Mitchell

Re: “ indeed independent analyses have so far found the hyperbole over the leaked emails to be unfounded”

You might like to have a read of this on a parallel thread:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9947#160557

By the way, who was this -–independent-- arbiter who found the charges unfounded?

Bugsy, that is exactly the reference that I get as the second entry on Google, but there is no claim in it from Carter that global warming stopped in 1998. The headline says that, but it is not in the article, and is not consistent with the article.

Headlines are put on articles not by the author, but by a sub-editor. One of their major purposes is to get readers to look at an article. They are never reviewed by the author who doesn't see them until after the article goes into print. They cannot be attributed to the author.

If this is the basis of Q&A's claim then we can add a third area where he lacks expertise. But perhaps there is a quote from Carter where he says exactly this, so I'm prepared to wait for Q&A, but not trawl through a whole lot of Google links because he is not prepared to do the work himself.

Geoff, it is a mathematical fact that the temperature has cooled since 1998, assuming that the temperature datasets being used are accurate. There is no conflict between a cooling since 1998 and the last decade being hotter on average than the preceding one. They measure two different things. One measures what has happened during the decade and the other what has happened between decades.

I didn't say that you had cherry-picked, I said that I would say that Carter would make that accusation against you. In the video I referenced he chooses a number of different start and end points to demonstrate how trend lines can support either warming or cooling. You seem to think that choosing a start point that disagrees with your world view is cherry-picking when you attack his observation of temperature decline since 1998. You then go on to select a start point which is just as arbitrary.

But Carter picks his points to demonstrate how easy it is to come to different conclusions about direction depending on where you start and end. His point is that the variability we are experiencing is within normal tolerances.

I think that you are being a bit precious here Graham. You may blame that headline on an editor and claim that Bob Carter never claimed what it says, but none of his comments are at odds with it, indeed they are all consistent with the statement. Perhaps you should ask him who wrote the headline before making assumptions and demanding retractions by it's repetition here Graham.

Also, nowhere do I see him distancing himself from that headline on his own article or explaining the difference between what he wrote and what the headline claims. He has not written anything saying that he doesn't stand by it.

Before you claim that he doesn't have to, may I remind you that it was on his own article.

Geoff Davies says: “Science is not about truth or proof,”

That might apply to you and the Hadley gang, Geoff. Honest scientists regard truth as an indispensible element in reporting observations on how the world works.

Geoff seems to think that a starting point which shows a warming trend is valid, while a starting point which shows cooling, is “cherry picked”.

Robert Carter has explained that trends are dependent on the starting point which is chosen. A starting point of 700 years ago, gives a temperature trend which is down.

If a point of emergence from the mini ice age recently experienced by the Earth, is selected, then the trend is up, and (fortunately), the globe has warmed since that time.

The point is that from 1998 there have been no higher temperatures, and a quibble about whether warming has stopped does not mean much in practical terms.

Whatever the statistical arguments, the current warming is less than half that of the peak warming of .7 of a degree in 1998, and there are points since 1998 where global temperature has dipped into cooling.

The point of the warmists is that until the whole of the .7 of a degree is gone, some warming is still there, so technically it is not correct to say warming has stopped, but it is certainly cooler than the paltry peak temperature in 1998.

The point of the Realists is that there has been no unusual warming, and the predictions of the IPCC now appear nonsensical.

The prediction of the IPCC about glaciers in India, was certainly nonsensical, and its insertion was contrary to the IPCC assertion of a scientific base for their Summary. This is simply another example of the untrue assertions constantly exposed in the IPCC Summaries.

Geoff Davies, who claims to be a scientist, is an excellent example of the mentality which backs the warmist house of cards. Perhaps he is a postmodernist, which would explain his disdain for the truth.

I do not know what would explain his failure to withdraw his scandalous and baseless remark about Professor Robert Carter.

Once again, Leo Lane's contribution gives weight to my hypothesis that there are two cultures arguing using different languages.

Those in the science/evidence culture accept that empiricism/positivism (observation and recording of sense-data with agreed metrics) provides probabilistic statements, with more data usually increasing the probability that future observations will accord with their statements. Unfortunately, science students are drilled with notions about "the laws of physics" -Newtons Laws etc.These laws are actually "highly reliable hypotheses". Scientists might talk loosely about the truth, but the notion of "truth" is about absolute certainties, which science accepts it will never attain. The scientific culture also harbours many people living the (Russell's) paradox that they absolutely believe that nothing is absolutely believable. Resolving this paradox is not easy.

The other culture seems to be based on belief/advocacy. To them, there is no paradox to resolve- absolute truth is possible, and it is provided by an authority that is beyond the realms of reason. Their advocates presume to have a direct connection with this higher authority, and seize upon the inherent statistical variabilities in science as "proof" of the failure of science. The followers of these chief advocates seem to crave for the comfort of absolute certainty.

Milton summarised it thus:

Chaos, Umpire sits
And by Decision
More embroils the Fray
By which He reigns
Next Him, High Arbiter Chance
Governs All.

BTW if you want a cogent analysis of glacial retreat se http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/a-global-glacier-index-update/

GrahamY,

"it is a mathematical fact that the temperature has cooled since 1998". Well I said essentially the same thing to Leo Lane in the same post, except I use the NASA data in which 2005 still holds the record. So let's debate something useful. (btw, why is everyone still using the now-much-reviled Hadley data? Because it makes a better story to say cooling since 1998, rather than cooling since 2005?)

I'll leave to you the subtle distinction between "the globe has cooled since 1998" and "global warming stopped in 1998".

In the quote I gave, to which you did not respond, Carter is implying the straw-man argument that CO2 and temperature should always increase in lock-step. Climate scientists do not claim that, they know that there are important short-term effects like El Nino that cause the temperature to fluctuate around the long-term trend. How many times do we have to explain that here? So Carter is making a parody, a straw man, and knocking it down. My earlier assessment of him applies to this to.

Graham, I know what you wrote about cherry picking, I can read. You managed to slip in the implication/possibility without having to justify it. Foul Graham. Speaking of foul, Leo Lane sprays defamatory comments in all directions, and of course he's not the only one here. Of course Mr. Monckton's characterisations are among the foulest of all.

Leo Lane,
trust you to totally miss the point I was making about philosophy of science, and twist it to say I'm not an honest scientist, in other words a liar. And then to claim I have "disdain for the truth". Bye.