Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Arctic is warmest it's been in 10,000 years
RE: Arctic is warmest it's been in 10,000 years
(04-16-2019, 08:41 PM)Rajvik Wrote: No Epsilon, science isn't the conspirator,  the scientists that seem to have an agenda of upping their grants on the other hand, they seem to be hip deep in it, or did you conveniently forget East Anglia U.

Ohhh! You're one of those people who think a single email quoted out of context taken from a private conversation somehow disputes seventy years of scientific research.

Like, I remember this particular quote out of context: "We both known the probable flaws in Mike's recon, particularly as it relates to the tropical stuff." (Ed Cook to Keith Briffa, 17 Jun 2002)

But wait it goes on to say:  "The only way to deal with this whole issue is to show in a detailed study that his estimates are clearly deficient in multi-centennial power, something that you actually did in your Perspective piece, even if it was not clearly stated because of editorial cuts."

Or the massively popular: "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) and from 1981 for Keith's to hide the decline." (Phil Jones)

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

Man, those quotes got a lot of play on your favorite "news" network, didn't they!

That word trick is really suspicious man. I would hate for it to be something that is commonly used in basically every scientific field from chemistry to computer science to biology to describe a clever method of doing something. Oh wait, it is. I can quote dozens of papers from various fields where the use of the word trick not only appears in the opening paragraph of the paper, published for anyone to read but even often in the title of the paper. Sounds to me more like you're conflating a jargon word with a colloquial word. I bet you don't believe in the 'theory' of gravity or the germ 'theory' of disease either!

Yet, oh man, they gotta "hide the decline". That's a scary term there. One email from one university certainly countermands seventy years of studies! Global temperatures are going down. Just look at that word decline. That's obviously what it means right? The only way the word decline is every used in the English language by anyone is to refer to global temperature, right? It's never used in any other context?


Maybe they were referring to an apparent change in global temperatures based on one indicator (tree ring data). Perhaps there is some variance in the responsiveness of tree rings to changes in climate. Perhaps there was (at the time) an ongoing debate about the usefulness of tree ring data for measuring global temperatures in pre-industrial periods. Maybe they were more concerned about using actual ("real") measured data in those years rather than one which was, at the time, controversial.

But what about that travesty comment? Well, in context they were talking about the well documented 11 year solar cycle which resulted in brief cooling in 2008~9 (the El Nino and La Nina cycle). But Trenberth in the quote was actually in a debate with two other scientists, both of whom disagreed with him on that fact. Hey, did you know what scientists sometimes do? They disagree. But one scientist's opinion on science is not going to upturn seventy years of climate studies. Because unlike you, Rajvik, we don't base our outlook on the world on pronouncements by experts, not even experts that agree with us. Experts are required to actually back up their claims with data and theoretical models with predictive power and experiments that sustain those predictions. So one scientist having a small disagreement on one small factor whether the 11 year solar cycle accounts for the changes in two years of data is not actually a major factor.

And before you go on about how they are hiding these conversations behind locked doors... But if you read the actual email in full Trenberth was referring to a paper her wrote and published that expressed those same doubts. So wait... wait... this supposed gotcha secret conspiracy was actually... just a public debate that had been going on in the academic papers and scientific journals for much of that year! Right out in public! I'm certain you, being a steely-eyed science man, did your research on this, Rajvik. After all, Trenberth only gives the URL of his paper in the very same email that your favorite conspiracy peddlers quote-mined.

But I mean, all those emails are out there. Go ahead, trawl through them. Find your supposed proof that the conspiracy exists. I'll wait. If you think I'm spinning this I invite you to confirm yourself. Go ahead and see if the word trick is used in many fields on published sceintific papers. Go ahead and see if the word decline is used to refer to global temperatures or tree ring proxies, or whether Trenberth's article exists and so on and so forth. And if you have other examples from the emails, you can present those instead. You're a big boy. 

You just said you believed in science. Prove it.

Messages In This Thread
RE: Arctic is warmest it's been in 10,000 years - by Epsilon - 04-17-2019, 03:33 AM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)