OT: Climate sensibility

Page 1 of 5  
Here's a bit of intelligent opinion on the subject (as opposed to most of what appears here). Presented without further comment.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten12-2009dec12,0,2096153.column
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Unfortunately the two other databases cited used the UK database for "calibration" it was the master. The space instruments were all calibrated on the East Anglia data and unedited data from East Anglia is still missing.
Reminds me of the situation where everyone was sure that power lines caused cancer. The study was very clear on that. Scientist all agreed the data presented showed it. Three different databases all came to the same answer. They were all calibrated from the same (altered) baseline.
The author of the cancer study should be getting out of prison about now. He "cleaned up" the data to make it easier for others to see the link between cancer and power lines.
While I think there are things going on with the climate, I am scientifically literate enough to know that if the calibration data set is altered, all the others are...
Think of it this way - cut one stud 1 inch short without noticing (we will call this the calibration stud) and mark all the others with that stud. No matter what you do, if you use that calibrated stud to cut the rest they will also all be 1 inch too short.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, the first sentence reveals you to be mistaken.
Why MUST we accept that global warming is real?
And really, citing the LA Times as authoritative on anything is a stretch at best...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:42:10 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone

He's just flustered because his world truth has just been shattered.
-- Every day above ground is a Good Day(tm). -----------
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jo4hn wrote:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten12-2009dec12,0,2096153.column

"Intelligent"? Too bad that the clearly stated basic premise of this "opinion" piece (when they finally get to it) just happens to be misleading spin: "Doubters insist that the Earth is not warming."
Nothing could be further from the truth.
What "doubters" are insisting is that politics and science do not mix, and any result that mix is to be viewed with suspicion.
There is simply too much that is "non-scientific" between the data and the conclusions that fosters "doubt" in the minds of those of us who have had at least a modicum of training in scientific method.
"Doubters" DO believe that it is this unresolved "doubt" that exists, possibly in either direction, which makes it imprudent as a basis for proposed massive government intervention.
Not to mention, IMNSHO, that a warm bucket of spit has more currency than any "opinion" piece from the LA Times, fercrissakes!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
A short article from one of the most-respected science journals:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
Kevin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kevin wrote:

It's an editorial, not a peer-reviewed research paper, and thus is no more meaningful than someone's opinion expressed on USENET.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:47:18 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:

Hmmm. An earlier post on this subject denigrated the peer-reviewed articles in SciAm. Now you knock one that isn't peer-reviewed. Doesn't leave much, does it?
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

There are no peer reviewed articles in Scientific American.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! Prediction is very difficult especially if it is about the future. - Niels Bohr
Kevin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kevin wrote:

And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by persuasion, than silence us by power."
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A couple of interesting (at least, to me) analyses. I like number crunching!
http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data / http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-data-suspect-an-objective-assessment /
Kevin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kevin wrote:

http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data /
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-data-suspect-an-objective-assessment /
Equally interesting is buried deep in one of your above:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/gwuppsala.htm
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Very interesting!
Kevin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/15/2009 3:18 PM, Swingman wrote:

Considering that this data is collect from various points on earth and the daily variance in those reading from the north pole to the south pole is at least 100 degrees on any given day, it is amazing that they think their data is so precise that they can talk about a 5 degree change.
I would like to have all of the data points and subject it to an aggressive statistical analysis such as that used for a drug being submitted to the FDA. I doubt any of their "theories" would hold up. In other words based on the wide variance in the data and the variance in the weather stations on any single day I believe that statistical analysis would show there is no significant changes in the data.
One of the easiest ways to prove something from random data is to cherry pick the starting and ending point of the data range. Based on the starting and ending point you can use random data to prove anything.
The link is to a simple discussion of statistical significance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Huh. You guys have fun ridiculing what frightens you.
You (the collective you) have no baseline, no real basis to reason from but you choose to ridicule by using your own 'cherry picking'.
I'm out. You obviously have no interest in a rational discussion.
D'ohBoy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, just your kind.

Bullshit.
Please start one.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
D'ohBoy wrote:

You might try presenting one.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Realclimate isn't the most objective of analysis, unfortunately.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There's an understatement!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.