But we don't think anything climate scientists do is part of the fraud, other than in their conclusions and forecasts which have ever failed to materialise and the basis on which they draw their conclusions.
Isn't that a rather convoluted way of saying you do think everything climate scientists do is fraudulent?
You're just another good 'ole conspiracy theorist, aren't you?
How about you having a go at the Eel-Millam mathematical challenge:
Suppose I am calculating a monthly mean temperature, based on 2 readings per day, giving 60 or so readings for the month. Suppose that the uncertainty in each temperature reading is 0.2C, and there are no systematic errors to consider.
What then is the uncertainty in the calculated mean?
Eel failed to slither over the first hurdle (he couldn't understand the question), bmillam didn't read the invitation and hasn't turned up, so you are pretty much on your own at this stage.
Isn't that a rather convoluted way of saying you do think everything climate scientists do is fraudulent?
Now I understand you better, you can't read properly, can you?
You're just another good 'ole conspiracy theorist, aren't you?
No but perhaps you can tell us where and when the GW alarmists have been accurate in their forcasts of species wipeout or even anything close to it.....they haven't, have they?
How about you having a go at the Eel-Millam mathematical challenge:
What is it and even if I'm able to answer it, will it avert devastation on Earth as described by GW alarmists?
Eel fell at the first hurdle (he couldn't understand the question), bmillam didn't read the invitation and hasn't turned up, so you are pretty much on your own at this stage.
And I'm going to disappoint you by not answering the question, just so you can rage on until life on Earth collapses that we couldn't answer your question. You see, it would mean a wasted effort wouldn't it?
Now I understand you better, you can't read properly, can you?
If you intended your sentence to mean something other than what I inferred from it, you should have used different words.
No but perhaps you can tell us where and when the GW alarmists have been accurate in their forcasts of species wipeout or even anything close to it.....they haven't, have they?
As always, I think it would be helpful if you explained which forecasts you had in mind, who made them, where they made them, and how they have failed. Simply being vaguely angry about something-or-other doesn't really advance the argument.
And as always, I don't expect that you will deliver the goods.
And I'm going to disappoint you by not answering the question
Can you read and understand the text I've just quoted, Abe? Does that look like a shocking scandal to you, or just a slightly better way of processing the underlying data for graphical depiction? Are you cleverer and more honest than Steven Goddard?
Given that I'm not a ranting raving cultist who brokers no argument whatsoever while conjuring up laughable excuses to explain strange goings on, as in your recent "without any prompting" defence, I'd say they're to be commended for fully explaining it.
On a somewhat similar note - do you think Mann should comply with the law, just like the rest of us? Or is he above the law?
Given that I'm not a ranting raving cultist who brokers no argument whatsoever while conjuring up laughable excuses to explain strange goings on, as in your recent "without any prompting" defence,
You've contradicted yourself, right there...
On a somewhat similar note - do you think Mann should comply with the law, just like the rest of us? Or is he above the law?
Is this the bit where he's supposed to roll over and accept whatever the Witchfinder General of Virginia wants to do to him in pursuit of an ideological agenda? Or have things moved on?
I must admit that I'm more interested in the science than whatever the loony sites are currently frothing over, so I haven't kept up to date with the latest shenanigans.
Anyway, about the Sun, Abe... what did you say it was made of?
Hey, you could try the Eel-Millam mathematical challenge too! Eel didn't understand it, bmillam couldn't see it, allaorta refused to answer it.... so the coast is clear for you to demonstrate your mathematical prowess and set yourself apart from Steven Goddard and his idiot followers. What could possibly be the downside?
Is this the bit where he's supposed to roll over and accept whatever the Witchfinder General of Virginia wants to do to him in pursuit of an ideological agenda?
No, it's the bit where he complies with the same laws that are applicable to the rest of us, despite his disciples trying to convince themselves that he's above the law.
I dare say the Moonies take the same view in regards to the Reverend.
Anyway, about the Sun, Abe... what did you say it was made of?
I didn't.
But I know whose orifice you think it shines from, given your persistent attempts to defend the indefensible.
No, it's the bit where he complies with the same laws that are applicable to the rest of us
You'll have to remind me which ones they are. I doubt, for example, that he has to comply with the same laws as me, because he lives in a different country.
And the last time I checked, the Virginia Supreme Court had ruled that Witchfinder General Cuccinelli did not have the authority to make the demands he did. He has to comply with the same laws that are applicable to the rest of his country, you see.
I didn't.
Such a shame. You could have put clear blue water in between yourself and Energy and Environment. Or Ian Plimer.
But I know whose orifice you think it shines from, given your persistent attempts to defend the indefensible.
You think the truth is indefensible? What a strange man you are.
He's very mixed up. He thinks anyone who agrees with evidence-based science is deluded, while science deniers are free thinkers, open and honest to a fault.
(And of course anyone who agrees with others is foolish for not seeking a new lonely furrow of ignorance to follow)
He's very mixed up. He thinks anyone who agrees with evidence-based science is deluded, while science deniers are free thinkers, open and honest to a fault.
(And of course anyone who agrees with others is foolish for not seeking a new lonely furrow of ignorance to follow)
Apparently not nearly as mixed up as you, sunshine.
And just for the record, you're free to follow whichever line of thinking you so desire. You're even free to go around constantly looking for that cyber equivalent of a pat on the back, and to feel "shaken" when your infallible hero gets things wrong now and again.
But here's the thing, and while we're on the subject of openness, free thinking and honesty, you don't appear to have this in any great abundance, do you?. In fact, you bend and bow at a whim, or so it would appear.
One moment you're on your moral high horse and declaring adios because, irrespective of anyone's views on GW, there's certain principles that you hold dearly and won't compromise.
Need I say more?
And yet you've the gall to call others "mixed-up"?
Funny, funny stuff. If you ever need a hand removing that plank from your eye, I can give you the name of a good joiner. You know how to contact me.
If you intended your sentence to mean something other than what I inferred from it, you should have used different words.
Aha, so in your own mind you did know what it meant, even if it was only a wild guess.
As always, I think it would be helpful if you explained which forecasts you had in mind, who made them, where they made them, and how they have failed. Simply being vaguely angry about something-or-other doesn't really advance the argument.
So you don't know of any failed forecasts, or is it that clock is still running on all of them and you can claim victory at whatever time they may happen or claim victory if they don't?
And as always, I don't expect that you will deliver the goods.
Perhaps I'm a climate scientist :D:D:D
I'm not disappointed at all. I'm unsurprised.
Well I'm having some effect and remember, it's the pointed end of the pipette that goes in the liquid and not to suck too hard.
Aha, so in your own mind you did know what it meant, even if it was only a wild guess.
I parsed it as I would any sentence. It was rather badly constructed, but I did my best. Let's have another look at it:
"But we don't think anything climate scientists do is part of the fraud, other than in their conclusions and forecasts which have ever failed to materialise and the basis on which they draw their conclusions."
So clearly you think there is some fraud going on, despite the fact that no climate scientist has ever been found guilty of fraud. But how much fraud? Well, lots, apparently. Their conclusions are fraudulent and "the basis on which they draw their conclusions" is fraudulent. And apparently there are even some things they didn't do (like the forecasts which "failed to materialise") which are also fraudulent. I'm not sure what's left.
So you don't know of any failed forecasts, or is it that clock is still running on all of them and you can claim victory at whatever time they may happen or claim victory if they don't?
You are the one who is angry about that and keeps shouting "fraud!", so I thought you might like to tell us what you had in mind.
And while you are at it, please can you explain why a scientist isn't allowed to be merely wrong about something, but instead has to be guilty of fraud?
I parsed it as I would any sentence. It was rather badly constructed, but I did my best. Let's have another look at it:
"But we don't think anything climate scientists do is part of the fraud, other than in their conclusions and forecasts which have ever failed to materialise and the basis on which they draw their conclusions."
So clearly you think there is some fraud going on, despite the fact that no climate scientist has ever been found guilty of fraud. But how much fraud? Well, lots, apparently. Their conclusions are fraudulent and "the basis on which they draw their conclusions" is fraudulent. And apparently there are even some things they didn't do (like the forecasts which "failed to materialise") which are also fraudulent. I'm not sure what's left.
the only reason non have been found guilty of fraud, is that non of the enquiries ever actually checked their work. :eek::eek: one you misses taking money under fauls pretenses.
the only reason non have been found guilty of fraud, is that non of the enquiries ever actually checked their work. eek eek one you misses taking money under fauls pretenses.
Good grief. You are even harder to parse than allaorta.
But in essence, I think you are saying there is a huge Illuminati conspiracy, with lizards.
"In summary, Mann’s setup for discussing my work is borderline libel, as it implies many things about me that are false and detrimental to my reputation. It is unacceptable to portray those who disagree with you scientifically as evil and politically motivated."
Has he not actually read any of the attacks on Mann and other climate scientists, on HalfWatts' blog and elsewhere?
And as for Energy and Environment being "peer reviewed", well, in a manner of speaking. It's a social science journal which will publish any old crap, such as the claim that the Sun is made of iron and is solid. So naturally it is the science deniers' journal of choice!
I don't know how I missed this at the time, but I've just noticed (well, from this thread) how nice Mann is about Loehle:
"Loehle’s approach was laudable by comparison with that of many of the contrarians. He did attempt to make a positive contribution, putting his own reconstruction out there to be scrutinized and criticized. While the reconstruction didn’t stand up to the scrutiny (and the venue for its publication was dubious), he made an attempt to contribute to the scientific discourse in a meaningful and constructive manner. This can be contrasted with many others who are more than happy to take potshots at peer reviewed studies from their blogs but are unwilling to produce a reconstruction themselves, or even to provide evidence that genuinely contradicts the current scientific consensus that recent warmth is anomalous."
Loehle even quotes the entirety of Mann's "attack" on him in his post at HalfWatt's place. So really he is just bitter at not being saved from the embarrassment of publishing such a flawed paper, which is what happens when you publish in a journal like E&E: nobody tells you it's wrong.
Suppose I am calculating a monthly mean temperature, based on 2 readings per day, giving 60 or so readings for the month. Suppose that the uncertainty in each temperature reading is 0.2C, and there are no systematic errors to consider.
What then is the uncertainty in the calculated mean?
.
thats 60 individual readings from 60 different thermomiters? taken by 60 different people of different sex / hight / age.
in 60 different locations at 60 different times. uncertainty = infinite:D:D:D
the only reason non have been found guilty of fraud, is that non of the enquiries ever actually checked their work. :eek::eek: one you misses taking money under fauls pretenses.
Pedantic, nitpicking and childish. Oh and I had to edit it to add "frothing"
In the sense that a minor planned change arrived unannounced.
Wonder if the scientists at Chernobyl said the same thing? But let's look at what was said, again..
I think that by accident the test code got put into production.
I wonder how many accidents that would cause in the real world if industry followed the same rigorous standards as climate 'science'. There's only a few trillion dollars riding on the back of it, who needs software control?
Won't gain him much goodwill from the band of conspiracy theorist morons who think that anything that climate scientists do is part of the fraud.
The mistake was admitted, earning goodwill. Unlike the mistakes by other climate 'scientists'.
He's very mixed up. He thinks anyone who agrees with evidence-based science is deluded, while science deniers are free thinkers, open and honest to a fault.
Climate science doesn't rely on evidence, it relies on simulation. If the evidence (like, say, temperature, or ice cover) disagrees with the simulation, adjust it and claim it's the new reality.
nlp doesn't understand it. A while back, he thought neutrino observatories weren't interested in cosmic rays. But of course they were, because there was a theory that gamma bursts produced them. Thanks to empirical science, that theory is looking less certain and there are still some mysteries to keep physicists interested. One area where scientists will happily admit things aren't settled.
But if ya run enough non-linear simulations that aren't even initilalised against reality, sooner or later you may get a result that approximates the truth. Behold, the new consensus!
He's very mixed up. He thinks anyone who agrees with evidence-based science is deluded, while science deniers are free thinkers, open and honest to a fault.
(And of course anyone who agrees with others is foolish for not seeking a new lonely furrow of ignorance to follow)
you will find the real scientists are willing to post their theorys on the web were other real scientists can pick holes in them if they can find any. you don't find any of the TEAM at such sites posting or replying, I wonder why.
Wonder if the scientists at Chernobyl said the same thing? But let's look at what was said, again..
I think that by accident the test code got put into production.
I wonder how many accidents that would cause in the real world if industry followed the same rigorous standards as climate 'science'. There's only a few trillion dollars riding on the back of it, who needs software control?
Here we see the denier mindset in full effect:
A planned trivial change to a graphical depiction of data provided on the web so that both intelligent people and morons alike can look at it was inadvertently implemented ahead of time. This is equated to the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, proving conclusively that climate scientists are incompetent, evil, and will kill people. In no other field would such a terrible error be allowed to happen.
No, I understand it perfectly. You don't, because there really is no aspect of science or mathematics that you do understand.
One answer is 'none'.
That might be your answer, but it would be wrong, given that I have told you what the uncertainty in the individual readings is. It's not up for debate, and you aren't allowed to change the question to one you'd prefer.
So let's see where we are with the answers so far:
bmillam: Infinity
Eel: Zero
[Must be another denier schism]
allaorta: Refused
Abewest: Refused
Not a very inspiring performance from our leading alternative climate theorists, given that the problem is so trivial, is it?
Climate science doesn't rely on evidence, it relies on simulation. If the evidence (like, say, temperature, or ice cover) disagrees with the simulation, adjust it and claim it's the new reality.
That's a lie.
So is this:
nlp doesn't understand it. A while back, he thought neutrino observatories weren't interested in cosmic rays.
But of course they were, because there was a theory that gamma bursts produced them.
On the contrary, I explained to you what they were doing, and why. Needless to say, you failed, in your usual hopeless fashion, to understand any of it. One of your many misunderstandings was your belief that the direction of origin of the cosmic rays could be inferred by their path through the detector. And you even devised your own post-Svensmark theory that they (or neutrinos) might be affecting the climate!
Comments
You're just another good 'ole conspiracy theorist, aren't you?
How about you having a go at the Eel-Millam mathematical challenge:
Eel failed to slither over the first hurdle (he couldn't understand the question), bmillam didn't read the invitation and hasn't turned up, so you are pretty much on your own at this stage.
As always, I think it would be helpful if you explained which forecasts you had in mind, who made them, where they made them, and how they have failed. Simply being vaguely angry about something-or-other doesn't really advance the argument.
And as always, I don't expect that you will deliver the goods.
I'm not disappointed at all. I'm unsurprised.
Given that I'm not a ranting raving cultist who brokers no argument whatsoever while conjuring up laughable excuses to explain strange goings on, as in your recent "without any prompting" defence, I'd say they're to be commended for fully explaining it.
On a somewhat similar note - do you think Mann should comply with the law, just like the rest of us? Or is he above the law?
Is this the bit where he's supposed to roll over and accept whatever the Witchfinder General of Virginia wants to do to him in pursuit of an ideological agenda? Or have things moved on?
I must admit that I'm more interested in the science than whatever the loony sites are currently frothing over, so I haven't kept up to date with the latest shenanigans.
Anyway, about the Sun, Abe... what did you say it was made of?
Hey, you could try the Eel-Millam mathematical challenge too! Eel didn't understand it, bmillam couldn't see it, allaorta refused to answer it.... so the coast is clear for you to demonstrate your mathematical prowess and set yourself apart from Steven Goddard and his idiot followers. What could possibly be the downside?
No, it's the bit where he complies with the same laws that are applicable to the rest of us, despite his disciples trying to convince themselves that he's above the law.
I dare say the Moonies take the same view in regards to the Reverend.
I didn't.
But I know whose orifice you think it shines from, given your persistent attempts to defend the indefensible.
And the last time I checked, the Virginia Supreme Court had ruled that Witchfinder General Cuccinelli did not have the authority to make the demands he did. He has to comply with the same laws that are applicable to the rest of his country, you see.
Such a shame. You could have put clear blue water in between yourself and Energy and Environment. Or Ian Plimer.
You think the truth is indefensible? What a strange man you are.
(And of course anyone who agrees with others is foolish for not seeking a new lonely furrow of ignorance to follow)
Apparently not nearly as mixed up as you, sunshine.
And just for the record, you're free to follow whichever line of thinking you so desire. You're even free to go around constantly looking for that cyber equivalent of a pat on the back, and to feel "shaken" when your infallible hero gets things wrong now and again.
But here's the thing, and while we're on the subject of openness, free thinking and honesty, you don't appear to have this in any great abundance, do you?. In fact, you bend and bow at a whim, or so it would appear.
One moment you're on your moral high horse and declaring adios because, irrespective of anyone's views on GW, there's certain principles that you hold dearly and won't compromise.
Need I say more?
And yet you've the gall to call others "mixed-up"?
Funny, funny stuff. If you ever need a hand removing that plank from your eye, I can give you the name of a good joiner. You know how to contact me.
"But we don't think anything climate scientists do is part of the fraud, other than in their conclusions and forecasts which have ever failed to materialise and the basis on which they draw their conclusions."
So clearly you think there is some fraud going on, despite the fact that no climate scientist has ever been found guilty of fraud. But how much fraud? Well, lots, apparently. Their conclusions are fraudulent and "the basis on which they draw their conclusions" is fraudulent. And apparently there are even some things they didn't do (like the forecasts which "failed to materialise") which are also fraudulent. I'm not sure what's left.
You are the one who is angry about that and keeps shouting "fraud!", so I thought you might like to tell us what you had in mind.
And while you are at it, please can you explain why a scientist isn't allowed to be merely wrong about something, but instead has to be guilty of fraud?
one you misses taking money under fauls pretenses.
But in essence, I think you are saying there is a huge Illuminati conspiracy, with lizards.
"Loehle’s approach was laudable by comparison with that of many of the contrarians. He did attempt to make a positive contribution, putting his own reconstruction out there to be scrutinized and criticized. While the reconstruction didn’t stand up to the scrutiny (and the venue for its publication was dubious), he made an attempt to contribute to the scientific discourse in a meaningful and constructive manner. This can be contrasted with many others who are more than happy to take potshots at peer reviewed studies from their blogs but are unwilling to produce a reconstruction themselves, or even to provide evidence that genuinely contradicts the current scientific consensus that recent warmth is anomalous."
Loehle even quotes the entirety of Mann's "attack" on him in his post at HalfWatt's place. So really he is just bitter at not being saved from the embarrassment of publishing such a flawed paper, which is what happens when you publish in a journal like E&E: nobody tells you it's wrong.
thats 60 individual readings from 60 different thermomiters? taken by 60 different people of different sex / hight / age.
in 60 different locations at 60 different times.
uncertainty = infinite
you shouldn't qualify your climate scientists like that. :eek::eek:
but the general gist is right.
is that the same sort of publication as nature.
Pedantic, nitpicking and childish. Oh and I had to edit it to add "frothing"
Wonder if the scientists at Chernobyl said the same thing? But let's look at what was said, again..
I think that by accident the test code got put into production.
I wonder how many accidents that would cause in the real world if industry followed the same rigorous standards as climate 'science'. There's only a few trillion dollars riding on the back of it, who needs software control?
The mistake was admitted, earning goodwill. Unlike the mistakes by other climate 'scientists'.
Or you couldn't understand your question. You said..
One answer is 'none'. Do you have any idea why that may be? nlp again demonstrates the dangers of playing with straw.
I've just spilt my Ovaltine.....:D:D:D
Climate science doesn't rely on evidence, it relies on simulation. If the evidence (like, say, temperature, or ice cover) disagrees with the simulation, adjust it and claim it's the new reality.
nlp doesn't understand it. A while back, he thought neutrino observatories weren't interested in cosmic rays. But of course they were, because there was a theory that gamma bursts produced them. Thanks to empirical science, that theory is looking less certain and there are still some mysteries to keep physicists interested. One area where scientists will happily admit things aren't settled.
Sorry
But if ya run enough non-linear simulations that aren't even initilalised against reality, sooner or later you may get a result that approximates the truth. Behold, the new consensus!
(just don't try and reproduce it)
you will find the real scientists are willing to post their theorys on the web were other real scientists can pick holes in them if they can find any. you don't find any of the TEAM at such sites posting or replying, I wonder why.
A planned trivial change to a graphical depiction of data provided on the web so that both intelligent people and morons alike can look at it was inadvertently implemented ahead of time. This is equated to the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, proving conclusively that climate scientists are incompetent, evil, and will kill people. In no other field would such a terrible error be allowed to happen.
No, I understand it perfectly. You don't, because there really is no aspect of science or mathematics that you do understand.
That might be your answer, but it would be wrong, given that I have told you what the uncertainty in the individual readings is. It's not up for debate, and you aren't allowed to change the question to one you'd prefer.
So let's see where we are with the answers so far:
bmillam: Infinity
Eel: Zero
[Must be another denier schism]
allaorta: Refused
Abewest: Refused
Not a very inspiring performance from our leading alternative climate theorists, given that the problem is so trivial, is it?
That's a lie.
So is this:
On the contrary, I explained to you what they were doing, and why. Needless to say, you failed, in your usual hopeless fashion, to understand any of it. One of your many misunderstandings was your belief that the direction of origin of the cosmic rays could be inferred by their path through the detector. And you even devised your own post-Svensmark theory that they (or neutrinos) might be affecting the climate!
I explain some of this in my post Eel science for beginners, and some more in my post here.