The video showing the climate research work of Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT and Steven McIntyre of Climate Audit is now up on YouTube. One of the most compelling portions of the program has to do with the erroneous reversal of the Tiljander sediments, and Dr. Michael Mann’s stubborn refusal to acknowledge his error, even though other authors of peer reviewed papers have done so. In my opinion, salvation of the hockey stick seems to trump the salvation of good science practice.
The investigative journalism here is refreshing, and well done. It’s the sort of thing CBS 60 minutes used to do.
Here is part 1, a transcript link follows:
McIntyre and Lindzen to appear on Finnish TV documentary – transcript
Update: Here’s a version with English Subtitles courtesy of commentor Apollo. ~ctm
http://dotsub.com/view/19f9c335-b023-4a40-9453-a98477314bf2
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Phillip, Sandy and Chilly. Yup me too just waiting for the knock on the door in the night!
Carl Sagan was very fond of saying, “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.” While he often used this in reference to UFOs and ETI, it would seem to apply to climate change alarmism. For example, if you are claiming the world temperature will increase 7 degrees in the next 100 years, you better have some pretty strong evidence rather than a few computer models.
Deborah (12:58:02) :
I just finished reading the transcript and boy I wish we had journalists over here in the US! It would make such a difference if we had a real press.
We have the internet. 🙂
The Transcript in english satisfies me completely.
As a mariner of many years, my Finnish is rather limited, to Grog and Friendlies winky wink wink.
I tend to prefer transcripts, myself. Because they remove emotion.
It was interesting to hear Lindzen discussing the Iris Effect.
SandyInDerby (10:01:15) :
Some points. releasing GCM code is only one issue. The code to calculate global temperature is also needed.
Gary (10:55:16) :
“…How can these yuks be so brass as to state they can forcast the weather years in an advance, let alone hundreds of years in advance?”
Actually, and I say this in sorrow and embarrassment to be seen actually defending climate modeling, they are not attempt to forecast weather. Climate is an average of weather over a specified period. You can think of climate as what you plan for when you pack your swim suit and sandals for Hawaii, while weather is what you get when find yourself in Hawaii wishing for a jacket and socks. They are attempting to project mean annual patterns rather than forecast day by day changes.
“… Today at 9:30am the forcast for today’s high was 68F. Well, at noon it was 70F and they’d changed the high to 71F. See? In less than three hours the forecast had to be changed 3 degrees F. That’s more than 1 degree per hour. …”
This is the difference between weather and climate.
“Bottom line: if you cannot forcast the weather one hour in advance – you cannot forecast the weather 100 years in advance. Or am I wrong?”
I would tend to agree except that if you simply stuck to projecting this year’s current temperatures based upon last years, the projection results would actually be better than the climate models used by the IPCC. What is actually difficult is projecting changes in these patterns. It is rather like investing: “past results do insure future returns.”
JWd
Kate
Theres nothing wrong with the IPCC report on sea level rise provided you read the small print and refer to the FULL version not the political summary.
You need Chapter 5. Look at the various graphs then at the caveats towards the end of the chapter. The data from Tide level gauges are literally made up as it admits in the report. They are based on three Northern Hemisphere gauges only. These were reconstrcted from the faintest of data and glued onto modern tide gauges (still a very small number) from 1900.
Satellites are inaccurate between 8 and 80mm That is up to 80 times the amount they are measuring.
University of Colorado and Proudman Observatory shows sea level rise is about1mm per year but we don’t know what that is based on. In our part of the world sea levels haven’t changed -as observed and as confirmed by fishermen and harbourmasters- for at least 150 years.
However in other places there has been a rise and in others a fall. Observation shows levels were higher in Roman and Medieval times.
Its a bigger scandal than the hockey stick..
Tonyb
Mark_K (11:48:07) :
“Not that I believe them, but you are comparing Apples & Oranges (or climate and weather). I can fairly accurately, and easily, predict how much the temperature where I live will trend higher between March and August, even though I can’t predict within five degrees what it will be tomorrow.”
Let’s say Gary’s daily temperature measurements have a standard deviation of 5 deg C. Everybody would sympathise with forecasts of daily temperatures having forecast errors of that order of magnitude.
Now somebody turns their attemtion to predicting average temperature. If we are going to assess the perforemance of these forecasts, we must turn to the standard error of the mean. The standard error of the mean is smaller than standard deviation by a factor of (say) 10, assuming we are averaging 100 independent samples of daily temperature.
If we were forecasting 100 day average temperature, the relevant yardstick for claims of performance would be 0.5 degC (assuming days are statistically independent).
Howevefr, forecasting a 100 day average to an error in the region of 0.5 deg C doesn’t mean we have achieved any improvement on our ability to forecast.
A forecast of an average might well look good it if is compared with the standard deviation of the underlying data. But that is surely comparing apples and oranges.
(Sorry this is OT)
OT but here in Australia were finally starting to get some media play on the issue of climate facts and skepticism – more on my website
REPLY: Beggars can’t be choosy. If one were available, don’t you think I would have posted it? – A
Yes I do. Maybe you misinterpreted my comment? ‘Will’, as in I hope an English version becomes available.
regards
Sam
Kate, I don’t know if the data checks out but like you I’ve been trying to find the definitive evidence of sea level rise. Turns out that is not as easy as you’d think.
Anyway, this page is a jolly fine read in that light:
http://www.john-daly.com/ges/msl-rept.htm
George E. Smith (10:16:00) :
—
What is running amok these days can hardly be described as Intelligent thought. More like Idealogical Purveyors of Computerized Claims.
If Carl Sagan were here today, he’d be the biggest skeptic on Earth, comparing what is being peddled at the IPCC to the the Destruction at the Library of Alexandria. The dog at my temperature data excuses would make his hair stand on end. We’ve seen this movie before, and we know the name of the Age that followed it. Dark.
twawki
Your link is broken.
Being from Australia, I’d like to see it.
“”” Dave (13:21:19) :
Carl Sagan was very fond of saying, “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.” While he often used this in reference to UFOs and ETI, it would seem to apply to climate change alarmism. For example, if you are claiming the world temperature will increase 7 degrees in the next 100 years, you better have some pretty strong evidence rather than a few computer models. “””
I’m sure others have used that turn of phrase too; but other than being catchy, is it valid.
There are those who say that the standards of proof are the same for all scientific postulates.
For example would a proof be extra-ordinary if a given theory/model happened to agree with the most reliable and accurate experimentally measured result to say 1/3 of the standard deviation of the best experimental result ?
Some would say that is extra-ordinary; given that in climate “science” a 3:1 fudge factor range is considered a believeble theory.
Well surprisingly there is at least one example of a totally bogus, and contrived mathematical derivation of an experimentally observable physical quantity; that meets that 1/3 sigma agreement; and that is a quantity that has a sigma of the order of 0.045 ppm; yes that is 4.5 parts in 10^8.
So just by randomly messing around with numbers someone got within 1.5 parts in 10^8 of the correct value of one of the fundamental constants of Physics (The Fine Structure Constant (alpha)).
So getting the correct answer is no defense of the result.
After watching the documentary in Finnish and reading the English transcript I have emailed the links to SBS TV Australia with a request that they consider screening it. SBS have translation and subtitle facilities and regularly screen foreign docos. Translation and subtitle facilities may not be enough however as they may also require some backbone. This is often in short supply when a TV station relies on government funding.
Good on ya Konrad.
I wonder if you play the stick? 😉
Was this program aired, or still to be aired at 8:00 pm on November 11 local time in Finland?
“salvation”
Good choice of terms Anthony — fittingly highlights the religious dimension of the antics.
May I also say how humble a man Steve McIntyre appears to be.
So refreshing in such an arrogant field.
>> Gary (10:55:16) : Here’s an issue no one seems to be covering: no one can forcast the weather an hour in advance within a degree or two. How can these yuks be so brass as to state they can forcast the weather years in an advance, let alone hundreds of years in advance? <<
Easily. They can predict hundreds of years in advance the adjustments they will make to the raw data to create the warming.
It seems there were too many elites in the 18th century as well!
“What can be added to the happiness of a man who is in health, out of debt, and has a clear conscience?
All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.”
Adam Smith 1723-1790
VILE MAXIMS OF THE MASTERS OF MANKIND. A great title for a collection of pithy aphorisms. Contributions please.
TonyB (14:35:39) :
and
GeeMac (15:09:58) :
Thanks for the information. Finding accurate data about past or current sea levels is hard, and now I understand better why that is.
“tokyoboy (16:04:04) :
Was this program aired, or still to be aired at 8:00 pm on November 11 local time in Finland?”
Nope. It was shown on Monday, November 9th at 8:00 pm.
As Crichton noted in his 2003 speech, Sagan was the manufacturer of the “nuclear winter” scenario, which, like the Drake equation, is utterly meaningless. He did understand TV and PR though.
BTW Anthony, as several of your readers enjoyed the hilarity I discovered in some of the Weblog Science nominations, I pass along this response I got related to RealClimate being nominated for Best Religion Blog.
http://cbullitt.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-gospel-of-mcgoo-unto-the-agw-mongers-giveth-the-finger/
twawki (14:56:23) wrote :
OT but here in Australia were finally starting to get some media play on the issue of climate facts and skepticism – more on my website
****
When I clikced on “twawki” I got:
The webpage “go2.wordpress.com” cannot be found