Key 'climategate' scientist cleared of wrongdoing

**Sgt.TmH** · 02-15-10, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Originally Posted by Potemkine

Data taken from:
http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/2009/
http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/e_pacific/2009/
(change the year in the url to see the desired year. Data as far back as 1948 for the Eastern Pacific and pre-1900 for the Atlantic)

So Sgt, why don't you post your sources?

My sources are the same as Poke's, as I clearly stated.

I did not look farther, but I am sure ...

LMAO! It's BS to claim someone else is wrong and question whether they did any research when you admit you didn't bother to read the data yourself!

Obviously you did not read my post as you accused me of doing. I did indeed list the severe storms of 2009 but also included the other years where there were NO severe storms. I didn't look at just one year like you did, I looked at the past 10 years!

Maybe YOU should looked at the data yourself instead of relying on someone else to spoon feed you!

And don't just "flip through" the charts as you suggested - create a spreadsheet from the data sources linked above as I did for the past 10 years and then come back here and point out how my "statement is factually incorrect and verifiable".

I actually appreciate Poke taking the time to make his posts which is why I put in the time to look at the numbers myself and make an informed response. But offhand dismissals like this while admiting they don't bother to do any research themselves can just stuff it!

BTW, the head Global Warming Chicken Little researcher, Phil Jones, has admited in a BBC interview ...
- from 1995 to Present there has been no statistically significiant warming (+.12 C)
- from 2002 to Present there has been an equally non-statistically significant cooling trend (-.12 C)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

**SapiensErus** · 02-15-10, 03:18 PM

Dude, you said clearly there have been no Cat 5 storms since 2007, which is factually incorrect and verifiable by those sources we are both using.

EDIT:

Further, no one is spoon feeding me anything. Before I changed majors (for the umpteenth time) I devoted a considerable portion of my free time to volunteer in climate modeling at PSU in conjunction with OSU and OIT in Oregon. I have read literally thousands of pages of material related to this subject and have ample credits in related sciences. I am just looking at what picture is painted by the bulk of the evidence.

In the end, you said something false, got corrected, and are now talking your way around it. When I say something false, and someone corrects me, I admit to it and may even adjust my position accordingly if evidence weighs in. That is all I am addressing here.

EDIT 2:
In the very article you cite he says he agrees 100% that the Earth is warming and agrees with the chapter 9 of the IPCC report that is likely anthropogenic. Please, when addressing evidence, take in the whole picture. The statistical significance of those specific trends are two specific pieces of information, not the thousands they used to make the model. He is addressing specific questions put to him by skeptics, and being honest. But because one set of measurements does not meet the .05 alpha criterion (but comes close) does not close the door on any debate. Go research each of those questions asked of him on .edu, .gov, and scientific journals and you might actually learn something.

**Potemkine** · 02-15-10, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by Sgt.TmH

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Originally Posted by Potemkine

Data taken from:
http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/2009/
http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/e_pacific/2009/
(change the year in the url to see the desired year. Data as far back as 1948 for the Eastern Pacific and pre-1900 for the Atlantic)

So Sgt, why don't you post your sources?

My sources are the same as Poke's, as I clearly stated.

I did not look farther, but I am sure ...

LMAO! It's BS to claim someone else is wrong and question whether they did any research when you admit you didn't bother to read the data yourself!

Obviously you did not read my post as you accused me of doing. I did indeed list the severe storms of 2009 but also included the other years where there were NO severe storms. I didn't look at just one year like you did, I looked at the past 10 years!

Maybe YOU should looked at the data yourself instead of relying on someone else to spoon feed you!

And don't just "flip through" the charts as you suggested - create a spreadsheet from the data sources linked above as I did for the past 10 years and then come back here and point out how my "statement is factually incorrect and verifiable".

I actually appreciate Poke taking the time to make his posts which is why I put in the time to look at the numbers myself and make an informed response. But offhand dismissals like this while admiting they don't bother to do any research themselves can just stuff it!

BTW, the head Global Warming Chicken Little researcher, Phil Jones, has admited in a BBC interview ...
- from 1995 to Present there has been no statistically significiant warming (+.12 C)
- from 2002 to Present there has been an equally non-statistically significant cooling trend (-.12 C)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Sgt. TmH,

I want you to read the following VERY closely as I want to make sure that you FULLY understand the dynamic to which we are referring.

Originally Posted by Potemkine

Yeah, it seems that you fully do not understand the cyclonic activity of the Atlantic and East Pacific.

The Eastern Pacific normally does not see that many storms. Usually, they are tropical depressions, storms and MAYBE a Hurricane or two. This is because the currents that dominate the western coast of the US, Mexico and central America kill cyclonic (tropical depression/storm hurricane) genesis.

The vast majority of the cyclonic activity that we see comes from the Atlantic. Every 3 years or so, as I have state enumerable times, the trends switch because of El Nino. So as a result, the Eastern Pacific acts like the Atlantic and the Atlantic acts like the Eastern Pacific. So the trends you would expect to see in one actually swaps to the other, then back again, after the El Nino is finished.

For the record, El Nino, or Southern Oscillation, is a shift in currents in the Pacific. Normally the eastern pacific ocean off the coast of S. America is a cold water current. The water temperatures are colder than what you would expect to see for the amount of sunlight they see per year. As a result, it becomes a haven for various types of cold water fish. Shifting gears to the Western Pacific, the water there, on the exact same latitudinal line, is a warm water current. Its what helps feed the coral reefs off of Australia, New Zeland, Philippines and other islands. During an El Nino, it switches so the western pacific that normally sees warm waters, sees cold waters and the eastern pacific which is normally cold, sees in stead, warm water. The effects of this are felt through out the world, South West and South East Asia, which normally rely upon the Monsoon (changing winds) season and the rainy season it sees, instead gets a lot less rain than they need. It also effects the Atlantic, by diffusing the warm water into colder water. The effects of that, can be seen in England and Europe where they rely heavily on the North Atlantic Current to bring warm water and warm temperatures. England is typically temperate, yet, its on the same latitude as central Canada, a freezing cold place.

Because every couple years or so, there will be a significant drop in the severity and frequency of storms. You can look to the eastern Pacific page to find the corresponding year and I am sure you will see the switch.

**deathgodusmc** · 02-15-10, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

...
Ok i believe the term you and soy used was tweaked
...

OK, dude: Sometimes, when huge quantities of data are used to model a system, we might need to eliminate some variables or inflate some variables in order to see certain "pictures" to help us understand what is happening.

Read those emails; what "decline" are they using the "nature trick" to hide? A decline in dissolved oxygen in a peat bog sample that is affecting the data they are trying to collect for a tiny fragment of a huge puzzle? A decline in photosynthesis occurring in a time frame relevant to carbon dated samples from an ancient forest fire they are trying to get sample data from? What? You have NO idea what they were talking about; none of the people who blew that out of proportion did. They, like you, committed a common logical fallacy: Confirming the consequent.

IF they were hiding a decline in global average temperature from the public, the dialogue in the email is one way they might talk about it (without actually saying it). Well they said the sentence that might possibly be one of the things they could say if they were hiding the data, THEN they must be doing that.

If A then B; B, therefore A.

Or they could have been doing any of thousands of manipulations required to understand data collected.

If X then B. If Y then B. If Z then B. B, therefore ... ?

See the problem with the logic used?

I know in any statistical analysis, especially one relying on data from many sources, each involving it's own manipulations to draw data from, many statistical "tricks" are employed. And that is a word I use: Tricks. Viewing phenomena via the geometric-mean instead of arithmetic-mean can be a "trick"; Eliminating a confounding variable using Multiple Analysis Of Variance (MANOVA) software can be a "trick"; looking at a graph of the derivative of time-sequence phenomena can be a "trick." The fact is: A few people took a couple of emails completely out of context and said "if they were doing ____, this is one sentence they might say when talking about it! They said the sentence, so that is what they must be doing it!"

I use tricks all the time: I used a trick with the dot-product of two vectors and their combined magnitudes to work around an annoying physics problem involving three angles that could have been mathmatically much uglier and longer. I used a trick in C++ to avoid writing a giant pile of code to accomplish a task that a custom library already had a function for. Crushing the garlic clove to break the skin off rather than picking it off with my fingernails is a trick I employ frequently. People use tricks all the time. Analysis of systems regularly require the elimination of outliers, confounds and other variables in order to see certain data.

If people believe the word "trick" can only mean scientists are fooling the public... well... let's just say my faith in mankind's ability to have a successful future grows weaker.

I did read some of the emails probably more than anyone on this forum i got around 500 read. I like how you assume i have no idea what is being discussed. I guess my education is on the Marine Corps and high school. Even if that were true you have no idea what my intelectual knowledge is. You see i dont give a shit about wether or not i spelled it or if i used propper grammer that hardly gives a bases for wether or not i understand the topic.

It was more than the one email using the word trick that was an issue. That one was the primary focus because of the usage of the word trick. Once again i feel compelled to remind everyone that climate change is not fact it is a theory when being discussed as to man being the largest factor in it. What is fact is that the climate has always changed and always will wether man is here or not.

What seems to be the issue is that those that back the theory exspect everyone to fall in line with it or they don't have the inteligence to understand the data incomplete data at that. It couldn't be that some of us just think the data is way to far from being complete for it to be worth backing at this point in time.

Does this mean that those that chose not to back the theory think the climate isn't changing? No it doesn't it simply means that some of us think mans part as per the theory is being overstated. I really don't think we need to get into all the details agian because we know what will happen. A bunch of graphs will show up and a bunch of key point will be put out that nether side can prove without a doubt that it is fact.

So why not just sit back and let those that think climate change is being overstated be. We didn't come to you with it you came to us yet again.

All that banter you just posted is irrelevant. This is about "climategate" and the evidence in these emails, not my opinions of your opinions. You are speaking out against these scientists; you have been continually. You have cited these emails as evidence. Now you claim to understand the evidence for the conspiracy better than others on this forum because you read 500 emails (I do not think that has a high probability of being the correct number FYI).

So tell me, what does "nature trick" mean? What where they hiding the decline in? Why were they doing it?

The whole point of "climategate" was that these emails are evidence that there was a conspiracy by these scientists to cover something up the fact that global warming was false. You claim to have read enough emails that you understand it. Answer those questions.

If you understand it, please tell me those three things, because I still don't know what they were talking about. But as you obviously did not understand from my post the logic anyone has presented about the email "conspiracy" has a huge problem: Confirming the consequent.

So, what was the "nature trick" and what was the decline they were trying to hide? What did they mean by those specific words, because that is the only "evidence' about a "conspiracy" put forward by "climategate" and if you think they should not be cleared you must understand it perfectly?

Unbelievable. I have never said or implied that i know everything better than anyone. The number i gave was low fyi. I like how you try to change the topic from what i said in the post. I did not say the emails are proof that they are doing anything. I said they tend to led in that direction. Get your facts straight.

The decline they were trying to hide so to speak is refering to the topic being refered to as Global Warming when there was actually a cooling in process at the time. If i remember correctly and it has been a little bit since i read any of those emails. Nature trick was refering to playing with the numbers a bit to make up for what is considered inconsitant variables.

As to why they would do that i guess it depends on what side of the fence your on. Those for the topic i am led to assume it is to try and come up with as good as a number as humanly possible for an inconseved variable. Those against would say it's to come up with an equation to meet a predetermine solution.

Any other questions that are completely irrelevant to the post you responded to?

**deathgodusmc** · 02-15-10, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Originally Posted by Potemkine

And I feel compelled to remind everybody that scientific theory is a whole lot stronger and sound than a personal or native theory. Scientific theory is an explanation of an observed phenomena of data points or facts.

Then i have to remind you that a scientific theory is still just that a theory not fact.

Theory of gravity. Yes gravity is a good guess but still just a "hunch" and not a fact?

Please... at least just go read the wiki page on "scientific method" and try really hard to understand it this time...

Maybe you should read the wiki definition on the entire group. Nice twist though you took it from not fact to a hunch. LOL

**Potemkine** · 02-15-10, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

...

Unbelievable. I have never said or implied that i know everything better than anyone. The number i gave was low fyi. I like how you try to change the topic from what i said in the post. I did not say the emails are proof that they are doing anything. I said they tend to led in that direction. Get your facts straight.

The decline they were trying to hide so to speak is refering to the topic being refered to as Global Warming when there was actually a cooling in process at the time. If i remember correctly and it has been a little bit since i read any of those emails. Nature trick was refering to playing with the numbers a bit to make up for what is considered inconsitant variables.

As to why they would do that i guess it depends on what side of the fence your on. Those for the topic i am led to assume it is to try and come up with as good as a number as humanly possible for an inconseved variable. Those against would say it's to come up with an equation to meet a predetermine solution.

Any other questions that are completely irrelevant to the post you responded to?

As for the bolded section, that is not at all what they were referring to.

For data points prior to the 1960s, tree ring data, coral reefs, ice core samples and other natural indicators of climate were used to gather world wide data on the temperature of the planet. It was quite an accurate system. Until, trees in the 1960s were showing a decline in temperature. This was perplexing because by this time, the world had been covered by a multitude of stations that monitored the weather and climate. These weather stations and related temperatures, were in fact, showing an INCREASE in temperature. As a result, the scientists were seeing incorrect trends in one set, while true temperatures were showing the opposite (measured by/at weather stations). They then applied a "trick" of overlaying ALL the data together over a given interval to establish a common baseline. We then saw a continual rise in temperature.

This "trick" of overlying data sources is quite common to establish a baseline and to get the "big picture". Just look at my explanation of El Nino and the cylcone season around the Americas. I took data from one part of the world, connected it to another, laid the data points over each other, and a gradual trend emerged (increasing amount of severity of storms).

It does not matter what "side of the fence you are on " that determines what the "trick" was or did. What matters is what transpired. What I explained is a FACT, and I use that term because I know how you love facts. This "FACT" has been reproduced by several scientists and confirmed.

**deathgodusmc** · 02-16-10, 04:48 AM

Originally Posted by Potemkine

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

...

Unbelievable. I have never said or implied that i know everything better than anyone. The number i gave was low fyi. I like how you try to change the topic from what i said in the post. I did not say the emails are proof that they are doing anything. I said they tend to led in that direction. Get your facts straight.

The decline they were trying to hide so to speak is refering to the topic being refered to as Global Warming when there was actually a cooling in process at the time. If i remember correctly and it has been a little bit since i read any of those emails. Nature trick was refering to playing with the numbers a bit to make up for what is considered inconsitant variables.

As to why they would do that i guess it depends on what side of the fence your on. Those for the topic i am led to assume it is to try and come up with as good as a number as humanly possible for an inconseved variable. Those against would say it's to come up with an equation to meet a predetermine solution.

Any other questions that are completely irrelevant to the post you responded to?

As for the bolded section, that is not at all what they were referring to.

For data points prior to the 1960s, tree ring data, coral reefs, ice core samples and other natural indicators of climate were used to gather world wide data on the temperature of the planet. It was quite an accurate system. Until, trees in the 1960s were showing a decline in temperature. This was perplexing because by this time, the world had been covered by a multitude of stations that monitored the weather and climate. These weather stations and related temperatures, were in fact, showing an INCREASE in temperature. As a result, the scientists were seeing incorrect trends in one set, while true temperatures were showing the opposite (measured by/at weather stations). They then applied a "trick" of overlaying ALL the data together over a given interval to establish a common baseline. We then saw a continual rise in temperature.

This "trick" of overlying data sources is quite common to establish a baseline and to get the "big picture". Just look at my explanation of El Nino and the cylcone season around the Americas. I took data from one part of the world, connected it to another, laid the data points over each other, and a gradual trend emerged (increasing amount of severity of storms).

It does not matter what "side of the fence you are on " that determines what the "trick" was or did. What matters is what transpired. What I explained is a FACT, and I use that term because I know how you love facts. This "FACT" has been reproduced by several scientists and confirmed.

Andfthat would be called what? inconsistant vairables nice try but its covered. As to what side of the fence is seeing what. I dont think you are seeing the other side of the fence to begin with so i dont think you can speak for them. I try to see both sides and develope my own conclusion. Of which i have stated over and over and over yet certain people seems to look right past it to say some of the most off the wall shit abouit what i said.

**BruceBloodMaster** · 02-16-10, 07:50 AM

I just want to know one thing......... who the hell do you think is gonna PAY for all this Crap ?? The country is on the balls of its ass right now with almost 20% of the people unemployed and on the verge of Total Economic Collapse. The dollars and cents of what is proposed is Staggering ! SO I guess you don't mind sending us Deeper into debt than we Already Are ?? !! If the latter is affirmative all I have to say is Have Fun paying for ALL this reckless Spending for the Rest of Your Lives !

**Potemkine** · 02-16-10, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by BruceBloodMaster

I just want to know one thing......... who the hell do you think is gonna PAY for all this Crap ?? The country is on the balls of its ass right now with almost 20% of the people unemployed and on the verge of Total Economic Collapse. The dollars and cents of what is proposed is Staggering ! SO I guess you don't mind sending us Deeper into debt than we Already Are ?? !! If the latter is affirmative all I have to say is Have Fun paying for ALL this reckless Spending for the Rest of Your Lives !

In short, science does not care who pays or doesnt pay. All that science cares about is the truth and the best explanation for an observed phenomena. Scientists focus on what is evident. It is up to the people/government to decide. Just because the political motives of some are devious and the economic costs are high, does not mean that what the scientists say is a lie.

**Potemkine** · 02-16-10, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Originally Posted by Potemkine

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

...

Unbelievable. I have never said or implied that i know everything better than anyone. The number i gave was low fyi. I like how you try to change the topic from what i said in the post. I did not say the emails are proof that they are doing anything. I said they tend to led in that direction. Get your facts straight.

The decline they were trying to hide so to speak is refering to the topic being refered to as Global Warming when there was actually a cooling in process at the time. If i remember correctly and it has been a little bit since i read any of those emails. Nature trick was refering to playing with the numbers a bit to make up for what is considered inconsitant variables.

As to why they would do that i guess it depends on what side of the fence your on. Those for the topic i am led to assume it is to try and come up with as good as a number as humanly possible for an inconseved variable. Those against would say it's to come up with an equation to meet a predetermine solution.

Any other questions that are completely irrelevant to the post you responded to?

As for the bolded section, that is not at all what they were referring to.

For data points prior to the 1960s, tree ring data, coral reefs, ice core samples and other natural indicators of climate were used to gather world wide data on the temperature of the planet. It was quite an accurate system. Until, trees in the 1960s were showing a decline in temperature. This was perplexing because by this time, the world had been covered by a multitude of stations that monitored the weather and climate. These weather stations and related temperatures, were in fact, showing an INCREASE in temperature. As a result, the scientists were seeing incorrect trends in one set, while true temperatures were showing the opposite (measured by/at weather stations). They then applied a "trick" of overlaying ALL the data together over a given interval to establish a common baseline. We then saw a continual rise in temperature.

This "trick" of overlying data sources is quite common to establish a baseline and to get the "big picture". Just look at my explanation of El Nino and the cylcone season around the Americas. I took data from one part of the world, connected it to another, laid the data points over each other, and a gradual trend emerged (increasing amount of severity of storms).

It does not matter what "side of the fence you are on " that determines what the "trick" was or did. What matters is what transpired. What I explained is a FACT, and I use that term because I know how you love facts. This "FACT" has been reproduced by several scientists and confirmed.

Andfthat would be called what? inconsistant vairables nice try but its covered. As to what side of the fence is seeing what. I dont think you are seeing the other side of the fence to begin with so i dont think you can speak for them. I try to see both sides and develope my own conclusion. Of which i have stated over and over and over yet certain people seems to look right past it to say some of the most off the wall shit abouit what i said.

Inconsistent variables? Not quite. The growth rate of trees with respect to conditions has been well understood for quite some time. What scientists did was compare the growth rate of trees in their respective environments with the REAL temperatures that were observed from thermometers and the overlay was established to provide a greater time span of temperature trends.

The only legitimate argument that I have seen is that our time span of data and records should be larger. I agree, the more data we have the better. From what we have seen so far, with the data we have established so far, AIGW is the best explanation.

Should verifiable and concrete evidence come to light that shows AIGW is not the best explanation, science will be more than happy to scrap the theory and try to explain the observed better.