Arctic scientist under investigation

[luckytxn 2,265]

Sounds like a cool challenge for a change. Make sure you go over the points of the paper you posted in today's other thread. I went over it and highlighted its major points according to their own arguments.

Be mindful, however, that if you're referring to the CRU debacle, no significant amount of unethical behavior was shown to be related to the overblown 'tricks' emails. It is unfortunate the science and the scientists involved were the focus of a very nefarious campaign that had absolutely no basis to do what it did other than a very clear political agenda to discredit what it could not using the scientific method.

Do I excuse scientists as a mass community as a group incapable of unethical manipulation of data? Of course I do not. With my own eyes I have borne witness to flagrant violations of the scientific trust and I can assure you those very rare cases are very seriously dealt with as an affront to the entire discipline of science. If anything characterizes the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, its the opposite of what the politically-tinged attack squadron is attempting to do, using (ironically) very unethical and completely unscientific (not even pseudoscientific) approaches to somehow disprove what is accepted by a community of ethically-bound scientists.

Given the political behavior that is often classified as unethical by most observers of politicians and their fans, is it not ringing any bells that this same attitude is suspect when confronting scientific findings and methods?

I went over what you highlighted and it was just what I expected. Nothing. The report was and is valid as it showed the computer models

said one thing but the actual real observation and data said the models projections were way off.

Actually the whole climategate did show unethical behavior all around. Those that it was traced to were fired and replaced but they went outside and had some new come and look at the whole thing and found a lot of unethical. No matter how you want to sweep it under the rug and say different it was shown and published to be.

The whole GW theory was built up on reports and supposed data that some scientists said. Other scientists and whole organizations jumped on board when these same scientists got huge amount of funding. Unfortunately any and all studies have to be able to replicated and the same data comes out and from more than one source to be reputable. Any and all studies and reports that have been replicated have shown them to be wrong so far. Not one of them has been replicated. All it has taken has been to question them and they always fall apart. This is no science.

It is tough to have a science that is nothing more than making predictions. The science does I will agree have tools to make studies and bring out data and if you want to know with precision what the climate is going to do then look out the window. They fail though on making long term predictions always. Well I take that back. Lately in my area they can be pretty good at just predicting that it is going to be hot for any day they say. They will be wrong a lot during spring and fall and get it right a lot when winter comes by saying it will be cold.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Funny.

The GW was hypothesized to be a major factor in that observation, yes- and should not be assumed to be unrelated, especially when the nature of the investigation is still hidden from plain view- although quite easily sensationalized for the consumption of the gullible.

Many people are gullible for sure and this scientist was able to control 50 million by his deception.

[Zero Sum 305]

I went over what you highlighted and it was just what I expected. Nothing. The report was and is valid as it showed the computer models

said one thing but the actual real observation and data said the models projections were way off.

Actually the whole climategate did show unethical behavior all around. Those that it was traced to were fired and replaced but they went outside and had some new come and look at the whole thing and found a lot of unethical. No matter how you want to sweep it under the rug and say different it was shown and published to be.

The whole GW theory was built up on reports and supposed data that some scientists said. Other scientists and whole organizations jumped on board when these same scientists got huge amount of funding. Unfortunately any and all studies have to be able to replicated and the same data comes out and from more than one source to be reputable. Any and all studies and reports that have been replicated have shown them to be wrong so far. Not one of them has been replicated. All it has taken has been to question them and they always fall apart. This is no science.

It is tough to have a science that is nothing more than making predictions. The science does I will agree have tools to make studies and bring out data and if you want to know with precision what the climate is going to do then look out the window. They fail though on making long term predictions always. Well I take that back. Lately in my area they can be pretty good at just predicting that it is going to be hot for any day they say. They will be wrong a lot during spring and fall and get it right a lot when winter comes by saying it will be cold.

So again, if you use a paper to claim something is wrong, and the state that the principal points the authors of that paper say themselves to be the central points... I believe I can state that perhaps you did not understand you just shot yourself in the foot intellectually? You can't honestly site there and say that what you say is true and is also null at the same time. That just doesn't make any sense at all.

I point to their arguments, verbatim, in the paper. Yet now you say they are nothing? That's a bit odd don't you think?

The following pieces:

Unfortunately any and all studies have to be able to replicated and the same data comes out and from more than one source to be reputable. Any and all studies and reports that have been replicated have shown them to be wrong so far. Not one of them has been replicated. All it has taken has been to question them and they always fall apart. This is no science.

Are even more odd. Where can you substantiate the non-replication of this data- pending the obvious regression lines on the Hansen report you claim as support of your position are themselves the result of models based on different data sets with similar regression patterns? In other words, they're on the same interstate.

Weather prediction models are quite different from climate change models. The amount of information that goes into each are different, and different depending on what variables are tested.

Many people are gullible for sure and this scientist was able to control 50 million by his deception.

Calling it deception means you have to prove it was.

[luckytxn 2,265]

So again, if you use a paper to claim something is wrong, and the state that the principal points the authors of that paper say themselves to be the central points... I believe I can state that perhaps you did not understand you just shot yourself in the foot intellectually? You can't honestly site there and say that what you say is true and is also null at the same time. That just doesn't make any sense at all.

I point to their arguments, verbatim, in the paper. Yet now you say they are nothing? That's a bit odd don't you think?

The following pieces:

Are even more odd. Where can you substantiate the non-replication of this data- pending the obvious regression lines on the Hansen report you claim as support of your position are themselves the result of models based on different data sets with similar regression patterns? In other words, they're on the same interstate.

Weather prediction models are quite different from climate change models. The amount of information that goes into each are different, and different depending on what variables are tested.

Calling it deception means you have to prove it was.

And they have proven it was deception. It did take time and a lot of sweat but they went and looked at and even did testing to show they were wrong.

The parts you bolded was in reference in the report about how and maybe why the computer projections were wrong. The models are only as good as the data that was inputted. It pointed out that some things in retrospect could have been inputted that would have made the projections more accurate. In the end they are just computer models and not real science inquiry.

[Zero Sum 305]

And they have proven it was deception. It did take time and a lot of sweat but they went and looked at and even did testing to show they were wrong.

The parts you bolded was in reference in the report about how and maybe why the computer projections were wrong. The models are only as good as the data that was inputted. It pointed out that some things in retrospect could have been inputted that would have made the projections more accurate. In the end they are just computer models and not real science inquiry.

Try again, lucky. It gets into the meat and potatoes of what they say they did.

Scientific inquiry includes modeling as one of its methodologies.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Scientific inquiry includes modeling as one of its methodologies.

You got to keep the mathematicians employed doing something besides actuarial tables and finding ways to beat the house in games of chance.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Try again, lucky. It gets into the meat and potatoes of what they say they did.

Scientific inquiry includes modeling as one of its methodologies.

Modeling as a guideline and not to prove anything. It is supposed to give them direction. They did good though. They predicted one way but was found lacking. They can now do as the report says and go and try new models to improve them. Again though it is to be used for future guideline not as proof.

You got to keep the mathematicians employed doing something besides actuarial tables and finding ways to beat the house in games of chance.

Why.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Who is James Hansen? Why is this fraud in charge of the pro GW debate?

Dr. James Hansen Gets It Wrong Again

Posted on November 17, 2008 by 84rules

Word is slowly getting out about the hoax of man-made global warming. As more legitimate and accurate scientific data gets out to the masses, the global alarmists are resorting to more and more propaganda, half-truths and sometimes outright lies.

Dr. James Hansen is one of those alarmists and his theories are is such a state of decline now that he is pushing bad data to shore up his ever failing reputation.

Christopher Booker at the London Telegraph has this story.

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China’s official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its “worst snowstorm ever”. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.



So, what happened? Why did Dr. Hansen decree it to be the warmest October on record? Because he used bad data. In fact, he recycled old data to make his measurements. He used Russian data from September and inserted it into October.

More:

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen’s institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.Hmmm. Obviously, the IPCC is more interested in the politics of global warming than they are in the legitimate science.

This isn’t the first time Dr. Hansen has had his claims debunked. His famous “hockey stick” model was shown to be a fraud in 2007 when it was discovered that the satellites taking the temperature readings were improperly calibrated. When the temperatures were adjusted for the proper calibration, it turns out that the hottest years on record were in the 1930′s, not the 1990′s.

If fact, the National Oceanographic and Atmospherics Administration (NOAA) did a better job of getting good data. Note the following map showing that temperature change across the United States was mostly “normal” or showed a cooling trend so far in 2008:

[luckytxn 2,265]

Remember the hockey stick fraud? Almost worked because they tried to hide the data fro 10 years but when forced it showed it was all a fraud. This was pushed by Hansen big time.

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2009

<a name="2691766696809711027">

Hockey Stick Fraud

There is no way to be generous or to dodge this bullet. We now have outright confirmation that the data was deliberately selected to provide the dramatic eye catching result that was made it so famous. This is not science so much as a publicist’s dodgy manipulation of data to support a doubtful scheme.

I am certain every scientist has faced the frustration of months of hard work merely showing no evidence for the proposed theory. Once again our scientists had no evidence. So they merely selected the best data points in a statistical distribution and discarded the rest. I can prove anything if I am allowed to do that. Hell, I know of this great gold mine in which the grades exceed five ounces to the ton. – see this assay sheet?

When these guys floated their paper, they had no expectation anyone else would care and result were important in order to push their spurious claims. Then the world paid attention and they hid the data for ten years so no one could discover what they had done.

That is now over and we now left with a paper that manipulated the data in several places and actually fabricated the hockey stick upswing. It does not get any worse than this and on top of that it has been poisoning the debate for a decade instead of been called to account immediately.

In fact, why did the referees not ask for the raw data they relied on? That chart was simply too good to be true and everyone was lazy. I know that I thought it suspect the first time I laid eyes on it. But then after years of reviewing assay results, I am a little more demanding perhaps and appreciative how difficult it is to get good data at all.

[luckytxn 2,265]

"The investigator has not yet told him of the specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, the watchdog group's executive director."

First of all, he's a biologist, not a climate scientist. He made observations of Polar Bears drowning in the Artic, and reported it. It will be interesting to see just exactly what the charge is against him and whether he'll be exonerated or not.

BTW, can you substantiate your claim that there are any scientists who have been found guilty of making Climate Change up? If so, please do.

I have pretty much substantiated every important GW study as a fraud and many of the people involved by now. Want me to keep finding more?

BTW Steven I have done this 3 times for you now because you have asked me to and yet you keep asking me again. Now every important and lesser GW study has been shown to be a fraud. The agencies involved have been shown to be frauds. The whole theory is crumbling. I can continue this. There is the money trail of Al Gore and many politicians and scientists I can post if you want. I can show the interactions of the forces that stand to gain if you want me to do so. It is easy. The weird part is that every time I am asked and I post this stuff there is nothing in feedback but insults.

The worst part of all this is that there may have been something to look at and money to toss to check out but the fraud has turned most away. It is pathetic now. It could have been done by actually going out and doing real research and getting feedback from all and even the skeptics. If you can bring the skeptics around then you have won pretty much. The skeptics could have been brought around by showing there was a real threat. Now with the proof showing that scientists have faked data, ignored contrary data, character assassinations of the scientists that did not agree and not refuting their data and showing how and why they were wrong has done the opposite.

The gravy train is stopping, get used to it. As it stands now anything that is posted on GW is met with derision and scorn and especially if it comes from the discredited people associated with GW.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I have pretty much substantiated every important GW study as a fraud and many of the people involved by now. Want me to keep finding more?

You're a joke. Yes, the whole world's scientific community is pulling our legs on Global Warming, except for internetz sleuths such as yourself who have uncovered the truth. It's not even worth the trouble to show the falsehoods that you buy into. The world is moving forward while you dig your heels in and relish in your denialism of science. The denialist's position on Global Warming is everyday becoming more irrelevant to the point of absurdity. Enjoy your denialism.

[luckytxn 2,265]

You're a joke. Yes, the whole world's scientific community is pulling our legs on Global Warming, except for internetz sleuths such as yourself who have uncovered the truth. It's not even worth the trouble to show the falsehoods that you buy into. The world is moving forward while you dig your heels in and relish in your denialism of science. The denialist's position on Global Warming is everyday becoming more irrelevant to the point of absurdity. Enjoy your denialism.

Typical and expected.

[Zero Sum 305]

Modeling as a guideline and not to prove anything. It is supposed to give them direction. They did good though. They predicted one way but was found lacking. They can now do as the report says and go and try new models to improve them. Again though it is to be used for future guideline not as proof.

Why.

Take a look at the figures again. You bring up the word 'direction.'

The new models are forthcoming, worry not. All rational scientists expect this to be the case.

[Zero Sum 305]

I have pretty much substantiated every important GW study as a fraud and many of the people involved by now. Want me to keep finding more?

BTW Steven I have done this 3 times for you now because you have asked me to and yet you keep asking me again. Now every important and lesser GW study has been shown to be a fraud. The agencies involved have been shown to be frauds. The whole theory is crumbling. I can continue this. There is the money trail of Al Gore and many politicians and scientists I can post if you want. I can show the interactions of the forces that stand to gain if you want me to do so. It is easy. The weird part is that every time I am asked and I post this stuff there is nothing in feedback but insults.

The worst part of all this is that there may have been something to look at and money to toss to check out but the fraud has turned most away. It is pathetic now. It could have been done by actually going out and doing real research and getting feedback from all and even the skeptics. If you can bring the skeptics around then you have won pretty much. The skeptics could have been brought around by showing there was a real threat. Now with the proof showing that scientists have faked data, ignored contrary data, character assassinations of the scientists that did not agree and not refuting their data and showing how and why they were wrong has done the opposite.

The gravy train is stopping, get used to it. As it stands now anything that is posted on GW is met with derision and scorn and especially if it comes from the discredited people associated with GW.

I don't think you have substantiated much beyond blogs saying what they wanted to say. The science is pretty much intact and quite above what some ideologically-tinged elements of the internets are saying.

You want to bring down man-made GW science? Show that the science itself is fraudulent. This means you need to go into the science itself, replicating experiments with data sets already available, without bias from preconceived notions of cherry-picked observations (as denialists have been shown to do by unethically ignoring the very arguments they critique). All you present is what non-scientists conclude to be fraud, even though the science itself has been vetted beyond a reasonable doubt. Presenting the same hallmark analyses by following the money flow, hockey stick graphs that account for one part of the phenomenon, and personal feelings about job performance outside the lab is not really going to help much in this crusade of yours.

[TBoneTX 46,426]

You got to keep the mathematicians employed

A biologist, a physicist, and a mathematician were sitting at a table at an outdoor cafe, watching the world go by. They saw two people going into the house across the street, and, a little while later, three people coming out.

"They have reproduced," said the biologist.

"The measurement wasn't accurate," said the physicist.

"If now exactly one person enters the house," said the mathematician, "it will be empty again."