70 replies to this topic

[The Silver Thong]

expandmymind, on 28 January 2010 - 04:22 AM, said:

you compare evolution and AGW? may aswell lump us deniers in with the flat earther's..

in reference to the bolded part. you just described the IPCC. http://www.unexplain...howtopic=174216

opinion passed off as science and bureaucrats masquerading as scientists. yup. that's a fair description of the exact organisation you AGWers follow like dogs...

notice the distinct lack of anyone like mattshark in either that thread or the himalayan glacier one... ask yourself why that is.

You know I have to say I am not buying the story so much as man made so ya I agree with the claim man is not the cause. To me it just doesn't add up and to invest in this idea as a whole is somewhat silly. However we are not helping so recycle and don't buy gas pigs, or fart as much.

I still say when someone makes a claim against another member they better back it up or retract it as was done to Matt. Thats only fair as if any of us get called out on something I want to know for what.

[ExpandMyMind]

Mattshark, on 27 January 2010 - 04:18 PM, said:

Lord Moncktons work was not peer-reviewed, he is not a scientist, the SPPI is a not a valid source.

From the top of that article


Monckton is a liar and a fraud.
And you never prove in science, you evidence.

the IPCC have been proven to be liars and frauds. does this mean you will disregard anything they say?

if not, could you address the issues that monkton brings up please. otherwise you come across as a slight hypocrite matt.

and i should have picked up on the fact that his paper was non-peer reviewed. sorry about that to all who entered the thread.

[Higgs Boson]

In summary...

"Uh, this dude is known for lying."

"YEAH BUT OTHER PEOPLE LIE TOO SO WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT"

Beautiful.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Um, i wonder if anyone has had the time to consider any of the questions I was asking earlier?

[Mattshark]

expandmymind, on 28 January 2010 - 05:00 AM, said:

the IPCC have been proven to be liars and frauds. does this mean you will disregard anything they say?

if not, could you address the issues that monkton brings up please. otherwise you come across as a slight hypocrite matt.

and i should have picked up on the fact that his paper was non-peer reviewed. sorry about that to all who entered the thread.

No they have been shown to be inaccurate. The IPCC's error regarding the Himalaya's was a silly and badly thought out mistake and should have been checked further. Monckton out and out lied though, please don't pretend the 2 things are the same.

Secondly, I also put up a link to all Moncktons error's in that piece. Seems that was too much for anyone for acknowledge, as it seems is papers I have put up, lots of papers, not one person has actually attempted to address them, so don't you dare call me a hypocrite when I have done everything I can to present a real scientific case only to have it completely ignored in it's entirity.

[Mattshark]

expandmymind, on 28 January 2010 - 04:22 AM, said:

you compare evolution and AGW? may aswell lump us deniers in with the flat earther's..

in reference to the bolded part. you just described the IPCC. http://www.unexplain...howtopic=174216

opinion passed off as science and bureaucrats masquerading as scientists. yup. that's a fair description of the exact organisation you AGWers follow like dogs...

notice the distinct lack of anyone like mattshark in either that thread or the himalayan glacier one... ask yourself why that is.

Actually the techniques used by some individuals are the same, cherry picking, quote mining and out and out lying. Especially those associated with political groups like SPPI, Heartland, Friends of Science etc.

And I will think you find that I do not use the IPCC as a source, all the data I have previously presented has been from papers in journals.

Edited by Mattshark, 28 January 2010 - 12:56 PM.

[Mattshark]

747400, on 27 January 2010 - 06:39 PM, said:

The question is, i think, (and I don't want to sound heretical   ), is, if we can take it that it's been proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the climate is changing in the long term, can the experts be really sure (beyond all reasonable doubt) that it's happening more quickly and more dramatically than it's ever done before, and that it isn't in fact a natural fluctuation over time?; how do the experts explain the climate fluctuations in the past, such as how the Vikings were able to colonise Greenland, and the mini Ice ages back in medieval times, when they skated on the Thames and things?; for how long has it been possible to gather data sufficiently reliable to be able to say what they do with any accuracy? Haven't records only been kept in anything approaching scientfiic detail since about the mid 19th century, and it's only been possible to measure the Arctic ice caps with any detail since the advent of satellites, hasn't it?  And if it has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt that this is a wholly exceptional phenomenon, has it been proved (beyond all reasonable doubt) that it's mankind's activities on planet earth that's causing it?

There are many different factors that can alter climate worldwide. The MWP and MIA are both localised to the north Atlantic and are believed to be associated with the north Atlantic oscillation. Other factors like super volcanoes, meteor strikes, continental position and currents and wobbling of the Earth's axis have all caused climatological changes in the past.

[eqgumby]

Mattshark, on 27 January 2010 - 11:33 PM, said:

Well according to Gavin Schmidt (NASA GISS), Monckton lied about IPCC data and he has outright made up temperature trends that simply do not exist
http://www.realclima...e-manipulation/

I find it hard to swallow the IPCC's claims any way. It's been shown how sloppy they are with their own data, and how they manipulate it at their leisure or to suit their needs, with little regard for the hard math behind statistical data.
Was Gavin on the "team" with the rest of the global warming proponents? Or is he one of the few not labeled internally by the IPCC as for or against?

[eqgumby]

Mattshark, on 28 January 2010 - 12:00 PM, said:

Actually the techniques used by some individuals are the same, cherry picking, quote mining and out and out lying. Especially those associated with political groups like SPPI, Heartland, Friends of Science etc.

And I will think you find that I do not use the IPCC as a source, all the data I have previously presented has been from papers in journals.

Can you show me one that was NOT "peer-reviewed" by someone in the IPCC's inner circle? Can you present a paper that argues the other side of this coin, that WAS peer reviewed by an IPCC inner-circle member.

Point is, there are sides drawn up, and in science, there shouldn't be sides.

[Mattshark]

eqgumby, on 28 January 2010 - 03:07 PM, said:

I find it hard to swallow the IPCC's claims any way. It's been shown how sloppy they are with their own data, and how they manipulate it at their leisure or to suit their needs, with little regard for the hard math behind statistical data.

I'm not sure that is really true. IPCC may make errors, but accusing them of something like this is totally different and needs backing up.

Quote

Was Gavin on the "team" with the rest of the global warming proponents? Or is he one of the few not labeled internally by the IPCC as for or against?

http://www.giss.nasa...staff/gschmidt/

[Fluffybunny]

danielost, on 27 January 2010 - 07:53 PM, said:

yes i can but i don't want to go through 48 pages to find it.

Then please do not make such accusations again. You are quick to make claims and slow(or never) to retract them or back them up. You have to be willing to do one or the other. It isn't nice or fair. We have rules against doing such things, so please do not do it again.

[Mattshark]

eqgumby, on 28 January 2010 - 03:13 PM, said:

Can you show me one that was NOT "peer-reviewed" by someone in the IPCC's inner circle? Can you present a paper that argues the other side of this coin, that WAS peer reviewed by an IPCC inner-circle member.

I have no idea what the IPCC inner-circle is. But you recommending peers is normal in science, but they are not the only ones who look at the paper. If you think there is something wrong with what I have posted all you need to is look through them and point out errors, that is the point of such things.

Quote

Point is, there are sides drawn up, and in science, there shouldn't be sides.

There are always sides in science! However, there is still majority/minority and the effects of humans on climate is very much accepted generally through out science. There are those who have doubts, which is fine. But the people usually cited on here are denialists who are totally different all together and they are willing to lie and fabricate to produce results and quote mine and mislead to attack others.
If you look at the comments I have made regarding Svensmark, I addressed merely the papers he has posted and never accused him of fraud or lying merely that others got different results than he produced over long term effects. I, in know way classify this in the same league as Monckton, Soon and Baliunas, or the SPPI or the Heartland Institute and the companies surrounding them.

[eqgumby]

Mattshark, on 28 January 2010 - 03:15 PM, said:

I'm not sure that is really true. IPCC may make errors, but accusing them of something like this is totally different and needs backing up.


http://www.giss.nasa...staff/gschmidt/

Well, let me back-track on my previous statement.

I get the impression from what I have read, and the infamous leaked e-mails, that the IPCC relied alot on information, data, research papers, and the like, that were directly controlled by people that had more agenda than science in mind.

The IPCC's policy and statements were a direct result of science that was "approved" by people that had a stake in global warming as fact.

I think it's clear that the science is flawed, primarily because of how it was vetted, and how the leading scientists involved handled data, handled opposing views and data, and how they handled their own peer reviewing process (which ironically they used to discredit other scientists whose conclusions did not fall in line with their own). Certain people (scientists) created a clique, and if you were not in the clique, you were suspected of not being pro-global warming (a skeptic), and scrutinized if your science or statements did not fall in line with what was being fed to the IPCC. That led to being black-balled in many cases, personally and professionally, as well as campaigns to discredit people if their views were not in line with what was being fed to the IPCC.

[eqgumby]

Mattshark, on 28 January 2010 - 03:29 PM, said:

I have no idea what the IPCC inner-circle is. But you recommending peers is normal in science, but they are not the only ones who look at the paper. If you think there is something wrong with what I have posted all you need to is look through them and point out errors, that is the point of such things.

I wish I had the science background to do that Matt.
I DO have a background that allows me to analyze how some of the conclusions were reached. And I can tell you with certainty, that if these were engineering issues, and data was treated this way, decisions and policy decided based on what I have seen, someones ass would be fired, funding would be pulled (millions of dollars), and careers would end.

Mattshark, on 28 January 2010 - 03:29 PM, said:

There are always sides in science! However, there is still majority/minority and the effects of humans on climate is very much accepted generally through out science. There are those who have doubts, which is fine. But the people usually cited on here are denialists who are totally different all together and they are willing to lie and fabricate to produce results and quote mine and mislead to attack others.
If you look at the comments I have made regarding Svensmark, I addressed merely the papers he has posted and never accused him of fraud or lying merely that others got different results than he produced over long term effects. I, in know way classify this in the same league as Monckton, Soon and Baliunas, or the SPPI or the Heartland Institute and the companies surrounding them.

Sides are one thing, there are always schools-of-thought, but in this instance, political sides were created, and science was put on the back burner.

[Mattshark]

eqgumby, on 28 January 2010 - 03:42 PM, said:

Well, let me back-track on my previous statement.

I get the impression from what I have read, and the infamous leaked e-mails, that the IPCC relied alot on information, data, research papers, and the like, that were directly controlled by people that had more agenda than science in mind.

The IPCC's policy and statements were a direct result of science that was "approved" by people that had a stake in global warming as fact.

I think it's clear that the science is flawed, primarily because of how it was vetted, and how the leading scientists involved handled data, handled opposing views and data, and how they handled their own peer reviewing process (which ironically they used to discredit other scientists whose conclusions did not fall in line with their own). Certain people (scientists) created a clique, and if you were not in the clique, you were suspected of not being pro-global warming (a skeptic), and scrutinized if your science or statements did not fall in line with what was being fed to the IPCC. That led to being black-balled in many cases, personally and professionally, as well as campaigns to discredit people if their views were not in line with what was being fed to the IPCC.

I cannot agree with that, the climate e-mails were used by certain sources as an exercise in quote mining. The peer-review stuff over blatant attempts at fraud by Soon and Baliunas was referred to in the e-mails, but never acknowledge by those trying to argue that this was Mann and Jones trying to pervert the peer-review process. That was something done by De Freitas at the journal Climate Research who accepted Soon and Baliunas' paper despite the obvious errors within the piece and their lies about funding claims regarding NOAA and NASA. The editorial staff were greatly aggrieved about this being passed when it was highly inaccurate. The then chief editor, Otto Kinne, decided to alter the review process in the journal meaning all editors had to agree on something for it to be published. Mann attempted to write a rebuttal to the journal, but de Freitas blocked it being published and half the staff quit.

You want misconduct and black-balling, I suggest you look further into those mined quotes and the circumstance surrounding them.

Again, I see nothing about false data unless of course you mean adding recorded temps "trick" which is so well hidden that they mention it in papers when doing it or Briffa's so called hidden decline, which is also mentioned in the paper and refers to proxies failing to match recorded temperature.