Global Warming

[IQS.RLOW]

PS. Can you help us defend the carbon price from Tony Abbott by chipping in $10? We can't afford to fall behind the rest of the world on this issue.

Good to see Combets getting in practice for his life after September...begging

[Rorschach]

Yes that was rather noticeable.
Not that the Libs aren't doing similar things.

Problem is Obama seems to be as disingenuous as Combet when it comes to climate change.
Heard Combet earlier today and all you can think is that they are desperate and frightened about losing the election.

[Rorschach]

The more I look the more I find from reasonable authorities that the modelling is clearing not right.

Hi SN, yes, the modelling has never been right, that's a big part of the problem.
They don't account for all permutations necessary and in the past the parameters were fudged to give the desired outcome.

[IQS.RLOW]

I see Craig Emerson was in his natural skin on 2GB being a complete dickhead and unable to admit he was completely and utterly wrong when Bolt told him that it is unequivocal that their has been no warming for 16 years.

That this idiot managed to get to be a minister in the ALP is testament to how shallow the pool of talent these bunch of fucking hacks have. He is an embarrasment to everyone (including and especially the caucus, so I am told)

[Rorschach]

Hey the guy skulls Contact lenses...
don't expect to find a brain in their...
political dope of the year...



everytime he opens his mouth he keeps proving it.

[Mattus]

Are you are suggesting that we should change the confidence levels to meet your desired outcome?

Perhaps you don't understand confidence intervals and how scientists quantify their uncertainty.

Let's take an example. Perth has a summer maximum temperature that is, on average, 3 degrees higher than Melbourne. That is a well established fact with a lot of evidence to support it and therefore we known that perth is a hotter city than Melbourne.

However, if we only look at the last 15 days, we may find that, while the average temperature for perth is higher than Melbourne, there is some variability (for example today was cooler in perth than it was in Melbourne). As a result of the limited data sat, the p value is greater than 0.05, when comparing the means.

Now, it would be absolutely wrong to conclude from the data that perth ceased to be a hotter city than Melbourne 15 days ago. We have not shown that a all. It would be wrong to conclude that perth is cooling or Melbourne is heating.

But that is what your doing. You have limited the data set such that the uncertainty is (very slightly) below the threshold for rejecting the null hypothesis, and are trying to claim that means the earth has stopped warming. That is just poor science.

Absence if evidence for warming, within a severely and arbitrarily limited data set, is not evidence that warming has ceased.

[IQS.RLOW]

Uh, it ain't what I am doing. It is what climate scientists are doing.
Take it up with them if you think that 0.03 deg per decade is significant

Absence if evidence for warming, within a severely and arbitrarily limited data set, is not evidence that warming has ceased.

...and vice versa

[Rorschach]

Exactly IQS, not only are the models flawed and skewed to give particular outcomes there has never been any admission about uncertainty by the vast majority of alarmists in their work or any credence given to alternate theories on the last bout of warming. The closest you get is an admission of ignorance... "we don't know why the warming has stalled".

[Mattus]

I don't know who you are bundling in with the term "alarmists", but climate scientists, like all scientists, are very clear about the uncertainty around their statistical inference and interpolation. Now pointing to that very well defined and rigorously tested uncertainty as somehow evidence that warming has stopped with a vague "and vice versa" is just not how science works. A 7% uncertainty around a discrete and arbitrarily limited subset data set is not evidence that the inference drawn from the larger set is flawed. It's not even evidence that the same inference drawn from the discrete data sets flawed, it is simply a quantifiable uncertainty around that inference.

What concerns me more, I think, is this argument that the climate scientists are somehow acting in self interest. That there is something in it for them to continue a narrative on warming. This is just not true on several levels, not least of which is that the only route to fame and fortune in science is to overturn the currently held dogma in an area. So believe me, if the data around warming could be discredited, it would have been. But it can't, at least not by scientists. It stands up to extremely rigorous review by peers who would overturn it in a second if they had data to support it.

Unfortunately by clinging to this perception that scientists are acting in self interest allows people to disregard this mountain of scientific evidence with the notion that scientists are somehow partisan or even corrupt. This notion that the 97% consensus from all,scientists publishing in climate science is only half of a partisan story betrays a lack of confidence in the objectivity of science that is really disturbing and, I think, very dangerous for us as a community.

[IQS.RLOW]

Forgetting that some of the original unweighted data sets have been 'misplaced' the original premise you introduced was that the certainty % is somehow flawed when the graphs aren't going in the direction intended.

If you wish to pull that trick, then you need to go back and re-evaluate all the data based on your preferred certainty and resubmit it. I'm sure theres a Phd and a Nobel waiting for you...or fire and brimstone when the evaluation makes the current 16 years fit but the original data fall outside the 'consensus'?

The fact is the ground rules have been established and the last 16-23 years do not follow the predictions. When the facts change, what do you do sir?

If you work in the medical field, please tell me so I don't subject my children to any medical 'miracles' that you may have discovered by ignoring factual evidence based on established ground rules that previous methodology has been subject to because it doesn't support your hypothesis