Climate warming hoax?

[Niocan]

I was talking about potholer's approach of only 'taking on' the sound-bytes used in the news, and not the source and it's other files (mainly programming code).
I should've quoted, but there isn't really a need to see another embedded video :s

...Have you taken the vaccine yet? If so, are you sure it isn't effecting you at all? (I mean this more as a joke, har har)

 

[Aught3]

I was talking about potholer's approach of only 'taking on' the sound-bytes used in the news, and not the source and it's other files (mainly programming code).

Is anyone actually worried about the code? I know the hackers released some old prgramming code that had apparently been used to build the models but I havn't heard any claims that the code itself is part of the conspiracy. Knowing the type of websites you get your news from, I suspect that you have?

...Have you taken the vaccine yet? If so, are you sure it isn't effecting you at all?

Which vaccine are you talking about? If you mean swine flu take a look at where I live then try to work out whether or not the swine flu vaccine would be widely used here at the moment.

 

[aeroeng314]

Is it just me or are Niocan's comments making less and less sense?

It's just you. His comments have never made any sense.

 

[scalyblue]

Well, the peer-reviewed magazine, Nature, has an article on this..I made a thread about it but apparently nobody wants to come play ^.x

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall (see page 551). To these denialists, the scientists' scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial 'smoking gun': proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe.

This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country's much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real , or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.

Mail trail

A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories. In one of the more controversial exchanges, UEA scientists sharply criticized the quality of two papers that question the uniqueness of recent global warming (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick Energy Environ. 14, 751-771; 2003 and W. Soon and S. Baliunas Clim. Res. 23, 89-110; 2003) and vowed to keep at least the first paper out of the upcoming Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted. And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers.

Also

 

[Nogre]

So where are these political ideas coming from? If it's all a lie that was fabricated from the beginning, who came up with the idea and why? And how did they get enough money to pay off a huge portion of the scientific community in order to bring about the scientific consensus? If you're going to be serious about this conspiracy theory, you can't just point to some nebulous "them" as a scapegoat to blame every conspiracy on. You have to provide a solid explanation for how someone made it come about. There isn't some hidden organization out there with unlimitted money and power that just wants to play with our minds. Point to something real.

I just wanted to point out that you have yet to answer this question, Niocan. If you're going to make such huge claims about science you need to do more than "they get more grant money by supporting AGW." There are plenty of scientists who research things completely different that get plenty of grant money.

(mainly programming code)

Care to share what's going on with the programming? We can't really weigh a piece of evidence if you withhold it...you know, they way you can't weigh evidence if those evil scientists are hide their data. Heaven forbid the interpreters of the data actually understand how it's collected and the limitations of different pieces of data. :roll:

 

[Niocan]

So where are these political ideas coming from? If it's all a lie that was fabricated from the beginning, who came up with the idea and why?

Does it matter? I'm worried about the treaty being implemented based upon false data, not the details of the chess game at play.

And how did they get enough money to pay off a huge portion of the scientific community in order to bring about the scientific consensus?

I think you're overestimating the size of the community in question that actually needs to be paid off...

If you're going to be serious about this conspiracy theory, you can't just point to some nebulous "them" as a scapegoat to blame every conspiracy on. You have to provide a solid explanation for how someone made it come about. There isn't some hidden organization out there with unlimitted money and power that just wants to play with our minds. Point to something real.

I don't blame everything on the proverbial 'they', and there are many different groups at play; This also isn't a conspiracy theory, because it's simply questioning the applied science of this politically driven idea.

I feel as though these should be questions further explored by yourself if you're interested. Perhaps you'll find a different image in the mosaic of information then I; Perhaps not.

I just wanted to point out that you have yet to answer this question, Niocan. If you're going to make such huge claims about science you need to do more than "they get more grant money by supporting AGW." There are plenty of scientists who research things completely different that get plenty of grant money.

Yes, but if one field of science is regarded as important because of some imposing threat... well, you can see why it would be funded more then others (And thus, easier grant money for papers that touch upon the idea, etc).

Care to share what's going on with the programming? We can't really weigh a piece of evidence if you withhold it...you know, they way you can't weigh evidence if those evil scientists are hide their data. Heaven forbid the interpreters of the data actually understand how it's collected and the limitations of different pieces of data. :roll:

All the emails / documents / code are found in the FOI2009.zip file, so go google your way to it

As for a look on the code, this is a recent story I've found on it:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/revenge_of_the_computer_nerds_1.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

 

[scalyblue]

Does it matter? I'm worried about the treaty being implemented based upon false data, not the details of the chess game at play.

Yup, if there's a global chess game being played, you my canadian friend, are one of the few who are in on it--with your priveliged information gleaned from the intarwebs.

There is no false data, there was nothing hidden--and even if there was, this particular organization isn't the only branch of science that has come to a consensus about AGW. You fail at reading comprehension forever.

 

[ExeFBM]

As for a look on the code, this is a recent story I've found on it:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/ ... um=twitter

You may not have noticed, but the 'computer expert' who looked at the code doesn't understand it. He admits as much in the notes at the bottom. I don't understand the code either, but I'm not claiming that it's fraudulent under the guise of being an expert. The section of data he's talking about stretches from the early 1900's. This seems to be about the time that accurate temperature readings started to be recorded. Could this line of data simply be the section on actual surface temperature, rather than being taken from tree rings/ice cores etc.?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

You may not have noticed, but the 'computer expert' who looked at the code doesn't understand it. He admits as much in the notes at the bottom. I don't understand the code either, but I'm not claiming that it's fraudulent under the guise of being an expert. The section of data he's talking about stretches from the early 1900's. This seems to be about the time that accurate temperature readings started to be recorded. Could this line of data simply be the section on actual surface temperature, rather than being taken from tree rings/ice cores etc.?

That's apparently a libertarian website,and libertarians are a cult that believe that everything that is funded by governments is automatically wrong and evil by definition. Since much of the research done in climate science takes place in labs that receive government funding, they start with the assumption that there's fraud involved and then twist reality to support it.

 

[Nogre]

Does it matter? I'm worried about the treaty being implemented based upon false data, not the details of the chess game at play.

If you're proposing something is happening that seems to be impossible, you need to explain who's doing it and how.

I think you're overestimating the size of the community in question that actually needs to be paid off...

Ya...only every climate scientist in the world. Even the legitimate skeptics aren't arguing that it's a conspiracy. Merely that they think the data (that they don't deny is forged) should be explained a different way. So they need to be payed off, too.

I don't blame everything on the proverbial 'they', and there are many different groups at play; This also isn't a conspiracy theory, because it's simply questioning the applied science of this politically driven idea.

Questioning evidence is one thing. You've been talking about a huge portion of the scientific community lying. That's a conspiracy theory.

I feel as though these should be questions further explored by yourself if you're interested. Perhaps you'll find a different image in the mosaic of information then I; Perhaps not.

At the point where there's a scientific consensus, I go with the consensus. If I feel justified in questioning that consensus, I'd be working on an education to allow me to do the research to prove my opinion; not arguing on LoR (well...perhaps arguing a bit along the way, but you're not claiming to be an up-and-coming climate scientist that's going to debunk the consensus, are you?). In addition, when people start claiming there's a conspiracy theory (which is your claim as explained before), I will automatically assume you're wrong until you show good evidence for the existance of such conspiracy.

Yes, but if one field of science is regarded as important because of some imposing threat... well, you can see why it would be funded more then others (And thus, easier grant money for papers that touch upon the idea, etc).

Okay; you may get a bit more funding. But I seriously doubt the increase is going to be worth risking your career with bad science. If it's anything more than that, then you're getting into conspiracy theory territory involving someone paying off all the scientists.

As for a look on the code, this is a recent story I've found on it:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/revenge_of_the_computer_nerds_1.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

To begin with:

We can now prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the hockey stick is an absolute ruse.

He bases this statement on one piece of code from one research center. If this doesn't invoke a facepalm, I don't know what will.

Additionally, his interpretation of the code is completely bogus. Looking at this line from the notes:

For example, I cannot tell if the second +2.6 is added to the previously adjusted +2.6 or if each is an individual adjustment to the "raw data" and not cumulative. Since the temperature of the hockey stick increases exponentially, I assume that the effect of the program is cumulative

There are three things wrong with this (I am assuming that the basics of this code are similar to Matlab, the code I'm familiar with).

First, the line referenced is simply defining a vector, and indicates nothing about being added to anything.

Second, I don't even know if there's a way to add vectors together in the way he's suggesting (I don't know of one, but I guess it's possible), but he's basing his analysis of whether or not the code does this on his pre-suppositions based on the graph, not on the actual code that supposedly adds this vector to the temperature data.

Third, the "*0.75" at the end of the code line means that all the values in the vector are multiplied by 0.75, meaning the values aren't +2.6, etc. anyway. His analysis of the code is just sad, and I think it's obvious that he doesn't really understand it at all

I would welcome clarification on this point from someone more familiar with the code than I am.

Why the heck is someone that needs clarification on a basic point of the coding language be writing an article about how the mathematical code is damning to anthropogenic climate change? He flatly admits that he needs clarification that I could have provided. I know that you can't tell anything about how the valadj vector is used by the line where it's defined, and I barely have a semester of bioengineering tucked under my belt. That "clarification" was a simple thing for anyone who understands the basics of mathematical coding languages.

If you want an article that goes a bit farther in answering this, try this:
http://allegationaudit.blogspot.com/2009/11/mining-source-code.html