand cherry-picking that was pointed out earlier, I think by you.

 

[dogtowner]

First of all, you have completely changed topics. This has nothing to do with the "hide the decline" lie we were discussing. Secondly, you have swallowed yet another lie by the skeptics. The decline in the number of Canadian Stations used is not caused by cherry-picking of the stations. It is caused because people have to compile the temperature records for those stations by hand, and it has historically taken decades for people to do this. The stations from the 1970s are only recently being included. So maybe in 2030 or 2040 all of the stations recording today's temperatures will be included. Further, if they *were* cherry picked, the ones that are not included would be the with colder temperature records. This is absolutely not the case. See here.

This is not the sort of false accusation that someone makes by accident. If the accusers just asked why the stations weren't being used it would be obvious that there is a rational explanation for it. It is clearly a malicious lie that is very effective because it looks damning and convincing, just like with the lie about the New Zealand cherry-picking that was pointed out earlier, I think by you.

this is absolutely part of hide the decline.

the jig is up.

 

[Helicitor]

"Central to the claims Dr Mann manipulated and withheld data was the use of the word 'trick' in an email exchange discussing a graph to be presented in a World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) report.

In the inquiry the University found the contrary to claims of falsification, the scientists involved were merely trying to explain data.

"In fact to the contrary, in instances that have been focused upon by some as indicating falsification of data, for example in the use of a 'trick' to manipulate the data, this is explained as a discussion among Dr Jones and others including Dr Mann about how best to put together a graph for a World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) report," the inquiry said.

"They were not falsifying data; they were trying to construct an understandable graph for those who were not experts in the field." (See: Freepers/Dead-O-Heads/Birthers/Oathers/Tea-Baggers/etc.)

"The so-called 'trick' was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."

First off, the university shouldn't be doing their own inquiry. Secondly, the university--while pretending to refute the claim that Dr. Mann "manipulated and withheld data"--actually don't make their case. They explain a misunderstood statement about using a statistical trick to match up disparate data sets without ever explaining how Dr. Mann erased the medieval warming period and little ice age in his now infamous hockey stick graph. Disingenuous. tsk tsk And the call themselves scientists.

Climategate is about a lot more than misunderstood e-mails that were (almost certainly) leaked by someone on the inside. No, it is about the perversion of the scientific process to achieve a preordained political agenda, by manipulating the peer review process, marginalizing dissenting scientists, filtering data, and even systematically altering articles on wikipedia.

As a resident of Northern VA, I can tell a snow job when I see one. I got a 39" of the stuff last week.

 

[Gipper]

If there is little snow, this is proof of global warming. If there is lots of snow, this is proof of global warming. Libs always want it both ways...

Snow if Rome is global warming. If you believe that you need help.

Rare snowfall in Rome as cold snap grips Italy
Reuters

Tourists took rare pictures of snow falling on the Colosseum and the Trevi fountain on Friday, and the Pope reportedly appeared at a Vatican window to watch Rome's heaviest snowfall in nearly a quarter century.

In scenes usually only glimpsed in souvenir "snow domes" Italy's capital was blanketed in white, snarling road and air traffic but delighting many Romans who rode scooters with their feet on the ground and snapped pictures with mobile phones.

Rome was last dusted in snow in 2005, but one meteorologist said the steady snowfall through Friday morning was the heaviest seen in the Italian capital in 24 years.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100212/wl_nm/us_italy_snow_1

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

If there is little snow, this is proof of global warming. If there is lots of snow, this is proof of global warming. Libs always want it both ways...

Snow if Rome is global warming. If you believe that you need help.

Gee...you make it sound...well just so very, very simplistic; is that because of your lack of understanding or you just have the exuberance for not wanting to clearly understand that the specific areas that are receiveing the 'SNOW' might matter to the 'GLOBAL WARMING ISSUE' or as you love to say..."HEY, IT'S JUST SNOW, WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL"

When did GLOBAL WARMING become a 'LIBERAL ISSUE'...Oh, that's right you can't think about anything concrete/specific without attaching it to the LIBERAL BLAME GAME...good grief you record seems to be permanently stuck in a verbal rut

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Its not worth even trying...they hear what they want...

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Its not worth even trying...they hear what they want...

But at least when they are typing it keeps those fingers and thumbs out of their mouths...the maturity of the posts around here have taken on a real childish school gotcha type of mentality
And the leader of the pack seems quite stuck on posting his PEE WEE HERMAN self portrait in as many places as he can plaster them...well except those highly self proclaimed intelligent topics that he starts...LMAO!!!

 

[Helicitor]

If there is little snow, this is proof of global warming. If there is lots of snow, this is proof of global warming. Libs always want it both ways...

Snow if Rome is global warming. If you believe that you need help.

Nothing and everything is proof. The problem is the difference between the hypothesis "the earth is warming" and the null hypothesis "the earth is not warming" is so slight that it's almost impossible to measure--especially on the short term (less than 1,000 years). You have to put your faith in models, and I've done too much Met modeling to have any faith in them.

There is debate amongst meteorologists about how an enhanced greenhouse effect would manifest itself. One scenario suggests you would see more frequent and stronger storm systems in the mid-latitudes. Warmer warm fronts, colder cold fronts, and more precipitation. I personally favor this possibility. The problem is the natural variability of the sun and annual weather patterns makes picking out a trend difficult.

I think the jury is still out on man-made climate change, which is why "Climategate" is so important. Changing our energy infrastructure to mitigate a changing climate will induce risk. A changing climate will also induce risk. Determining the optimal risk management strategy will require integrity in both domestic and foreign politicians, as well as the scientists exploring the issue. I figure we're pretty much screwed when it comes to trusting worldwide politicians, and it's looking more and more like the same is true for the IPCC. I'm not particularly happy where that leaves us.