• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • FREE workshop: Preparing contractors for Autumn : Weds 29th Sep at 7.15pm. More details here.

Climate scientists

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    Stop digging guys.

    does this mean that the process of comment and retraction is dead ?
    Course not. Andrew Dessler has a paper in preparation that shows what is incorrect in Spencer's work. While we wait, the flaws in the work are outlined here and here.

    The guy who resigned was editor-in-chief of the journal and so an authority in Remote Sensing. A strange choice for such a 'bombshell' paper but yer actual climate science journals wouldn't touch it, presumably the guy was expert enough to approve the paper for publication, but now he has discovered it is 'fundamentally flawed' his expertise is suddenly insufficient? No double standard there then.

    In 2004, when Phil Jones said 'we will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” - is this what he meant ?
    Ever heard of hyperbole? Both Jones and the recipient of the mail would have known full well that nobody gets to redefine peer-review, any more than 'over my dead body' is a serious proposition of a duel to the death. But such misapprehensions are a danger inherent in snooping other people's mail .......... Besides both the papers in question were cited and discussed in the IPCC report, and both have since sunk without trace leaving not a ripple in the literature.
    Last edited by pjclarke; 4 September 2011, 09:22. Reason: rewording
    My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

    Comment


      #62
      The AGW industry now reminds me of the Labour party.

      Much spinning of information and character assassination of anyone off-message.

      We've even got individuals who sit around message boards and forums like Labout activists used to do.

      Comment


        #63
        At the time, they were conducting an aerial survey of bowhead whales, and saw four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm. They detailed their observations in an article published two years later in the journal Polar Biology.

        ....

        They said their observations suggested the bears drowned in rough seas and high winds. They also added that the findings "suggest that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues."
        That does seem a rather wide conclusion to draw from 4 dead bears.

        PS Although study in that Guardian article looks more convincing.
        Last edited by xoggoth; 4 September 2011, 11:36.
        bloggoth

        If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'
        John Wayne (My guru, not to be confused with my beloved prophet Jeremy Clarkson)

        Comment


          #64
          Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Post

          Then, for no apparent reason, the editor trashes the paper. He is not an expert in the field, and gives no scientific reason for his opinion. Then he regrets that his journal has has such a big shockwave, 35k downloads, and says the peer review panel was weighted with sceptics. It was set up and run properly, but it was weighted with sceptics.

          you have to think about that for a while.

          Ok. so whats was that all about ?

          If the panel was weighted with sceptics and therefore biased, how could it also have been selected and run properly ? That appears to be contradictory.
          Panels are supposed to be neutral and unbiased.

          There is only one possible explanation - Because there is a CAGW consensus amongst all the experts, EVERY single previous peer reviewed paper on climate MUST have had a pro-CAGW bias.
          This is a clear admission by a pro CAGW editor, that in climate science, a panel can be set up and run properly, yet have a known bias



          these guys are wrecking the scientific process. they are anti-science


          (\__/)
          (>'.'<)
          ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

          Comment


            #65
            Classic bully boy tactics from Jones

            "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" vowed Dr Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
            'Missing heat' climate paper: Journal editor resigns ? The Register
            Coffee's for closers

            Comment


              #66
              Originally posted by Spacecadet View Post
              Quite astounding really, editor doesn´t give scientific reasons, and actually admits the the political views of the authors wasn´t the only factor!!! So political views is one factor and the other factor is that it disagrees with a paper from an author with whom he shares the same political views.

              Now what´s the global temp trend for the last decade:



              ...oh it seems to be going down.
              I'm alright Jack

              Comment


                #67
                Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post

                ...oh it seems to be going down.
                This is statistically insignificant, along with data 'since records began'. Ice core data is probably meaningful... What's that? CO2 levels changed after global temperature changed? Oh maybe we she actually figure out how the climate works before taxing the sh**e out of everything that can be measured.

                Comment


                  #68
                  Originally posted by andyc2000 View Post
                  This is statistically insignificant, along with data 'since records began'. Ice core data is probably meaningful... What's that? CO2 levels changed after global temperature changed? Oh maybe we she actually figure out how the climate works before taxing the sh**e out of everything that can be measured.

                  Well its blindingly obvious that we should not try to make decisions on something that we dont understand properly.
                  Thats the problem, we have a bunch of people who claim to be certain about the way the climate works
                  we have a second group, who are so frightened by the predictions of the first group, that they run around in little circles saying 'something must be done'
                  The third group, are scientifically savvy. They say - 'ok, prove it'
                  There is a fourth group who are sceptical because they are natural sceptics, they dont like being told what to believe, dont like authority and dont like big government


                  there is a fifth group, on the pro-cagw side. they are anti science. they are greenist, fascist and want to control everything. and I mean everything.
                  They are outside the debate, but , unfortunately are controlling it at the moment.
                  ask one of them, pj for example, if they would use violence to achieve their aims

                  there will be no answer. I have asked twice


                  (\__/)
                  (>'.'<)
                  ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

                  Comment


                    #69
                    Interesting (free) lecture to be held here: Professor David MacKay Lecture - 2050 Pathways: How... - Eventbrite

                    Professor David MacKay - 2050: How Government is planning our energy future. In partnership with the Cabot Institute, IMechE and Atkins

                    How easy is it to get off our fossil fuel habit?
                    How does our current energy consumption compare with our sustainable energy options?
                    How can we make energy plans that add up?
                    This talk will offer a straight-talking assessment of the numbers, and will present the DECC 2050 Pathways Calculator

                    David MacKay, FRS, is the Professor of Natural Philosophy in the department of Physics at the University of Cambridge and chief scientific adviser to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)
                    He's also the guy who wrote this interesting book. He is somewhat fixated by one element, namely carbon, though, but apart from that seems okay. First come, first served, don't all rush at once. Hecklers may not be welcome (event details don't specify either way).

                    Comment


                      #70
                      Thats the problem, we have a bunch of people who claim to be certain about the way the climate works
                      No scientist makes such a claim. UNcertainty is a fact of life. The pertinent question is, does the balance of evidence justify action? Here's the IPCC headline observation ...

                      Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations
                      where 'very likely' is defined as >90% probability. And here is a statement from the joint National Academies of Science:-
                      The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.
                      we have a second group, who are so frightened by the predictions of the first group, that they run around in little circles saying 'something must be done'
                      Every cost benefit analysis so far performed concludes that mitigation now is a lot cheaper than adaptation later. We are trying to save you money.

                      The third group, are scientifically savvy. They say - 'ok, prove it'
                      Not so scientifically savvy. Proof belongs in mathematics, rarely in science. In science we have the balance of evidence, which is overwhelmingly supportive of the reality of AGW.

                      There is a fourth group who are sceptical because they are natural sceptics, they dont like being told what to believe, dont like authority and dont like big government
                      Well, thanks for confirming the political, rather than scientific, basis for your 'scepticism'.

                      Sorry I must have missed your previous questions. I unequivocally reject violence to achieve political objectives, and I certainly do not recognise the caricature of the green movement, the overwhelming majority of whom are law-abiding and peacable.
                      My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X