Would this not lower your faith in the current AGW construct?
If we understood the problem and its causes, and our modeling is correct, why wouldn’t what actually happens be in line with those expectations?
And if what happens is significantly different from those expectations, perhaps we have it wrong…I am not encouraged at the accuracy of our understanding simply because the changes are happening in the same direction as predicted. Either we understand greenhouse gases and climate change enough to make accurate predictions or we do not. If our predictions are wildly inaccurate–even if the general direction is warming–I am underwhelmed that the construct itself has somehow been confirmed.
I hope he’s right. Though there’s no question this will endure in some circles. But those circles are those who already oppose AGW, and are simply looking for “support” for their beliefs.
My question is, how much of an impact is “Climategate,” as some blogs call it, making on the population at large? Will it have an impact on the polls the OP talks about?
[ETA: One thing that gets me: whichever side (among those in punditry and policy right now) that ends up being wrong about this whole issue will never see the consequences of their being wrong - if it’s those who believe in AGW, they’ll always think it’s still right around the corner, and if it’s those who don’t, the worst will probably happen after they’re dead.]
Not avoiding it, it is you that is not pointing to the context of those graphs. AFAIK, one can get one of the graphs by doing the steps that the National Academy of Sciences concluded were not relevant or the right thing to do.
Are you having the typical conservative problems with timelines ;).
Sorry, old personal joke that I always wonder if it is a rule, AFAIR some requests asked for raw data from the days where it would be prohibitively expensive to save all the raw data; However, as not all met offices for sure had the same limitations, it is likely that raw data was available from other locations (locations that have less restrictions than others) or the there is a different request (again with the missing context! It is clear to me why deniers like to avoid it on top of the cherry picking that they did to the stolen emails) that came later for a different set for more recent years.
If I understand correctly, raw data is not preferred anyhow for research, but data already processed to give and request to other researchers, this is why one can still see more of the former released.
So, I provided a grpah that was made by (for you unimpeachable) sources. It is very simple, it plots the difference between actual temperature readings and the adjusted levels. The graph says that while actual temperature readings have increased 0.1 the adjusted level go up 0.6.
I simply ask, does it not bother you at all that most of the warming comes not from reading but from adjustments? I know that there are good reasons to make adjustments; however, at some point the ajustments seems, at least, to take over the readings.
Your answer: “hockey stick, nothing elese to say”
If you can’t give specific answers, I will no longer reswpond to your posts.
The phrase was used by Jones when he assured Mann, “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
(from the e-mails)
No, it does not bother me, it did not bother other organizations looking at the data.
You did post the graphs showing the creative reconstruction by the deniers. Dismissed by the scientific reviews and investigations. Everyone else can see that you are not dealing with the answers to that.
As mentioned before, bring issues that were not investigated before, you are just swallowing what deniers say, not looking at the science.
OK, suppose that the models proposed by the AGW proponnts are valid. How sensitive are these models to varainces in the inputs?
For example, suppose the temperature measurements over wide areas of (the former) USSR were found to have been doctored-and the models are re-run with the correct data-what are the actual predictions?
It sounds to me, that the models did not show any big variance in outputs, which is why the data was altered.
By the way, how well do the predictive models work in the case of Mars?
Question for you, that graph that Ají de Gallina posted comes from the NOAA. Are the NOAA folks a bunch of ‘deniers’? (Hint, you may want to look at the URL) The answer is to be in the form of yes or no.
Second question, do you believe that the NOAA doctored that graph? Yes or No. If the answer is yes, why would they do that?
How is this a “fundamental conflict of interest”? Is a cancer researcher who advocates people stop smoking tobacco also engaged in a “fundamental conflict of interest”?
They are if you couple that with attempting to stop people from smoking in an effort to generate public (and political) support to leverage additional funding (and deny said funding to the opposition) for your own research. Everyone seems to think that scientists are unbiased because they aren’t in it for the money (like, say, cigarette companies), and to a point that’s true. But scientists are in a huge competition for funding…and also for prestige and public recognition.
Then every single person who lobbies any government for anything is involved in a “fundamental conflict of interest”.
You want a skate park in your town? Better not ask the local government to help, that would be a conflict of interest. How can we believe your survey that 1000 people want the skate park? You own a taco stand near the park. That data is prolly fudged; after all, we know you want the skate park. You’d say anything to get what you want.
MADD? Clearly a conflict of interest. I don’t know why we even bothered to look at their data, let alone listen to them testifying before congress. Clearly their data is unreliable: they fudged it because they just want us to pass certain laws. They’d do anything to get those laws passed.
This line of reasoning is ridiculous. It’s only slightly less ridiculous than the shit that’s been coming out of the Marshall Institute for the last 20-odd years.
Well…yeah. Of course they do. That’s why they are called ‘special interests’.
Huh? You lost me. Just because I might be a skate board manufacturer and that lobbying for a skate park (on the public’s dime) in a town would be a good thing, doesn’t mean I shouldn’t lobby for it…or that it’s not a good thing.
As long as one acknowledges that their data viewpoint might be skewed by their own interests, I don’t see the harm. Again, you aren’t making sense. That there is a bias doesn’t discount the data automatically.
Well, your post is confusing…you seem to be conflating a bunch of stuff together seemingly at random, and you really didn’t address the point I was merely attempting to clarify. It seems rather obvious (and not ‘ridiculous’ as you put it) that groups attempting to gain public and political support for their theories in order to ALSO gain funding may have some conflicts. I don’t see that this is necessarily a bad thing…seems like ‘reality’ to me. Groups do this all the time in the real world.
XT, my post really wasn’t aimed at your post #136, but rather at the attitude displayed in Sam’s post claiming a “fundamental conflict of interest”.
For one thing, he claims that there is a “fundamental conflict of interest”, but provides nothing to back up his assertion. Thus, I can only conclude that anyone who tries to drum up support for anything is involved, to Sam, in a “fundamental conflict of interest”, since in some way they will stand to gain from that support.
