CCCToad on 16/12/2009 at 06:31
Have it your way. If you are familiar with basic statistical terminology, the message is pretty clear: He believes the work should have been checked more thoroughly.
The quotes are from ipcc-tar-master.rtf, and the document is a list of scientists review comments of previous committee work. Its too big to post the whole thing, but if anyone wants I can email the whole document.
Quote:
The statistical treatment of data, and of model simulation is inadequate throughout the Report.
The conventional use of 95% confidence limits for estimates is followed only for surface temperatures, but ignored elsewhere, where a single standard deviation (60% confidence) is preferred, or no indication of the level of confidence is stated. For example, in Figure 2.11 (Chapter 2, page 101) showing ocean heat, error bars are only one standard error. They should be doubled.
Linear regression is used throughout the Report without the necessary checks for linearity and autocorrelation corrections.
Models are particularly lacking in adequate statistical information of uncertainty or correlation. It is just not good enough to use qualitative and subjective estimates of “consistency”. “Goodness of fit” should be quantified. Projections from carbon cycle and climate models never have the necessary uncertainty information, and are therefore wholly unreliable.
I would like to suggest that the whole Report is checked over by a specialist in the statistical treatment of data and of correlation procedures with a view to more scientific and uniform treatment of data, and the overall provision of the standard quantitative measures of correlation and accuracy.
further on:
Quote:
The assumed atmospheric concentration figures for carbon dioxide for the SRES scenarios were included in the First Draft, but have now been deleted. Presumably you are ashamed to admit such absurd figures.
Figures for all the other gases are given in Chapter 4 including ridiculously exaggerated figures for future methane concentrations. Quote:
47 out of 91 models listed in Chapter 9 assume that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at the rate of 1% a year when the measured rate of increase, for the past 33 years, has been 0.4% a year.The assumption of false figures in models in order to boost future projections is fraudulent. What other figures are falsely exaggerated in the same way?
The use of questions as headings to paragraphs (particularly in the Summary for Policymakers and Chapter 2) is inappropriate for a supposedly scientific document, and gives the impression of a public relations exercise.
Vincent Gray, Climate Consultant, New Zealand, (Exp.)
Ninja edit:
Quote:
Given that their competition might notice misrepresentation (intentional or not), thus discrediting them and robbing grant money, i can not see why would any "boss" let that happen (not that it could not happen, just that in long term that would be very undesirable).
If anything, quite the opposite is true. In One email (read in a news report, I haven't found that particular email yet) one of the scientists says that he would be putting his scientific career at risk if he reported data that indicated a slight cooling trend over the past few years(which, in my opinion is probably sun related and doesn't prove or disprove climate change).
Chade on 16/12/2009 at 21:47
Ok, you got me to waste a little bit of my life checking up on those rubbish quotes ...
For the record, while the document that CCCToads quotes has opinions from 15 people, CCCToads "multiple quotes" all come from just the one person.
Who could have guessed?The other comments are almost uniformly positive, with some minor nitpicks here and there, and a couple of people who didn't have time to review the report by the deadline.
Vincent Gray on (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_R._Gray) wikipedia, btw.
CCCToad on 16/12/2009 at 23:19
Never advertised them as being from multiple authors, I just picked parts of his section because its too long for me to copy-paste the whole thing.
Its also worth pointing out that his analysis is the longest and most in-depth review of the work.
Anyway, saying that "they all criticize it" wasn't my point, because its blatantly untrue. Most of them support it, there are just a few reviewers who have found significant flaws in their work.
edit: My real point with this is that its a bit naive to assume blindly that the IPCC can do no wrong. And its not a good idea to get emotional about it either: there's plenty of other climate research centers, so even if it turns out that their science is completely fraudulent it doesn't disprove global warming. A blind "climate researches can do no wrong" attitude is every bit as bad as the "all climate science is a conspiracy" attitude because both prevent you from looking critically at the climate change issue.
Chade on 16/12/2009 at 23:39
No, the paper contains is one reviewer who believes he has found significant problems. This from a scientist who is (
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0606/S00011.htm) dishonest enough to repeat that "cooling since 1998" crap.
CCCToad on 17/12/2009 at 00:25
Still, the argument you are making has no grounding aside from an appeal to spite, and doesn't do anything to address the specific criticisms found there or in other internal emails such as the one where a scientist writes that the data in question shows cooling(which may be true, some methods of reporting show flat temperatures or slight cooling while others show considerable warming) but that he doesn't dare say so because if he did his reputation would be destroyed.
Anyway, I do think its a bit silly to spend so much time arguing about specific temperature measurements, when there's other signs to worry about "such as the "iceberg" off new Zealand. If there's cause for alarm, thats the clearest sign I've seen yet.
Chade on 17/12/2009 at 00:55
I am arguing from "lack of authority", true, but how much time do you expect me to spend investigating yet one more worthless criticism?
In a field this large, there are so many potential little factoids that a dishonest person can blow out of all proportion. Many of them are true (e.g. surface temperature was hottest in 1998), but none of them are meaningfull.
This is (
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/there_are_no_climate_change_sc) no longer about science, btw. We know what the science says. The only issue is convincing civilians from a handfull of developed nations who stand the most to lose from taking action against climate change.
Deniers are waging a PR campaign, plain and simple, so you need to be carefull when defending climate change. It's like arguing with creationists about holes in the fossil record: if you keep playing whack-a-mole with deniers, you lose before you start. For every hole you investigate and plug up, a dishonest person can easily find another one.
Even if you win every battle, you can lose the war because you've spent the entire time on the defensive. After a while, it's important to shift the debate from defending the edge cases and anomalies in
your argument, and focus on the fact that the other guy is a dishonest lying retard, and anything he says should be understood in that light.
CCCToad on 17/12/2009 at 01:03
Which is pretty much the upshot of the IPCC "climategate". Were the scientists involved dirtbags and misleading? Heck yes. Does one center among many being discredited prove anything for either side? Definitely not.
I also definitely agree with one point that article makes: most of the current climate efforts are simply political. Otherwise You'd see drastic efforts to cut emissions across the globe rather than legislation which drives up taxes dramatically without making any significant cuts in emissions. China is a particularly interesting example, as you'd think that they would be making drastic efforts to curb their "Carbon footprint" for no other reason than that they are the single largest emitter in the world.
Currently, Nothing good is coming out of the whole affair whether or not you believe in global warming. We are getting all the inconvenience of increased government regulation and taxation without the kind of drastic reductions needed to forestall any of the more dire climate change models.
Fragony on 17/12/2009 at 08:02
Poor CCCToad, even a shred of doubt has no dominion in the land of the believers.
CCCToad on 17/12/2009 at 15:04
Actually, I'm not denying climate change. I'm only about 80-90% sold, to be honest, but It still doesn't seem logical to me that the massive amount pollution we create will have no ill effects whether those effects are global warming or not.
My objection is mainly to the current state of the environmental movement, which seems to have been co-opted by people who seem interested primarily in the power grabs climate theory justifies and don't seem to take it seriously themselves. As I've said before, if these people really believed or cared we only had a few years to curb CO2 before causing a catastrophe, you can bet they'd be doing everything to minimize their own footprint.
One other thing that I have heard is that a lot of large corporations, some of them notoriously bad on the environment, are showing up at Copenhagen, sponsoring people, and generally making themselves known. Guess its easier to preach high and mighty about global warming than actually do something about the poisons you dump the river right in your backyard.
Fragony on 17/12/2009 at 15:21
Doesn't matter what you think you are already on the wrong side, good luck trying to communicate even that.
