Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Climategate U-turn as scientist admit


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#16    J.B.

J.B.

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,427 posts
  • Joined:23 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

  • Deadpan snarker in your midst: Jokers beware. I eat jokes for fun and spit out seriousness just because that's how I roll. :P

Posted 15 February 2010 - 09:36 PM

Some of the info in that interview came from East Anglia, not Dr. Jones. Not sure how to take that, and I was rather pissed at some of the questions he declined to answer. BBC is biased in the matter to begin with, anyway, so how can we even be sure they recorded the interview accurately?

And on a further note, there's a three year overlap in that time span from the 70s to 1998, with the last fifteen years. So shouldn't he have said that there was no significant warming for the last 12 years?

Edited by J.B., 15 February 2010 - 09:38 PM.


#17    WoIverine

WoIverine

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,718 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 February 2010 - 10:09 PM

Global warming or not, I'd bet money on there being a ****-ton of natural and man made disasters over the next few years regardless.


#18    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 15 February 2010 - 10:48 PM

View PostSpiderCyde, on 15 February 2010 - 10:09 PM, said:

Global warming or not, I'd bet money on there being a ****-ton of natural and man made disasters over the next few years regardless.
Yep, that is pretty much a certainty.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#19    mikeoftudor

mikeoftudor

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2010

Posted 16 February 2010 - 01:07 AM

Why should we think his faulty record keeping started after he collected and analyzed  the data?
How can he make these new press statements about the data he can not find?
How many grants has this lost data gotten him?
Would you lose your meal ticket?
If in almost any other profession would he not be unemployed?
Just asking Questions, like I think we all should!
  I don't have the answers, but I remember another prediction. pollution will cause an impending ice age ... global warming ... climate change ... insert next scary catch phrase here the next time they want a grant. So this way to the grand egress! there is one born every second. was it you?


#20    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 16 February 2010 - 01:27 AM

View Postmikeoftudor, on 16 February 2010 - 01:07 AM, said:

Why should we think his faulty record keeping started after he collected and analyzed  the data?
What faulty record keeping? CRU has all its data, just that most of it belongs to the MET office. CRU hasn't held a lot of the raw data since 1986, before Jones was in charge, it is all at the MET office though.

Quote

How can he make these new press statements about the data he can not find?
What press statements? Fine to ask questions but at least be relevant.

Quote

How many grants has this lost data gotten him?
Again, there is no lost data.

Quote

Would you lose your meal ticket?
Irrelevant.

Quote

If in almost any other profession would he not be unemployed?
No, because you are basing all your questions off incorrect supposition.

Quote

Just asking Questions, like I think we all should!
  I don't have the answers, but I remember another prediction. pollution will cause an impending ice age ... global warming ... climate change ... insert next scary catch phrase here the next time they want a grant. So this way to the grand egress! there is one born every second. was it you?
That impending ice age was never a scientifically held consensus, just something the media latched onto, climate change was establish science before it hit the media, it has over 40 years of work behind it.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#21    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 17,430 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 16 February 2010 - 01:47 AM

View PostMattshark, on 15 February 2010 - 06:32 PM, said:

Actually what he actually said was (question in bold)

Please read the interview not some rags quote mining of it.
http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/8511670.stm
First of all, the article in the OP and the link you provided are different authors. It is called Journalism. They take what is collected and reprint it in a way to avoid problems such as plagerism.

Anyway. From the link in the quote:

Quote

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:

Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade) Significance
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes

Quote

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

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
So it is clear that the "rag" actually had the basic facts correct and actually only omitted information to make it seem more drastic. Would you say that is correct?

Quote

H - If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing - see my answer to your question D.
I do agree there is man-made elements to warming in the last decade. The debate should be about how much and how fast. I'm inclined to believe it is not a crisis, but is definately a worry.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#22    Mr Mojo Risin

Mr Mojo Risin

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 261 posts
  • Joined:07 Jan 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • "One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it."

Posted 16 February 2010 - 02:09 AM

we alone aren't responsible for climate change but the planet is getting warmer and warmer plain and simple and i think we are factoring into that in a small or big way i don't know but we would have to be one of the factors IMO

I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious.  Albert Einstein

#23    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 16 February 2010 - 02:34 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 16 February 2010 - 01:47 AM, said:

First of all, the article in the OP and the link you provided are different authors. It is called Journalism. They take what is collected and reprint it in a way to avoid problems such as plagerism.
The article was based on the Q and A by the BBC yes, didn't expect them to do word for word, but they did quote mine and that I am opposed to, especially with science.

Quote

Anyway. From the link in the quote:

So it is clear that the "rag" actually had the basic facts correct and actually only omitted information to make it seem more drastic. Would you say that is correct?
Yes, but that information is vital to understanding data an can make a massive difference in perception and can make it appear , that is why it is quote mining. That is my issue with it, it making out that something has been said when it hasn't.


Quote

I do agree there is man-made elements to warming in the last decade. The debate should be about how much and how fast. I'm inclined to believe it is not a crisis, but is definately a worry.
The media most definitely does blow exaggerate the case sadly, I have seen strong comments made about dire predictions in papers and reading the paper, no such thing is said!

Edited by Mattshark, 16 February 2010 - 02:35 AM.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#24    WoIverine

WoIverine

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,718 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 February 2010 - 04:01 PM

View PostDigitalSentinal, on 15 February 2010 - 04:56 PM, said:

Poor Al Gore - Global warming - debunked by the very Internet you created! Oh - the irony! :D

You see this people? That is a WIN that's so spectacular, I nearly fell off my chair and went into convulsions from it's sheer awesomeness.  :D

Edited by SpiderCyde, 16 February 2010 - 04:01 PM.


#25    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 16 February 2010 - 04:48 PM

View PostSpiderCyde, on 16 February 2010 - 04:01 PM, said:

You see this people? That is a WIN that's so spectacular, I nearly fell off my chair and went into convulsions from it's sheer awesomeness.  :D
Nah, it shows DS knows about as much on climatology as he does on Egyptology.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#26    Caesar

Caesar

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,623 posts
  • Joined:07 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

  • Semper Fidelis

Posted 16 February 2010 - 10:08 PM

View PostMattshark, on 15 February 2010 - 08:28 PM, said:

Not really, you are just looking at the politics and not the science. Sat readings show warming trend too.
As do Anthony Watts weather stations that he thinks are good (as shown by NASA) which Mr Watts likes not to advertise.
Its all about politics and faith, not science.

View PostMattshark, on 15 February 2010 - 08:28 PM, said:

Sorry, expand, but in science, there is still consensus.
Science is not a democratic process! I'm sur in the year 1400 the consensus would be the planet is flat.


#27    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 16 February 2010 - 11:35 PM

View PostCaesar, on 16 February 2010 - 10:08 PM, said:

Its all about politics and faith, not science.
Nope, there is plenty of science and the scale of evidence very much points to us having an effect on the planet.


Quote

Science is not a democratic process! I'm sur in the year 1400 the consensus would be the planet is flat.
I doubt it, although modern science didn't exist in 1400, it was very much known the Earth was a sphere because the ancient Greeks had shown it to so :P

You are right it is not a democracy and consensus isn't brought about by voting, it is brought about by evidence, something which I have presented plenty of.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#28    InnerSpace

InnerSpace

  • Member
  • 3,359 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2007
  • Gender:Female

  • "Follow your bliss." J. Campbell

Posted 17 February 2010 - 03:08 PM

View PostMattshark, on 16 February 2010 - 11:35 PM, said:

You are right it is not a democracy and consensus isn't brought about by voting, it is brought about by evidence, something which I have presented plenty of.

When has that ever mattered here...lol

Nice work, Matt.   :tu:

Posted Image
"Justice will not come . . . until those who are not injured are as indignant as those who are." ~Thucydides

#29    Caesar

Caesar

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,623 posts
  • Joined:07 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

  • Semper Fidelis

Posted 17 February 2010 - 07:13 PM

View PostMattshark, on 16 February 2010 - 11:35 PM, said:

Nope, there is plenty of science and the scale of evidence very much points to us having an effect on the planet.
Matt this clearly is not the case, the IPCC even had to get some of 'science' from a "mountaineering" magazine?

View PostMattshark, on 16 February 2010 - 11:35 PM, said:

You are right it is not a democracy and consensus isn't brought about by voting, it is brought about by evidence, something which I have presented plenty of.
Well maybe you might want to give some to the IPCC and CRU, they really could use it.


#30    J.B.

J.B.

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,427 posts
  • Joined:23 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

  • Deadpan snarker in your midst: Jokers beware. I eat jokes for fun and spit out seriousness just because that's how I roll. :P

Posted 18 February 2010 - 09:58 PM

Ignore the IPCC already, they're not a good source at all. Listen to what the scientists in other areas are saying, since the IPCC is /political/. They're a joke and should never be listened to.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users