tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post3453686129444029704..comments2023-10-20T21:46:49.945+08:00Comments on Philippine Commentary: What Is Brewing at the CRU?Deany Bocobohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01443168826029321831noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-69660390457921685592009-12-04T08:14:44.276+08:002009-12-04T08:14:44.276+08:00"The main thrust of what I discuss in the pos..."The main thrust of what I discuss in the post is solely based on the data. Yes, the data is used to set initial conditions to the simulation models but again, if the models says the average temp in Appleton Wisconsin is supposed to be 50 ° F (10 ° C) and it turns out to be 15 ° F (-9.5 ° C) and this happens repeatedly no one will take the models seriously."<br /><br />And this is what has happened, no? And aren't all models based upon 'initial conditions' and historical trends? I still don't understand your distinction...the models are what the IPCC bases the hysterical claims on. The models may have many problems (and evidence is emerging that the do), but their singular inability to predict anything seems to me to be the biggest red-flag of all...the models are simply mathematical representations of the theory...formed from the 'data'.<br /><br />Well, as far as 'overplaying'...there is truth and there is untruth. You call them as you see them. The stakes in the AGW debate are enormous...not just politically, but economically. <br /><br />Now there is strong evidence (actually, it's been there for a couple of years, but it's been ignored by the press) that AGW has very little to do with science...and a lot to do with politics. <br /><br />Every day now, we get more revelations about AGW fraud globally...for instance, we now know that NASA refuses to release documentation explaining it's bizarre adjustments to historical data...<br /><br />http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/<br /><br />The original data set said 1934 was the warmest year on record...last year, they abruptly adjusted the data, with no explanation to show that the last 2 years were the warmest in the century...they are being sued to release that...but, why do they have to be sued?rchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08171802835534034109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-32867653520825131472009-12-04T07:58:29.897+08:002009-12-04T07:58:29.897+08:00RC,
The main thrust of what I discuss in the post...RC,<br /><br />The main thrust of what I discuss in the post is solely based on the data. Yes, the data is used to set initial conditions to the simulation models but again, if the models says the average temp in Appleton Wisconsin is supposed to be 50 ° F (10 ° C) and it turns out to be 15 ° F (-9.5 ° C) and this happens repeatedly no one will take the models seriously.<br /><br />Seems to me the chips are being put on the horse named "Establish correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide, industry, and global temperatures" and the case is made. Never mind the difference between correlation and causation. The models are an attempt to establish causation but they only need correlation.<br /><br />What they are doing with the data is understandable to most people and can be explained to people with a high school science education, whereas the models would mystify even most undergraduate science students (excepting perhaps advanced physics, math, and meteorology students).<br /><br />The other point I am trying to make is not too get too excited about the content of the CRU Hack. It is a huge find and is having a noticeable effect, but I believe it is too possible to overplay it.<br /><br />In the end the question comes down to science.Marcus Aureliushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12731740191789466205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-86760735843787479532009-12-03T12:15:39.559+08:002009-12-03T12:15:39.559+08:00Science!
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/...Science!<br /><br />http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Former-NASA-climate-scientist-pleads-guilty-to-contract-fraud-8613137-78268862.htmlrchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08171802835534034109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-4001630433152555322009-12-03T12:12:53.727+08:002009-12-03T12:12:53.727+08:00Wow...you know, the more you read them, the more y...Wow...you know, the more you read them, the more you find all kinds of quotes in these e-mails that can be taken out of context...like this one:<br /><br />“We need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn’t make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven’t spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious.”rchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08171802835534034109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-6616004570242051052009-12-03T12:07:55.102+08:002009-12-03T12:07:55.102+08:00"Modeling is a completely different affair.&q..."Modeling is a completely different affair."<br /><br />I guess I don't understand...the models are based on the data..the algorithms which predict a catastrophic climate...used by politicians and the media...are extrapolated from the data. I see the two as one and the same. If you gather data, then develop and theory and models to predict the future...a very bleak future if we are to believe the AGW disciples and the CRU and IPCC...then those models are assumed to be based on the data from which the theory is based, no? Why this distinction between the models and the data they are based on then? Especially since the two originated from the same organization?rchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08171802835534034109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-49532830784864671692009-12-03T07:40:18.379+08:002009-12-03T07:40:18.379+08:00I'm not addressing the models in this -- simpl...I'm not addressing the models in this -- simply the data they have collected.<br /><br />Modeling is a completely different affair. The hockey stick chart is NOT based on models it is based on data. Data (seemingly very reluctantly) was recently made available and by reports I have read the data does not support the hockey stick. Even though the hockey stick is bull-puckey we are stuck with it.<br /><br />People pushing AGW must demonstrate the global temperature is rising. If they can not do that, no one gives a rat's wetpu what their models say.Marcus Aureliushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12731740191789466205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-5979516654582303982009-12-03T04:54:43.600+08:002009-12-03T04:54:43.600+08:00"This event does not prove or disprove anthro..."This event does not prove or disprove anthropogenic (or otherwise) global warming. It just calls into question the research the promoters of anthropegenic global warming use to support their contentions and policies they believe we need to implement. Further and more rigorous research may indeed uphold the view the earth is warming or it may not."<br /><br />There is one more very big issue with the CRU models...they have utterly failed to make any accurate predictions. For a scientific theory to survive, that is the simplest and most straight forward test. So far...I think alchemy has a better track record.rchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08171802835534034109noreply@blogger.com