Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On 2/16/2010 1:46 PM MiNe 109 spake thus:
In article , flipper wrote: On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:14:01 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: The former CRU high priest Jones just admitted on BBC that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 (FYI, that's not 'fast') and that the Medieval warm period just might have been warmer. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm Context is important. Which is, no doubt, why you snipped my message to hell and back removing all traces of it. I focussed on a testable claim. I don't dispute your opinions. I didn't say the man had become rational or suddenly started practicing good science. I said "no statistically significant warming" hardly constitutes the 'even faster than' hysteria previously posted. To what point? Both things can be true: no statistically significant warning in the last five years and overall warming faster than once expected. Jones goes on to reiterate the scientific consensus while your description implies he's suddenly changed his mind. Well, that's the thing: almost all of the material offered up by the GW deniers as evidence of sudden apostasy on the part of climate researchers turns out to be no such thing on closer examination. Talk about reasoning by hysteria! -- You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On Feb 17, 3:21*am, "Watt? Me worry?" wrote:
On Feb 16, 1:58*am, Patrick Turner wrote: But if the price of an EL34 went up to $5,000, doncha think ya dreams would be shattered a bit? Patrick Turner. Hi RATs! I have switched to 6BQ6 Got 18 NOS for US$9.95 off Ebait, a few weeks ago. I will not live to see the tubes I have be worn out. Sigh. Nobody will ever guess they sound good. They have a top cap connection. So very scary "A fool knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing." Happy Ears! Al RCA 6BQ6 have Pda = only 11W, or less than 6BQ5. Much better value can be had with 6CM5 or EL36. In triode the 25W class AB1 is very nice. Patrick Turner. |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
flipper wrote: On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:46:46 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:14:01 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: The former CRU high priest Jones just admitted on BBC that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 (FYI, that's not 'fast') and that the Medieval warm period just might have been warmer. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm Context is important. Which is, no doubt, why you snipped my message to hell and back removing all traces of it. I focussed on a testable claim. I don't dispute your opinions. Doesn't alter the fact that you took it out of context. Taking it out of context didn't change the meaning. I didn't say the man had become rational or suddenly started practicing good science. I said "no statistically significant warming" hardly constitutes the 'even faster than' hysteria previously posted. To what point? To the point in the context you removed. You think that's a winning point? Yes, I took it out of context, but doing so doesn't damage your claim. Both things can be true: No they can't. Yes, they can. Temps could have zoomed up to 1995 levels faster than expected. no statistically significant warning in the last five years 1995-2010 is not 5 years. Oopsie. Doesn't change my meaning. and overall warming faster than once expected. So you're now arguing that AGW proponents never claimed warming would be "statistically significant." Piffle. Jones addresses this in the article: warming over the last 35 years is statistically significant, over the last fifteen is not, but "only just," short of the 95% significance level. Jones goes on to reiterate the scientific consensus He goes on to reiterate his opinion to questions asking his opinion. I don't operate on 'opinion'. I operate on science and he doesn't have it. Hence the measured scientific language you use. while your description implies he's suddenly changed his mind. His statement on the Medieval Warm Period is in direct opposition to previous flat assertions it was 'local' and 'settled science'. And anyone who's followed their, so called, 'temperature reconstructions' is aware of the machinations they've gone through trying to make the MWP 'go away' (including on the 'local') in order to falsify support for the unsupported claim of 'unprecedented', which is a cherry picking to begin with because current temperatures are not even close to the geological median, much less 'unprecedented'. What do you call it when you change the subject by answering a different point than the one being discussed? As for MWP "direct opposition," what I see is a calm discussion of the subject and of the limits of the data available. Btw, his 'explanation' for the "nature trick" is a half truth. Yes, the "divergence problem" *is* 'well known'. What he doesn't tell you is they have no idea why the tree ring proxy doesn't work for spit after 1950 and that that means the proxy they based the reconstruction on is useless and, hence, the supposed 'reconstruction'. It doesn't matter why the the divergence happened. Are you saying the proxy is useless because they didn't use tree ring data known to be divergent? Stephen |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
flipper wrote: On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:19:44 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:46:46 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:14:01 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: The former CRU high priest Jones just admitted on BBC that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 (FYI, that's not 'fast') and that the Medieval warm period just might have been warmer. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm Context is important. Which is, no doubt, why you snipped my message to hell and back removing all traces of it. I focussed on a testable claim. I don't dispute your opinions. Doesn't alter the fact that you took it out of context. Taking it out of context didn't change the meaning. Then you may now retract your claim that "Context is important." Can't have it both ways, pal. Either it is or it isn't. It works both ways, pal. You changed his meaning with your description. The fact is, it is and what you quoted was in reply to a specific point the knowing of which makes my reply clear. I was addressing the claim of "faster than previously..." as further clarified by my parenthetical 'explanation' lest someone 'miss it'. I'm not addressing that point. I'm addressing your misleading cite of Jones. I didn't say the man had become rational or suddenly started practicing good science. I said "no statistically significant warming" hardly constitutes the 'even faster than' hysteria previously posted. To what point? To the point in the context you removed. You think that's a winning point? Yes, I took it out of context, but doing so doesn't damage your claim. Already explained and you trying to **** all over your own 'witticism' is getting funnier and funnier. Repetition is the soul of wit. Both things can be true: No they can't. Yes, they can. No they can't/ I win. Temps could have zoomed up to 1995 levels faster than expected. The past has not changed over the last 15 years for it to now be 'faster than expected'. To the 95% confidence level. no statistically significant warning in the last five years 1995-2010 is not 5 years. Oopsie. Doesn't change my meaning. The hell it doesn't. That's right, it doesn't. The switch from concern over 'cooling' to 'warming' occurred around 1980 making the 15 year 1995-2010 of "not statistically significant" period dern near equal to the previous 15 year 'warming' period where your error of stating 5 years diminishes the ratio. Science is like that. The "switch" is the result of new observations. My incorrect 'five years' has no effect on it. and overall warming faster than once expected. So you're now arguing that AGW proponents never claimed warming would be "statistically significant." Piffle. Jones addresses this in the article: warming over the last 35 years is statistically significant, over the last fifteen is not, but "only just," short of the 95% significance level. That's a word game but the AGW conjecture doesn't allow for a 15 year 'stall' while CO2 marches onward, which is why the emails have them lamenting it as a "tragedy" AGW can't explain it. Word games with pilfered emails doesn't erase the hypothesis. Jones goes on to reiterate the scientific consensus He goes on to reiterate his opinion to questions asking his opinion. I don't operate on 'opinion'. I operate on science and he doesn't have it. Hence the measured scientific language you use. Yes, like falsifiable prediction. AGW should try some science for a change. while your description implies he's suddenly changed his mind. His statement on the Medieval Warm Period is in direct opposition to previous flat assertions it was 'local' and 'settled science'. And anyone who's followed their, so called, 'temperature reconstructions' is aware of the machinations they've gone through trying to make the MWP 'go away' (including on the 'local') in order to falsify support for the unsupported claim of 'unprecedented', which is a cherry picking to begin with because current temperatures are not even close to the geological median, much less 'unprecedented'. What do you call it when you change the subject by answering a different point than the one being discussed? The point was you claming I "implie(s) he's suddenly changed his mind" and I gave you more of the same. Yes, you did that the first time and you are doing it again this additional time. As for MWP "direct opposition," what I see is a calm discussion of the subject and of the limits of the data available. Context is important, remember? While he tries to throw up a facade of, in your words, 'calm discussion' that 'calm discussion' is in direct opposition to previous assertions (that context thingie) it flat didn't exist. Not only that but Mann and Jones' CRU virtually erased the little ice age as well. And, of course, so does the IPCC, as in "Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries..." Hogwash. Good, you're now quoting. I see no reason not to take him at his word. Btw, his 'explanation' for the "nature trick" is a half truth. Yes, the "divergence problem" *is* 'well known'. What he doesn't tell you is they have no idea why the tree ring proxy doesn't work for spit after 1950 and that that means the proxy they based the reconstruction on is useless and, hence, the supposed 'reconstruction'. It doesn't matter why the the divergence happened. The hell it doesn't. Yes, it doesn't. Are you saying the proxy is useless because they didn't use tree ring data known to be divergent? No, I'm saying that when the proxy doesn't 'work' -- here and you don't know why it doesn't 'work' -- here then you have no way of knowing whether it's working -- there or anywhere else. Or, to put it bluntly, if it's screwed from 1960-2010 then what the hell makes you think it's any damn good in 1250? It's just the tree-ring thing that's screwed up. If you knew *why* it screwed up and could show those conditions do not exist elsewhere in the record, or if you could 'correct' for whatever conditions cause it, then you might have a chance but you can't legitimately just stick your head in the sand and, que sera sera, lop off the parts you don't like. That's 'junk science'. In 'real science' when your process doesn't work for no identifiable reason that's a big fraking 'red flag' your process, understanding of it, or both, is wrong. In real science questions are answered by evidence. If tree-ring data from 1960 on doesn't work, it isn't used. Stephen |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In rec.audio.tech MiNe 109 wrote:
In article , flipper wrote: On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:19:44 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:46:46 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:14:01 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: The former CRU high priest Jones just admitted on BBC that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 (FYI, that's not 'fast') and that the Medieval warm period just might have been warmer. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm Context is important. Which is, no doubt, why you snipped my message to hell and back removing all traces of it. I focussed on a testable claim. I don't dispute your opinions. Doesn't alter the fact that you took it out of context. Taking it out of context didn't change the meaning. Then you may now retract your claim that "Context is important." Can't have it both ways, pal. Either it is or it isn't. It works both ways, pal. You changed his meaning with your description. The fact is, it is and what you quoted was in reply to a specific point the knowing of which makes my reply clear. I was addressing the claim of "faster than previously..." as further clarified by my parenthetical 'explanation' lest someone 'miss it'. I'm not addressing that point. I'm addressing your misleading cite of Jones. I didn't say the man had become rational or suddenly started practicing good science. I said "no statistically significant warming" hardly constitutes the 'even faster than' hysteria previously posted. To what point? To the point in the context you removed. You think that's a winning point? Yes, I took it out of context, but doing so doesn't damage your claim. Already explained and you trying to **** all over your own 'witticism' is getting funnier and funnier. Repetition is the soul of wit. Both things can be true: No they can't. Yes, they can. No they can't/ I win. Temps could have zoomed up to 1995 levels faster than expected. The past has not changed over the last 15 years for it to now be 'faster than expected'. To the 95% confidence level. no statistically significant warning in the last five years 1995-2010 is not 5 years. Oopsie. Doesn't change my meaning. The hell it doesn't. That's right, it doesn't. The switch from concern over 'cooling' to 'warming' occurred around 1980 making the 15 year 1995-2010 of "not statistically significant" period dern near equal to the previous 15 year 'warming' period where your error of stating 5 years diminishes the ratio. Science is like that. The "switch" is the result of new observations. My incorrect 'five years' has no effect on it. and overall warming faster than once expected. So you're now arguing that AGW proponents never claimed warming would be "statistically significant." Piffle. Jones addresses this in the article: warming over the last 35 years is statistically significant, over the last fifteen is not, but "only just," short of the 95% significance level. That's a word game but the AGW conjecture doesn't allow for a 15 year 'stall' while CO2 marches onward, which is why the emails have them lamenting it as a "tragedy" AGW can't explain it. Word games with pilfered emails doesn't erase the hypothesis. Jones goes on to reiterate the scientific consensus He goes on to reiterate his opinion to questions asking his opinion. I don't operate on 'opinion'. I operate on science and he doesn't have it. Hence the measured scientific language you use. Yes, like falsifiable prediction. AGW should try some science for a change. while your description implies he's suddenly changed his mind. His statement on the Medieval Warm Period is in direct opposition to previous flat assertions it was 'local' and 'settled science'. And anyone who's followed their, so called, 'temperature reconstructions' is aware of the machinations they've gone through trying to make the MWP 'go away' (including on the 'local') in order to falsify support for the unsupported claim of 'unprecedented', which is a cherry picking to begin with because current temperatures are not even close to the geological median, much less 'unprecedented'. What do you call it when you change the subject by answering a different point than the one being discussed? The point was you claming I "implie(s) he's suddenly changed his mind" and I gave you more of the same. Yes, you did that the first time and you are doing it again this additional time. As for MWP "direct opposition," what I see is a calm discussion of the subject and of the limits of the data available. Context is important, remember? While he tries to throw up a facade of, in your words, 'calm discussion' that 'calm discussion' is in direct opposition to previous assertions (that context thingie) it flat didn't exist. Not only that but Mann and Jones' CRU virtually erased the little ice age as well. And, of course, so does the IPCC, as in "Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries..." Hogwash. Good, you're now quoting. I see no reason not to take him at his word. Btw, his 'explanation' for the "nature trick" is a half truth. Yes, the "divergence problem" *is* 'well known'. What he doesn't tell you is they have no idea why the tree ring proxy doesn't work for spit after 1950 and that that means the proxy they based the reconstruction on is useless and, hence, the supposed 'reconstruction'. It doesn't matter why the the divergence happened. The hell it doesn't. Yes, it doesn't. Are you saying the proxy is useless because they didn't use tree ring data known to be divergent? No, I'm saying that when the proxy doesn't 'work' -- here and you don't know why it doesn't 'work' -- here then you have no way of knowing whether it's working -- there or anywhere else. Or, to put it bluntly, if it's screwed from 1960-2010 then what the hell makes you think it's any damn good in 1250? It's just the tree-ring thing that's screwed up. If you knew *why* it screwed up and could show those conditions do not exist elsewhere in the record, or if you could 'correct' for whatever conditions cause it, then you might have a chance but you can't legitimately just stick your head in the sand and, que sera sera, lop off the parts you don't like. That's 'junk science'. In 'real science' when your process doesn't work for no identifiable reason that's a big fraking 'red flag' your process, understanding of it, or both, is wrong. In real science questions are answered by evidence. If tree-ring data from 1960 on doesn't work, it isn't used. Stephen You're ignoring the point: if the tree ring data doesn't work from 1960 on and there is no known reason why it doesn't correspond to actual temperatures after 1960 then how do we know it's correct, for say 1600? Hand-waving about "evidence" doesn't cut it. This is a quote from Richard Feynman, from a talk called "Cargo cult science", you might want to read the whole speech, BTW: "Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition." Now contrast that with climate "science", where evidence contrary to the theory is ignored, where anyone questioning the current othodoxy is called a "denier". Looks more like a religion to me, especially when some of the more extreme True Believers call anyone that dares to question the "science" are implied to be criminals. What's next, heresy trials for those of us who are sceptical of the alleged "science" of GW? Jerry |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
Jerry Peters wrote: Me: In real science questions are answered by evidence. If tree-ring data from 1960 on doesn't work, it isn't used. You're ignoring the point: if the tree ring data doesn't work from 1960 on and there is no known reason why it doesn't correspond to actual temperatures after 1960 then how do we know it's correct, for say 1600? Hand-waving about "evidence" doesn't cut it. One of those reasons could be anthropogenic CO2. The abstract here looks like a typical investigation of the problem: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692171/ This is a quote from Richard Feynman, from a talk called "Cargo cult science", you might want to read the whole speech, BTW: "Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition." Now contrast that with climate "science", where evidence contrary to the theory is ignored, where anyone questioning the current othodoxy is called a "denier". Looks more like a religion to me, especially when some of the more extreme True Believers call anyone that dares to question the "science" are implied to be criminals. What's next, heresy trials for those of us who are sceptical of the alleged "science" of GW? Yes, I'll bet that's what Feynman meant. Stephen |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On Feb 16, 10:21*pm, flipper wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:46:46 -0600, MiNe 109 Both things can be true: No they can't. no statistically significant warning in the last five years 1995-2010 is not 5 years. You're picking nits I see. and overall warming faster than once expected. So you're now arguing that AGW proponents never claimed warming would be "statistically significant." Piffle. In response to the question, "do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically significant global warming?", Jones said yes, adding that the average increase of 0.12C per year over that time period "is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods." http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost....15702649948160 Now apologize to Stephen. Jones goes on to reiterate the scientific consensus He goes on to reiterate his opinion to questions asking his opinion. I don't operate on 'opinion'. I operate on science and he doesn't have it. In your opinion. Scientifically speaking, you're a dip****. |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
flipper wrote: In the first place, it was you, not I, who hacked the message to hell removing context in the very same message you pounded sand about "context matters." Amusing, yes? Apparently this is such a winner for you you'll never tire of repeating it. You changed his meaning with your description. I used his information to address a point made and while that point was different than the question asked it is not 'changing the meaning'. I suppose you didn't change his meaning, you merely misrepresented it. Stephen |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
flipper wrote: I'm not addressing that point. How typical of AGW worshippers to 'not address the point'. How typical of deniers to play meaningless word games. Stephen |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
flipper wrote: in your hacking of my message you also removed where I explicitly said "Of course, none of that is 'proof'." Why mention it at all? Stephen |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
flipper wrote: 5 is not 15. Another winning point repeated. Stephen |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
flipper wrote: I may or may not do another round with you because it's becoming clear you're completely uninterested in data or science, just 'word games'. Calling you on your word games doesn't mean I'm only interested in word games. Stephen |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
flipper wrote: With your logic drug company testing would be to throw away all the failed results, dead bodies, and placebo effects and declare the drug 'safe': we throw away data that doesn't work. I explained the tree-ring thing in a reply to your wing man: it's possible the tree-ring data has diverged due to anthropogenic CO2. The tree-rings have been shown to be accurate for the last millenium or so before that. Stephen |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
flipper wrote: Which is why 1995-2010 being almost the same length as 1980-1995 has meaning and that incorrectly claiming 1995-2010 was '5 years' is not a 'nit' of an error. A winning point! AWG is vanquished! Stephen |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
flipper wrote: And that's without even getting into their other 'tricks', like their cute little 'secret software' that automagically creates hockey stick trends from trendless data sets. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...if-the-hockey- stick-were-wrong/ So let's try some more exciting "what ifs". In mid-20th Century, medieval temperatures are exceeded in all the reconstructions, hence recent (last 10-15 years, say) temperatures appear to be unprecedented for at least a millennium (that even holds for the alternative histories presented by the "hockey stick" critics). Now what if that were wrong - if all proxy reconstructions as well as model simulations of the past millennium were fundamentally in error? Let us assume that medieval temperatures after all had been warmer than the present. Even that would tell us nothing about anthropogenic climate change. The famous conclusion of the IPCC, "The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate", does not depend on any reconstruction for the past millennium. It depends on a detailed analysis of 20th Century data. In fact, this conclusion is from the 1995 IPCC report, and thus predates the existence of quantitative proxy reconstructions like the "hockey stick". Climate changes can have several different reasons, and the cause of any particular climate change needs to be investigated on a case by case basis. It cannot be found by looking at one temperature curve. Had medieval climate been warmer than the present, this would probably have been due to some natural cause - perhaps a peak in solar output. That would only tell us that in principle, natural causes can cause warming larger than what we've seen in the past decades. But we know that already - one need only go back far enough in time (e.g., fifty million years) to find examples of unquestionably warmer climates than today. However, it would be naive to conclude that the observed strong 20th Century warming therefore also must have a natural cause. -- |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In rec.audio.tech MiNe 109 wrote:
In article , Jerry Peters wrote: Me: In real science questions are answered by evidence. If tree-ring data from 1960 on doesn't work, it isn't used. You're ignoring the point: if the tree ring data doesn't work from 1960 on and there is no known reason why it doesn't correspond to actual temperatures after 1960 then how do we know it's correct, for say 1600? Hand-waving about "evidence" doesn't cut it. One of those reasons could be anthropogenic CO2. The abstract here looks like a typical investigation of the problem: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692171/ "These possibly anthropogenically related changes in the ecology of tree growth have important implications for modelling future atmospheric CO2 concentrations." "Possibly" in other words we have a hypothesis. Another one that says AGW is the cause. Wow, I'm really impressed by your faith in climate "science". This is a quote from Richard Feynman, from a talk called "Cargo cult science", you might want to read the whole speech, BTW: "Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition." Now contrast that with climate "science", where evidence contrary to the theory is ignored, where anyone questioning the current othodoxy is called a "denier". Looks more like a religion to me, especially when some of the more extreme True Believers call anyone that dares to question the "science" are implied to be criminals. What's next, heresy trials for those of us who are sceptical of the alleged "science" of GW? Yes, I'll bet that's what Feynman meant. Stephen Yes, he almost exactly describes "climate science" and "enviro-science". They use the form of science without following its principles. They're a form of religion for the cognescenti. I put climate science in the same class with economics, they both attempt to explain highly complicated systems with statistical techniques and modelling. They both have limited success in doing so. Jerry |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In rec.audio.tech MiNe 109 wrote:
In article , flipper wrote: With your logic drug company testing would be to throw away all the failed results, dead bodies, and placebo effects and declare the drug 'safe': we throw away data that doesn't work. I explained the tree-ring thing in a reply to your wing man: it's possible the tree-ring data has diverged due to anthropogenic CO2. The tree-rings have been shown to be accurate for the last millenium or so before that. Stephen Note the words "it's possible", not a very definitive point, is it? Probably explains "hide the decline", he didn't want most of us to notice that tree-ring data might not be all that accurate. So once again: if there's an unexplained divergence after 1960, how do we know there's not one or more divergences in the prior 1000 years? Jerry |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
Jerry Peters wrote: In rec.audio.tech MiNe 109 wrote: In article , Jerry Peters wrote: Me: In real science questions are answered by evidence. If tree-ring data from 1960 on doesn't work, it isn't used. You're ignoring the point: if the tree ring data doesn't work from 1960 on and there is no known reason why it doesn't correspond to actual temperatures after 1960 then how do we know it's correct, for say 1600? Hand-waving about "evidence" doesn't cut it. One of those reasons could be anthropogenic CO2. The abstract here looks like a typical investigation of the problem: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692171/ "These possibly anthropogenically related changes in the ecology of tree growth have important implications for modelling future atmospheric CO2 concentrations." "Possibly" in other words we have a hypothesis. Another one that says AGW is the cause. Wow, I'm really impressed by your faith in climate "science". Thank you! Hypothesis is a step in the scientific method. This is a quote from Richard Feynman, from a talk called "Cargo cult science", you might want to read the whole speech, BTW: "Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition." Now contrast that with climate "science", where evidence contrary to the theory is ignored, where anyone questioning the current othodoxy is called a "denier". Looks more like a religion to me, especially when some of the more extreme True Believers call anyone that dares to question the "science" are implied to be criminals. What's next, heresy trials for those of us who are sceptical of the alleged "science" of GW? Yes, I'll bet that's what Feynman meant. Stephen Yes, he almost exactly describes "climate science" and "enviro-science". They use the form of science without following its principles. They're a form of religion for the cognescenti. No, he describes good science. The description of climate science is your opinion. I put climate science in the same class with economics, they both attempt to explain highly complicated systems with statistical techniques and modelling. They both have limited success in doing so. I can think of differences between them. Stephen |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
Jerry Peters wrote: In rec.audio.tech MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: With your logic drug company testing would be to throw away all the failed results, dead bodies, and placebo effects and declare the drug 'safe': we throw away data that doesn't work. I explained the tree-ring thing in a reply to your wing man: it's possible the tree-ring data has diverged due to anthropogenic CO2. The tree-rings have been shown to be accurate for the last millenium or so before that. Stephen Note the words "it's possible", not a very definitive point, is it? Calls for more investigation. Science can be like that. Probably explains "hide the decline", he didn't want most of us to notice that tree-ring data might not be all that accurate. Since 1960, it isn't. So once again: if there's an unexplained divergence after 1960, how do we know there's not one or more divergences in the prior 1000 years? Check it against other measurements. Stephen |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:26:22 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , Jerry Peters wrote: In rec.audio.tech MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: With your logic drug company testing would be to throw away all the failed results, dead bodies, and placebo effects and declare the drug 'safe': we throw away data that doesn't work. I explained the tree-ring thing in a reply to your wing man: it's possible the tree-ring data has diverged due to anthropogenic CO2. The tree-rings have been shown to be accurate for the last millenium or so before that. Stephen Note the words "it's possible", not a very definitive point, is it? Calls for more investigation. Science can be like that. Quite right. Which means (even setting aside the known frauds in the 'hockey stick' graph, like creating trends from trendless data sets) one cannot draw the conclusions AGW proponents make about the 'hockey stick' because we know for a fact the proxy data is unreliable from 1960 on and there's nothing to 'validate' the data against prior to ~1850. You have no way of knowing whether a similar, or even different, 'divergence' didn't occur elsewhere. More data is needed for greater confidence, yes. Why would we worry about that? Because we know for a fact the data diverges from 1960 on and we can't explain why. Actually, there are even more problems and the article you, yourself, provided suggests the proxy overstates 20'th century warming or, if one calibrates to 20'th century instrument records (CRU methodology), understates pre 20th century temperatures. So now you have one strong possibility (your article) and one speculative possibility (a known divergence during a 'warm' period [1960-2010] which we could speculate might happen in 'other' warm periods) that the MWP was warmer than indicated on the 'hockey stick'. With the caveat that there may be greater variability among global regions than previously assumed. Hypothetically, Europe's MWP could be balanced out by colder colder climate elsewhere. Now, I am not saying that *is* the case but that you CAN NOT KNOW what AGW worshippers unjustifiably claim are certitudes Depends. Temperatures and CO2 are both up. The hockey stick is just a crude representation of general trends. Probably explains "hide the decline", he didn't want most of us to notice that tree-ring data might not be all that accurate. Since 1960, it isn't. Which is why they wanted to 'hide' it. That's not science it's propaganda. No, it was a valid statistical method to normalize the findings. So once again: if there's an unexplained divergence after 1960, how do we know there's not one or more divergences in the prior 1000 years? Check it against other measurements. What would you propose to check it against? Different trees! Stephen |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:05:01 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: In the first place, it was you, not I, who hacked the message to hell removing context in the very same message you pounded sand about "context matters." Amusing, yes? Apparently this is such a winner for you you'll never tire of repeating it. It get's repeated because you keep trying to defend taking things out of context and, as for funny, it's knee slapping hilarious for you to whine about it when you just did it again. Glad you think so, except I didn't whine about it. Of course, you might have taken it badly. You changed his meaning with your description. I used his information to address a point made and while that point was different than the question asked it is not 'changing the meaning'. I suppose you didn't change his meaning, you merely misrepresented it. I didn't do either and, I repeat, since you ripped it all out of context again, even a grade schooler can figure out that a slope of .12 is lower that a .166 slope and not 'faster'. That's not my point. You implied someone changed his mind when he hadn't and all anyone had to do to see it is look for the reference. Stephen |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:06:18 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: I'm not addressing that point. How typical of AGW worshippers to 'not address the point'. How typical of deniers to play meaningless word games. 'Addressing the point' is not a word game but what you just tried to do is. Yes, it was a simple substitution. However, there are terms for holding someone responsible for arguments not made. Stephen |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:06:45 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: in your hacking of my message you also removed where I explicitly said "Of course, none of that is 'proof'." Why mention it at all? Because it is 'evidence'. I hate to burst your bubble but 'evidence' is not automatically a 'proof'. Are you arguing with yourself? Stephen |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:08:03 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: 5 is not 15. Another winning point repeated. I wouldn't need to if you would ever 'get it'. By 'oopsie' I meant 'I misstated the number of years covered by the reference'. This misstatement doesn't change the validity of the reference nor was I making an independent argument. Get it? Stephen |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:10:44 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: I may or may not do another round with you because it's becoming clear you're completely uninterested in data or science, just 'word games'. Calling you on your word games doesn't mean I'm only interested in word games. Mimicking me isn't an argument. I'm incapable of mimicking you successfully. Stephen |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:15:16 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: With your logic drug company testing would be to throw away all the failed results, dead bodies, and placebo effects and declare the drug 'safe': we throw away data that doesn't work. I explained the tree-ring thing in a reply to your wing man: it's possible the tree-ring data has diverged due to anthropogenic CO2. A "possibility" is not an "explanation" and the 'odds' are not affected by you wishing it were so. There's also higher UV-B. I'm not 'wishing' BTW. The tree-rings have been shown to be accurate for the last millenium or so before that. Now you're making things up for no other reason than you wish it were so. There's a whole page of references at the end of "Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today?" Take it up with Briffa, Schweingruber, et al. Be careful not to read the discussion by accident. Stephen |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On Feb 18, 8:11*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
*flipper wrote: Mimicking me isn't an argument. I'm incapable of mimicking you successfully. LOL! |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On Feb 19, 12:45*am, flipper wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:01:41 -0600, MiNe 109 Calls for more investigation. Science can be like that. Quite right. Which means (even setting aside the known frauds in the 'hockey stick' graph, like creating trends from trendless data sets) one cannot draw the conclusions AGW proponents make about the 'hockey stick' because we know for a fact the proxy data is unreliable from 1960 on and there's nothing to 'validate' the data against prior to ~1850. You have no way of knowing whether a similar, or even different, 'divergence' didn't occur elsewhere. More data is needed for greater confidence, yes. Almost any degree of 'confidence' would be 'greater' than a process we know for a fact doesn't work from 1960 to 2010. But even your meek admission (expecting what you already 'think' is true will be 'proven' by "more data") means the AGW worshipers absolutist claims are unsupported. Unlike the absolutist claims by opponents who claim it's all bunk. If AGW people are a "religion", people who follow McIntyre are a "cult". Certainly isn't "settled science" when you need "more data," now is it? The facts are these: there is global warming and humans play a part in it. "More data" can refine "settled science". Let's "look" at a "settled science": the "intenal combustion engine". Recent "leaps of technology" and "improved data" have "improved their performance" even though that "science" was "settled" over "almost a decade ago". You are a "****ing moron", aren't "you"? However, refute this: The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries.[25] With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007[26], no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change. [27] [i.e. Note the word "basic". Feel free to pick at nits to your "heart's content". Feel free to play the "arrant fool".] On April 29, 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore revealed that a list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man- Made Global Warming Scares"[31] distributed by the Heartland Institute included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its contents.[32] Many of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list. [i.e. Uh-oh! The opponents will resort to dirty trick and some arrant fools will fall in line!] In 1997, the "World Scientists Call For Action" petition was presented to world leaders meeting to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol. The declaration asserted, "A broad consensus among the world's climatologists is that there is now ‘a discernible human influence on global climate.’" It urged governments to make "legally binding commitments to reduce industrial nations' emissions of heat-trapping gases", and called global warming "one of the most serious threats to the planet and to future generations."[33] The petition was conceived by the Union of Concerned Scientists as a follow up to their 1992 World Scientists' Warning to Humanity, and was signed by "more than 1,500 of the world's most distinguished senior scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in science."[34][35] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy Those poor Nobel laureates. What buffoons! Why, they must be "arrant fools" just like you are! But refute it and argue with the huge, vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations worldwide who have viewed the evidence and disagree with your conclusions. You're boring. |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:40:47 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: And that's without even getting into their other 'tricks', like their cute little 'secret software' that automagically creates hockey stick trends from trendless data sets. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...if-the-hockey- stick-were-wrong/ In the first place, you are quoting from a site specifically created by the same cabal creating the hockey stick graphs and designed for the purpose of AGW propaganda. I would be much more impressed if you were familiar with all sides. Yes, that's Michael Mann. Btw, if you hadn't noticed, everything in my original post came from Jones' own mouth (and his data), not a 'skeptic'. You contributed a substantial and misleading gloss while not providing a cite to the original source. So let's try some more exciting "what ifs". In mid-20th Century, medieval temperatures are exceeded in all the reconstructions, That is a flim flam as 'all the reconstructions' come from the same cabal members who share the same data sets, use the same 'techniques' (like Mike's 'nature trick' and 'hide the decline'), and compare, coordinate, and 'correct' their results to conform each other. They then, laughably, call them 'independent studies'. There's a term for people who believe others are secretly allied. hence recent (last 10-15 years, say) temperatures appear to be unprecedented for at least a millennium (that even holds for the alternative histories presented by the "hockey stick" critics). The claim about 'critics' is simply a flat out falsehood. The MWP is more than a millenium past. Now what if that were wrong - if all proxy reconstructions as well as model simulations of the past millennium were fundamentally in error? Deceptive 'let's pretend to be generous' word game to suggest it's 'highly unlikely' the models (and reconstructions) could possibly be in error. The fact of the matter is the models have to be constantly pushed, nudged, and 'corrected' all along the way to get anything resembling the record which, as we've seen, if iffy to begin with. You can just as easily, by the same methods and degree of 'confidence', nudge them to a completely contradictory result. Btw, if the reconstructions are in error then what does that tell you about a model that supposedly 'matches' it? And btbtw, the reason the models appear to be 'in agreement' with each other is because they are all 'nudged' to the same expectation. That seems a circular argument. Let us assume that medieval temperatures after all had been warmer than the present. Even that would tell us nothing about anthropogenic climate change. Strawman argument. No one claims it does. The 'dispute is about AGW proponents perpetually using it to make unsubstantiated claims about 'unprecedented'. The famous conclusion of the IPCC, "The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate", does not depend on any reconstruction for the past millennium. Appeal to authority fallacy. Not only that but an appeal to a supposed 'authority' dominated by the same cabal and another case (like the faux 'independent studies) of the cabal essentially quoting itself to supposedly 'support' itself. Ad hominem. It depends on a detailed analysis of 20th Century data. I've seen the 'analysis' and it's a pile of selective data culling where they, without any justification, summarily toss out anything (such as 100 years worth of meticulous CO2 measurements) that does not 'fit' the pre arrived at assumptions and conclusion (I.E. most the 100 years CO2 measurements were summarily discarded because they contradicted the IPCC's original whole cloth assumption that CO2 was 'stable' and 'low'.) In fact, this conclusion is from the 1995 IPCC report, and thus predates the existence of quantitative proxy reconstructions like the "hockey stick". Back to the strawman. The issue is the unsubstantiated claim of current temperatures being 'unprecedented' (warmer than the MWP, which begs the even warmer Roman Warm period) and not whether 20'th century temperatures rose after the Little Ice age. Climate changes can have several different reasons, and the cause of any particular climate change needs to be investigated on a case by case basis. It cannot be found by looking at one temperature curve. Fair enough, at least on the surface, and no one ever claimed otherwise. It's a slight of hand, though, because the whole *point* of the hockey stick was specifically to 'show' current temperatures 'highest of the last 2,000 years' (banner headline, story at 10) and to 'erase' the MWP. Looking at 'one temperature record' is precisely what AGW propagandists were trying to accomplish. Had medieval climate been warmer than the present, this would probably have been due to some natural cause - perhaps a peak in solar output. Maybe. But it would mean the unsubstantiated claim of 'unprecedented' was false. That would only tell us that in principle, natural causes can cause warming larger than what we've seen in the past decades. But we know that already - one need only go back far enough in time (e.g., fifty million years) to find examples of unquestionably warmer climates than today. Quite right. Which makes the claim of 'unprecedented' a 'propaganda tool. However, it would be naive to conclude that the observed strong 20th Century warming therefore also must have a natural cause. False choice argument. No one claims it "must have a natural cause" but since it's happened before it's certainly a 'possibility' that AGW worshippers will simply not even investigate. It is the AGW worship camp that declares 'must be' based on a CO2 conjecture that has no better correlation than sun spots. Which, btw, some claim also has a 'divergence problem' in recent years but since throwing away 'divergence problems' is an honored AGW practice I suppose the 'natural causes' folks can do the same and declare the 'science is settled'. Take away the hockey stick and the word unprecedented and you're left with substantial warming and increased CO2 levels over the last century. Some of the statistical methods you question are likely valid: I don't have the time enough to learn enough about it to second guess peer-reviewed studies. (Mann's hockey stick has had its share of peer correction.) Those looking for conspiracies would do better to look at the funding behind certain of the AWG detractors. Stephen |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:16:57 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: Which is why 1995-2010 being almost the same length as 1980-1995 has meaning and that incorrectly claiming 1995-2010 was '5 years' is not a 'nit' of an error. A winning point! AWG is vanquished! It's certainly a winning point but I didn't claim AGW was 'vanquished'. Your non sequitur, however, illustrates the AGW worshiper's mindset in defending to the death any error, no matter how trivial or absurd, because "uh oh, you made a boo-boo so I win" is precisely the kind of irrational, nonsensical, game they play along with, of course, the ever popular hail of ad hominems. No, it doesn't. Stpehen |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:01:41 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:26:22 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , Jerry Peters wrote: In rec.audio.tech MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: With your logic drug company testing would be to throw away all the failed results, dead bodies, and placebo effects and declare the drug 'safe': we throw away data that doesn't work. I explained the tree-ring thing in a reply to your wing man: it's possible the tree-ring data has diverged due to anthropogenic CO2. The tree-rings have been shown to be accurate for the last millenium or so before that. Stephen Note the words "it's possible", not a very definitive point, is it? Calls for more investigation. Science can be like that. Quite right. Which means (even setting aside the known frauds in the 'hockey stick' graph, like creating trends from trendless data sets) one cannot draw the conclusions AGW proponents make about the 'hockey stick' because we know for a fact the proxy data is unreliable from 1960 on and there's nothing to 'validate' the data against prior to ~1850. You have no way of knowing whether a similar, or even different, 'divergence' didn't occur elsewhere. More data is needed for greater confidence, yes. Almost any degree of 'confidence' would be 'greater' than a process we know for a fact doesn't work from 1960 to 2010. But even your meek admission (expecting what you already 'think' is true will be 'proven' by "more data") means the AGW worshipers absolutist claims are unsupported. AWG doesn't depend on what I "think" is true. Certainly isn't "settled science" when you need "more data," now is it? I'm pretty sure that's a bs argument. More data=more confidence seems an unassailable truism. Why would we worry about that? Because we know for a fact the data diverges from 1960 on and we can't explain why. Actually, there are even more problems and the article you, yourself, provided suggests the proxy overstates 20'th century warming or, if one calibrates to 20'th century instrument records (CRU methodology), understates pre 20th century temperatures. So now you have one strong possibility (your article) and one speculative possibility (a known divergence during a 'warm' period [1960-2010] which we could speculate might happen in 'other' warm periods) that the MWP was warmer than indicated on the 'hockey stick'. With the caveat that there may be greater variability among global regions than previously assumed. Hypothetically, Europe's MWP could be balanced out by colder colder climate elsewhere. One can speculate anything but speculation is not evidence nor is it an explanation. It can show the limits of your counter-model. Now, I am not saying that *is* the case but that you CAN NOT KNOW what AGW worshippers unjustifiably claim are certitudes Depends. No, it doesn't "depends." Certitudes do not allow for "depends." Depends on what you're talking about, Temperatures and CO2 are both up. Compared to what, determined how, and what significance is it? We exited the Little Ice Age. Of course 'temperatures are up' compared to that. That's why it's not an 'ice age' anymore. As for CO2 being up, that's debatable. It's 'up' if, like the IPCC, you throw away 100 years of measurements indicating it was higher than their whole cloth assumption. But even if we do, correlation doe not prove causation. And even if we get that far there's the matter of degree of effect. The hockey stick is just a crude representation of general trends. Then people should not be making such broad, absolutist claims based on it but it less than 'crude'. It's a reconstruction based on a proxy that is known to not work in, at least, the 1960-2010 time frame. Probably explains "hide the decline", he didn't want most of us to notice that tree-ring data might not be all that accurate. Since 1960, it isn't. Which is why they wanted to 'hide' it. That's not science it's propaganda. No, it was a valid statistical method to normalize the findings. You are again just making up things in order to have 'something to say'. No, it is NOT valid. So once again: if there's an unexplained divergence after 1960, how do we know there's not one or more divergences in the prior 1000 years? Check it against other measurements. What would you propose to check it against? Different trees! And what makes you think the 'different trees' would be any good? You'd have to look and see. I'll tell you a 'secret', though. They did try 'different trees', to some degree, and what they do is discard the ones that don't produce the desired results. In some cases, that left them with 'one tree' to make a supposed 'statistical' analysis. In other cases, as I've previously mentioned, they run a 'special program' that 'reconstructs' hockey stick trends from trendless data sets. Now, here's a really good one. In other cases they put some of the tree ring data in 'upside down' and then argue, when it was discovered by external investigators, that the 'upside down' data "doesn't matter." Think about that for a minute. It does not *matter* if the data is upside down? What does that say about the data? There's so much of it one mishandled tree doesn't affect the outcome. Stephen |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:03:36 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:05:01 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: In the first place, it was you, not I, who hacked the message to hell removing context in the very same message you pounded sand about "context matters." Amusing, yes? Apparently this is such a winner for you you'll never tire of repeating it. It get's repeated because you keep trying to defend taking things out of context and, as for funny, it's knee slapping hilarious for you to whine about it when you just did it again. Glad you think so, except I didn't whine about it. Of course, you might have taken it badly. Ok, call it whatever you like, 'complained' about it. Tried to 'make a big deal' of it. Suit yourself but it's still absurd when you keep doing it. You haven't shown changing the context has hurt your argument or misrepresented it. The same can not be said for your description of Jones. You changed his meaning with your description. I used his information to address a point made and while that point was different than the question asked it is not 'changing the meaning'. I suppose you didn't change his meaning, you merely misrepresented it. I didn't do either and, I repeat, since you ripped it all out of context again, even a grade schooler can figure out that a slope of .12 is lower that a .166 slope and not 'faster'. That's not my point. You don't get to decide what *my* point was. In this case, you're pretending my mistake was actually a statistical analysis of temperature change. It isn't. You implied someone changed his mind when he hadn't and all anyone had to do to see it is look for the reference. As you yourself said, "context matters," and I've given you the context. No, you didn't. I had to go hunt down the original interview. I did not say he 'changed his mind' during the course of the interview. I said his statements in the interview contradict prior positions and, as I explained in depth, they do. He said the rise in temperature is short of the statistical 95% confidence level, not that there's no such thing as warming. Stephen |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:05:29 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:06:18 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: I'm not addressing that point. How typical of AGW worshippers to 'not address the point'. How typical of deniers to play meaningless word games. 'Addressing the point' is not a word game but what you just tried to do is. Yes, it was a simple substitution. However, there are terms for holding someone responsible for arguments not made. As I said earlier, you do not get to decide what *my* points are. Why not? You've shown a willingness to make my points for me. Stephen |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:07:01 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:06:45 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: in your hacking of my message you also removed where I explicitly said "Of course, none of that is 'proof'." Why mention it at all? Because it is 'evidence'. I hate to burst your bubble but 'evidence' is not automatically a 'proof'. Are you arguing with yourself? You asked so I answered. What part of "'evidence' is not automatically a 'proof'" did you not understand? The part where it has anything to do with what I was saying. Stephen |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:09:18 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:08:03 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: 5 is not 15. Another winning point repeated. I wouldn't need to if you would ever 'get it'. By 'oopsie' I meant 'I misstated the number of years covered by the reference'. I took it as that and, in case you didn't notice, make no 'accusations' or call you an 'ignorant slut', or any other ad hominem, and things would have been fine had you left it there. That's what I think about you. This misstatement doesn't change the validity of the reference nor was I making an independent argument. And there is the problem because you then tried to pretend misstating 15 years as 5 'makes no difference' when, as I have repeatedly explained, it does. And, as I've already said, you do not get to decide what *my* points are nor do you get to decide that your misstatement of them "makes no difference." You are simply wrong. My misstatement has *no* effect on the original statement. Get it? Oh, I got it the first time you couldn't simply let an 'oops' go by and had to babble the absurdity it 'made no difference'. I believe it is you who is making a meal of the misstatement. Stephen |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:15:13 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:15:16 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: With your logic drug company testing would be to throw away all the failed results, dead bodies, and placebo effects and declare the drug 'safe': we throw away data that doesn't work. I explained the tree-ring thing in a reply to your wing man: it's possible the tree-ring data has diverged due to anthropogenic CO2. A "possibility" is not an "explanation" and the 'odds' are not affected by you wishing it were so. There's also higher UV-B. More speculation. Have any idea whether it affects tree rings and, if so, whether they get large or smaller, or what? From what I've read, the tree rings aren't getting as big as expected. 'Possibilities' and speculations are not explanations. I'm not 'wishing' BTW. I was being generous when all indications are you're 'sure you know' even with the lack of evidence. I an not educated enough to second-guess the statistics involved. My bias is in favor of the peer-review scientific process. The tree-rings have been shown to be accurate for the last millenium or so before that. Now you're making things up for no other reason than you wish it were so. There's a whole page of references at the end of "Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today?" I read that one a while back. Take it up with Briffa, Schweingruber, et al. Be careful not to read the discussion by accident. Stephen |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In rec.audio.tech flipper wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:05:29 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:06:18 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: I'm not addressing that point. How typical of AGW worshippers to 'not address the point'. How typical of deniers to play meaningless word games. 'Addressing the point' is not a word game but what you just tried to do is. Yes, it was a simple substitution. However, there are terms for holding someone responsible for arguments not made. As I said earlier, you do not get to decide what *my* points are. Stephen But if he doesn't, he can't control the discussion. I notice he still hasn't explained the "hide the decline", except of course with some rampant speculation on the cause of the observed divergence. Jerry |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On Feb 19, 2:59*pm, Jerry Peters wrote:
But if he doesn't, he can't control the discussion. I notice he still hasn't explained the "hide the decline", except of course with some rampant speculation on the cause of the observed divergence. I wonder what these two think of Darwin's theory. After all, they're still collecting data on it. |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In rec.audio.tech MiNe 109 wrote:
In article , flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:15:13 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:15:16 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: With your logic drug company testing would be to throw away all the failed results, dead bodies, and placebo effects and declare the drug 'safe': we throw away data that doesn't work. I explained the tree-ring thing in a reply to your wing man: it's possible the tree-ring data has diverged due to anthropogenic CO2. A "possibility" is not an "explanation" and the 'odds' are not affected by you wishing it were so. There's also higher UV-B. More speculation. Have any idea whether it affects tree rings and, if so, whether they get large or smaller, or what? From what I've read, the tree rings aren't getting as big as expected. 'Possibilities' and speculations are not explanations. I'm not 'wishing' BTW. I was being generous when all indications are you're 'sure you know' even with the lack of evidence. I an not educated enough to second-guess the statistics involved. My bias is in favor of the peer-review scientific process. Which of course the CRU guys were subverting. Which brings up yet another question: My understanding is that the information that Jones & company lost their original data came because *one* scientific journal would not publish his article *without* seeing the original data. Now, what exactly were all the other "peer reviewers" reviewing if they didn't have the data? Grammar and punctuation? Spelling? Jerry |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In rec.audio.tech MiNe 109 wrote:
In article , flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:40:47 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: And that's without even getting into their other 'tricks', like their cute little 'secret software' that automagically creates hockey stick trends from trendless data sets. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...if-the-hockey- stick-were-wrong/ In the first place, you are quoting from a site specifically created by the same cabal creating the hockey stick graphs and designed for the purpose of AGW propaganda. I would be much more impressed if you were familiar with all sides. Yes, that's Michael Mann. Btw, if you hadn't noticed, everything in my original post came from Jones' own mouth (and his data), not a 'skeptic'. You contributed a substantial and misleading gloss while not providing a cite to the original source. So let's try some more exciting "what ifs". In mid-20th Century, medieval temperatures are exceeded in all the reconstructions, That is a flim flam as 'all the reconstructions' come from the same cabal members who share the same data sets, use the same 'techniques' (like Mike's 'nature trick' and 'hide the decline'), and compare, coordinate, and 'correct' their results to conform each other. They then, laughably, call them 'independent studies'. There's a term for people who believe others are secretly allied. hence recent (last 10-15 years, say) temperatures appear to be unprecedented for at least a millennium (that even holds for the alternative histories presented by the "hockey stick" critics). The claim about 'critics' is simply a flat out falsehood. The MWP is more than a millenium past. Now what if that were wrong - if all proxy reconstructions as well as model simulations of the past millennium were fundamentally in error? Deceptive 'let's pretend to be generous' word game to suggest it's 'highly unlikely' the models (and reconstructions) could possibly be in error. The fact of the matter is the models have to be constantly pushed, nudged, and 'corrected' all along the way to get anything resembling the record which, as we've seen, if iffy to begin with. You can just as easily, by the same methods and degree of 'confidence', nudge them to a completely contradictory result. Btw, if the reconstructions are in error then what does that tell you about a model that supposedly 'matches' it? And btbtw, the reason the models appear to be 'in agreement' with each other is because they are all 'nudged' to the same expectation. That seems a circular argument. Let us assume that medieval temperatures after all had been warmer than the present. Even that would tell us nothing about anthropogenic climate change. Strawman argument. No one claims it does. The 'dispute is about AGW proponents perpetually using it to make unsubstantiated claims about 'unprecedented'. The famous conclusion of the IPCC, "The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate", does not depend on any reconstruction for the past millennium. Appeal to authority fallacy. Not only that but an appeal to a supposed 'authority' dominated by the same cabal and another case (like the faux 'independent studies) of the cabal essentially quoting itself to supposedly 'support' itself. Ad hominem. It depends on a detailed analysis of 20th Century data. I've seen the 'analysis' and it's a pile of selective data culling where they, without any justification, summarily toss out anything (such as 100 years worth of meticulous CO2 measurements) that does not 'fit' the pre arrived at assumptions and conclusion (I.E. most the 100 years CO2 measurements were summarily discarded because they contradicted the IPCC's original whole cloth assumption that CO2 was 'stable' and 'low'.) In fact, this conclusion is from the 1995 IPCC report, and thus predates the existence of quantitative proxy reconstructions like the "hockey stick". Back to the strawman. The issue is the unsubstantiated claim of current temperatures being 'unprecedented' (warmer than the MWP, which begs the even warmer Roman Warm period) and not whether 20'th century temperatures rose after the Little Ice age. Climate changes can have several different reasons, and the cause of any particular climate change needs to be investigated on a case by case basis. It cannot be found by looking at one temperature curve. Fair enough, at least on the surface, and no one ever claimed otherwise. It's a slight of hand, though, because the whole *point* of the hockey stick was specifically to 'show' current temperatures 'highest of the last 2,000 years' (banner headline, story at 10) and to 'erase' the MWP. Looking at 'one temperature record' is precisely what AGW propagandists were trying to accomplish. Had medieval climate been warmer than the present, this would probably have been due to some natural cause - perhaps a peak in solar output. Maybe. But it would mean the unsubstantiated claim of 'unprecedented' was false. That would only tell us that in principle, natural causes can cause warming larger than what we've seen in the past decades. But we know that already - one need only go back far enough in time (e.g., fifty million years) to find examples of unquestionably warmer climates than today. Quite right. Which makes the claim of 'unprecedented' a 'propaganda tool. However, it would be naive to conclude that the observed strong 20th Century warming therefore also must have a natural cause. False choice argument. No one claims it "must have a natural cause" but since it's happened before it's certainly a 'possibility' that AGW worshippers will simply not even investigate. It is the AGW worship camp that declares 'must be' based on a CO2 conjecture that has no better correlation than sun spots. Which, btw, some claim also has a 'divergence problem' in recent years but since throwing away 'divergence problems' is an honored AGW practice I suppose the 'natural causes' folks can do the same and declare the 'science is settled'. Take away the hockey stick and the word unprecedented and you're left with substantial warming and increased CO2 levels over the last century. Some of the statistical methods you question are likely valid: I don't have the time enough to learn enough about it to second guess peer-reviewed studies. (Mann's hockey stick has had its share of peer correction.) Those looking for conspiracies would do better to look at the funding behind certain of the AWG detractors. Stephen I wondered how long it would be before you brought that up. Quoting you: There's a term for people who believe others are secretly allied. How much funding are the CRU, Mann, & the IPCC getting? Now how much funding do you think any of them would be getting without their predictions of catastrophe? Certainly a lot less. Speaking of the IPCC, I wonder how many other pieces of enviro-group fundraising propaganda will now be discovered in its reports? Jerry |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
fs conrad johnson premier 1 amp | Marketplace | |||
FS: conrad-johnson Premier 11a Amp | Marketplace | |||
WTB Conrad Johnson Premier 12 Monoblocks | Marketplace |