"Dette er klimaets Watergate-skandale"

Wow.... bare wow:
http://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/article2763291.ece

Jaggu hadde ikke Mc Kitrick og gutta rett i at M. Mann var en svindler!

Artig med klimafakkeltog fra Longyearbyen på kveldsnytt igår, et samfunn tuftet på kullgruvedrift, hvor alle livsnødvendigheter må fraktes flere hundre mil til innbyggerne.
Sånn bortsett fra den internasjonale romstasjonen må dette være den bosetningen i verden med høyest CO2-utslipp pr innbygger.
t

Wow, jeg kunde ikke finne någonting i den artikeln som visar at Mann er en svindler eller at McKitrick og gutta har rett.

Mann som står bak hockeykøllegraf, som ble debunket av Mc Kittrick. Folk mente at vitenskapelige argumentene til Mc Kittrick ikke hold mål fordi han jobbet i kullbransjen. Mann ville ikke komme ut med algoritmen bak grafen til slut kom den ut og det viste seg at algoritmen lagde hockey graf selv om du matet den med static og random data.
Bekreftelsen nå er jo at Mann skriver i mail at han manipulerer data.

http://www.forskning.no/artikler/2007/februar/1170420490.5
http://www.forskning.no/artikler/2004/august/1091106302.09
http://www.forskning.no/artikler/2005/januar/1106323741.86

So far one of the most circulated e-mails from the CRU hack is the following from Phil Jones to the original hockey stick authors – Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes. [...]
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Den anerkjente klimaforskeren Michael E. Mann skriver i en epost om tidsskriftet Climate Research, som har tatt inn skeptikeres artikler: «Dette var faren ved å alltid kritisere skeptikerne for å ikke publisere i peer reviewed-publikasjoner. De har åpenbart funnet en løsning på det: å ta over et tidsskrift! Hva skal vi gjøre med dette? Jeg mener vi bør slutte å anerkjenne Climate Review som en legitim journal.»

Og detta bevisar at Mann er en svindler?

Og detta bevisar at Mann er en svindler?

Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all.

Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH—just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.

"den ene siden" åpent diskuterer hvordan en skal rakke ned på resultatene til "den andre siden" er jo oppsiktsvekkende.

det er umulig og bevise at klima er ute av kontroll pga mennskelig aktivitet og dermed spiller det ingen rolle hva vi gjør.

Men har vi noensinne hatt kontroll på klimaet?
I vikingtiden dyrket de vin i England, det var lille istid som fordrev vikinger fra bosettinger på Grønnland

Et annen spørsmål: M&M brukte bare två principal components i deras rekunstruktion trots at en analys av singular verdierna visade at de borde brukt 5. Hvis de hade brukt 5 prinsipal components hade deras rekunstruktion varit veldig lik rekunstruktion i MBH 98. Hur ser du på detta?

Mr. Stephen McIntyre at Climate Audit has made no secret of his repeated attempts to demand, under Britain's Freedom of Information Act, that Phil Jones and his team yield up the data that are the basis of their claims for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and its effects. Preliminary analysis of the archived e-mails also indicates that Jones knew of McIntyre's efforts and was taking steps to stall and thwart them, in violation of the law. Perhaps, then, someone at CRU decided to take the law into his own hands.

Så hvordan kan jeg uttale meg om dette når ting blir holdt tilbake? Har Mann sluppet algoritmen bak hockeygrafen? Er medievel warming period tatt med?
Sist jeg sjekket ville de ikke komme ut med dataene sine.

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

Det er greit at folk er skeptiske, men det klassiske argumentet "klimaet har variert før, derfor kan ikke menneskeskapte utslipp påvirke nå" har jeg aldri skjønt meg på.

Word. Stikkordet er vel 'sunn skepsis'? Jeg liker dette sitatet:



Fra realclimate.org

Øh, du kunde alltid lesa artiklarna som skrevets om saken.

A team of statisticians led by Edward Wegman, chair of the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, was assembled at the request of U.S. Rep. Joe Barton and U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield .[41] The report primarily focused on the statistical analysis used in the MBH paper, and also considered the personal and professional relationships between Mann et al. and other members of the paleoclimate community.

The report found that MBH method creates a PC1 statistic dominated by bristlecone and foxtail pine tree ring series (closely related species). However there is evidence in the literature, that the use of the bristlecone pine series as a temperature proxy may not be valid (suppressing "warm period" in the hockey stick handle); and that bristlecones do exhibit CO2-fertilized growth over the last 150 years (enhancing warming in the hockey stick blade).

Overall, the committee believes that Mann’s assessments, that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium, cannot be supported by his analysis.

Likte bortforklaringen til Mann som ikke sier noenting!
edit: Eller jo den sier at de velger de kildene som passer best til deres konklusjoner.

Og Pontiff, jeg bryr meg ikke om personene og om de er klovner eller hva de er. Jeg ser på hva de sier og argumentene.

Wegman rapport:

Og Pontiff, jeg bryr meg ikke om personene og om de er klovner eller hva de er. Jeg ser på hva de sier og argumentene.

klimaskeptiker

Wegman rapport:

The Wegman report has itself been criticized on several grounds:

The report was not subject to formal peer review. At the hearing, Wegman listed 6 people that participated in his own informal peer review process via email after the report was finalized and said they had no objection to the subcommittee submitting it.

Dr. Thomas Crowley, Professor of Earth Science System, Duke University, testified at the committee hearing, "The conclusions and recommendations of the Wegman Report have some serious flaws."

The result of fixing some of the alleged errors in the overall reconstruction does not change the general shape of the most recent part of the reconstruction.

Similarly, studies that use completely different methodologies also yield very similar reconstructions.

The social network analysis is not based on meaningful criteria, does not prove a conflict of interest and did not apply at the time of the 1998 and 1999 publications. Such a network of co-authorship is not unusual in narrowly defined areas of science. During the hearing, Wegman defined the social network as peer reviewers that had "actively collaborated with him in writing research papers" and answered that none of his peer reviewers had.

Gerald North, chairman of the National Research Council panel that studied the hockey-stick issue and produced the report Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, stated the politicians at the hearing at which the Wegman report was presented "were twisting the scientific information for their own propaganda purposes. The hearing was not an information gathering operation, but rather a spin machine." In testimony when asked if he disputed the methodology conclusions of Wegman's report, he stated that "No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report. But again, just because the claims are made, doesn’t mean they are false."

Mann has himself said that the report "uncritically parrots claims by two Canadians (an economist and a mineral-exploration consultant) that have already been refuted by several papers in the peer-reviewed literature inexplicably neglected by Barton's 'panel'. These claims were specifically dismissed by the National Academy in their report just weeks ago."

Kan bare dra slutsatsen at du varken har lest de relevanta artiklarna eller vet någonting om statistiken som brukas. Du klarer ikke ens at finne något som er relevant før det jeg har spurt.