Did I miss the thread about the CRU Fraud?

[Lorizael]

It's obviously possible, but no one at CRU has alleged that, which I would expect them to do right away if that were the case. I don't think there's any doubt on either side of the issue that the emails are authentic.

Also it was more than an email server. Source code and annotations from the climate modeling was also released. The same models and data which they refused to release previously, which isn't very scientific since hypotheses and theories rely on replication of experiments and findings.

But I guess alarmists are so awesome that the Scientific Method doesn't apply to them.

No, you silly man. That's exactly what we'd expect them to do, so they can't do it. It's too obvious! You're right that there hasn't been much word from CRU though, which suggests to me that there are complicating factors. Have you considered the possibility that the scientists accused of all this are actually part of a conspiracy of Big Oil barons who are trying to damage the public image of anti-technology tree-huggers?

But then you have to wonder why Big Oil hasn't come out to claim their innocence in this regard. A reasonable explanation is that they're laying low because their plot hasn't come to fruition yet. It seems possible that maybe this is deeper than we know, and what we're seeing here is actually part of the NWO's efforts to eradicate science in order to make us stupid and weak so that we cannot rebel against them. Again, we can't know if this is the case, but it's certainly possible.

[HalfLotus]

The big oil barons and the big banks are all on board with this, as I mentioned earlier. There isn't really an us vs. them thing within the financial and industrial sectors. That's just another divide and conquer drama to amuse and confuse the peasants.

To the extent that it still exists, it's being dealt with very effectively by an amazingly well coordinated political, economic, and social shift toward "green" and "sustainable" technology in nearly every corner of the globe. So well coordinated that it's obviously a politically motivated fraud since politicians and governments suck at doing the right thing in a short period of time, and for sustained periods of time.

[KrazyHorse]

HOW DEEP DOES THE RABBIT HOLE GO!!!@!@!!!111!!>?????

[Lorizael]

Wait, did he just agree with me?

[KrazyHorse]

[Lorizael]

HalfLotus, if you want to know why everyone thinks you're bat**** crazy, it's because your beliefs are functionally equivalent to ancient Norse or Greek mythology. For an explanation of why this is a terribly bad way to construct a worldview, watch this video:



The short of it is this: You make baby Occam cry.

[Elok]

The big oil barons and the big banks are all on board with this, as I mentioned earlier. There isn't really an us vs. them thing within the financial and industrial sectors. That's just another divide and conquer drama to amuse and confuse the peasants.

To the extent that it still exists, it's being dealt with very effectively by an amazingly well coordinated political, economic, and social shift toward "green" and "sustainable" technology in nearly every corner of the globe. So well coordinated that it's obviously a politically motivated fraud since politicians and governments suck at doing the right thing in a short period of time, and for sustained periods of time.

Your post count is well over 500, you know. Unless the rules changed with the owners or something, you should be able to just go ahead and make your avatar Rorschach from "Watchmen."

[Felch]

My personal favorite are the folks who accept that human-influenced global climate change is real, but think it's a good thing because it will stave off a natural ice age. Talk about glass-half-full thinking!

What's wrong with that sort of thinking? I've yet to see any sort of public debate that considers the benefits of CO2 and higher temperatures on crop yields. All anybody talks about is desertification and increased hurricanes and rising sea levels. I think it's more likely going to be a mix of good and bad results. Some areas will have less rainfall, some more. Overall, melting icecaps and slightly warmer temperatures should increase rainfall, and lengthen growing seasons.

Does anybody here think that I'm nuts for this? I mean, you add fresh water to the water cycle by unlocking it from glaciers. There's a pretty solid correlation between warm temperatures and rainfall, although I don't claim to know the exact reasons why. I know that Antarctica is a giant desert, while the tropics are dominated by rain forests. It makes sense to me that we'd see a lot more water made available for the planet.

Frankly if the prediction were that we were entering a period of global cooling, I'd be a lot less optimistic. Instead of rising sea levels we'd have ice caps as far south as Pennsylvania. If sea levels worry you, think of having to build a levy to keep a glacier from crushing Manhattan.

[SpencerH]

Spencer, I see a distinctive warming trend on the graph, and it's pretty apparent that it's statistically distinguishable from 0. Appears to be about 0.3C over 30 years.

That the trend over those 30 years is due to the greenhouse effect is not apparent, obviously, without further data.

A warming trend? If that was a graph of blood hormone levels over time I'd go back for more data before I made such a claim. I've definitely refused to publish similarly weak correlations from my own data.

It looks to me like there is a period from 1979 to 1997 where the "globally averaged satellite-based lower atmosphere temperatures" cycle above and below the average temp from 1979 to 2010 with a periodicy of approximately 4 years. After 1997 (and the EL NINO) the temp does not appear to cycle downward again until 2007 and as a result the median temperatures after 1997 appear to be slightly higher than those prior to 1997. Is that a statistically significant difference? Possibly, maybe even probably.

The point with any scientific data to me is always what is its relevance not simply whether it is statistically significant? From my observation of the results I have to ask did we suddenly produce more global warming pollutants in and after 1997? Somehow I doubt it. Does this data convince any serious scientist about the truth of global warming? I hope not.

As for the data transformations, personally I like to see the raw data. I'm always skeptical of what is being hidden by "averaging" data manipulations. If I was reviewing this work for publication (assuming it was immune hormones and not climate) I'd fire a rocket up their asses for such bull****.

I think you posted earlier something that scientists were mostly honest, I've been around a bit longer and I disagree. Not that they all deliberately lie, but that they will include data that they want to see and ignore the data that they dont want to see. Which is exactly what these CRU scientists appear to have done (at least if not more).

[KrazyHorse]

Does anybody here think that I'm nuts for this? I mean, you add fresh water to the water cycle by unlocking it from glaciers.

The water cycle lasts only a couple of months IIRC. Adding "fresh water" has no meaning. All water in the atmosphere is fresh. There's nothing magic about fresh water "locked in" glaciers. As sea levels rise I would expect that the oceans would become less saline (very slightly less) but I have no idea what the effect on fresh water supplies would be. Making a statement about fresh water involves knowledge of rainfall patterns, river flows etc.

[KrazyHorse]

A warming trend? If that was a graph of blood hormone levels over time I'd go back for more data before I made such a claim. I've definitely refused to publish similarly weak correlations from my own data.

This is an absolutely ridiculous claim, and I'm beginning to suspect that you have no knowledge of rigourous time-series analysis.

[BlackCat]

A warming trend? If that was a graph of blood hormone levels over time I'd go back for more data before I made such a claim. I've definitely refused to publish similarly weak correlations from my own data.

This is an absolutely ridiculous claim, and I'm beginning to suspect that you have no knowledge of rigourous time-series analysis.

Are you saying for real that you can say something sensible from a 30 year clip showing a warming trend without knowing anything about what happend earlier ???

[KrazyHorse]

I suggest you read what I wrote before. That graph demonstrates that there has been a warming trend over the scale of 30 years. Without further information no statement can be made about its cause or its likelihood of continuing.

I only go into detail explaining this because I know that you're close to mentally handicapped.

[BlackCat]

I suggest you read what I wrote before. That graph demonstrates that there has been a warming trend over the scale of 30 years. Without further information no statement can be made about its cause or its likelihood of continuing.

I only go into detail explaining this because I know that you're close to mentally handicapped.

Well, I seem to have missed a sentence in all the quoting, so you apparently isn't as retarded as I for a moment thought.

[KrazyHorse]

In other words, you have no idea what's going on in this conversation, but as usual you opined on something far outside your area of competence (if such a thing even exists).

Perhaps you can explain again how you can compress a lightly correlated stream of random real numbers.