7. Climate Change – “Those” e-mails and science censorship

Are climatologists censoring scientific journals and silencing alternative hypotheses on climate change? This is the second part of my look at the hacked/stolen e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit in the UK. I welcome intelligent opinions in the forum, but please refrain from posting the same inane comment a dozen times. Debates in science aren’t settled by those who argue the longest or the loudest, but by the accuracy of facts and the consistency of hypotheses with the facts.

~~~

8. Climate Change — Has the Earth been cooling?

This video also looks at whether other planets are also warming, and an Internet myth that NASA is now attributing warming to the sun. In this video I examine the importance of sources — tracking information back to a source and making sure the source is credible. My sources are cited in the video, but I’ll also post them here. Sources are also cited throughout my climate change series. These videos are not a personal opinion or a theory of my own; I’m not a climate scientist or a researcher and I have no qualifications to do anything other than report on what real climate scientists have discovered through their research. So there’s no point in disagreeing with me. If you dislike their conclusions, take it up with the researchers I cite. If I’ve made a mistake in reporting their conclusions, please point out the mistake and I will happily correct it. If you think you know better than the experts, write a paper and have it published in a respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal.

~~~

8a. Climate Change – supplement

The perfect example of what I was saying in my last video appeared soon after it was uploaded. The Internet was abuzz with a quote from Professor Phil Jones that there has been no global warming since 1995.
But is that what he actually said? Once again, we need to go to the source — Jones’s own words — rather than Internet gossip based on an interpretation of what he said. If we check the primary source, it’s a very different story. In fact, Jones and his team did detect warming since 1995. In this video I go to the source, and find out why the tabloid press got things so wrong. I have to correct part of the video where I gave an example of what an 80% statistical significance would mean (for the statisticians out there, this is a p-value of 20%). I said this would mean 80% confidence that global warming was a real, underlying trend, and not the result of background fluctuations.
While some statisticians accepted this as a broad explanation for the layperson, others felt it deviated too far from the precise meaning, which is this: =If global warming was not happening, there is only a 20% chance we would see this result.= A 90% statistical significance (if that’s what Jones achieved) of the 1995-2009 temperature data would mean If global warming was not happening, there is only a 10% chance we would see this result.

Coming soon: Parts 9, 10

Category: Science, UnScience, Video

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

2 Responses to “The Scientific Debate on Climate Change: Part 7, 8, 8a”

  1. gordonq says:

    The presenter, potholer54, is certainly intelligent and pro-climate change but he is also subject to self deception as are we all. He uses his peer reviewed sources and believes that they, using scientific method, cannot fail. He avoids thinking out-of-the-box because he has found all he needs to find to support his presuppositions and the world becomes tidy for him (tidiness seems to fit his speaking style). He needs to spend more time on reviewing the validity of prehistoric and historic temperature proxies and then relate them to the modern temperature data collection methods. Specifically, the location of temperature sensors versus the locations decades ago. He won’t go there because his world could become untidy and cloud his presuppositions.

  2. robj says:

    Ay.
    Let me see if I follow the logic here, although I’m a little afraid of what monsters I will uncover.

    I suppose that in your mental world, as opposed to the “untidy and cloudy [with] presuppositions,” there are fictional temperature sensors that you think, if they actually existed, would prove your presuppositions. And show how delusional this particular guy is, in his research in the scientific literature. How nice if you didn’t really have to read scientific literature, because it was invalid because it wasn’t based on fictional data that, if it existed, surely would invalidate it.
    Have I got it right so far? Or did I miss something important here (like data that really does exist, somewhere, in the scientific literature that people like me and and the guy you’re critiquing could actually look at and evaluate)?

    So we’re supposed to invalidate actually measured data and studies that do exist in comparison to fictional data that doesn’t exist but that, if it did exist, would surely invalidate the data that does exist, along with the scientific studies.

    Yes, I and I suspect the scientific community would be happy to look at this fictional data, if only it existed. Isn’t it a little inconvenient that it doesn’t exist, just like fairy dust that I really wish did exist?

    Pardon me if I sound a bit cruel, but who is being naive here? You and your fictional “valid” data that doesn’t apparently exist? Or this guy who at least looks at actual published papers based on temperature data and proxies? Get off your butt and go get the data and publish it. If not, then you might want to just watch these videos over and over and perhaps even over again, until something penetrates the Beck nonsense about “failable” scientific method. Of course scientific data and research can be invalidated–but it has to be invalidated by actual data, actual proxies, actual research, not by the presumption of “fictional data” that if it only existed would disprove something.

    Or, to put it bluntly, stop listening to Glen Beck and start either collecting data or doing actual research. Just whose world view is “tidy and clear” here? Him? Or is it your presumption that you somehow can invalidate science without actually “clouding” your mind with science?

    Or are you talking about faith in your beliefs? If its science versus faith, then we have a whole different terms of argument, but I was sticking to your belief in fictional data that inconveniently doesn’t exist. I think that’s the logical fallacy he’s skewering in his posts, but caveat emptor.

    Maybe it’s not necessary to come up with any other data or proxy? Just a scientific measurement of one’s cloudiness factor? I’m trying to follow the metaphor–is cloudiness a virtue because you’re cloudy and he isn’t? I agree–I think your argument is very, very cloudy. And his is (in comparison) a hell of a lot clearer. But you do win on cloudiness, hands down.