Tesla factory video

[pbjosh]

of course you can, its called repeatability and independent confirmation. its the reason why science works. because if someone does not believe you, they can do it themselves, and prove it to themselves.

this is how bad science is uncovered, by other scientists saying "ah guys, that doesn't look right to me" and then going and checking it themselves.

As shown before, they do not let other people check the data. When they do, like with the Hockey Stick, it generally fails. The Hockey Stick was what Kyoto was based on, and was the major piece of commentary for IPCC AR 2 and 3.

Then it disappeared when, only on congressional over-site and force, the data was able to be retrieved from the Scientist and it was found to over sample one dataset a few hundred times to many, and no matter what red noise was applied it still produced a 'Hockey Stick'.

Sorry, those in charge of some of the, and working with the IPCC now have (as I showed earlier) found ways to avoid FIOA requests and delete emails so they can not be tracked concerning their data.

Public people, getting paid by public money to produce climate science. Not sharing the data for review.

Yeah, bad science did get uncovered, but it required congress to do it. The NSA actually banned bristle cone pine data from being used in future reports.

The next hockey stick lasted just a few months (bad Yamal Dataset), the last one a few weeks (poor proxies for CWP and inverted data.)

Shoot, most won't even debate anybody. Al Gore won't debate anybody, or even allow a skeptic to be in congress to testify on the same day. Why not?

[Unfated33]

Not really. You make the most if you turn it into an industry. Intel 'windows' and mouse + Bill Gates for the geek win. Intel developed it - Bill Gates made it an industry.

To be fair, Bill Gates is not a research scientist, has not (as far as I'm aware) been published in a trade journal, nor was there a war of publications between Intel and Gates. I personally can't follow the comparison you've made between scientific repudiation and computer software. Of course, I already share Gordon's position there that money making scientists are the ones that do the best research. Patents and publication has always been my experience in the area of research.

Carbon isn't an industry...wait, oh yeah, it is a big one. The green and organic and sustainable movement are all quite large. Organic food alone is $30B a year. The carbon market was suppose to reach $2 Trillion.

While the public may support both organic food and global warming, generally scientists do not support organic food. Are they compromising their ability to tap into the 30B market? No, that's silly. I still reject the hypothesis that money is either the only or major contributor to scientists performing research. If you've never heard about "wasted research" on things like fruit flies, I'm not sure how to show you that scientists love the questions themselves.

I just looked at the difference between GISS in rural vs urban and then GISS vs UAH/RSS. The GISS and UAH/RSS don't match. That is where "there is a problem" in my opinion is based on. There was a MWP before Mann etc. What happened? I looked for the lack of signal to match Mann's work, and found proxies, but they did not agree with his commentary. When reviewed by outside sources, it turns out they didn't agree. Turns out it was fabricated. Did the guy who found out the problem make bank? No, basically he gets told he doesn't have anything to contribute and to shut up. The guys collecting the data have 'proof' and the IPCC ignores them. Some actually did work for the IPCC. Lead Authors even. They were dropped when they disagreed. Quite a few good scientists actually collect the data and show that the models are not trending with the empirical data. They get told they are just being paid by Big Oil. Or, basically what you guys have said so far. That there is a consensus and to shut up. When other people did publish emails what happened? In some cases they had their equipment confiscated, faced lawsuits, and related. Should we ask Galileo about how well he got treated for speaking up and being right?

There's so much in here that slants past the reality of what happened. In review: Mann published the paper that included the hockey stick in 1999. McIntyre and McKitrick published in 2004 that it was wrong, and criticized the use of the bristlecone pine data that came from a single record. NCAR then published an independent study of the data using multiple sources that showed slightly different results in the past - mostly in 15th century - but that otherwise completely confirmed the Mann analysis and led to a rejection of the McIntyre and McKitrick paper. In the meantime, other scientists like Huang and Smith and Oerlemans all tested other proxies like bore holes, ice cores, and stalagmites - all of their results confirmed the Mann paper as well. Spencer, Pielke, Pielke Jr., Christy, Lindzen, Motl have all worked on the IPCC reports and been major contributors to some sections. Even when other scientists disagree with them, they have not been removed from the table. That is a commonly made obfuscation that does not have actual bearing in what has happened to date. On the other hand, each of those scientists has had their recent published work tested for confirmation - in the cases of Spencer and Lindzen, the confirmation tests have found the original paper to be lacking. Spencer in particular has done some great satellite work, though.

If you have two papers, one with one conclusion and a later paper with a different conclusion, they don't just cancel out. Nor, as you know, can you just take the paper that sides with your preconceived bias. It requires the ability to look at the methodology used. This is the area where denial scientists have most been hit for bad science. This is what destroyed the McIntyre and McKitrick paper.

The emails thing, again? I thought we found in this thread that there was nothing there but innuendo and trumped up "tricks". The reason people got in big trouble on the whistleblower side was because a) they committed a crime to get the emails and b) an independent review found the scientists had done nothing wrong other than insulate themselves from predatory behavior by opposition groups.

Lastly, for every Gallileo there are a whole bunch of bad scientists using poor methodology to prove a falsehood. Hundreds, maybe thousands. In Gallileo's case, later experiments to confirm or repudiate then confirmed his work. Yay, science works, right? In the case of global warming, no competing science that shows the ice, stalagmites, holes, trees, bugs, troposphere... you name it - nothing is coming out to radically change our view that warming is happening and we are the cause. The pile of science is high and deep in support. The contrarian papers are so small as to be both notorious and insignificant at the same time.

My comments were that I wasn't just following WUWT, it was because I had done the work looking at these items for trends before he started his side blog. Or SS. I said I downloaded GISS information, part of the work with surface stations. That another part where I really was confused with your commentary - I never said I made new calculations, just played with the calculations and with multiplanet temperature graphs and downloaded stuff from GISS. It isn't like my old machines could do huge factoring, or I had the time or resources. Sheesh. I just looked at GISS data and proxies and the formulas, I saw the trends and factoring and data myself. I looked at stuff guys - I had a crappy computer and the internet. I downloaded the raw data to compare but not all of it. Really? I have a life. If you had done a fraction of what I had done then I guess you would have realized what a silly comment yours were about me running calculations. I read the FORTRAN, the commentary alone was interesting. I couldn't run it. It was a mess, huge, bloated.

Plenty of us have taken a look at the published models and available data. You're the first person I've ever conversed with that didn't find the data to be confirming, but that's all anecdotes. It does surprise me. As I've said previously, it's easy enough to use excel to use a workable model, and the data all confirms unless you try to play with it using weird time periods or bad statistics. It frustrates me to no end when I've seen Watts or others overlay a trend line that is no real trend for the data they are showing. I believe that was part of the problem that scientist from Western Washington got into, as well.

I can look at the equation and see the factoring, I can look at the data and notice a trend. I can to the research myself to find studies and see if they show a MWP or not. I can look at the GISS raw data and see the results for UHI. You can also. There is a ton to look at. It was fun. I came to a different conclusion then you and figured if you had done the same amount of work you would also.

Shrug, I dunno here. Everything I look at says warming. I mean this very, very sincerely: is it possible you've made a mistake? In the interest of fair discourse, I'll keep looking through my notes, too.

But setting up a program that needs to be ran on a supercomputer and yet they still didn't have a resolution better then 500 miles? (AR3/4 construction, with the old GISS FORTRAN. mind you, I haven't played with the setup for the new model yet.)

Just, wow.

Really, who the F would think an old pentium that was old 10 years ago could do something like that? Not a rational position, yet you hoisted it on me.

This part's really between you and Gordon, but as a 3rd party in the discussion, I don't think you've taken his comment as charitably as you could have. Gordon's entire premise is that when scientific discoveries are made that buck the conventional wisdom, and those discoveries are methodologically sound, the position of scientists change. The researchers that make that publication become famous. It appears you rejected this because it didn't happen for M&M, Christy, Lindzen, and others. In your rejection, you appear to attack Gordon as a critic of your resources. Does my commentary add perspective?

It is like one person saying "apples are red" and your reply is "no, oranges are orange dummy. Here is a link to where is says at skeptical science..."

Again, act charitably. I'm the one that has entirely linked to skeptical science - and I explained why since it directly links to published papers that form the response. And I have at my very best tried to keep it apples to apples. I've yet to see a specific rebuttal from you where you said I wasn't addressing your point or data. Up to a point (new research untested), I am always going to take published papers over blog posts.


When the main forcing factor of the equation went from 1.1W/m2x3(for water) to 1.1W/m2x2(for water), the basis in the models for run away changed in a big way.

Huge. You comment that it was a small factor just relates to my points:

Otto's paper has already been superceded by Karoly's paper. Karoly's paper says minimum 2 C change but unlikely to exceed 6 C change. Hooray for science getting better. But the results are still in line with expectations and still at a level that needs to be addressed. Karoly's paper was linked to the thread if you'd like to go back and read it.

The science is ever changing (my position, when you said it was settled, well known, and proven and I was stupid for countering it)

It is ever changing, and well known, and proven, and settled. I don't think you're stupid, but in this case I do think you're incorrect. I think I need to describe a scenario for how this could be:

Suppose in 1995 a scientist publishes a paper that finds a result to be 100 dimensionless. In 1997 another scientist publishes a paper with a better methodology that shows the result to be 96.9. Three years later the first scientist publishes again to find 97.12. Two years after that another scientist publishes 97.054. And so one and so on. These results are ever changing. They are proven and well known. They are settled. This is how I see global warming.

My response on boldtalics above.

[Unfated33]

As shown before, they do not let other people check the data. When they do, like with the Hockey Stick, it generally fails. The Hockey Stick was what Kyoto was based on, and was the major piece of commentary for IPCC AR 2 and 3.

Then it disappeared when, only on congressional over-site and force, the data was able to be retrieved from the Scientist and it was found to over sample one dataset a few hundred times to many, and no matter what red noise was applied it still produced a 'Hockey Stick'.

Sorry, those in charge of some of the, and working with the IPCC now have (as I showed earlier) found ways to avoid FIOA requests and delete emails so they can not be tracked concerning their data.

Public people, getting paid by public money to produce climate science. Not sharing the data for review.

Yeah, bad science did get uncovered, but it required congress to do it. The NSA actually banned bristle cone pine data from being used in future reports.

The next hockey stick lasted just a few months (bad Yamal Dataset), the last one a few weeks (poor proxies for CWP and inverted data.)

Shoot, most won't even debate anybody. Al Gore won't debate anybody, or even allow a skeptic to be in congress to testify on the same day. Why not?

The raw data is available. See my comment above about the Wahl paper from the Natinal Center for Atmospheric Research. The hockey stick has been found to be accurate and repeated. Your information about McIntyre and McKitrick is both wrong and out of date in regards to the bristlecone pine data.

The FOIA request and emails mean nothing about the science. If what has been done so far is wrong, papers can be written and accolades can be had. Because scientists can and do change their minds when presented with evidence that is repeatable and methodologically sound. These 3rd party scientists would win nobel prizes could use the raw data themselves and create their own model data. They don't have to use Mann or Jones or anyone to get the same answer.


Finally, a debate means nothing in science. Good debaters win debates regardless of the facts. That is the complete antithesis of how science works. It's not about swaying public opinion, it's about the material evidence. Therefore a debate can do nothing to further the scientific understanding. They shouldn't debate people, because debate is not the scientific method. These great debaters should do it the right way - get published.

[pbjosh]

While I could pick nits- that was a solid reply. I do have one bit.

Suppose in 1995 a scientist publishes a paper that finds a result to be 100 dimensionless. In 1997 another scientist publishes a paper with a better methodology that shows the result to be 96.9. Three years later the first scientist publishes again to find 97.12. Two years after that another scientist publishes 97.054. And so one and so on. These results are ever changing. They are proven and well known. They are settled. This is how I see global warming.

And while I am not the one to define it the best, the issue has been, as I have seen it:

Do we use a 3x multiuplier, or a .5x multiplier. It would be like 100 vs 20.

3x was defined by the IPCC as being a catastrophe, .5x being not much to worry about. 3x was settled. .5x meant you were in serious denial and should be ignored.

When you change the 3x to a 2x, that is NOT 97.2.

That is 66.6 -

If the positions were 100 and 20, that is a huge change.

In second, the issue with Mann and the Hockey stick is just... and why I had a bit of a craw with:

of course you can, its called repeatability and independent confirmation. its the reason why science works. because if someone does not believe you, they can do it themselves, and prove it to themselves.

this is how bad science is uncovered, by other scientists saying "ah guys, that doesn't look right to me" and then going and checking it themselves.

The 'Hockey Sticks' were panned, and the NSA said no further studies were suppose to contain Bristlecone Pine data. The Wegman report, which I linked to earlier did basically destroy the Hockey Stick. And it pointed to strong underlying issues in the way science in climate was conducted.

That is what it was removed from the IPCC reports, and subsequent reconstructions removed also.

Here is somebody else's commentary on the Hockey Stick:

It had been published in the highest most prestigious journal, Nature, but no one had checked it before or after it was spread far and wide. Not Nature, not the IPCC, not any other climate researcher.

In 1995 everyone agreed the world was warmer in medieval times, but CO2 was low then and that didn’t fit with climate models. In 1998, suddenly Michael Mann ignored the other studies and produced a graph that scared the world — tree rings show the “1990s was the hottest decade for a thousand years”. Now temperatures exactly “fit” the rise in carbon! The IPCC used the graph all over their 2001 report. Government departments copied it. The media told everyone.

But Steven McIntyre was suspicious. He wanted to verify it, yet Mann repeatedly refused to provide his data or methods — normally a basic requirement of any scientific paper. It took legal action to get the information that should have been freely available. Within days McIntyre showed that the statistics were so flawed that you could feed in random data, like stock prices, and still make the same hockey stick shape nine times out of ten. Mann had left out some tree rings he said he’d included. If someone did a graph like this in a stock prospectus, they would be jailed.

Why did it take legal action? Why didn't they release the data and methods?

In 2009 McIntyre did it again with Briffa’s Hockey Stick. After asking and waiting three years for the data, it took just three days to expose it too as baseless. For nine years Briffa had concealed that he only had 12 trees in the sample from 1990 onwards, and that one freakish tree virtually transformed the graph. When McIntyre graphed another 34 trees from the same region of Russia, there was no Hockey Stick.

The sharp upward swing of the graph was due to one single tree in Yamal.

Yamal 06.

These reconstructions are coming out and being lauded as proof, yet when they finally are able to be reviewed, they fall apart.

That is not $79B of good science. That is more like the creationist movement finding that dinosaur bones and human bones originated 6000 years ago, and nobody looking into it because it aligned with their beliefs.

Hence, my skeptism. I knew about the MWP from boreholes, historical records, proxies.

I mean, you seem to have kept up with it quite well, and recently: Do you think there was a MWP? Or none, like the IPCC and related have touted for a while?

That determines whither we are in an era that is normal and a regular cycle, or we are in the only warming in the last 1000 years. The Maudner Minimum, the LIA, 1660 and 1850 being two of the coldest points in the Holocene? With Milankovitch Cycles doing a quick hop from the cold mid 1600's to the warming of the mid 1700s and down to 1850? Could we be experiencing a similar cycle, especially looking at Solar Cycle 24 and possible shifts toward another Maudner Min?



The Hockey stick never convinced me - it did look wrong. It took a huge determined effort to actually get the data. And it was false. Big false.

Same with anything that doesn't have a MWP. There is so much that shows it, maybe it is my old self just having checked out that climate data back in my teens, having grown up with 'Global Cooling' (which Alaskans were very apprehensive about.)

The one reconstruction that had 'changed' all of that didn't seem right. And when reviewed, turned out to be, well there is no other word for it, a deliberate attempt to re-write history.

I will keep believing in the MWP. Maybe that is my flaw. But, it is hard to think so when I received confirmation of my bias with the failure of Mann's work, and then Briffa's.

Those were deliberate. There is no other good word for it. You can't screw up that badly, then you refuse any review until you legally have to, and have it fall so quickly, if it wasn't bad science to begin with, and you knew it.

[pbjosh]

I am re-reading the NAS and related - I stopped researching some of this a while ago.

It seems there has been some uphold of the Mann constructions.

There is quite a bit to go over - I feel some of my reply is in error.

But to late for the edit button. Sorry about that.