Yet ANOTHER Climate Fraud uncovered in NZ!

[WDCRob]

Re: Yet ANOTHER Climate Fraud uncovered in NZ!

Very well said unlucky.

But as has been pointed out... science doesn't work, or fail to work, because its practitioners are human beings with human emotions.

It's certainly frustrating to me as a layman to see so much disinformation and propaganda spread by the deniers. That otherwise intelligent and discerning people as you find on the boards are taken in also pretty alarming.

I can only imagine the level of anger the people who know the truth must feel towards the AGW crowd.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Yet ANOTHER Climate Fraud uncovered in NZ!

Very well said unlucky.

But as has been pointed out... science doesn't work, or fail to work, because its practitioners are human beings with human emotions.

It's certainly frustrating to me as a layman to see so much disinformation and propaganda spread by the deniers. That otherwise intelligent and discerning people as you find on the boards are taken in also pretty alarming.

I can only imagine the level of anger the people who know the truth must feel towards the AGW crowd.

And what is "the truth" on global warming? Why is it "the truth"? What evidence do you have to support what you say is "the truth"? And can I check the evidence you give me, critically and independently? Can others check the evidence you provide, too? Will you accept questions in a news conference? Finally, would you change your hypothesis if the critically-reviewed data does not support your so-called, "truth" on the matter of global warming? Or is your mind already made-up and the issue already "settled"? :confused:

[we_are_toast]

Re: Yet ANOTHER Climate Fraud uncovered in NZ!

I notice that your modus operandi seems to match closely the dogma preached by those to the forefront and the most hardened of AGW fundamentalists , initially to deny all conversation and name call, with appeals to authority; then just appeals to ridicule when your authority sources have been called into question. It has been noticed now more recently, a more conciliatory tone,is this in respect to more recent revelations and what appears to be a general turning of views?, one watches with some anticipation to see if this means is adopted on a more wide spread basis to instill credibility in organizations, which increasingly find said in tatters.

I'm not exactly sure of what you mean here. I believe some of your observations may have mistaken my comments with someone elses.

"Name Calling",
I don't believe I've ever called any individual here any names. I most certainly have related the denier unlogic with that of other conspiracy theorists, such as those who deny the birth certificate of President Obama, or who believe the trade tower destruction was an inside job, or those who believe the moon landings were faked, or those who believe everybody in Dealey Plaza except Oswald shot JFK. Yes, the denier pseudoscience is on par with the unlogic of other conspiracy theories.

"ridicule",
Indeed I've ridiculed the deniers for their unlogic and presentation of pseudoscience as real science. You can pretty much count on me ridiculing pseudoscience and unlogic whether it's Astrology, Alchemy, Ouji boards, 6000 year old earths, or wild conspiracy theories. EJ has stated he views "unreason" as a real threat to America and I agree. I view the denier presentation of their pseudoscience on iTulip as a perfect example of how those who practice unreason can become a real threat (attempts to block needed policy) to America and the world.

"conciliatory",
If I seem more conciliatory, please let me express my deepest apologies.
If you are referring to my observations that C1ue appears to have more in common with the concept of AGW then most of the deniers here who don't even accept the planet is warming much less that it's a problem that we should do something about, than I understand your confusion. If someone tells me they accept the science that Global Warming is real, that it's probably man made, and we as individuals should voluntarily do something about it, I view that position as much closer to the AGW concept than most of the deniers who don't even accept the earth is warming or that it's man made or that it's a problem. Ok, maybe you're right, it was conciliatory for me to find common ground in those views.

[we_are_toast]

Re: Yet ANOTHER Climate Fraud uncovered in NZ!

"Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829) "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1yOu...eature=related

If the Funkhousers are producing Science I think we have a problem!

A chemistry "trick"

1.) Quantities: An easy method to convert nmols to µgs

Easy trick number one.

1 nmol of a compound is equal to the kDa mass of the compound converted to µgs. For example 1 nmol of a 50 kDA protein is 50 µg.

.

The Proof:

1 mole of a 50 kDa protein is

50,000 g

1 millimole is

50 g or 50,000,000 µg

1 micromole is

50,000 µg

1 nanomole is

50 µg

A Quantum Mechanics "trick";

The integral above is not trivial to interpret, because of the square root. Fortunately, there is a heuristic trick. The sum is over the relativistic arclength of the path of an oscillating quantity, and like the nonrelativistic path integral should be interpreted as slightly rotated into imaginary time. The function K(x-y,\tau) can be evaluated when the sum is over paths in Euclidean space.

Oh No! Those trickster scientists have infiltrated our schools! The thousands who have conspired against us on Global Warming are now conspiring to indoctrinate our children!

K-12 Math Problems, Puzzles, Tips & Tricks


Student Center || Teachers' Place


Calculation Tips | Problems | Puzzles

See also the Math Forum's Internet Mathematics Library list of math problems and puzzles on the Internet, and our Teacher2Teacher FAQ: Tricks for Learning Math.

It's worse than H1N1! Tricksters everywhere trying to deceive and fool us. You can't fool us, we won't be tricked!

[c1ue]

Re: Yet ANOTHER Climate Fraud uncovered in NZ!

It's worse than H1N1! Tricksters everywhere trying to deceive and fool us. You can't fool us, we won't be tricked!

Now show us some tricks which allow hiding.

Or how about balancing the needs of IPCC and science?

Amusing as this statement clearly divides IPCC FROM science.

Using your fancy demonstrations - please show how b - a = b where b = science and a = IPCC...

a = zero? :rolleyes:

[skidder]

Re: Yet ANOTHER Climate Fraud uncovered in NZ!

I'm not exactly sure of what you mean here. I believe some of your observations may have mistaken my comments with someone elses.

"Name Calling",
I don't believe I've ever called any individual here any names. I most certainly have related the denier unlogic with that of other conspiracy theorists, such as those who deny the birth certificate of President Obama, or who believe the trade tower destruction was an inside job, or those who believe the moon landings were faked, or those who believe everybody in Dealey Plaza except Oswald shot JFK. Yes, the denier pseudoscience is on par with the unlogic of other conspiracy theories.

"ridicule",
Indeed I've ridiculed the deniers for their unlogic and presentation of pseudoscience as real science. You can pretty much count on me ridiculing pseudoscience and unlogic whether it's Astrology, Alchemy, Ouji boards, 6000 year old earths, or wild conspiracy theories. EJ has stated he views "unreason" as a real threat to America and I agree. I view the denier presentation of their pseudoscience on iTulip as a perfect example of how those who practice unreason can become a real threat (attempts to block needed policy) to America and the world.

"conciliatory",
If I seem more conciliatory, please let me express my deepest apologies.
If you are referring to my observations that C1ue appears to have more in common with the concept of AGW then most of the deniers here who don't even accept the planet is warming much less that it's a problem that we should do something about, than I understand your confusion. If someone tells me they accept the science that Global Warming is real, that it's probably man made, and we as individuals should voluntarily do something about it, I view that position as much closer to the AGW concept than most of the deniers who don't even accept the earth is warming or that it's man made or that it's a problem. Ok, maybe you're right, it was conciliatory for me to find common ground in those views.

How does one even begin to address that bunch of hooey regarding conspiracy theorists?
Here are the facts surrounding Obama's birth certificate, to pick one of those issues.
1). He has only submitted a "certificate of live birth" that has no "seal". That is a time/date stamp much like a notary seal that is physically imprinted into the document. You or I could get one of these certificates just by asking for one as a resident (not birth place) of Hawaii but the time/date stamp would reflect the date of issuance, assuming they even affix a seal on "certificates of live birth". Therefore what Obama submitted does not constitute proof of being born in Hawaii.
2). He refuses to release his "Long form" certificate which is what someone who is actually born in Hawaii is issued. It would have a time/date seal as well as doctor/hospital information.
3). He has spent upwards of 1.5 MILLION dollars to suppress lawsuits asking for this information. To date they have all been dismissed for, get this, LACK OF STANDING. That is to say, that it is none of our business as U.S. citizen voters whether or not Obama is a natural born citizen and thus constitutionally eligible to stand for election. Military officers, 3rd party candidates and everyday voters have been ruled ineligible to ask this question. Why that doesn't piss you off, I have no idea? Don't you even find it odd that he would spend so much money to suppress this simple document?
4). Obama traveled to Pakistan 30 years ago during a time that country was on a state department "no travel" list. What passport did he use to circumvent that little restriction?
Unlike you, I don't have my mind made up on these questions but I do deem them important enough to the rule of law and for the upholding of the constitution for them to be answered by Obama. IMO, we all have "standing" to ask this question.

In addition, I would also be interested in hearing how a 47 story steel building collapses at free fall speed into it's own footprint after 8 hrs of paper fires burning in random places thoughout the building at temps less than 1,000 degrees below that required to melt steel? I know that sounds conspiratorial but I'd still like to hear at least one engineer explain that? There are a thousand or so that have publically said it is impossible (don't have the link but you could google 911 engineers and probably get a link to the organization). But, you know how unreliable and conspiratorial those engineers can be! I don't feel that I'm being unreasonable to ask for answers to questions when the current politically correct explanation appears "unlogical". Especially since in this particular instance, there is a very clear video of sequential explosions, like the kind squibs make when detonating buildings, just immediately prior to the collapse of the building. Here is a more complete list of problems/questions with the 911 report that are actually asked by structural engineers. http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/...2009-06-17.pdf

Anyway, my point is that there are many reasons to doubt the "company" view on these matters and asking questions shouldn't be considered in bad taste or a mad hatter activity, imo.

With regard to the Climategate scam. Here is an article that sums up my opinion on the matter fairly concisely.

"..........
I'm not sure that the scientific community can or will respond to this debacle in a courageous or ethical way. The ID-Darwinism debate clearly demonstrates that venality and shameless self-interest, as well as a toxic leftist-atheist ideology, runs very deep in the scientific community.
Science surely provides much benefit to mankind, but we may need to pursue scientific truth with a different set of scientists than the ones we have now. Surely many many scientists knew of the frauds so clearly documented in the ClimateGate scandal; where were the august scientific organizations--the Royal Academy, the UN's IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science--while this fraud was growing and gaining power. The obvious truth is that these citadels of organized science were part of the fraud, or at least acquiescent in it. Several of the admitted ClimateGate fraudsters were in senior positions in these organizations.
We are on the verge of reorganizing our lives, our governments, and our economies on the basis of massive transparent scientific fraud. We may be able to avert more damage; I'm not sure. The bad guys here have all the influence and most of the money, and they are not hindered by ethics.
What can we do? Criminal prosecution of scientists who manipulate data would be a good start. Scientists who fake data and manipulate peer review to advance their agenda are no different than corporate executives who manipulate stock prices or lawyers who tamper with juries. Ultimately, perhaps massive defunding of organized science, and a new system of support for research that demands utter transparency and maximal accommodation of debate, may be the only way to defend ourselves from an utterly corrupt scientific elite.
It may well be that the public will be forced to protect itself from organized science, as we now protect ourselves from organized crime."

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11..._advice_t.html

[Diarmuid]

Re: Yet ANOTHER Climate Fraud uncovered in NZ!

I'm not exactly sure of what you mean here. I believe some of your observations may have mistaken .

What many of the so called "deniers" have been saying quite clearly for some time, is that the "science" appears to be hijacked and possibly corrupted by some for political and economic reasons and the so called proposed solutions to the "grave threat of warming" facing us all are dubious in their effectiveness at best and fraudulent and criminal at worst , if this is your definition of a conspiracy theorist, I for one, am to be found guilty as charged.

In the case of name calling

The word “denier” crawled out of the political slime,its use is quite clear to associate those who question the AGW thesis to the far right who deny the Holocaust.

"To do so is to commit an unforgivable devaluation of the historical relevance of the word “denier". At least from where I stand it speaks volumes about the mind set of one who uses such terminology.



In the case of conciliatory


The question marks arose to my mind not because you were conciliatory but your motives for being so, you claimed that C1ues position has suddenly become clear to you and the divide between your positions was not as wide as you had first perceived, based on a reading of a post he made concerning a Washington post questionnaire I believe. However previously you had been shouting "flat earther" and "denier" from the roof tops at him. C1ues position to my mind seemed to be emenitently clear from the get go - he was not denying the irradiative effects of CO2, rather the overall impact of that effect on projected climate temperatures, the methodology used in splicing the measured temperature records with proxy temperature records, the over reliance on computer models to predict forcing effects, climate sensitivity and tipping points etc.. The question of motive arose because of the timing of your newly found clarity. Now maybe you were unable to understand his position as articulated in his previous posts but that seems to make your position untenable, as to you proclaiming those who have not adopted / share your position as ignorant , if you did understand his previous posts, then your newly found clarity as to the gap between both of you, appears to be disingenuous and your motives come into question. Either way your previous fears regarding those who are leading us into age of unreason; would appear to me, to put you at the vanguard of that which which you fear.


To the environment and questions of sustainability it is something which occupies my mind and troubles me but I currently feel many of our problems are caused by the economic paradigm we currently find ourselves in, a system demanding constant growth, sustainability becomes improbable, if not impossible , this has led me to profoundly change how I live, however that said people who adopt the modus operandi you employ, scare me at least as much as the environmental challenges we face, who in their intellectual hubris and unwavering faith and dogma would foist highly restrictive changes with dubious effectiveness on society to solve an unproven problem.


To case of conspiracies and appeal to ridicule I leave you with



http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorita/

Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process
Eduardo Zorita, November 2009 Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.

A longer answer: My voice is not very important. I belong to the climate-research infantry, publishing a few papers per year, reviewing a few manuscript per year and participating in a few research projects. I do not form part of important committees, nor I pursue a public awareness of my activities. My very minor task in the public arena was to participate as a contributing author in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication. My area of research happens to be the climate of the past millennia, where I think I am appreciated by other climate-research 'soldiers'. And it happens that some of my mail exchange with Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn can be found in the CRU-files made public recently on the internet.
To the question of legality or ethicalness of reading those files I will write a couple of words later.
I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files.



They depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.
These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the 'politically correct picture'. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the 'pleasure' to experience all this in my area of research.
I thank explicitely Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn for their work in the formulation of one Chapter of the IPCC report. As it destills from these emails, they withstood the evident pressure of other IPCC authors, not experts in this area of research, to convey a distorted picture of our knowledge of the hockey-stick graph.
Is legal or ethical to read the CRU files? I am not a lawyer. It seems that if the files had been hacked this would constitute an illegal act. If they have been leaked it could be a whistle blower action protected by law. I think it is not unethical to read them. Once published, I feel myself entitled to read how some researchers tried to influence reviewers to scupper the publication of our work on the 'hockey stick graph' or to read how some IPCC authors tried to exclude this work from the IPCC Report on very dubious reasons. Also, these mails do not contain any personal information at all. They are an account of many dull daily activities of typical climatologists, together with a realistic account of very troubling professional behavior.

http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorita/




I trust this has made explicit to that which was made implicitly.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Yet ANOTHER Climate Fraud uncovered in NZ!

I trust this has made explicit to that which was made implicitly.

Well written post, sir. Thank-you.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Yet ANOTHER Climate Fraud uncovered in NZ!

Personally I'm inclined to believe that AGW is very likely to be on the mark. However the stuff that came out from CRU shows that they have an unhealthy focus on attacking and undermining opponents, rather than on doing science. You can't ask scientists not to form political opinions, and some say it's inevitable that those opinions will influence their work. That must be true to some extent but professionals should be capable of keeping emotive questions at arms length.

I worked for 10 years as an academic scientist before moving into industry. In academia we competed whole-heartedly against certain other research groups, just as in industry I compete whole-heartedly with certain other companies. But in academia we would never have discussed our competitors in the terms seen in those emails. That would have been viewed as pretty unprofessional. (Industry is a different matter ).

I suppose the CRU do not view the "deniers" as legimate scientific competitors. But in that case why the excessive and defensive focus on rebutting them?

I would be very surprised if the claims about "fake" data are proven to be true. There are certain standards that have not been undermined, and this is one of them: any scientist who is found to have faked data will never work again as a scientist. I seriously doubt that the CRU scientists would have taken that risk, because a mere graduate student entering the institution for the first time could have called them on it. (I know of an MIT associate-professor whose career was terminated in precisely this way).

What is much more likely is that the data has been processed using published techniques that the scientific community has accepted as legimate to some extent, but that may be unintelligible or unacceptable to others. Note that virtually all raw measurements have to be processed to some degree to make any sense out of them, since they are typically full of noise and artifacts introduced by the measurement systems. The techniques used by the CRU scientists may be right or wrong - I don't know - but I imagine they have been discussed publicly in the relevant scientific literature and that scientists reading the processed data will have formed a view (either accepting or skeptical) on each of those techniques. For a scientist to use "secret" techniques or to publish data without disclosing how it has been processed, would be unacceptable to other scientists.

Having said all that, it's clear from their private emails that the CRU scientists are on the wrong mission. George Monbiot, a noted AGW proponent, has called on the head of the CRU to resign, and I think he is right. The world desperately needs professional climatologists who will focus on just doing the science, we already have plenty of air-heads to conduct the political debate.

Having been a climatologist for a few years, I have no problem with making a change to data to account for something scientific and important: maybe a change in the elevation of the temperature station if that station was moved. That is fair-ball provided that the changes in raw data are documented and with a reason recorded for those changes as a footnote.

What I have a problem with is when changes are made to data in order to make the data better fit a model or a thesis. Even worse, is making changes to data to prove a thesis.

What the New Zealand (NZIA) group did was selectively adjust temperature data downward in the early part of the 20th C. and then similarly adjust data upward in the last part of the 20th C. This was done apparently in order to try to prove their thesis of global warming..... And that is not kosher. That doesn't even pass the smell test in science.:rolleyes:

[doom&gloom]

Re: Yet ANOTHER Climate Fraud uncovered in NZ!

And what is "the truth" on global warming? Why is it "the truth"? What evidence do you have to support what you say is "the truth"? And can I check the evidence you give me, critically and independently? Can others check the evidence you provide, too? Will you accept questions in a news conference? Finally, would you change your hypothesis if the critically-reviewed data does not support your so-called, "truth" on the matter of global warming? Or is your mind already made-up and the issue already "settled"? :confused:

don't confuse members of the Church of AGW with "the facts". Those didn't
work for the "scientists" involved, so I doubt it will work well with the adherents
either. Like any good religion, one just has to believe, "facts" be damned. I
personally could no more believe most of these AGW people will give up their
misplaced belief system than any Muslim or Catholic would give up theirs.

[icm63]

Re: Yet ANOTHER Climate Fraud uncovered in NZ!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8

See truth above..

[unlucky]

Re: Yet ANOTHER Climate Fraud uncovered in NZ!

Having been a climatologist for a few years, I have no problem with making a change to data to account for something scientific and important: maybe a change in the elevation of the temperature station if that station was moved. That is fair-ball provided that the changes in raw data are documented and with a reason recorded for those changes as a footnote.

What I have a problem with is when changes are made to data in order to make the data better fit a model or a thesis. Even worse, is making changes to data to prove a thesis.

What the New Zealand (NZIA) group did was selectively adjust temperature data downward in the early part of the 20th C. and then similarly adjust data upward in the last part of the 20th C. This was done apparently in order to try to prove their thesis of global warming..... And that is not kosher. That doesn't even pass the smell test in science.:rolleyes:

If that's what they did, then you would be perfectly right. I just doubt that the scientific community would let them get away with it. There are plenty of blogs publishing rebuttals of the claim that the data was faked, e.g.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-l...top-scientist/

The standard of debate on the Internet is too strident and hysterical for me to draw conclusions about the truth of any of these claims.