I'm not trying to paint you into a corner. I'm asking about your word choice.


Also, since you apparently don't believe your T-dub persona is the sum of your posts, I'll go ahead and reference all of your posts:

message_search.aspx?type=posts§ion=4&searchstring=&username=aaronburro&usertype=match&sortby=date&sortorder=descending&page=

12/10/2009 9:56:57 PM

well, then, you tell me. The guy used twelve fucking cherry-picked trees in his model. then discarded the results at the end of the model when they didn't fit with the actual temperatures at the time of the warming he was trying to prove occurred. What word would you use to describe that other than "fraud"?

12/10/2009 10:01:37 PM

Quote :

"Tree-ring model. As in, a model based on tree-rings. And, yes, it WAS only based on tree-rings. They are talking about Briffa's study, which was exclusively done using tree-rings."

If you're referencing one study, then what is this?

Quote :

"In short, their models FAIL to reproduce what is happening,"

What models? Who is they? You don't cite any sources, you just said you read a "full article" about it. No doubt you're parroting one of your revered bloggers who has the expertise and objectivity to provide an accurate, unbiased assessment, right?

12/10/2009 10:08:50 PM

dude, you fucking quoted the name of the guy who made the study. if you are so sure that I;m not clear, THEN WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A SPECIFIC STUDY. can you not figure out what study was referenced in the quote you yourself brought up? are you that pathetic?

12/10/2009 10:11:01 PM

Quote :

"then discarded the results at the end of the model when they didn't fit with the actual temperatures at the time of the warming he was trying to prove occurred."

He wasn't trying to prove it, so much as trying to find proof of it. When the evidence didn't correspond he rightly concluded it to be flawed and threw it out and/or "corrected" it

dontcha know... this is the scientific method nowadays.

12/10/2009 10:17:56 PM

^^^^ Again, you seem to believe global warming fraud is being committed by more than one person. This is not unreasonable given your posts in this thread.

You as much as said so:

Quote :

"We already have seen that Mann's models were fraudulent. We've seen that Briffa's model conveniently relies on only 12 trees. We are learning that the CRU was hopelessly corrupt. All of James Hansen's "mistakes" conveniently end up helping his hypothesis. The US data stations are hopelessly polluted by poor placement, with no honest attempts to correct for it. Accepted science from the past 50 years is ignored, such as UHI, and attempts are made to rewrite accepted phenomena such as the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. At what point does all of this exit the realm of "honest mistake" into outright fraud? At what point does it stop being an exaggeration of facts and become bogus science to you?"

I just want to know: do you really believe there's a widespread conspiracy to promote global warming?

[Edited on December 10, 2009 at 10:21 PM. Reason : ]

12/10/2009 10:20:39 PM

define "widespread." I think it's clear that more than one person is intentionally creating fraudulent studies. Is every scientist in the world in on it? of course not

12/10/2009 10:25:08 PM

As I pointed out already, the quote I took issue with that hooksaw posted has nothing to do with this study.

This:

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

is completely unrelated to

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

I'm assuming the latter is what you're talking about.

12/10/2009 10:33:36 PM

it may be unrelated in an immediate sense, but it may be related in terms of demonstrating the approach that the researchers took to contradictory evidence and their responses to it.

12/10/2009 10:37:21 PM

Here is Briffa's response:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/01/response-from-briffa-on-the-yamal-tree-ring-affair-plus-rebuttal/

12/10/2009 10:48:04 PM

summarized, "i'm not going to admit that i'm wrong. i haven't read this guys stuff but when I do, I will explain why i'm right."

Personally, I find it SHOCKING that a researcher would not throw away his career and reputation at the drop of a hat. IOW, his denial is meaningless and completely expected.

[Edited on December 10, 2009 at 11:20 PM. Reason : s]

12/10/2009 11:19:02 PM

Quote :

"So what is the "deniers" position then? That the data is flawed and wrong, therefore the interpretation is wrong? or That the data is right, but the interpretation is wrong?"

Your problem seems to be confusing "deniers" with an organized front. Everyone is different in accordance with their experience. What makes this hard is that everyone that questions the doomer conclusion is getting thrown in as a "denier", where-as everyone I know of agrees the planet is warming, the dispute is how much, how much CO2 is the cause, and whether it matters, any one of which alone would negate the thesis.

The author of the link I posted was denying voodoo CO2 in one particular way, by merely pointing out that current warming is not special. This is because the thesis requires an assumption that current warming is unprecedented, otherwise one can argue that current warming trends are mostly natural. True, this does not prove CO2 is not causing the warming, it very well could be the cause this time for the planet warming. But it does mean that AGW has not been proven scientifically.

And this is how science is supposed to work. You can argue the temperature on Iapetus is too low for sublimation to occur, and therefore a hydrological cycle could not be the cause of the front-back color shift, without being called a "denier" and mocked for refusing to accept that there is a color shift. People should not be mocked for questioning an unproven assertion.

What you should argue instead, and many have, is that while the science is not and given what we know cannot be proven, that does not mean it is false. Maybe this time it is CO2, so cost free steps we can take should be taken, such as scrapping the payroll tax for a matching carbon tax. I don't just doubt but adamantly refuse all three steps of the doomer thesis (current warming is not that much, even if it is it is mostly due to nonCO2 causes, and even if it is all due to CO2 the resultant damage will be little more than background noise to history). But switching one regressive tax for another seems a wash to me, well worth it if you and other doomers would be able to sleep better at night (Note, I'm only using doomer because you used denier. Both words are equally lacking in description).

12/11/2009 1:02:05 AM

Quote :

"We already have seen that Mann's models were fraudulent."

No, we haven't. You often assert this, but multiple scientific bodies and congressional commitees have analyzed his work and found the hockey-stick models to be valid, although they are not perfect. Further, there are other reconstructions that support the models. The word "fraud" is mostly thrown around in denier/ conspiracy circles to describe his work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years

Quote :

"We've seen that Briffa's model conveniently relies on only 12 trees. "

You have no idea whether that's a bad thing and can only rely on the words of a biased blogger.

Quote :

"We are learning that the CRU was hopelessly corrupt"

That's an exaggeration. We won't know if or to what extent there was corruption until the investigations conclude.

Quote :

"The US data stations are hopelessly polluted by poor placement, with no honest attempts to correct for it."

They do consider the error potential due to placement and try to correct for it, but yes, the station placement could be improved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

Yes, these are wikipedia articles, but if you notice they provide outside links and sources.

Those four claims are all I care to address at the moment, but it shows that this case you have built up is full of distortions, exaggerations, and inaccuracies.

12/11/2009 1:03:02 AM

Quote :

"You often assert this, but multiple scientific bodies and congressional commitees have analyzed his work and found the hockey-stick models to be valid, although they are not perfect."

Bullshit. You throw a fucking PHONE BOOK at it and it creates a hockey-stick. there is NOTHING valid about that.

Quote :

"You have no idea whether that's a bad thing and can only rely on the words of a biased blogger. "

Well, when you add the other trees in that region to his model, his results are no longer valid. As in, he cherry-picked the trees. besides, it has already been noted that most studies involving tree-rings use hundreds of trees. Come on, stop being obtuse. But, tell me. Why is it only the blogger who could be biased? Hell, why is it even the case that the blogger is biased?

Quote :

"That's an exaggeration. We won't know if or to what extent there was corruption until the investigations conclude."

The head of the organization asked people to delete information in order to avoid releasing it to FOI requests. He admitted to having destroyed data, as well. Nuff said.

Quote :

"They do consider the error potential due to placement and try to correct for it, but yes, the station placement could be improved."

you need to check your facts. It has already been shown that in multiple places there has been no attempt to correct for obvious deficiencies in station placement.

Quote :

"Here is Briffa's response:"

you should bother to read the response to briffa's response on that very same page...

12/11/2009 7:37:03 AM

For fuck's sake aaronburro, it wasn't a MODEL. It was a temperature proxy data. JESUS.

(going back to the last page)

Quote :

"You have no idea whether that's a bad thing and can only rely on the words of a biased blogger. "

Briffa threw out data from other trees b/c they didn't show what he wanted. Either way you shake it, that's not being honest.

[Edited on December 11, 2009 at 8:54 AM. Reason : k]

12/11/2009 8:45:43 AM

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/
Chart Porn!

12/11/2009 9:12:40 AM

Until they start holding world summits to combat (other) pollution, over fishing and habitat loss, issues like this dealing with CO2 are pretty worthless in my opinion. I also agree that until countries like China and India decide to get involved in a real way any efforts we in the US make will simply be reversed by them in the name of "progress". That does not, however, give us carte blanche to do as we please simply because China and India have little regard for their environment.

12/11/2009 11:14:59 AM

I totally agree. And I find it hilarious to see all the African nations there pushing hard for the AGW agenda. They don't really care about global warming, they just want to get paid.

A good start would be to continue the push for more nuclear energy started under the last administration.

In my eyes that's the best and most effective way to reduce CO2 from major energy supplies (not that I have a problem with CO2) as well as help reduce dependency on foreign energy supplies.

[Edited on December 11, 2009 at 11:23 AM. Reason : k]

12/11/2009 11:23:02 AM

The Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill was introduced today:

Quote :

"Senators Unveil New Climate Bill Draft WASHINGTON – A trio of senators seeking to break a congressional deadlock on climate legislation unveiled a proposal Thursday that combines caps on greenhouse-gas levels with new offshore oil-and-gas exploration and nuclear power plant incentives. The outline offered by Sens. John Kerry (D., Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), and Joe Lieberman (I., Conn.) won praise from President Barack Obama who called it a "positive development." Mr. Obama is scheduled to attend the United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen next week along with other world leaders, and the U.S. is under pressure to offer commitments to make significant cuts in its consumption of fossil fuels..."

can read the whole article here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126048542176986445.html

Sigh...honestly why can't they just pass a bill regarding drilling and nuclear incentives?

[Edited on December 11, 2009 at 1:04 PM. Reason : whoops]

12/11/2009 1:02:25 PM

Take out the off-shore drilling and we might get somewhere.

12/11/2009 11:36:14 PM

Associated Press exhaustively reviews emails, finds no evidence of fraud, and nothing to undercut the vast body of evidence supporting global warming:

http://www.physorg.com/news179857607.html

12/12/2009 5:49:07 PM

because if anyone knows science, it's a bunch of reporters

12/12/2009 6:09:13 PM

^ well, from your perspective, it’s certainly not the scientist that know science, so maybe you’d believe some reporters.

12/12/2009 6:11:27 PM

oh, I'm certain the scientists know science, it's just that this one group of them isn't doing science. They are doing politics and masquerading it as science

12/12/2009 6:14:12 PM

Quote :

"because if anyone knows science, it's a bunch of reporters"

You don't have to be a scientist to understand what's going on in most of those emails. You're not a scientist, and you think you've got it all figured out.

12/12/2009 7:40:20 PM

Yes, and the AP hasn't exactly been on the forefront of spreading information about the lies promulgated by these folks, so you'll forgive me if I find their analysis, the methods of which they have failed to disclose, to be sorely lacking and worthless. Their lack of scientific background only seals the deal. Remind me again, though, what is your major/degree?

12/12/2009 8:04:21 PM

You'll find any excuse to distrust anyone that says something you don't agree with.

12/12/2009 9:09:39 PM

would you like to be the pot or the kettle? I mean, any organization that can say that falsifying evidence is A-OK in the scientific process is certainly suspect, dude

12/12/2009 9:49:19 PM

I trust the AP. You trust blogs. I look like a rational person. You look like a lunatic.

12/12/2009 10:29:36 PM

is that the best you can come up with? blogs? Yes, Anthony Watts is nothing more than a blogger. Steve McIntyre is nothing more than a blogger. Willie Soon is nothing more than a blogger. Richard Lindzen is nothing more than a blogger. Fred Singer is nothing more than a blogger. Saying someone is just a blogger doesn't diminish that actual work he has done. You are the one who looks like a lunatic when you spout such nonsense

12/13/2009 2:07:23 PM

Is that the best you can come up with? The word of five deniers against thousands of scientists?

12/13/2009 2:28:59 PM

is that the best you can come up with? fraudulent studies that thousands of scientists don't have time to pour through or the political will to expose?

12/13/2009 2:34:03 PM

Or the word of five deniers against the AP, one of the most credible media organizations.

12/13/2009 2:41:58 PM

yes, because the AP knows a lot about science. and fraud is only fraud if the AP says so. I got it. you seem to fail to know ANYTHING about the scientific process. I notice that you still haven't told us what your major is. Let me guess: business.

12/13/2009 3:14:26 PM

It's fun to see how you rationalize things. I can almost predict what you say next.

12/13/2009 3:32:00 PM

yep. I was spot on. that explains your complete lack of understanding of the scientific process. you make me wet sometimes, dude

12/13/2009 3:38:59 PM

Your real-life identity is widely known, right?

Then why do you act like such a jackass on here? This is some straight-up retardo-trolling.

12/13/2009 3:45:11 PM

true. you are the kind of pussy who would take the interwebs into real life, aren't you.

12/13/2009 4:00:39 PM

I'm just saying. I don't know/care who you are, but I recall that your identity is generally known.

So again, why would you be such a jackass troll, given this fact?

12/13/2009 4:22:46 PM

because I respond to jackass trolls in kind? am I supposed to be afraid of you or something?

12/13/2009 4:33:20 PM

He's not a troll, at least until he mentions that gay sexual shit. He genuinely believes his own bullshit. Calling him a troll would be giving him way too much credit.

My goal with him is to expose his arguments for what they are to reduce the credibility of his side. The more he posts, the dumber he looks. The only person who takes him seriously is frat boy Teg. Maybe I look dumb too sometimes for trying, but it's worth it.



[Edited on December 13, 2009 at 5:20 PM. Reason : .]

12/13/2009 5:16:28 PM

and what, exactly, are my arguments? You are the one suggesting that popularity matters in science.

12/13/2009 5:50:35 PM

Quote :

"AP Analysis Overlooks Scientific Implications of Climategate By William DiPuccio The Associated Press has published an independent investigation into the scientific implications of the recent emails hacked from East Anglia University in England. In, “AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty”, AP writers Seth Borenstein, Raphael Satter, and Malcolm Ritter concluded that “the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked.” The Scientific Consensus But the article misses two very important points and stumbles in its logic. First, regarding the scientific consensus, the reporters conclude: “However, the [email] exchanges don’t undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.” The emails, as the article admits, reveal that “skeptical” scientists were stonewalled, blacklisted, and repeatedly denied access to data under the FOI. If the views of these scientists had been welcomed as a check and balance on the work of others, if they had been made partners at the table, if they had been given full access to the same data, if their research was published, and if those who opposed their findings had been forced to respond to their conclusions in peer reviewed literature, then the consensus would probably look much different than it does now. At the very least, the pretense of utter certainty which proponents of the IPCC hypothesis maintain, would have been substantially diminished and they would have been forced to acknowledge that their position was not fully supported by the peer reviewed literature. It is circular reasoning to appeal to a consensus that was shaped by scientists conspiring to eliminate all opposition. These scientists, though relatively few in number, wielded a disproportionate influence on the scientific community. Moreover, from the private emails it is evident that they were less confident about their own conclusions than they appeared to be in public discourse. The Significance of Errors in Past Temperature Reconstructions Second, the writers of the AP study are totally oblivious to the implications of the attempt by Phil Jones and others to “hide the decline” in a graph that was later published in the 2001 IPCC report. The decline refers to an unmistakable deviation in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring studies. The cause of the deviation has never been resolved. Tree ring proxies are used to reconstruct temperature data for the last 1000 years (instrumental data did not start until around 1850). Though actual temperatures were rising after 1960, the tree ring data in one major study, by Keith Briffa, indicated that temperatures were falling precipitously. It is clear from the emails that this deviation in proxy temperatures (the “divergence problem") was not disclosed to the public or policy makers because it would raise questions and uncertainties about the overall reliability of past climate reconstructions. Historical temperature reconstructions are a crucial plank in the IPCC’s hypothesis which claims that our current warming trend is the result of CO2 emissions. If it can be shown that today’s warming is unprecedented, then it is more likely (though not certain) that CO2 emissions are interfering with nature and skewing temperatures upward. But over the last 1000 years, average temperature has varied by only one degree according to the reconstructions. The case for today’s extraordinary temperatures rides on only four or five tenths of a degree. The large shaded area in the attached graph (from IPCC AR4), which delineates the margin of error, clearly shows the imprecise nature these reconstructions. Briffa?s reconstruction (green line) was truncated at 1960 to “hide the decline.” [removed image and caption] Questions raised about the reliability of temperature reconstructions using tree ring data can effectively undermine the claim that our current warming is unprecedented. For example if temperatures in the medieval period were actually closer to the upper portion of the shaded area, as most paleoclimate histories have shown, then there would be no cause for alarm. The AP investigation was misleading on this particular. The authors tell us that the so-called “hockey stick” reconstruction (shown on the graph) which asserted the 1990s were the hottest years in a millennium, was “upheld as valid” by a National Academy of Sciences study. But, in fact, there were two studies. The second, conducted by a team of statisticians led by Edward Wegman, chair of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, was highly critical of the hockey-stick reconstruction. [image and caption removed] The AP article never mentioned this investigation. Nor did it mention that in the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment, the hockey stick temperature profile was barely discernable. Temperatures in the middle ages were noticeably elevated over those in the 2001 assessment, though still not as high as the current instrumental record. Contrary to the conclusions drawn by the AP investigation, there are serious scientific implications surrounding the Climategate emails. Though defenders continue to beat the drums in favor of the scientific consensus, it is becoming clear not only that this consensus was partially manufactured through manipulation, but also that the science it represents does not rise to the level of certainty it has auspiciously claimed. Over the last couple of years, numerous studies have challenged various aspects of the IPCC’s science, including the dominance of CO2. Natural variability - ocean oscillations, solar cycles, etc. - plays a larger role in climate change than once thought. A spate of recent research has shown that aerosol pollution (e.g., soot, sulfur, nitrogen, dust) and changes in land use changes (e.g., deforestation, agriculture, urbanization) have a greater impact on climate than CO2. Before we pull the trigger and spend billions of dollars on controlling carbon emissions, we need to consider the entire range of scientific research and reassess our policies in light of these findings. "

12/13/2009 6:29:17 PM

hmmm, how is this for "tolerance" in the scientific community. wow.

Quote :

"Art Horn: Climategate in the Classroom? By Art Horn, ICECAP in Pahjamas Media As an independent meteorologist, I do a lot of public speaking about weather and climate. I bring my weather program, called “How the Weather Works,” to elementary and middle schools. Most of the program is about the basics of our atmosphere, and a little bit covers how a forecast is made. Last year, I started to include a section about global warming - and about how I am a skeptic - towards the end of my program. At several of the elementary schools, this was actually met with approval. Some teachers approached me at the end of my talk and thanked me for giving the kids a different point of view - since all they hear otherwise is that the future will be a climate calamity. However, there have been different reactions. A school told me I would not be able to return this year because of my global warming comments. When I visited the school last year, I told the students that the polar bears were not drowning and that their numbers have been increasing. I also showed them reasons to believe that nature has changed climate in the past and would likely continue to do so in the future. One of the students then went home and told the parents. Apparently this did not fit the parents? understanding of what is going on in the Arctic. I was told the student was upset; I tend to believe it was the parents that were upset. A phone complaint was made to the teacher who had invited me. Also, a complaint was made to the superintendent. The teacher who invited me actually had to do a special project about global warming to set the parents minds at ease. I have no idea what the teacher told the parents. The teacher then asked the district science coordinator if I could tone down my comments about global warming if I were to return. The principal of the school said my information was educational, but very one-sided. I found this rather odd, since the principal also said in the email that: It is our obligation as a public school to present both sides of an argument. In the area of science this is extremely important. Since the kids are constantly bombarded with the alarmist point of view, I figured the realist side was just getting equal time. The school has agreed to have me back - but there is to be absolutely no mention of global warming at all. I have a program for high school students called ‘Understanding Global Warming.’ Out of some 160 high schools that I proposed this program to, only two have responded favorably. I did receive an email from one teacher who wanted to debate me about global warming in front of the students. I responded that this was not what I wanted to do - my point was to show the students the large amount of science that shows man?s carbon emissions have little or no impact on climate change. I had mentioned that with all the attention the alarmists get on the air, in publications, and in textbooks, my program could be looked at as equal time. He replied that there is already too much talk by “non-scientists” on the air, and that my concerns about equal time were specious and manipulative. An interesting comment, since the global warming savior of the world, Al Gore, has no science training either. In light of all that, I will not be presenting my program to that school. I also bring my weather programs to retirement facilities. Some of these are high-end, with expensive rents and plush accommodations. This year I presented a program called “Weatherwise: Myths and Mysteries of Weather.” A portion of the show is dedicated to myths of global warming. After presenting this program to one of my clients, the person responsible for hiring me told me she “could not have me back.” One of the persons in the audience was so upset with my stand on global warming that she confronted the activities director. She was so angry she demanded that I never return, and then stormed out of the office. I have been invited back since then, but there is to be no mention of my opinion on global warming. I have two other long-term clients at expensive facilities that will not return my phone calls. The mainstream media has for too long dominated the information being disseminated about global warming. Some people have long-term loyalty to television news programs, newspapers, or magazines. Any opinion that varies from their source is unacceptable. Some people have been so completely indoctrinated with the climate catastrophe story, they can?t stand to hear anything else. For them my story of global warming will be met with closed doors and deaf ears. "

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/art-horn-climategate-in-the-classroom-pjm-exclusive/

12/13/2009 6:29:40 PM

oooh, how's this for scientific openness.


how open and honest of the scientist

12/13/2009 7:08:44 PM

Another blog to decide the issue! Nice.

Haha "journalist" Phelim McAleer, the troll who made that partisan documentary who has no interest in presenting the issue honestly.

12/13/2009 8:05:30 PM

I like your ad hominem. It really proves your point well! would you like to substantively address the issue, or are you just going to troll on?

12/13/2009 8:10:59 PM

I will substantively address the issue when you provide legitimate substance to address.

12/13/2009 8:20:52 PM

so, articles written by scientists no longer count as substantive? now your opinions start to make more sense. and you accuse ME of only listening to what I want to hear

12/13/2009 8:24:50 PM

by the way, let me get this right. You post an article written by the AP, a non-scientific source, and it's "substantive." I post a rebuttal to this article, written by a scientist, and it's not substantive? Is that what you want to claim?

it's obvious what you are, so I will from henceforth call you what you are. Shut the fuck up, you stupid fucking troll

12/13/2009 9:11:16 PM