Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Neil · Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:45 pm Post subject:

Yes.
"Nullius in Verba" (Latin: "On the words of no one"),
Motto of the Royal Society until the warming consensus people took over & de effectively changed it to the anodyne "respect the facts".

Also immediately acknowledge when you are wrong, rather than trying to hide it as Mann did or blustering & denying as alarmists have on this thread - for example on whether the hockey Stick had been proven fraudulent.

_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

SLG · Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:48 pm Post subject:

I don't think Mann has denied that he has made mistakes. Mistakes should be learnt from and used to further progress in a field, not used as an excuse to discount an entire subject area that you happen to disagree with.

Neil · Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:57 pm Post subject:

The fact that Mann hid the algorithms he used shows that (A) it was deliberate, not a mistake & (B) he was actively not interested in learning from McIntyre.

If a scientist doesn't agree with a theory then it is perfectly proper to point out, when it is proven wrong, that that tends to support the idea that it is entirely wrong. Otherwise you are getting into the realm of the ever gtowing number of epicycles that was used to "correct" the theory that the Sun orbits the Earth. Galilleo was perfectly right to point to this as a reason to junk the theory for the theory that the Earth is the one in orbit. If theories can never be junked merely because they are proven wrong progress will be prevented.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

SLG · Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:04 pm Post subject:

Ok, let me put it anther way, the mistakes of one scientist should not be used to discount a theory. I think Screegor has shown that once the lessons of McIntyre et al have been accounted for, the conclusions that have come out of Mann's work still stands based on the best data an models available at the moment.

Neil · Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:53 pm Post subject:

I thought he hadn't.

Even before McIntyre's subsequent proof, accepted by the US authorities, that the US data showing 1998 as the warmest year had been corrupted by a fault in the compoter programme & the warmest year was actually 1934 & the warmest decade the 1930s. With that gone as well there really is nothing left.

As refered to above.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

SLG · Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:51 pm Post subject:

Neil · Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:49 am Post subject:

It is clear that there is no evidence whatsoever that would convince Screegor&/orSLG that there is insufficient evidence that we face an imminent catastrophe of massive warming, nor that there is any evidence, other than an actual trend of real warming beyond historic parameters combined with experimental evidence showing that geo-engineering solutions wouldn't work that would convince me.

That being the case we are limited to sort of "yah boo" stuff shown in the above post.

As I suggested on a previous occasion I will refrain from commenting until there is some further evidence I can post up (eg if McIntyre goes through the computer programmes for the rest of the world & finds them equally false or, on the other hand, if 2007 turns out to indeed be the warmest year on record, as predicted earlier in this thread or Holland disappears under the sea this year as predicted by the Guardian & refered to earlier).

I trust readers will accept, from my posts last week, that I have demonstrated I would be willing to post new proof either way
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

SLG · Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 11:37 pm Post subject:

Chris · On A Journey (500 Miles) Joined: 16 Jun 2007 Posts: 23

it is quite interesting that this discussion has continued on. At this point, I wouldn't waste time on Neil. He has clearly made up his mind on bad evidence and continues to refer to wingnut sources, when everything he says is wrong.

The latest IPCC synthesis report is now available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf which sums up the current state of understanding. I also attended a scientific conference over the past few days, with 16 hours (over 2 days) of lectures on climate change, and solutions to the problem. Being surrounded by scientists and professors in various related fields, as well as economists, policy makers etc I quikcly learned there is a much different tone between the public blogs and forums, and the conclusions by the scientific community0 global warming is happening, and we're doing it.

Screegor · Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:57 pm Post subject:

Hey Chris. Maybe we are the same person too!
Much like me and SLG are also alledgedly the same person too.
Oh the conspiracy there to confuse Neil!!

Nice report, although I need to read the whole thing, as some of the graphs seem highly averaged and I would like to know the breakdown. Escpecially the continent by continent temperature trends. I haven't seen that before.....

...and yes, your conclusion is right. The forums and programs etc. are 10 years behind the poisiton of the scientists. ALthough they are in all science subjects.
_________________
Holebender (2007):
"Now I remember why I undertook never to respond to Neil some time last year. He's a dick."

Screegor · Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:55 pm Post subject:

This is a good site that summarises pretty much everything me and CHris have been saying in this thread. It clearly explains the areas of uncertainty - linking to real science and data.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
_________________
Holebender (2007):
"Now I remember why I undertook never to respond to Neil some time last year. He's a dick."

Neil · Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:10 pm Post subject:

OK Screegor, as a top scientist jetting around the world it is surprising you didn't check your link. It says "It is certainly true that Earth has experienced some extremes that were warmer than today" which I have repeatedly said was the case & you lot have denied.

It is not enough that i have repeatedly caught you lying - now you have caught yourself lying.

In fact, if you look at the article it is essentially a piece of propaganda fluff. An alarmist article which quietly admits that it has been warmer in the past & cannot even bring itaelf to try to explain why temperature has declined since 1998 is unworthy of the note of serious scientist.
-----------------------
Now to the evidence that brought me back.

Earlier in the year I was advised that the fact that all the years since 1998 had been cooler was merely a series of outliers & that 2007is predicted to be warmer - so there.

Well

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 996

I suppose there must have been some folk still insisting that the world was flat even after the first round-the-world voyages. I suppose there must have been some folk still saying that these weatherbeaten sailors disembarking from weatherbeaten boats were "liars". I suppose there must have been folk like Neil back then. He dismisses scientific evidence as "propaganda fluff", and one article as "an alarmist article which quietly admits that it has been warmer in the past".

I suppose there must have been folk back then seizing on some alleged discrepancy in the tales of round-the-world sailors.

Yes, there have been warmer periods in the Earth's history. But the Earth reached those warmer temperatures by very gradually getting warmer. The important point to note about today's climate change is not the temperatures reached so far (right now, it's bloody cold here) but that the global rate of change is, on all the evidence available to us, far faster than anything that has ever happened in the past.

In other words, the reason for thinking we are heading for a crash is not just our present speed, but our rate of acceleration. If we continue to accelerate at this rate, then we will very rapidly (in geological terms) overtake all previous warmer periods in the Earth's history.

Neil · Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:16 pm Post subject:

Dave you should read the previous posts. The whole tenor of the eco-liars case hertofore has been that the Medieval, late Roman & Holocene warming were NOT warmer than today. You are therefore agreeing, albeit inadvertently, with me.

Your explorers anlogy is an interesting one. Columbus died proclaiming that he had reached China & that the total failure of of the inhabitants of the various Carribean islands he expolired to be Chinese, was merely a series of anomalies & outliers. We are now on our 9th year of such anomalies.

More tragicly & more aptly since it involves lying & political corectness, was the explorations for "El Dorado". A Spaniard left to die in the South American jungle came back & presumably being slightly miffed, told his companions about a city built of gold that he had been taken to. Spanish society & government, which was running short of the earlier finds of gold that had made them rich, was even more enthusiastic than people normally are about gold. Many many expeditions went into the jungle but, of those that returned, all reported merely "anomalous" jungle. It took seveeral centuries & thousands of deaths before sceptics, like me, were able to convince people that it was made up.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

Screegor · Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 11:31 pm Post subject:

Firstly I must congratulate you for being responsible for finding South America. You should add that to your C.V.

Neil · Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 12:57 pm Post subject:

You are right part of the article you are upholding as the fount of knowledge does say that. In the other section I mentioned it does say

SLG · Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 2:22 pm Post subject:

Screegor · Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 2:45 pm Post subject:

Neil · Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:15 pm Post subject:

SLG · Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:45 pm Post subject: