Of course! Only the anti-intellectual class in this country would deny science. It’s sad how dumb this country has become. Thanks, of course, to our friends on the right.

Hi everybody! Welcome to Glynnis MacNicol’s audition piece for THE ONION! Good luck Glynnis, and as with most of your articles, this one is very, very funny.

Simply just whitewash, nothing new. The report, as I see you left out Mr. Glynnis, stated that much of their “mistakes” were misleading. None of this denies the fact that they had a considerable amount of errors, and wrongs in the IPCC findings. The only thing this reports says, is that they didn’t do it on purpose. Yawn….

Amazing that for no good reason, some who say they are on the “right”, still look for reasons to deny the science. This is a picture perfect example of how pro-business propaganda has not only influenced policy positions but also caused many Americans to suspend reality completely. These folks seem to think they are being “conservative” when in fact they are simply part of a huge denial manufactured by those who simply want to squeeze out a few more billions in profit from our suffering planet.

Lol, really…Quoted from this article…

Sir Muir Russell, the senior civil servant who led a six-month inquiry into the affair, said the “rigour and honesty” of the scientists at the world-leading Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) are not in doubt. They did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, the panel found, while key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any “competent” researcher.

Let’s repeat this nugget…”They did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, the panel found, while key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any “competent” researcher.”

and then the findings are…The panel did criticise the scientists for not being open enough about their work, and said they were “unhelpful and defensive” when responding to legitimate requests made under freedom of information laws…

”We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA,” the report, commissioned by UEA, said.

So to quote Glynnis…that’s that.

All the panel did was “spank” the scientists for allowing their personal thoughts be made public in correlation to their data.

Sir Muir Russell and his panel say it is so, it must be….Who is this guy, who setup this panel, did this panel have subpoena power? This is a very poorly written story that is lacking so many facts it should simply be disregarded.

“In other news, Central Park recorded its highest temperature ever yesterday, 103*, breaking the previous record set in August, 2001.” – Wait, wait, wait…werent you libs telling us just this spring that a one day snowfall did not mean anything? Now that it is conveinient to your ideology that changes I see.

Ninja said:
“In other news, Central Park recorded its highest temperature ever yesterday, 103*, breaking the previous record set in August, 2001.” – Wait, wait, wait…werent you libs telling us just this spring that a one day snowfall did not mean anything? Now that it is conveinient to your ideology that changes I see.

It doesn’t change. Global warming can only be measured through trends because it is related to climate and there is a difference between climate and temperature. Having said that, the first decade of this century has been the hottest ever recorded. It’s not a conclusion, but it certainly is evidence.

So Stephen tell me, has the method used to record temperatures from this century changed from centuries past? You do realize that the first phase of any research is the repeatability & reproducibility of your test equipment right? You do also realize that this century alone has seen the temperature recording stations moved hundreds of times due to expansions and developments of new communities. Tell me how you can have data that is not skewed with these conditions?

Well since we are using one day to discuss this, lets talk about Baltimore. The city recently hit 105F, one of the hottest day on record since they were being recorded in 1880. Other dates to remember, this temperature was also recorded on:
June 29th, 1934

August 6th 1918

August 7th 1918

August 20th 1983

The actual hottest temp since 1880 was 107F, which was on July 10, 1936.

“Tell me how you can have data that is not skewed with these conditions?”

Well, it would be intellectually dishonest to say that development has not created some variability in the data. No data collection is without variability. However, our method of recording temperatures has largely remained the same, at least within the past couple of centuries. We still use the same measure (F/C) and temperature readings over time have remained largely consistent. I mean, wouldn’t you say that our digital thermometers are just as reliable (if not more so) than those old tubes of mercury?

In regards to temperature stations moving around, the only way that have any serious effect on the reliability of the data is if each individual station significantly mattered to the aggregate measure. However, they do not. In statistics, variables (such as temperatures) regress towards the mean, so each individual measurement of that variable does not matter much. What does matter, however, is when that mean changes at a statistically significant level. In the case of global warming, that mean is the average temperature of the world.

Liberty Banned said:
Well since we are using one day to discuss this, lets talk about Baltimore. The city recently hit 105F, one of the hottest day on record since they were being recorded in 1880. Other dates to remember, this temperature was also recorded on:
June 29th, 1934

August 6th 1918

August 7th 1918

August 20th 1983

The actual hottest temp since 1880 was 107F, which was on July 10, 1936.

Individual points of data do not matter much when one is looking at trends, as is the case with global warming. These are just outliers in a variable that eventually regressed back towards the mean. The mean is what should be considered.

Stephen Hogan said:
“Tell me how you can have data that is not skewed with these conditions?” Well, it would be intellectually dishonest to say that development has not created some variability in the data. No data collection is without variability. However, our method of recording temperatures has largely remained the same, at least within the past couple of centuries. We still use the same measure (F/C) and temperature readings over time have remained largely consistent. I mean, wouldn’t you say that our digital thermometers are just as reliable (if not more so) than those old tubes of mercury? In regards to temperature stations moving around, the only way that have any serious effect on the reliability of the data is if each individual station significantly mattered to the aggregate measure. However, they do not. In statistics, variables (such as temperatures) regress towards the mean, so each individual measurement of that variable does not matter much. What does matter, however, is when that mean changes at a statistically significant level. In the case of global warming, that mean is the average temperature of the world.

So we are discussing a temperature change of roughly 2*F over the past 100 years and you just dismiss the fact that the gauging method has changed as insignificant? You claim that no data collection is without variability, that is simply a misleading statement. Comparative data collection is always done by the same collection method and that method is controlled to the fullest extent (See ANOVA Gage R&R). When significant changes are made to the data collection method, all previous data is then considered skewed and cannot be compared to the new method. We cannot compare these temperature data points when they have been obtained by two separate methods (Mercury Tubes vs Digital vs Core Samples).

In regards to the moving of temp stations, again, when you change the collection methods the data is skewed. The movement of these stations is prevelant in China as the poplulation expands. It is very obvious when looking at the shift in standard deviations between China and other regions that moving the stations did indeed make a significant impact on the data.

“You claim that no data collection is without variability, that is simply a misleading statement. Comparative data collection is always done by the same collection method and that method is controlled to the fullest extent (See ANOVA Gage R&R).”

No matter how controlled data collection is, there is always some form of variability, be it from human error or other environmental factors. One must always assume there is some variability in order to avoid Type I and II errors. ANOVA Gage R&R only deals with the precision of a tool (how consistent it is under perfect, unchanged conditions), not the accuracy (the closeness of measurement), which is equally important especially in the face of variability.

“When significant changes are made to the data collection method, all previous data is then considered skewed and cannot be compared to the new method.”

That is not necessarily true. All previous data can still be considered as long as the measurement device is deemed accurate and it is reported that the data was collected by using that method. The data is still reliable and it is still valid, so it still may be used.

“We cannot compare these temperature data points when they have been obtained by two separate methods (Mercury Tubes vs Digital vs Core Samples).”

Ah, but you can. Maybe not individual data points obtained through two different measures, but as long as you statistically account for known variability between the methods, you can compare aggregate data. The reason why is because the methods of measurement are all still seen as accurate in measuring the same thing.

“It is very obvious when looking at the shift in standard deviations between China and other regions that moving the stations did indeed make a significant impact on the data.”

I must admit, I am not too familiar with the particulars of temperature station movement, so I cannot knowledgeably comment on this. Do you happen to have an article on hand?

Stephen Hogan said:
I must admit, I am not too familiar with the particulars of temperature station movement, so I cannot knowledgeably comment on this. Do you happen to have an article on hand?

I must admit, I am not too familiar with the particulars of temperature station movement in China, so I cannot knowledgeably comment on this.

Oops. Forgot the qualifier.

Unfortunately I don’t have that article anymore, it was in either a newspaper or periodical that I did not save. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on what type of data points can be used as comparative. In my industry, where there is liability involved with our testing, I would not in a million years use two or more methods of measurement for comparative reasons. Since there is no liability in the science of climate (only profit), data will always be skewed towards ones own believings (or from the opinions of the outside party funding the study) unfortunately.

“Unfortunately I don’t have that article anymore, it was in either a newspaper or periodical that I did not save.”

Darn it. I’ll try to find it. I’d like to find out more.

“I guess we will have to agree to disagree on what type of data points can be used as comparative. In my industry, where there is liability involved with our testing, I would not in a million years use two or more methods of measurement for comparative reasons.”

There’s liability in my field of study as well. We can use data obtained from two different methods of measurement as long as we report in the article that that is what we did, we account for the resultant variability statistically, the methods are deemed accurate, and the unit being measured is the same. I think there is mainly a philosophical difference between us here :)

Since there is no liability in the science of climate (only profit), data will always be skewed towards ones own believings (or from the opinions of the outside party funding the study) unfortunately.

Unfortunately, that seems to be the case, as it is with a lot of science these days. I’d add politics to profit. Still though, I’d prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to global warming for the same reason I decided to quit smoking: the possible outcome is so bad, it may be best to stop the potential cause just in case.

Ninja said:
Unfortunately I don’t have that article anymore, it was in either a newspaper or periodical that I did not save. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on what type of data points can be used as comparative. In my industry, where there is liability involved with our testing, I would not in a million years use two or more methods of measurement for comparative reasons. Since there is no liability in the science of climate (only profit), data will always be skewed towards ones own believings (or from the opinions of the outside party funding the study) unfortunately.

By the way, I appreciate the cordial and substantive conversation.

Glynnis MacNicol, you’re a liar and a corrupt, dishonest journalist. It’s that simple.

SCIENCE IS UNDENIABLE!!!

Pray at it’s altar…..

Sorry dudes. Climate change, U.N. Agenda 21 and all of that are just MASSIVE power grabs. I understand you guys on the left. Most of you have really good intentions. So I’m asking, look at what your governments are asking you to give up/what they’re asking you to pay to ‘stop’ climate change. It’s no joke. These people really want to squeeze your quality of life… They set up a moralistic argument for which there really is no argument. And then they ask you to bend waaay over (kinda like what churches do; imagine that). It’s NOT going to be good for you. And I personally believe that Al Gore and all the others are just laughing at us. It’s like, “You told them WHAT? And they’re going to let you do WHAT? That’s incredible. I wish I’d thought of that.”

The first time I heard about global warming -now- climate change, the very first thought that came to my mind was ‘It’s the sun’. To me, it’s the most logical reason. And it’s the one I’m sticking with.

Now Glynnis, do us a favor and run us a piece on ACTA and how Bush and Obama negotiated it in total secrecy with the MPAA and RIAA.

Whether they are guilty or not is irrelevant as the right-wingers call everyone against them frauds/liars due to fabricated stories and rumors that their blogs come up with due to their “sources” that are never revealed

Already right-wing blogs are talking conspiracy about this and claiming they REALLY are right….so, not shocking

Sacramento no longer has the WEEKS of temperature above 110 that it used to have a few decades past. The summers here for the last decade have been much nicer. In May of 1972 it was 107 degrees and I’ve never seen such a hot May since then.

There is NO GLOBAL WARMING. There IS Climate Change (and I’m glad for it).

What a whitewash from the global warming establishment, who are about as credible as the judges who handled Stalin’s show trials. The ClimateGate emails speak for themselves. When you need to “hide the decline” in the date, falsify data, block access to your sources, and manipulate the peer review process to advance your ideology, you are no longer practicing science, and have become a propagandist instead.

Having looked at some of the evidence myself, I must agree with the above posters who said this was a whitewash investigation. The data handling was unprofessional, and some of the original data was lost due to either deliberate action(from Phil Jones statement in the emails) or incompetence. In this sort of argument, “the dog ate my homework” is unacceptable if you want other scientists to believe you. Their refusal to release the original data indicates to myself and many others that they had something to hide or were lying about their conclusions. After seeing the Fortran source code, and associated comments, the lying hypothesis gained in credibility. I notice the “investigation” did not mention this, but the most damning evidence for deception was in the code, not in the emails. There were sections in the code allowing you to delete stations(“hide the decline”) and another section that was a hockey stick generator(multiply the temperature raw data by a factor based on the YEAR….then save the data right in with the rest. In case any of you are wondering, I do know FORTRAN, and I also have a science degree, and I will state quite frankly that any conclusions coming out of that computer code are untrustworthy at best, if not provably outright lies. The emails give more evidence of the motive, but the real dirt is in the code. Also, previous experience with other real world processes has shown computer models to be badly wrong for making predictions. With stakes this high, humanity needs a lot better effort than Phil Jones and crew. I do thank Glynn at least for reporting on this because many major media outlets refused to cover the initial “ClimateGate” material at all despite it being a very important story for science and everyone.

2011 new style !

http://www.nike4world.com