CNN’s Campbell Brown & John Roberts with Chris Horner, Stephen McIntyre, Michael Oppenheimer.
Part 1
Part 2 below:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
CNN’s Campbell Brown & John Roberts with Chris Horner, Stephen McIntyre, Michael Oppenheimer.
Part 1
Part 2 below:
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Oops again: change to “Madness ON the Couch”
I see IPCC climate science as an upside-down pyramid resting on its tip. The tip was the “team” science results, which climategate have discredited.
Clearly poor Steve is not accustomed to public speaking. Not to mention that instead of vigorously prepping for this interview, he was vigorously trying to win a squash championship. 😉
However, that said the issue here and what showed that Steve, who doesn’t debate and Chris (who by being a lawyer SHOULD know how to debate) missed was the opportunity to BURN Oppenheimer when he claimed the science was settled and the DATA has been available to skeptics for DECADES! He LIED LIED LIED and he knows he got away with it! Steve McIntyre has been filing freedom of information requests for YEARS and the emails prove they had NO INTENTION of giving it to him!!!! This is the smoking gun that everyone is missing, the emails that say, “I’ll delete the data before I give it to those deniers”. and lo and behold the data has been DELETED!!!!???!!!! How STUPID is the mainstream media anyway? Oh wait, don’t answer that, we have 11 fact checkers for a Palin book and not a one on Climategate.
Tyler (15:49:37) :
That was hilarious! You got more?
Just how important is MacIntyre’s blogging to the history of science?
This interview with Tom Wigley is worth listening to:
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2009/s2766202.htm
…and not just for a comparision with what Wigley says in his emails – as per Andrew Bolt here:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/wigley_denies_i_did_not_choke_on_the_deceit/
Wigley confirms that a science blog has very much become part of the scientific process of, if you like, ‘falsification.’ The irony is that this has come about in a large part by the very exclusionary behaviour of the Alarmists in general, and the Hockey Team in particular.
Wigley explains how he read Steve MacIntyre’s blog and found some valid criticism in it, which he then fed back to the Team.
I wonder if this is a significant moment in the history of scientific communication: The whole peer-review journal system, long threatened by the online age, breaks down by the aggressive blocking of the normal falsification feedback that contols for error in (or abuse of) scientific method. While the public line of the Alarmist movement was to stick to the old peer-review system of authority, Wigley now tells us publically that privately he was doing something else — namely, channelling the criticism of a blogger with the clear objective of improving the quality of the Biffa’s science. This is just one suggestion that this dispute seems to be marking a turning point in the history of science.
Kevin Kilty (06:32:14) :
Maybe there is room for a precautionary principle here. If all the pertiinent time series (CRU, GISS, GHCN) have a common point of failure, then we should suspend decisions made on the basis of those time series for the time being. I mean, its much better to procede with caution and assume the data are unreliable, than it is to rush into some course of action without all the facts being settled…
There is a single point of failure, it is called GHCN. NCDC Produces GHCN (thus the NCDC series agrees), GIStemp in 98% of the planet based on GHCN (2% of the surface is the average of USHCN and GHCN, sort of…). That just leaves CRU – and the email said they were 98% the same as GHCN.
GHCN is “cooked” via thermometer deletions (recently since 1990) of thermometers in cold places. See here, down in the “Detail Studies” section:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/
John Phillips (10:07:38) :
Oppenheimer is a pure propagandist. He says the Chinese are going to reduce CO2 emmissions. What China really says is they will decrease emmissions/unit of GDP. How hard is that? They of course fully intend to increase their GDP dramatically. Their CO2 emmissions will increase tremendously over the next few decad
The Chinese are signing 20 year contracts for delivery of Coal and OIL. They funded PBR Petrobras in Brasil for about $200 B To Be Paid In Oil and the are signing deals for Wyoming coal with BTU Peabody coal to be delivered to ships by BNS Burlington Northern (Which is why Warren Buffet had BRKA / BRKB Birkshire Hathaway by BNS. He has guaranteed business for 20 years shipping coal to China).
There is no doubt what so ever about what China is going to do. They are going to take delivery of the Coal and Oil they have already bought and they are going to burn it. Period.
Everything else is “For Show” to negotiate a bigger payoff from the west (while doing NOTHING in return). They have promised to work on reducing the “energy intensity” per product, but what good capitalist does not try to make more with less per unit. They intend to make a whole lot more units and burn a whole lot more fuel.
Don’t listen to the smiling sugar words, look at the contracts signed and the rail car loadings…
Ipse Dixit (16:51:13) :
So, that’s just great. All global surface temperature anomaly datasets in the world derive from GHCN and that is suspected of having been cooked.
There’s no alternative but to start over.
BINGO! You got it! BTW, I would not call it “suspected” I’d call it confirmed. I’ve got a whole series of studies of thermometer location bias (for each continent and most major countries). There is an absolutely clearly demonstrated bias: by altitude, by Latitiude, by airport percentage, and there is clear evidence in some counties for bias via “distance to cold shores” and “distance to warm water” (sometimes demonstrated in “by LONGitude” studies such as for Siberia where north is cold and south is mountains, so the thermometers run toward the ‘skinny part’ closer to water…)
The most striking is the one for California where GHCN has 4 thermometers. One at the airport in San Francisco and 3 near the beach around the Los Angeles basin. Hard to get cold with no Mount Shasta, no Sierra Nevada, No Cascades, …
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/ghcn-california-on-the-beach-who-needs-snow/
But if you ‘stabilize the instrument’ by looking only at long lived records, the “warming anomaly” goes away:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/gistemp-quartiles-of-age-bolus-of-heat/
And if you make latin America “spineless” by deleting the recent thermometer records in the Mountains, and moving them to the beach…:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/ghcn-south-america-andes-what-andes/
There are a lot more in the “global analysis” link above. GHCN is throughly cooked and biased.
The interview took the wrong turn with the conspiracy theory. It is much simpler than that. Scientists are convinced by data. Once that is accomplished the concept of normal science sets in and the majority operates withing the paradigm of AGW. Media that loves a horror story, because it sells newspapers and commercial spots much better than good news, enhances this effect. This blind use of citation index doesn’t help either. Nobody reads articles and ponders over their logic anymore. It’s become too much. Just counting the number of citations has become the norm. If there’s one positive feedback I believe in, it is the positive feedback in science funding based on the use of citation index to award grants for all, but especially climate, research.
As for Japanese temperature records, most measurement sites have problems similar to ones in USA although the Japnese Meteorological Agency does not want to admit it.
According to Dr. Kondo (70 years old, Prof. Emeritus of Tohoku Univ.) who has been investigating the condition of the sites, only three sites are reliable: Murotomisaki, Miyako and Suttsu. You can check their temperatue data at the NASA GISS.
Among them, Murotomisaki is particularly interesting.