If only…
[quote=“fred smith”]2007-2009, almost three years… how many FOI requests during this time?
ClimateGate 2009 December/January 2010… these are the emails supplied from that period.
The floodgates on FOI opened AFTER ClimateGate and PRECISELY because of these dismissive, uncooperative emails requesting that key sets of data NOT be supplied and information and communication on the subject DELETED.[/quote]
Nowhere in that do I see an answer to this:
[quote=“Vay”]Now YOU explain why you think there’s a problem if ten different measures of surface temperature come up with almost exactly the same trend. And, while you’re at it, explain why you think there’s a problem with the hockey stick when it has been replicated more than ten times (actually “two dozen” is what Wikipedia says).
And re your crap about the EPA (BTW I’m totally on board with Obama’s end-run around our denialist Congress; if the EPA isn’t for regulating pollutant, what is it for?) - none of that explains how forbidding scientists from advising on their own research = “transparency”.
[/quote]
And please post your response in the “climate pseudoscandal” thread, as it is off-topic for this one.
Sorry cfImages, when I posted that “Climategate Pseudo-scandal Five Years Later” link in the other thread, I put it there specifically to keep topics separate. Fred isn’t cooperating, but I’ll try to direct any further discussion on that topic to that thread.
Awfully impressed with those “studies” which use the same undisclosed metadata to arrive at… wait for it… THE SAME conclusions! How do you suppose that happened!!!
[quote]
The fact Mann refused to disclose his ‘hockey stick’ graph metadata in the British Columbia Supreme Court, as he is required to do under Canadian civil rules of procedure, constituted a fatal omission to comply, rendering his lawsuit unwinnable. As such, Dr Ball, by default, has substantiated his now famous assertion that Mann belongs “in the state pen, not Penn. State.”
In short, Mann failed to show he did not fake his tree ring proxy data for the past 1,000 years, so Ball’s assessment stands as fair comment. Moreover, many hundreds of papers in the field of paleoclimate temperature reconstructions that cite Mann’s work are likewise tainted,
heaping more misery on the discredited UN’s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) which has a knack of relying on such sub prime science.[/quote]
[quote=“fred smith”]Awfully impressed with those “studies” which use the same undisclosed metadata to arrive at… wait for it… THE SAME conclusions! How do you suppose that happened!!!
[quote]
The fact Mann refused to disclose his ‘hockey stick’ graph metadata in the British Columbia Supreme Court, as he is required to do under Canadian civil rules of procedure, constituted a fatal omission to comply, rendering his lawsuit unwinnable. As such, Dr Ball, by default, has substantiated his now famous assertion that Mann belongs “in the state pen, not Penn. State.”
In short, Mann failed to show he did not fake his tree ring proxy data for the past 1,000 years, so Ball’s assessment stands as fair comment. Moreover, many hundreds of papers in the field of paleoclimate temperature reconstructions that cite Mann’s work are likewise tainted,
heaping more misery on the discredited UN’s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) which has a knack of relying on such sub prime science.[/quote]
principia-scientific.org/mic … lapse.html[/quote]
Um, really? Just because this denialist blog says so, that’s enough for you. Quite the internet detective, you are. How about actually looking at a single one of those studies. According to Wikipedia, the “more than two dozen reconstructions” used “various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records”. So how does that constitute “the same meta-data”?
But to make life easier on you (and knowing you’ll never look them up), none of the following are based on tree-rings, at all:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
Oh yes… and as I requested in my last post please respond in the appropriate thread. This one is about climate impacts.
hahahaaha denialist site hahahahahaah so the court case was not decided against Mann? Do the facts change depending on the site? Is he not being countersued? for 10 million? has he provided that data as required nay demanded by the courts? Ultimately, the key question is why Mann won’t share this data EVEN at the risk of losing a major court case and tens of millions of dollars in counter claims…
Yes, thanks for the Wikipedia information. Simply not enough there to determine whether these are fully independent studies and whether they relied in part on Mann’s research. Many of them have. Whether these did not? How can one tell from what you have provided?
FYI fred, metadata is ‘data about data’. It’s a description of the meaning, encoding, or representation of data. It does not mean ‘raw numbers’, which it seems from context is what the quoted writer wanted to say.
If your denialist bloggers can’t even get their terms right - nevermind basic math and physics - why are we supposed to take any of their rambling (or yours) seriously?
What puzzles me in all this, as effects of climate change and other effects of human destructive behaviour are apparent every day, what benefit would a single citizen derive from steadfastly refusing to engage with the reality on the ground (the evidence at hand) and to hold on to far-fetched notions?
Well, there is the human spirit and its capacity to prevail in the face of insurmountable odds - as described in this poem:
[quote]
Hope
We speak with the lip, and we dream in the soul,
Of some better and fairer day;
And our days, the meanwhile, to that golden goal
Are gliding and sliding away.
Now the world becomes old, now again it is young,
But “The better” 's forever the word on the tongue.
At the threshold of life hope leads us in–
Hope plays round the mirthful boy;
Though the best of its charms may with youth begin,
Yet for age it reserves its toy. [/quote]
That is to say: i can see how some people wish that the world was different and how they derive from this wish the hope that their action and agitation toward a different world view will prevail.
That is political involvement of one kind or another… and that would explain why people put energy into the idea of change to the better. To see this principle in action in the present generation, for example, we can watch the sunflower people or the umbrella people.
I don’t find it surprising to find out that there are people who put similar energy into maintaining a view about a status quo that they apparently think is good enough or perhaps just right or perhaps even represents the best of all worlds. I can imagine someone taking this position: “in whatever way and for whatever reason the climate may change, and whatever effects might arise from such changes, all this is just fine with me; I see no need to allocate resources toward trying to forestall such changes or their effects”. Harry Randall Truman comes to mind en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Randall_Truman - who can say his choice was less valuable than the choices others made?
But personal choices are just that.
The dry spell that affected Japan and Taiwan this year may be related to climate change or it need not be related. Only hindsight will tell us. But hindsight tends to be rather useless if it does not translate into foresight. 
Here’s a hypothesis: the impacts of climate change, coupled with the impacts of other destructive activities on part of humans, will look like this:
Water, and therefore food, will continue to become scarce and expensive in many parts of the world; whatever quality of life people have managed to create until recently will continue to decrease; ever increasing numbers of people will care less and resort more to deception and violence to survive (meaning, civil societies will continue to crumble and the “might-is-right” approach will gain ground); more people will get killed because of that; more and more people will move, migrate, or flee; more people will get killed because of that; there will be more and more brutal wars; more people will get killed because of that; environmental destruction will dramatically increases as result of all the foregoing; more people will get killed because of that; the pressure of diseases, epidemic or not, will increase while, concurrently, treatment options will become scarce, on account of civil society failing; more people will get killed because of that. If you tried to quantify the terror of all this it would hardly matter whether the human population were to be decimated once (translation: “after” = 10% of “before”) or decimated twice over (translation: “after” = 1% of “before”).
To make along talk short: People will get killed. Lots of us. (I’ve heard people say, “lots of them” - what an absurd detachment from reality - but, well, may they die comforted by “hope” 
)
THIS from YOU?
Edit to Metadata AND raw data. Happy?
[quote=“fred smith”]hahahaaha denialist site hahahahahaah so the court case was not decided against Mann? Do the facts change depending on the site? Is he not being countersued? for 10 million? has he provided that data as required nay demanded by the courts? Ultimately, the key question is why Mann won’t share this data EVEN at the risk of losing a major court case and tens of millions of dollars in counter claims…
Yes, thanks for the Wikipedia information. Simply not enough there to determine whether these are fully independent studies and whether they relied in part on Mann’s research. Many of them have. Whether these did not? How can one tell from what you have provided?[/quote]
As promised, I’m going to respond to this in the appropriate thread. Please stop discussing this here, as it’s interrupting another discussion.
Nice article on the state of the ice this winter, with some slightly positive news:
Positive news? Are YOU signing up to this as positive news? just curious… one imagines you would be happier seeing the Arctic melt just to prove your point 
one year away from 2016… and then years from the outside prediction of 2019… anyone here think that the Arctic will be ice-free by then?
[quote=“fred smith”]Positive news? Are YOU signing up to this as positive news? just curious… one imagines you would be happier seeing the Arctic melt just to prove your point
one year away from 2016… and then years from the outside prediction of 2019… anyone here think that the Arctic will be ice-free by then?[/quote]
Hey, positive is positive. I’d rather be wrong than be right on this issue. As for 2016-2019, like I’ve told you repeatedly, that’s one scientist, not the IPCC.
These days, seems it never rains… but it pours:
California Storm Yields Incessant Rain, Winds Over 100 MPH
I can just hear the denial chorus… ‘When there’s a drought, that’s climate change! When the drought ends, that’s climate change too!’
Where’s the emoticon for ‘trying to keep my lunch down’?
Not that this means the drought is actually over, of course. If I remember right, it’ll take several years of regular rainfall to achieve that. Still, it’s good to know Cali is getting a little relief - even if it means mud slides, power outages, floods and whatnot.
Vay, are you saying that this storm is evidence of climate change? Could you give us a bit more on this?
Why, yes, Big John, Vay, indeed, is saying, this, as well as that, is evidence of climate change.
I have saved my favorites over the years. Please use any of the items below to fill in the areas marked with four Xs to complete the sentence.
Drought
Floods
Hot weather
Cold weather
Snow
Rain
Hail
Tornadoes
Hurricanes
Typhoons
Rising seas
Forest fires
Bug infestations
Cloudy weather
Sunny weather
Overcast weather
Melting ice
Growing ice
Receding glaciers
Growing glaciers
Dying polar bears
Living polar bears
Iced-in seas
Ice-free seas
Good crop yields
Bad crop yields
Rising food prices
Dropping food prices
People who eat too much
People who don’t get enough to eat
Malaria
Dysentery
Lung disease
AIDS
Cancer
Heart disease
stroke
good comedy
bad comedy
good economic policy
bad economic policy
ocean acifification
disappearing dolphins
fat penuins
feathers that blow in the wind
dust that turns to mud in the rain
Microwave popcorn
Rust remover
lawn furniture
snow cones
snow angels
gravel
dirt
mud
volcanic ash
tsunamis
earthquakes
bad scores on a test in high school
Ugly kids who cannot get laid
Ugly kids who do get laid and have children they neither want nor can afford to raise
Taco Bell
ToysRUs
AGW predicts more extreme weather events. Assigning blame for one particular extreme weather event is problematic… but, hmm. I seem to recall an analogy about baseball players. Let’s say you’ve got a guy who’s batting a particular average, scoring however many home runs, and then he starts taking performance-enhancing drugs. Now when he’s batting a much higher average and hitting twice as many home runs can you point to any individual home run and say “aha, that specific home run is because of the drugs!” Well, not exactly, but there is a connection if you look at the overall pattern.
In the case of the California drought and then torrential rains and flooding… well, an increase in the frequency of such events is indeed what is predicted under conditions of global warming and climate change. It isn’t quite the same as saying “AGW is responsible” but when you have a pile-up of 100 year droughts or floods every few years you know something’s up.
This may be relevant: co2now.org/Know-the-Changing-Cli … ation.html
Climate change causes California drought!
[quote]Natural weather patterns, not man-made global warming, are causing the historic drought parching California, says a study out Monday from federal scientists.
“It’s important to note that California’s drought, while extreme, is not an uncommon occurrence for the state,” said Richard Seager, the report’s lead author and professor with Columbia University’s Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory. The report was sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The report did not appear in a peer-reviewed journal but was reviewed by other NOAA scientists.
“In fact, multiyear droughts appear regularly in the state’s climate record, and it’s a safe bet that a similar event will happen again,” he said.[/quote]
I’ll speak for myself, thanks. Nope. I’m saying it’s typical of what’s predicted by AGW theory, and typical of what we seem to be seeing a lot of. More extremes. Basically what Xeno said. We don’t need more evidence for climate change. It’s happening… there’s no doubt of that whatsoever. Note my signature quote from Fred.
[quote=“Fred Smith”]I have saved my favorites over the years. Please use any of the items below to fill in the areas marked with four Xs to complete the sentence…
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH…[/quote]
Prescient, no?
Well, given that exceptional weather events have happened throughout history, for various reasons, from the point of view of evidence it would probably be more persuasive to show patterns with stats rather than just point to one event. For example, warming trends are shown that way, as statistical increases in average temperature worldwide over time. So thus should drought and rainfall events.
For example, the autumn here in Taiwan was really warm. A 43 year old friend who is a serious engineer type, not a moonbeam chasing hippy, said that he thought this autumn was the warmest of his entire life. He can’t recall it ever having been 30C in mid November before. But I’d have to see the stats before I would consider this to be evidence of climate change.
Now, if you say “it fits the pattern” that doesn’t really mean anything to me, no offense meant sir. It either is or isn’t evidence of climate change. It is weather that is statistically unlikely to have occurred without anthropogenic influence, or it is just weird weather. Or it may be part of a pattern that may well be anthropogenic but needs to be shown as such by a proper statistical anaysis, IMO.