Soren wrote on Dec 16^th, 2009 at 8:12pm:


Soren,

I can't believe that you swallow all that crap hook line and sinker.  In fact I could never understand how people will support any line based entirely on party policy.

If you just accept party policy without actually using the grey matter to think each issue through, then you will accept mediocrity every time. Of course rational thought hurts many people who have not exercised their neurons enough in life. The solution is to say "I'm ALP" or "I'm right wing". Either way, it's hiding stupidy in numbers.

I actually hate the idea of political parties and of people being forced to vote against their better judgement like so many sheep being herded into a pen. I prefer to think for myself.

Let's just look at what you're saying here. AGW is a Goreyan fantasy.  That's like saying that a news item is the invention of the newsreader.

Al Gore should be irrelevant other than being a presenter. Every time he opens his mouth without understanding the issue, he risks speaking bullshit.  The people who actually understand the issue are the climate scientists and those who have taken the time to understand the science in depth.

I used to get annoyed with those who said that I have fallen for Al Gore's nonsense. I now understand that it's just part of the script like "Ignorance is Strength" (1984).  I watched part of one of Al Gore's  videos once and I couldn't bear to watch it much because he was grossly oversimplifying the issue. It was teeth grating stuff.

I am a proud centrist. I decide every issue for myself based on my own judgement, hard evidence, scientific principles and data. I accept the conclusions regardless of whether I find them to be grossly antithetic to my current source of income or not.

If you find all that to be hypocritical, then all I can say is find me a person who has no logical conflicts, who has no internal enigmas and I will dispute their humanity.  

The same goes for elections. Politicians pander to the bulk of humanity who are pig-ignorant and proud of it. Instead of showing evidence of logical thought processes, they substitute pusillanimous slogans, such as "AGW is a Goreyan Fantasy" as an example. I really thought I could detect a glimmer of rational thought there, soren, but perhaps I was wrong.  

The sad fact that emerges from Copenhagen is that democracy and consensus among human beings is enormously over-rated, in much the same way as it is over-rated for Lemmings.

Ignorance is Strength, comrade.

muso wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 8:18am:



UND


mozzaok wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 9:39am:


Und zat is vy vi nid strong leadership, a strong Fuhrer. Und a new pipl. Dese pipl don't know vat's gut for zem. Ve should elect a new pipl.  A pipl viz higher conciousness. Like us. More power to us!!

Muso, we have known all along that the whole AGW wheeze was really about deep-seated (and old-fashioned) Marxist tropes.

But look! More news about manipulation. Shurely shome mishtake, what?


Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-ser...

muso wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 11:12am:


Yes, poor me. On the other hand, you must glow with enermous intellectual satisfaction, knowing that you have Chavez and Mugabe on side. If I had three arms, I'd give one for that.

 

Soren wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 2:19pm:


It's not so much peer review bullying. The emails I read were more like "Who the hell allowed this rot to be published?" I can understand that. The likes of Bob Carter et al used running 13 month averages on temperature data, which amounted to using a highpass filter. They deliberately filtered out long-term trend data through the dishonest use of statistics.

The 'hide the decline' part refers to dendrochronology data. There was a divergence between instrument temperatures and those derived from tree-ring data. The erroneous data was from tree-ring research. It has nothing to do with instrumental temperature records.

Even though tree ring data is less accurate, there are plenty of scientists who are happy to defend its use. It's a question of how you interpret it. Temperature is not the only factor that affects tree ring development.

There was a whole series of emails arguing about whether or not to include tree ring data. If the original researcher stated that the data is suspect after say 1961, then I'd tend to go with the original researcher on that.

It was a beat-up designed to cause problems at Copenhagen. That's all.

You keep going on about the hockey stick as if it was significant. You're talking about data that was first presented 10 years ago. Since then there have been many independent studies that have confirmed the validity of the so-called hockey stick, including one by the US National Academy of Sciences in 2006.

The e-mails as far as I know weren't even the most damming thing to come out of "Climategate". HARRY_READ_ME.txt was far worse.

Soren wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 6:01pm:


In terms of how far we have come from there, it's definitely ancient times.

Quote:


What's your problem, didn't you like the findings of the National Research Council when they found that there were statistical shortcomings, but that they were insignificant.

To illustrate exactly how insignificant, here is the original MBH 1998 study plotted with a more recent study by Wahl Amman in 2007.

As you can see, there is not exactly a significant difference. In fact, can you tell me exactly what M&M were on about ?




From:

Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction
of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures:
Examination of criticisms based on the nature and
processing of proxy climate evidence

Eugene R. Wahl · Caspar M. Ammann, Climatic Change (2007) 85:33–69






[/quote]

muso wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 6:51pm:

Am I reading that graph right? The Medieval Cold period was no more than a drop of half a degree?
If so, can that be believed?