• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

In Defense of Statellite Temperature Data

bubbabgone said:
I liked AP's shined up conclusions that amounted to "Sure it's looks bad, but what the hell, they were only discussing how to shape their message." or "It was just normal give and take among scientists".

But they still had to admit ...



And dwelled on that a bit because there was no other way to spin it.

And they listed 2 climate scientists who they said were considered moderates in the field but one is an out-and-out alarmist and the other is an alarmist publicly but is said to have questioned it privately ... I guess he wants to keep his job.

But ... for me the reappearance of "Mike's nature trick" explanation by all ClimateGate spinmeisters continues to be a highlight.
They think saying that Mann was merely appending temperature readings on to created proxy data simply because the proxy data wasn't working for him. Well no kidding. That was the point and the problem.

And the tone of AP's gloss-over seemed to suggest there really WAS no medieval warming or little ice age after all.

All the whitewashes I've seen were done by partisan entities with the same result.
Click to expand...

The 'nature trick' is the most obviously benign comment (but apparently a true believer like you still thinks it's nefarious!), and the nastier comments had to do with what must have been an unbelievably frustrating ordeal with FOIA requests from amatuers.

It would be like some evolutionary biologist having to take a massive amount of time and energy responding to creationists. demands,
 
Threegoofs said:
The 'nature trick' is the most obviously benign comment (but apparently a true believer like you still thinks it's nefarious!), and the nastier comments had to do with what must have been an unbelievably frustrating ordeal with FOIA requests from amatuers.
Click to expand...

I know how tiresome free inquiry must be to a priesthood in possession of the one true way. Nonetheless freedom is a burden we all must carry. As for the "nature trick," it's one of those things made more complicated by free inquiry. Tsk tsk.
 
Jack Hays said:
I know how tiresome free inquiry must be to a priesthood in possession of the one true way. Nonetheless freedom is a burden we all must carry. As for the "nature trick," it's one of those things made more complicated by free inquiry. Tsk tsk.
Click to expand...

It's not really free. It's paid for be the scientists having to respond to frivolous FOIA requests from amateurs who
Have an agenda.
 
Threegoofs said:
The 'nature trick' is the most obviously benign comment (but apparently a true believer like you still thinks it's nefarious!), and the nastier comments had to do with what must have been an unbelievably frustrating ordeal with FOIA requests from amatuers.

It would be like some evolutionary biologist having to take a massive amount of time and energy responding to creationists. demands,
Click to expand...

It wasn't the fact that Jones called it a "trick".
I don't care if it was called a trick or divine inspiration from Gawd, it was that he had to depart from what he had been doing in order to get the results he wanted.
He previously chose crappy proxies in order to get the shaft (which he deserved instead of the Nobel) but because the proxies weren't delivering the hockey blade he needed he used temperature readings ... that was the problem.
The known warming and cooling periods disappeared because of his proxy choices.
And the modern readings were from around an el Nino period no less.

You can't go from data deduced from selectively chosen proxies to thermometer readings just because what you had been doing wasn't giving you the results you need.

That's what was nefarious.
You really don't get that?
 
Threegoofs said:
It's not really free. It's paid for be the scientists having to respond to frivolous FOIA requests from amateurs who
Have an agenda.
Click to expand...

You should work for Lois Lerner.
She doesn't think she has to answer to anyone either.
 
bubbabgone said:
It wasn't the fact that Jones called it a "trick".
I don't care if it was called a trick or divine inspiration from Gawd, it was that he had to depart from what he had been doing in order to get the results he wanted.
He previously chose crappy proxies in order to get the shaft (which he deserved instead of the Nobel) but because the proxies weren't delivering the hockey blade he needed he used temperature readings ... that was the problem.
The known warming and cooling periods disappeared because of his proxy choices.
And the modern readings were from around an el Nino period no less.

You can't go from data deduced from selectively chosen proxies to thermometer readings just because what you had been doing wasn't giving you the results you need.

That's what was nefarious.
You really don't get that?
Click to expand...

In other words, you think he should use bad data. Your scientific expertise on the selection of paleoclimate proxy data is.....what, again??

Your point is irrelevant, since multiple studies, now global, have reconfirmed this 15 year old (now considered seminal) study.
 
Threegoofs said:
In other words, you think he should use bad data. Your scientific expertise on the selection of paleoclimate proxy data is.....what, again??

Your point is irrelevant, since multiple studies, now global, have reconfirmed this 15 year old (now considered seminal) study.
Click to expand...

[h=3]Oxburgh’s Trick to Hide the Trick[/h] Apr 14, 2010 – 8:18 AM
The Oxburgh report ” is a flimsy and embarrassing 5-pages. They did not interview me (nor, to my knowledge, any other CRU critics or targets). The committee was announced on March 22 and their “report” is dated April 12 – three weeks end to end – less time than even the Parliamentary Committee. They took […]
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=3]Oxburgh’s Trick to Hide the Trick[/h] Apr 14, 2010 – 8:18 AM
The Oxburgh report ” is a flimsy and embarrassing 5-pages. They did not interview me (nor, to my knowledge, any other CRU critics or targets). The committee was announced on March 22 and their “report” is dated April 12 – three weeks end to end – less time than even the Parliamentary Committee. They took […]
Click to expand...

None of which is even slightly relevant to my post...
 
bubbabgone said:
It wasn't the fact that Jones called it a "trick".
I don't care if it was called a trick or divine inspiration from Gawd, it was that he had to depart from what he had been doing in order to get the results he wanted.
He previously chose crappy proxies in order to get the shaft (which he deserved instead of the Nobel) but because the proxies weren't delivering the hockey blade he needed he used temperature readings ... that was the problem.
The known warming and cooling periods disappeared because of his proxy choices.
And the modern readings were from around an el Nino period no less.

You can't go from data deduced from selectively chosen proxies to thermometer readings just because what you had been doing wasn't giving you the results you need.

That's what was nefarious.
You really don't get that?
Click to expand...

When people support such actions like using a "trick," you really have to wonder about their integrity. Science is a learned discipline that strives for correct terminology. Are these sciences ignorant to the meaning of words?
 
Threegoofs said:
None of which is even slightly relevant to my post...
Click to expand...

On the contrary, it's a center-mass hit.

". . . They did not discuss specifically discuss or report on any of the incidents of arbitrary adjustment (“bodging”), cherry picking and deletion of adverse data, mentioned in my submissions to the Science and Technology Committee and the Muir Russell Committee. . . ."
 
Lord of Planar said:
When people support such actions like using a "trick," you really have to wonder about their integrity. Science is a learned discipline that strives for correct terminology. Are these sciences ignorant to the meaning of words?
Click to expand...

Apparently you are ignorant of the various uses of 'trick'.
 
Jack Hays said:
On the contrary, it's a center-mass hit.

". . . They did not discuss specifically discuss or report on any of the incidents of arbitrary adjustment (“bodging”), cherry picking and deletion of adverse data, mentioned in my submissions to the Science and Technology Committee and the Muir Russell Committee. . . ."
Click to expand...

Again, not related.

But thanks for playing!
 
Jack Hays said:
It's more than related; it is precisely the point in dispute: ex post site selection and/or substitution of observed temperatures for contrary proxy data.
Click to expand...

Nope. My points were-

1) why use bad data?
And
2) multiple studies have confirmed the results anyway.

Your point is pretending that Manns paper somehow is not reality based on...whining, I guess.

The science says otherwise.
 
Threegoofs said:
Apparently you are ignorant of the various uses of 'trick'.
Click to expand...

Unlike you, I did look at various definitions. I didn't see one that applied that was not unethical.

Please, by all means, provide an ethical use for "trick" that can apply to scientific data.
 
Threegoofs said:
Nope. My points were-

1) why use bad data?
And
2) multiple studies have confirmed the results anyway.

Your point is pretending that Manns paper somehow is not reality based on...whining, I guess.

The science says otherwise.
Click to expand...


 
Threegoofs said:
In other words, you think he should use bad data. Your scientific expertise on the selection of paleoclimate proxy data is.....what, again??

Your point is irrelevant, since multiple studies, now global, have reconfirmed this 15 year old (now considered seminal) study.
Click to expand...

My expertise is that I actually read what Mann did to develop the shaft and the blade. Did you?
You know the expression "Like mixing oil and water"?
Well perhaps in the climate idiom you might say it was "Like mixing Celsius and Fahrenheit" and not telling anyone.
Hell ... we can just stick with mixing carefully chosen meager proxy data with temperature readings ... that tells the tricky story right there.

And multiple studies since then have tried mightily to restore history's warming and cooling phases without directly slamming Mann.
 
Lord of Planar said:
When people support such actions like using a "trick," you really have to wonder about their integrity. Science is a learned discipline that strives for correct terminology. Are these sciences ignorant to the meaning of words?
Click to expand...

Having read what's been available to anyone not committed to an ideological result, I don't wonder anymore.
 
bubbabgone said:
My expertise is that I actually read what Mann did to develop the shaft and the blade. Did you?
You know the expression "Like mixing oil and water"?
Well perhaps in the climate idiom you might say it was "Like mixing Celsius and Fahrenheit" and not telling anyone.
Hell ... we can just stick with mixing carefully chosen meager proxy data with temperature readings ... that tells the tricky story right there.

And multiple studies since then have tried mightily to restore history's warming and cooling phases without directly slamming Mann.
Click to expand...

Again, multiple studies with different and varied proxies showed similar results.

For you, the progress in the field ended in 1998... You know nothing more than what Fox News has told you.
 
bubbabgone said:
Having read what's been available to anyone not committed to an ideological result, I don't wonder anymore.
Click to expand...

True. They seem not to have any integrity.
 
Lord of Planar said:
That remark is like in school when one kid say "my daddy can beat up your daddy."
Click to expand...

Now THAT is really curious.
I was thinking that very same thing yesterday. I'm serious.
I was going to submit a comment to 3G or Mothra with that as a theme.
It would have started with acknowledging that neither one of us really know how well our daddies fight, we can only go by what they've said to each other publicly.
But that only one of our daddies have said things in private to other daddies that demonstrate their fear because theirs are not fight skills but rather deceit and threats when challenged to a fight.

Then I could've gone into how the bad daddies would even demand to select the referees and how that would be in character, but I wouldn't have wanted to over-work the metaphor ... but it WOULD fit.
 
Threegoofs said:
Again, multiple studies with different and varied proxies showed similar results....
Click to expand...

1) Hasn't it ever occurred to you that you should've have read the material yourself and done your own analysis?

Threegoofs said:
... You know nothing more than what Fox News has told you.
Click to expand...

2) Because of #1, you're guilty of that.

Threegoofs said:
For you, the progress in the field ended in 1998 ...
Click to expand...

3) Planned corruption in the field had begun before that ... Mann just became a notorious cog. So was there medieval warming and little ice age cooling or not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom