More "ClimateGate" fallout?.....

[JohnWho]

Vincent Gray on Climategate: ‘There Was Proof of Fraud All Along’ (PJM Exclusive)

Unbelievable!

The same data was used by two different groups of scientists, both of which included Wang and Karl, to develop two different papers:

One that provides evidence that urban change has no influence on temperatures and the other paper provides evidence that urban change does have influence on temperatures.

How can this be?

Easy, when you have your "buddy group" doing the peer review.

The fraud is obvious.

Worse, one of these papers is primary to IPCC's stand on urban change not having any influence on the temperature measurements.

"All the facts are in, the science is settled, there is a consensus." - I don't think so!

[Sunsettommy]

The way I see it is this:

One of the papers is good and the other paper is bad,

or BOTH papers are bad,

but they can not both be good.

[Richard S Courtney.]

Dear All:

The chief investigator of ClimateGate has been announced; see
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/03/cl...ir-picked/

All the best

Richard

[Richard111]

Yep. Just read it. Can't say I am impressed. I suspect a stitch-up.

[Sunsettommy]

Reading the comments does not inspire my confidence.

Why not a retired Judge instead?

[JohnWho]

Did Climategate really matter?

Lorne Gunter: They're finally admitting the science isn't settled

Quote:There are plenty of ways in which these disclosures have been crucial, but the principal change has been the uncertainty creeping into the remarks of former True Believers. Some of those who for years have insisted the science is “settled,” are now admitting we don’t know all we need to before making trillion-dollar policy decisions.

[HarpoSpoke]

(02-22-2010 08:25 PM)JohnWho Wrote:  Did Climategate really matter?

Lorne Gunter: They're finally admitting the science isn't settled

Quote:There are plenty of ways in which these disclosures have been crucial, but the principal change has been the uncertainty creeping into the remarks of former True Believers. Some of those who for years have insisted the science is “settled,” are now admitting we don’t know all we need to before making trillion-dollar policy decisions.

I'm seeing this claim a lot by our side:

Quote:In his BBC interview, Prof. Jones also conceded that the Middle Ages may well have been warmer than now, another key concession given that the CRU has for years denied the existence of the Medieval Warm Period.

I didn't see that admission. Jones admitted there was debate about the MWP being global. I don't think he admitted any debate about it being warmer. Skeptics have to be careful.

Here is what he said:

Quote:Q: There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

Jones: There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.

[JohnWho]

Phil Jones Wrote:Jones: There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.

But he is willing to say that one set of tree rings (Briffa) overrides all of the other proxy data in the northern hemisphere and shows that the MWP globally was much less warm?

Huh?

Also, don't both of these:

Midieval Warm Period.

Midieval Warm Period Project

show data obtained from places in the southern hemisphere? Of course they do.

Sure, he said, "based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH", knowing we most likely will never have "equivalent coverage", so he is simply being deceptive. What coverage we do have of the SH shows the MWP and is more extensive than the "cherry picked" data of Mann or Briffa.

By not specifically stating that the MWP was definately not a warm as today, is he not admitting that the MWP "may well have been warmer than now"?

[HarpoSpoke]

(02-23-2010 07:01 AM)JohnWho Wrote:  By not specifically stating that the MWP was definately not a warm as today, is he not admitting that the MWP "may well have been warmer than now"?

I suppose it could be taken that way. He seemed to flirt with the idea that there is debate whether the MWP was warmer or not....but he never actually said it.

Quote:Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

He does seem to leave the idea out there that there is debate (i.e. "if") by not specifically stating the the CWP is warmer...but it's a dicey thing to claim. He could easily deny he said it.

[Sunsettommy]

It is funny because the ROMAN,MINOAN and of course the HOLOCENE OPTIMISM periods were all warmer than the MWP.

Thus Dr. Jones is just being a mediocre scientist.

[Derek]

(02-23-2010 01:26 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  Thus Dr. Jones is just being a mediocre scientist.

You meant "mediocre fraudster" surely...

[Derek]

Hi All,
I hope Richard does not mind me copying in full his comment at WUWT,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/30/re...in-the-uk/
Results of the Climategate Parliamentary Inquiry in the UK
I think we should all be aware of his comment,
it describes why the decision reached was from a "legal" viewpoint......

Richard S Courtney (07:00:49) :

I am not at all surprised that the Select Committee has published the ‘findings’ that it has.

I am holding in my hand the full Report of that Select Comittee (the Select Committee has kindly sent me two copies), and
it is very obvious that this Report represents a legal – and not a scientific – understanding of ‘evidence’.
Simply, the Select Committee assessed information in the same way that a Court of Law would.

Legal ‘evidence’ is completely different from scientific evidence.
Scientific ‘evidence’ is information obtained from observation of the real world.
Law Courts assess the credibility of opinions.
They do not have the technical expertise to assess scientific arguments.

So, Law Courts assess the apparent credibilty of witnesses and decide which witness to believe.
Governments have appointed AGW-advocates to positions of authority, and
a Law Court will alway agree that such witnesses present the ’science’ that should be accepted.

For example, James Hansen is head of NASA GISS. He attended a criminal trial in the UK where
a group of people were being tried for deliberately damaging a coal-fired power station.
Hansen said the CO2 emissions from the power station were doing much more harm than stopping the power station could do.

UK law says that it is lawful to damage personal property as a method to prevent greater harm.
For example, a person is entitled to smash a door that is preventing rescue of a child from a burning building and
– according to UK law – the owner of the door has no right to object to the door being smashed.
Hansen’s testimony is not sustainable by scientific argument: there is no possibility that
the power station is making (or could make) significant contribution to AGW even if the ‘worst case’ scenario for AGW were correct.
But Law Courts do not consider the merit of scientific argument.
They only consider which expert they will agree is ‘right’.

And Hansen’s authority as an expert on AGW is proclaimed by the fact that the US Government has appointed him as head of NASA GISS.
So, the Court decided – as it must – that Hansen’s evidence was the most credible ’science’.
And there is no AGW sceptic in a similar position of authority whose testimony could dispute that
(governments have removed all similar experts from their jobs for disputing AGW; e.g. Henk Tennekes).
So, on the basis of Hansen’s testimony, the Court decided to acquit the people who damaged the power station.

Indeed, another case was won by AGW sceptics but they only won because they understood that Law Courts
only consider which expert the Court will agree is ‘right’
: Law Courts do not assess scientific evidence.

The winning of that case prevented Mr Gore’s science fiction horror movie being shown in schools
without explanation to the children that the movie is political propoganda.
The government wanted to distribute the movie in schools as being a presentation of the scientific facts.
But a UK High Court ruled that the government could not do that because
the movie exagerated at least eleven statements by the UN Integovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

In this case the Court accepted that the IPCC is the expert authority that should be believed and,
therefore, that Mr Gore was a lesser expert so his presentation in his movie should not be believed.

Simply, scientific evidence only consists of empirical facts but legal evidence only consists of opinions.

So, the ‘evidence’ examined by the Select Committee was the written and spoken information provided to it.
And the Select Committee assessed (or weighted, if you prefer) that information on the basis of the assumed credibility of its suppliers
: i.e. they assessed the ‘evidence’ as a Law Court would.
This was very apparent in the cross-examination of witnesses
: Benny Pieser and Lord Lawson were given a ‘rough time’ (especially Lawson) but
the Met. Office and CRU representatives were treated very differently.

Hence, the result of the Select Committee report was a forgone conclusion.

Richard

[Sunsettommy]

It was a political decision.

[Derek]

I would suggest it was a "legally correct" decision,
because of who was appointed for political reasons in the appropriate positions.

[ricksfolly]

The only things we can be sure of is what we detect with our eyes and how we interpret it with our own real experience. With that in mind, how would I, as a data processor, with unlimited funds to work with, acquire all the data needed to establish a world wide average centigrade temperature?

1. Standardize all temperture data devices to tenth of a degree accuracy in cities all over the world, including both poles..

2. Select a city where all the temperature data can be established at exactly the same time, same second, every day, keeping in mind that the 24 time differences will be day, some places, night and other places, and times in between other places.

3. Stage 1. Average out all the Temperature data.

4. Stage 2. Average out the temperature differences between all the cities, east, west, north, and south, near and far, and both poles.

5. Stage 3, calculate plus or minus one tenth of a degree tolerances on each data collector.

6. Conclusion... the accumulation of all the tenth of a degree tolerances could be average out, but that wouldn't result in a real average temperature, only a theoretical one, and if human error is added, the result would be even more theoretical. So in the end all you'd have is a theoretical average temperature, not enough credible evidence to force us change our life style.


ricksfolly

[ajmplanner]

Since the oceans cover 70% of the planet, would you not need temperature data collection devices in the oceans? But those devices would be subject ot variations due to ocean water temperatures, wave spray, wind, etc. How could you correct for those variables? To get a statisticaly significant result for "average temperature" at the surface would require a random smapling of temperature from all over the planet, not just on land. And that land data has to be "adjusted" for altitude, heat island effect, and who knows what else. These kinds of "adjustments" are part of what has gotten the climategate participants in trouble.

But suppose all those difficulties could be overcome. Can any of the statisticians out there tell us how many temperature devices would be required at the surface to get a statistically significant result? (the surface area of the earth is about 197,000,000 square miles). Or is the only way to measure average mean temperature at the surface through indirect measurement of some kind?

A good article on this subject , "Why It Is Not Possible To Estimate Mean Global Temperature" can be found at

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?op...6&Itemid=1

[Richard111]

GREENIE WATCH posted the full abstract. I show a small heartening quote.

Global Warming Advocacy Science: A Cross Examination

Quote:The cross-examination conducted in this paper reveals many additional areas where the peer-edited literature seems to conflict with the picture painted by establishment climate science, ranging from the magnitude of 20th century surface temperature increases and their relation to past temperatures; the possibility that inherent variability in the earth’s non-linear climate system, and not increases in CO2, may explain observed late 20th century warming; the ability of climate models to actually explain past temperatures; and, finally, substantial doubt about the methodological validity of models used to make highly publicized predictions of global warming impacts such as species loss.