My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« BREAKING NEWS: NIWA reveals NZ original climate data missing | Main | BREAKING: IPCC's 2007 report riddled with non-peer reviewed students' work - dozens of cites »

Comments

Kapow

"So to sum up, a key finding in Working Group 1, the most prestigious of the IPCC reports, was sourced primarily to a knowingly false study that had nonetheless passed "peer review" through Jones' cozy clique of mates and was published in Nature."

I do seem to recall that CM mocked me a few weeks ago for suggesting that Jones et al "peer reviewed" each others work. Hmmmmm, the truth shall set you free.

David White

"true UHI in China was increasing by 0.1C a DECADE, outstripping the claimed effect of global warming at only 0.7C a decade."

It seems something is not right in this sentence.

Angus

It's over.

The AGW hysteria is dead.

Time to move on.

Ian Wishart

"true UHI in China was increasing by 0.1C a DECADE, outstripping the claimed effect of global warming at only 0.7C a decade."

Good spotting David. Fixed. 0.07

PaulM

Ian,

where did you get 0.07? The IPCC report claimed UHI was only 0.006 degrees per decade. page 244. Or is this a local figure for china?

p.s. Many more IPCC errors and exaggerations on my website.

Luke

que CM- "but the IPCC reports are still really good" or perhaps they may only be "O.K" now.

CM

>>>I do seem to recall that CM mocked me a few weeks ago for suggesting that Jones et al "peer reviewed" each others work. Hmmmmm, the truth shall set you free.<<<

How is that relevant? I mock people for inventing things that aren't supported by good evidence.

>>>que CM- "but the IPCC reports are still really good" or perhaps they may only be "O.K" now.<<<

Nope, still very good. Still a million times better than Blog Science.

Even Doug Keenan himself admits "None of this means that the conclusion of the IPCC is incorrect." Seems like a rational guy.

In an interview with the Press Association (PA) about The Guardian's article, Phil Jones says he stands by the conclusion of the 1990 paper, not least because it was backed up by other studies, including papers in 2007 and 2008 that used a more detailed Chinese dataset.

Below is a graph comparing the 1990 (Jones et al) and 2007 (Li et al) graphs.

Woe be it for you all to look at two sides of an argument, but here is the UEA response:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/guardianstatement

The accuracy of the data and results was confirmed in a later paper.

How come the 'fake' data was almost entirely the same as the real data? How do you 'make up' data that is so close?

CM

>>>"true UHI in China was increasing by 0.1C a DECADE, outstripping the claimed effect of global warming at only 0.7C a decade."

Good spotting David. Fixed. 0.07<<<

Ian's adjusting his figures. Making 'adjustments'. FRAUD! CONSPIRACY! Please release all your private emails immediately.

Luke

"Nope, still very good. "

So what will it take CM, how many more errors and factious references will people need to find before it becomes "O.K"?

CM

>>>So what will it take CM, how many more errors and factious references will people need to find before it becomes "O.K"?<<<

I'm waiting for your response to my questions:
How come the 'fake' data was almost entirely the same as the real data? How do you 'make up' data that is so close (actually it's identical)?

I'm not convinced there is much at all to the 'ice loss' issue. In Chapter 1 of Working Group II’s report there is a section on observed changes in the cryosphere. It contains a short table (page 86) of selected observed effects is provided. Included among them is the loss of ice climbs in the Andes, the Alps and Africa. It is in relation to this minor observation that the student dissertation and climbing magazine article are cited by the IPCC. But somehow people are trying to imply that the IPCC references to disappearing ice are based on these two sources. The reality is that the Working Group I report in chapter 4 (pages 356-360) deals with observed changes glaciers in a section densely packed with scientific information, whereas the Working Group II report in which this report is found describes the observed effects on the environment and on human activities due to these recent cryospheric changes. And the loss of ice climbs is a tiny part of those effects. Why is everyone ignoring that? Why would you want to misrepresent the situation, if you care about the science at all?

Don't pretend to care about the science when you really just don't want taxes to go up.

Mack

Can anybody be bothered reading what this bloke CM has got to say? I sure as hell can't.

bk

"Why is everyone ignoring that?"...Once bitten twice shy.."Why would you want to misrepresent the situation, if you care about the science at all"..CM,why dont you ask Jones,Mann,etc. why they didnt care enough about the science,afterall it was their ineptitude,misrepresention,and blatant disregard for basic scientific methodology that has brought the model(AGW) crashing down around them.

bk

oops edit..afterall "it is they that are accused of" ineptitude,"misrepresentation",and blatant disregard for basic scientific methodology..sorry.

Andrew W

If the UHI effect had not been correctly adjusted for, someone would have pointed out by now that there was a divergence of the adjusted temperature data between rural and urban weather stations, with the urban stations that were used showing greater warming, no divergence has been found.

(not so) Silent

Andrew
You should read Surface stations org.
Half the issue is GISS, Hadcru deleting stations.Creating a grid system.
Why is Hansen ignoring temps where the ice pack is not year round is a question you should look into.
Complete Moron, the issue of Jones and co peer reviewing each others work is disclosed in the climate gate emails where they dicuss who to check the work many times.

CM

>>>Can anybody be bothered reading what this bloke CM has got to say? I sure as hell can't.<<<

Yeah it's a good idea to ONLY read stuff that reinforces what you ALREADY know. Otherwise the world becomes too scary doesn't it.

CM

>>>"Why is everyone ignoring that?"...Once bitten twice shy.."Why would you want to misrepresent the situation, if you care about the science at all"..CM,why dont you ask Jones,Mann,etc. why they didnt care enough about the science,afterall it was their ineptitude,misrepresention,and blatant disregard for basic scientific methodology that has brought the model(AGW) crashing down around them.<<<

Come on, admit it, you're all graduates of a Masters degree in vague and meaningless accusations and allegations and internet posts which say nothing of substance. Come on, you can tell me.....I can keep a secret!

CM

>>>Complete Moron, the issue of Jones and co peer reviewing each others work is disclosed in the climate gate emails where they dicuss who to check the work many times.<<<

Sh*t-for-brains, provide examples which show that's what happened and what the outcome was. Otherwise you're simply making accusations.

Mack

Your rants are not scary CM. Just tripe.

CM

How come the 'fake' data was almost entirely the same as the real data? How do you 'make up' data that is so close (actually it's identical)?

Anyone?

The comments to this entry are closed.