Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (20264)	2/11/2008 10:36:34 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 36917

So why does neolib AKA ear2earfeces fabricate strawman with pontification that the lying spew is fact. Could you comment on why scientists quickly accepted that work of McIntrye, while rejecting most of his other work? One who reads what McIntrye published at climateaudit.org would ask the cowardly anonymous lie spewer for some quantification. What scientists have rejected of whatever proposed by McIntrye and in such case what other scientist accepted that same whatever proposed by McIntrye. Where is the statement of the McIntrye proposal and who objected and why and who accepted and why. If one reads what is posted by McIntrye, one sees clear explanations of what he did to verify his own sources and facts and what he did to determine the sources and facts of whatever and whomever he is evaluating. He also provides links to the data used and often the process and programs he used for evaluation. Mr McIntrye by any standards of science or engineering methodology does calibrated work that often exposes how uncalibrated the work of the worshiped by neoliar are. neolib by any standards is always shown to be the ear2earfeces of one more anonymous stupid source. ooo, I also tweaked my swap space and angle is purrrrring.

To: neolib who wrote (20264)	2/12/2008 2:09:38 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

He notified NASA, who looked at his ideas, accepted them, corrected their codes, posted a thank you to him, all within 1-2 days. Embarrassment on NASA's part imo. McIntyre has developed a record of uncovering errors and questionable numbers and statistics. As a result he has a following and he's hard to ignore and dismiss now. Thanks entirely to McIntyre we now know the warmest year in the past century was 1934. And 6 of the last century's 10 warmest years occurred before 1954 - iow before most manmade CO2 was released. Four of the top 10 warm years were in the 1930's aka the dust bowl years. And btw, this catch by McIntyre in no way means that the data is now A-OK. There is almost certainly a significant station quality problem caused by urbanization effects: 103 Steve McIntyre says: August 9th, 2007 at 7:38 am Gavin says that this has “nothing” to do with station quality problems. That’s not true. Defenders of abysmal quality sites argued that Hansen’s software could sort out bad data (sort of like Mann’s principal components, I guess.) Hansen’s software remains undisclosed, but it was obviously unequal to the challenge of identifying inconsistent splices. So I remain unconvinced that HAnsen or USHCN software can sort out bad data. Also as far as the global data goes - the big question is why the US data with its high proportion of rural data - has a negligible trend, while the rest of the world has a very strong trend. Has the growth of Chinese and Indonesian cities been properly allowed for? (Actually GISS makes no allowance for it.) climateaudit.org ---------------------------------------------------------- why scientists quickly accepted that work of McIntrye, while rejecting most of his other work? I think the "rejecting most of his other work" is wishful thinking. ----------------------------------------------------------- ..posted a thank you to him ... any climate sceptic, if he does some convincing work, will in fact be well received? I don't recall a thank you. And my memory is they quietly changed their data with no public announcement, as if they hoped no one would notice.