For those with only a limited grasp of statistical regression and standard deviations -- that term has no know relevance to Craig Thomson, by the way -- these emails obtained under an FOI request by Climate Audit supporter Mike Kottek make fascinating reading all the same. Just to whet the appetite, know that they are the formerly private emails between Karoly, Gergis and sundry other settled scientists, reporters, publicists, spinners and editors of scientific publications, all passing this way and that as the researchers' claim that Australia has never been hotter fell very publicly to pieces.
This particular .pdf, one of five, takes ages to download and the presentation of the emails in contains is somewhat chaotic, with one even presented upside down. But after an hour's perusal the initial impression at the Billabong is that quite a few people need to be asked some very hard questions. The emails make it clear that we cannot expect impartiality from reporters, who figure as sympathetic players in several notes, so the investigation should probably be conducted by a Senate committee or somesuch, preferably with the power to exact sworn testimony.
There is much to be learned in these emails of the way the Climate Establishment works. The greater number of eager eyes picking through them, the more comprehensive the resulting picture will be.
So if you have the time, dig in. There is a stack of good, shocking stuff.
This is amusing:ReplyDelete
"Karoly noted (08:54 Melbourne; 00:54 Swiss) that some of the correlations were now flipped"
Will try and give layman's. There's a good way (detrended temperature) and a not so good way (non-detrended temperature) of deducing the correlation of the proxy (tree ring, ice core, coral etc) with real temperature. When we say correlation we mean "for a given change in the proxy how does that construe to an actual temperature change".
When they did it the good way they found the correlation was actually reversed from when they did it the not so good way! Say for example (just making it up to demonstrate), the first time they might have interpreted enhanced coral growth to mean warming, but the second time they interpreted the same thing to mean cooling.
It just goes to show how flaky the whole business is when the same proxy can be taken to correlate both negatively and positively when both methods should find the correlation to _at least_ be in the same direction.
See Ailie Gallant in her previous music video "It's All About The Phlogiston, Baby!"ReplyDelete
Will the Macquarie Dictionary please add a new example of 'oxymoron' = 'climate scientist'.ReplyDelete
No redefinition neccessary. A climate scientist is a 'carboxymoron'.Delete
That Hungry Beast video is definitely not trying to appeal to those who have a functioning brain. Perhaps their target audience were vans full ofReplyDelete
Well once you are a "believer" all you look for and find is stuff that supports your religion. It doesn't take a conspiracy just individual belief and you get the Great Climate Change Hoax along with its priests and acolytes and a steady income stream from the establishment as it is the one true religion.ReplyDelete
The Church of Climate Scientology.