I read this on the Register yesterday. The
I read this on the Register yesterday. The
Why aren't we allowed to see absolute temperature plots?
Why are all the available graphs of temperature "anomalies"?
What's so great about 1961-1990 that all other temperatures should be compared to that?
Why aren't the anomalies across 1961-1990 zero?
Is someone afraid that if we see absolute temperature plots we will draw the "wrong" conclusions, i.e. anything other than what the IPCC continues to be paid billions to spout?
(unless there's something more formal in NZ law about accusation; maybe you can't formally accuse without evidence or something, in which case this is a lot less of a problem than the article makes out. IANANZL(IFINEAUKL).)
Just accuse back. Then your accuser will also be disconnected, and it'll be considerably worse for them as a company than for you as an individual.
When you are asked for proof you've got them, because if proof is needed before your accusers can be disconnected then you have ample grounds for demanding equal treatment, i.e. proof against you before your disconnection can take place.
So the other day I messaged another admin from the console using the regular old 'write' command (as I've been doing for over 10 years). To my surprise he didn't know how to respond back to me (he had to call me on the phone) and had never even known you could do that. That got me thinking that there's probably lots of things like that, and likely things I've never heard of. What sorts of things do you take for granted as a natural part of Unix that other people are surprised at?
> uses phrases like "very high confidence" and "very likely".
No it doesn't. It states definitely and unambiguously (at least in the summary): "...have increased markedly...".
So the summary is at best misleading, if the rest of the report uses phrases like that.
It's a very interesting report. I'm not saying that from having read it in full, but I looked at the Summary For Policy Makers, specifically "Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750" (because that's all that any policy maker who trusts the IPCC will do), and the References; disregarding all IPCC references as this paper is presented as new information not a rehash of old, of which the only fact-based source (as opposed to other IPCC docs and administrative stuff like glossaries and unit definitions) is Heim, R.R., 2002: A Review of Twentieth-Century Drought Indices Used in the United States.
So there's no data covering 60% of the Summary time period mentioned (i.e. no data for 1750-1900), and the only data is about US-only droughts from 1900 to 2000. Actually on second thoughts that's not necessarily data, just a review of the drought indices (whatever they are), which might mean it doesn't talk about drought data at all.
Even taking into account the IPCC references I couldn't find any actual facts.
So from potentially no facts at all, they conclude that carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750? How does that work then? If there are actual facts, why aren't they listed in the References, and why didn't any of about 594 reviewers (18 names in the first column, 3 columns, 11 pages) spot this? It's true that I'm not a trained scientist (mine was an engineering degree) so maybe there's something lacking in my reviewing technique, maybe scientific docs don't list references in the References section or something.
Perhaps I should have read the whole thing. But if someone asks you if their C code is standards compliant, and presents you with 100,000,000 lines of code that start with "void main", then you already know after only 9 bytes that the answer is "no".
There's a very interesting documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle. If you're interested, grab the torrent and have a look. The most memorable comment in this for me was "1. the simplicity of the [anthropogenic warming] argument and 2. the complete disregard of all climate science up to that point".
"Several hundred scientific contributors and co-authors". Hmm. Annex 2, 13 names in the first column, 3 columns, 13 pages plus 1 column. The next chapter lists the reviewers. So that's about 520 contributors, NOT counting reviewers. It would be interesting to know what individual contributions were, perhaps if we take half a dozen each, we could collectively email them all and ask them politely how they contributed and what their backgrounds are?
Consider the postage stamp: its usefulness consists in the ability to stick to one thing till it gets there. -- Josh Billings