In the summary, can you please tell us that the description you've included comes from the Y/T post? Thanks.

-edit-
my bad

>> ^RhesusMonk:
In the summary, can you please tell us that the description you've included comes from the Y/T post? Thanks.

only because you asked so nicely.

*reason > hysteria

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by dystopianfuturetoday.

*eco
*news
*politics
*lies

Adding video to channels (Eco, Lies, News, Politics) - requested by NetRunner.

Does this guy sound like that Yahtzee guy who does the game reviews to anyone else?

I knew this 'climategate' was a hoax because conservatives were behind it!

In summary - it took two entire weeks for the apologists to come up with a weak set of excuses to defuse the obvious misconduct of pro-AGW scientists. There is no excuse for supposedly 'neutral' scientists to fudge their numbers. It's plain as plain. They were stacking their numbers to get the result they wanted so they could keep riding a gravy train of political payola grant money - and they were wiling to sell their scientific integrity, and the credibility of the entire scientific community to do it.

I'm a statistician. I see this kind of crap every day, and it gives my profession a bad name. I've seen some of the AGW numbers. The original data is never in the dataset. It's always the 'weighted' data, which is a big red flag to me. If a source doesn't trust handing out their raw data, then it usually means they don't want you to see it because it was flawed data to start with, or they altered it so radically with their 'models' that it might as well be gibberish. The AGW movement has been trying very hard to make insignificant data 'meaningful' for years. That much was always blatantly obvious. The leaks merely prove that their methodology is flawed, and therefore their conclusions are bunk.

^ Did you even watch the video? How about arguing against his points of contention, rather than spewing opinions?

Is the word "trick" indicative of fraud when used in the context of scientific analysis?
Is the travesty of unexplained data something they were trying to hide?
Is the 11-year warming and cooling cycle an unsupported guess?

Anything at all that he just said that you can rebut, or are you just going to repeat talking points?

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5186415/Climategate

Global warming is so obvious that it pains me to have to argue its fact.

All you have to do is go to the places where there used to be ice and see the fact that there is no more ice, that the ice has been steadily receding for decades--not increasing, not going back and forth, but constantly disappearing.

I don't know. It might be completely out of our hands, like the Titanic.

But all of you fuckers who keep insisting that the Titanic isn't sinking really piss me off.

You are morbid contrarians, and you have been that way with every single significant issue of our day.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
... they were wiling to sell their scientific integrity, and the credibility of the entire scientific community to do it.

Hang on - if individuals fudged their numbers, its an indictment of that individual.



>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I'm a statistician. I see this kind of crap every day, and it gives my profession a bad name.

I'll tell you what makes statisticians look bad: Statistics

So often there IS a story in the data, but all data is different. I can understand data that has little "statistical precedent" must take time to learn what models/techniques work well. And when the modus operandi HAS to be experimentation - Im sure it looks awkward, error-prone, and ugly when viewed through the cherry-picked lense of a couple of emails.

Would this be a sensible observation? Or do you think its simply endemic fraudulence?



>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I've seen some of the AGW numbers. The original data is never in the dataset. It's always the 'weighted' data, which is a big red flag to me.

It seems this red flag makes you basically indifferent to any other argument, and I'd like to have a look.
Do you mind linking the numbers, with a few words of summary?



>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
If a source doesn't trust handing out their raw data, then it usually means they don't want you to see it because it was flawed data to start with, or they altered it so radically with their 'models' that it might as well be gibberish. The AGW movement has been trying very hard to make insignificant data 'meaningful' for years. That much was always blatantly obvious. The leaks merely prove that their methodology is flawed, and therefore their conclusions are bunk.


Ok so this is obviously your opinion before and after these emails. Why did you have this opinion before?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I'm a statistician. I see this kind of crap every day, and it gives my profession a bad name. I've seen some of the AGW numbers. The original data is never in the dataset.


As a statistician you might be interested in this article

"In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time."

i hate academics that assume they are right using circular logic. downvote.

>> ^rougy:
Global warming is so obvious that it pains me to have to argue its fact.

That isn't the area of contention, the question is whether it is man-made or not (aka is C02 to blame)

>> ^Throbbin:
Does this guy sound like that Yahtzee guy who does the game reviews to anyone else?


No, this guy breathes between sentences

I know what you mean though.

"O, the humanity"

Awesome quote, used to great effect.

Those quotes in the video have never been anything close to hard evidence. It's amazing that this is the first coverage I've seen on this that put them into context. The MSM are absolutely lousy at reporting anything these days.

Although I would say some of the other points in the scandal are a bit more worrysome. Particularly the one about deleting several other e-mails.

But if the e-mails show one thing, it's the strong bias of the authors. They really give the impression of looking for any evidence to support "their cause". Just doesn't sound that scientific. On the other hand, they probably weren't expecting this kind of an audience for their e-mails. I spose we'll just have to wait for the investigation.

(lastly I don't think it takes an expert to make Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh look like idiots, they manage that themselves. I'd rather hear from some sceptical climatoligists, yes they do exist!)

funny point at 7min in

Although I'm a skeptic myself, I agree with most of what this video says. The highly-quoted emails are far from a "smoking gun" exposing fraud. Reading too much into them, and taking statements out of context without actually understanding entirety of the conversation doesn't provide valid criticisms.

However, I agree with crillep that a reasonable criticism to make is that the leak does tend to suggest that these people were not particularly interested in the scientific method and making a hypothesis but being just as open to proving that hypothesis incorrect as correct.

A much bigger concern of mine from the fallout of this leak and the 'climategate scandal' is the information that apparently the CRU destroyed all of their raw, original temperature data that was fed into their climate models. Personally, I cannot come up with any reasonable explanation for that action. At best, gross incompetence; at worst, indication of fraud. A good scientist should want all of their starting data, processes, and plans to be completely open so that what they've done can be repeated and confirmed. That is hard to do when the original data magically disappears.

His defense of hide the decline is pathetic. The entire thing about Jones and Mann's work is the matching of proxy data like tree rings to the measured temperature record. I can't find the full text of the email anywhere, but if the quote is referring to hiding a decline in temperature reconstructions from tree-rings, then it clearly is a major problem. The reason being that Jones and Mann's most famous contribution to climate study is the hockey stick graph, showing that based on proxy data, like TREE RINGS, the temperatures from 1000 through 1900 show stable temperatures, and from 1900 through to today temperature increasing like never before in the last one thousand years.

Wait you'll say, if that was true it should've been evident in the original study for all to see. The answer is that it in fact is. If you go look at the studies by Jones and Mann on their hockey stick graph, their appendix will link you to graphs of the raw proxy data, including tree rings, that they used. It is plain to see that the proxy data does not change AT ALL after 1900, yet somehow the reconstruction that is made with that data spikes up like mad at that point. The paper and email reference in essence the same thing, the use of the measured temperature record to calibrate select years of the proxy data to get a better result. It's not without reason that there has been a lot of questioning of the statistical methods used to create their reconstruction. In 10 years time this will be a foot note.

[redacted]

^ ban-worthy. You're welcome to your opinions, but you need to be civil in delivering them.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:I'm a statistician. I see this kind of crap every day

I think I see where you're going with that...

The irony in all of this was, they still haven't directly defended themselves. Rather other people are doing it. Which is okay, but talking points are still talking points which is what this video is. Let me know when he gets around to a fair and open process and away from the religion. I'll be waiting, patiently. Like I have been for the last 15 years.

Here is the second part to this video.