BK, your a dumbass not to believe the # of Pirates logged against global temps graph.

Its a graph, so it must be true.

Just because data are verifiable, direct and modern does not mean that they are reflective of anything beyond the scope of their assimilation. (wow, I'm smart...)

BK, your a dumbass not to believe the # of Pirates logged against global temps graph.

Its a graph, so it must be true.

The graphs may be true. I just don't know and I don't have the time or the inclination to get out my old software and start running regression analyses and Z tests and the like to try to prove validity or nullity. It's a damn shame when scientists are picking sides and fudging data -- either way -- to advocate for a favored position. That's bad science and bad policy.

Back during my twilight tour before I retired I had a civilian department head in the directorate I was running. She was the IT guru (guress?) and she came to me and the skipper with a request for 50,000 dollars for new servers, routers and a bunch of new Pentium computers. This was in '98 and neither I nor the skipper was all that up on information systems technology (I took an MCSE training course the next year so I at least had an idea of what she was talking about). The skipper asked me if what she was asking for was really necessary and I told him I had no idea and that she could be taking us for a ride, for all we knew.

That's what this whole debate from climate scientists is beginning to appear to be. They've certainly convinced a number of people who aren't scientists of the pristine truth in their prognoses, but are they really presenting factual, accurate data or have they looked at their data and convinced themselves it has to be 100% true? And even if it isn't, maybe they believe they're doing us all a service by advocating for it because it's "for a good cause," right? And that taking "precautions" is the least we can do, right? The trouble is, the "cure," in the form of actions taken under that precautionary priniciple may end up doing us more harm than good, especially if there's really nothing we can do to lower temperatures even if we were the cause of the rise in temps in the first place, which many climate change skeptics aren't exactly convinced of, as yet.

T.

most of the controversy has been regarding data about ancient temperature reconstructions. not the much more simple and, more importantly, verifiable, direct, modern measurements.

c02 concentrations are monitored by many groups of people, theres no disagreement there

global mean temperatures are a bit more involved but 2 major groups indenpendantly track that, and are also in agreement.

but if you want to suggest that temperature reconstructions are suspect, I'll agree. I think the whole field, as far as being used to push AGW agenda, is pointless

but then I think the "AGW" agenda is pointless anyway
hmm

Except that if the MWP was actually warmer than what is currently being portrayed by these reconstructions--which appears to be the case if you look at the Yamal debacle and what a more robust data set reveals--then today's temperatures would not be outside of the scope of what we have experienced in the past, when CO2 concentrations were actually lower.

Now, such a result causes a problem for AGW theorists, which is why they have gone to GREAT lengths to make sure that the MWP goes away.

Somewhere between IPCC1 and the latest report it did in fact "disappear."

The hacked emails are shedding light on all this bullshit, because now we are left with merely theories, as opposed to so-called consensus.

And if we are still in the theory phase, one must ask how can we make policy of the type being contemplated now, when it is based on mere theories, as opposed to "settled science?"

Are you really a dumbass, or are you just trying to appear like one?

how are you evaluating which reconstructions are the most robust?

I don't have any idea how to do that.



When SM included all the tree ring data available in the area where the Yamal tree rings came from the Hockey Stick disappeared.

It is more robust than Briffa's methodology because the sample size is much larger.

It is also more robust because Briffa never disclosed what methodology he used--and we still don't know--to chose the 12 Yamal samples for inclusion in his dataset--one of those trees was a six sigma data point.

We are left to simply speculate--what is cherry picking or something else, again, he has NOT disclosed this info and the journals didn't require him to explain it apparently.

His peers reviewers are, you guessed it, the same guys who appear in the emails just exposed.

We covered all this ground in the other thread--perhaps you should check out some of SM's follow up posts on this topic and read Briffa's response.

The Yamal dataset contaminated other reconstructions, many of which were used in the IPCC reports.

If those were considered "robust" previously, they can't possibly be considered "robust" anymore.

All of this is academic--no pun intended--now that we have the fraud brought to light in such stunning and spectacular fashion.