The Hockey Schtick points to a study on Pennsylvania temperatures that illustrates a point I have been making for a while:
A new SPPI paper examines the raw and adjusted historical temperature records for Pennsylvania and finds the mean temperature trend from 1895 to 2009 to be minus .08°C/century, but after unexplained adjustments the official trend becomes positive .7°C/century. The difference between the raw and adjusted data exceeds the .6°C/century in global warming claimed for the 20th century.
I think people are too quick to jump onto the conspiracy bandwagon and paint these adjustments as scientists forcing the outcome they want. In fact, as I have written before, some of these adjustments (such as adjustments for changes in time of observation) are essential. Some, such as how the urbanization adjustments are done (or not done) are deeply flawed. But the essential point is that the signal to noise ratio here is really really low. The signal we are trying to measure (0.6C or so of warming) is smaller than the noise, even ignoring measurement and other errors.
Part of being a skeptic is to actually read what people say. It turns out that those thinking of the latest Parliamentary look at the CRU as an exoneration should check a bit more:
“Oxburgh replied:
Look, our concern was not primarily with the emails, other people are looking at that. Our concern was with the published record of the group. And we went back well over 20 years looking at their publications, right up to the present day. Then we spent something like 15 person-days interviewing and talking to the people um in detail. It’s absolutely and transparently clear that they were… uh, in their published science, they were honest. I think that sometimes all sorts of people say silly things in emails. When these things are looked at afterwards, frequently people don’t have the full story, they don’t know what was said on the telephone or letters or in other ways in between. And I think that some of the sceptical comment was in fact justified, and some of it was just plain nasty and ill-informed.”
This may be, to Lord Oxbugh’s credit, a more sophisticated and realistic review than the AGW community had hoped. The review was extremely limited, as has been pointed out elsewhere. But it is certainly not clearing the CRU of anything.
If this turns into a real review of the CRU, then I am more than happy to admit to be wrong.
Hunter
you write: ‘The report that you linked to is the one that I pointed is five pages and…’
Wanna rephrase that?
you say: ‘led by a man who makes his money promoting AGW based investments’
The UEA doesn’t seem to see any conflict of interest. Why would they perpetuate the lie?
Anyhow, you think there would be a conflict in interest re. Oxburgh, and then you estimate that he is giving a more ‘realistic’ response later on. Sounds like maybe he cares somewhat for giving an honest review. Do you trust him or not?
The panel were not all climate scientists. Why would they put their careers on the line? Does Oxburgh have ’em by the balls somehow?
Shills,
I think Judith Curry has made an interesting statement:
‘I am no longer substituting the IPCC’s judgement for my own judgement on this matter’.
Since the UEA receives millions in grants via the CRU, why would they not avoid admission of conflict of interest?
They would not be the first in the line of institutions that supported fraud.
Oxburgh does make money promoting AGW investments. He is conflicted. he should not have reviewed this matter, or if he did, it should have been broad and thorough. It was neither.
As for my last post, I stated my position clearly: If this turns into an actual review of the CRU and a full credible audit of their work and their e-mails, I am more than happy to admit I am wrong. That review has not yet been done according to the author of the latest report. If that review is done, would you be willing to admit you have been wrong?
Tee-hee-hee. I think now poor old hunter is really pissed. It’s adorable.
But hunter, I simply do not understand how you think the CRU was found guilty in any context except for a small lack of transparency which is standard practice, a practice which the House of Commons recommends be changed. Even your Lord there says,
****”It’s absolutely and transparently clear that they were… uh, in their published science, they were honest.”
As for Pielke’s polite and respectful exchange, his main point that not enough information is known about the phenomena of oceanic heat transfer. I’ve simplified it, but that is essentially what he says.
I suspect you are spending your time looking for a one-two knockout punch that just is not there. You would do infinitely better on these boards if you spent your time actually looking at the science and policy material instead of trying to prove AGW is a hoax or whatever it is you’re trying to prove (usually it has something to do with unsubstantiated charges of monetary gain, your constant fall-back).
And, hunter, you will never, ever, under any circumstance, no matter what evidence is unearthed, admit that you have been wrong. I am quite sure you are constitutionally unable to do so.
Lol hunter. What are the universities out there that have consciously harboured a scam like this for money? And how many investigations did it take to realise this?
Curry. She is well into the climate science field right? Surely she should know how this scam is working. When is she going to tell us and save us the billions in waisted developments?
Wladotroll and Shill,
So your answer is ‘no’?
Waldotroll,
The trick of yours to ignore disagreeable quotes and facts is well practiced, by the way.
There is no one-two knockout for popular manias. The process seems to be that people buy in to popular manias in groups, and come to their senses one by one.
As to who is admitting wrong or right, I have made my position known. Declining to answer on the grounds that you reject my stated position is an interesting but predictable way to avoid the question yourself.
hunter, you must realize, even if what you posted above is true, that you ignore a massive amount of information you don’t like, some of it posted right here, while you go hunting for information that you do like, usually on the UK Guardian or another blog. You do realize you do this, right? Pot meet kettle if I ever saw it.
Perhaps you could be clearer what you are referring to here, I did not quite follow which report you were referring to:
***”that review has not yet been done according to the author of the latest report. If that review is done, would you be willing to admit you have been wrong?”
Perhaps. But I am pretty sure I am right and you are wrong on virtually every count on these threads.
Waldotroll,
Anytime you have defended the idea that a climate crisis caused by CO2 is either underway or at hand, you have been wrong.
We are only talking about the Oxburgh report. Certainly that is not too difficult to follow, is it?
If another report is ever done- one that is comprehensive and full, would you be willing to accept results even if they do not support your faith?
Do you even follow these threads at all?
Skeptics openly discuss and point out problems in issues.
Trolls/true beleivers simply dismiss out of hand things they do not like.
As you are still doing irt the missing heat, for just one example.
Waldumbfuck,
“But no, I did not realize you were talking about “the hockey stick” above; you simply used the term “data.” Specifics count.”
Lets see, I was specifically referencing the findings of investigation of Phil Jones, maybe by saying data/methods, I’m talking mostly about things done by Phil Jones and work on similar subjects. No, I wasn’t talking about GISS. That is but one set of data among many. And to determine the true historical significance of the used to be warming, we have to go back way before GISS data. Sorry I wasn’t perfectly clear. But its pretty easy to confuse your small brain, plus you have a knack for reading what you want to read. So I don’t particularly care what you realized or not. Then of course, I was also mostly quoting the investigation itself. I didn’t see them make a clear distinction of exactly what data/methods they were talking about. But gosh, I don’t draw you a perfect little map and you get all bent out of shape. The point was not that ALL data isn’t shared and available, but that much of it is. Only a fool would point to one data source and say, “see look this data is available so you’re lying,” when the field of climate research goes so much further than one data set.
“Ah yes, Wally, the unfounded, un-cited “blind accusation” – not much fun is it? You do realize how much denialist rhetoric is founded on just such “blind accusatons”?”
Oh just how much all knowing Waldo? 50%, 80%, 2%? You display a nice amount of irony here. You make a blind accusation about blind accusations. And then later you pretend I’m the troll? I’m the one “lying?” Oh gosh, coming from a guy like you I’m SOOO worried.
“Plus you could not have provided a better example of expert knowledge vs. layperson misunderstanding than this funny “HFCS” conversation developing. Ironic, that.”
Exactly how? He may have been misinformed, but in truth both sides of the HFCS debate have their “experts” to fall back on. Plus, I am not a diabetes expert, but it is fairly close to my field. So what is your point exactly? That I should shut up too?
“And yes, I perfectly well realize that you have cherry-picked a number of passages from the document in question which maybe, just maybe, misrepresent the content and intent of the investigation.”
Yes, I cherry picked pretty much every direct quote found in official press releases….if that’s “cherry picking” I’d like to see you do something that doesn’t qualify as “cherry picking.”
“Now, I did use the gerund of the verb “to lie” above (rather than “posit” or “suggest” or “argue,” etc.) because I believe, Wally, that a man of your intellect and training cannot be unaware of the mass amounts of data, like the GISS link netdr posted, available to anyone with an Internet connection. Rather, I think you choose to argue that this information is withheld from the general public or perhaps you think those of us who disagree with you are too stupid or are too gullible to check up on what you say.”
Are you fucking delusional? I quoted the investigation into Jones which said they didn’t publish their data/methods as they should have and that much of the field has been guilty of this as well. There is no lie. And if there is, it isn’t mine, its that of The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, not me. Do I have to repost the quote? Here:
“Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia, was acting “in line with common practice in the climate science community” when he refused to share his raw data and computer codes with critics. ”
It goes on: >The MPs called on scientists to “become more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies”. They recommended that the Government review the rules on the accessibility of data.
Phil Willis, the committee’s Liberal Democrat chairman, told The Times: “There is no reason why Professor Jones should not resume his post. He was certainly not co-operative with those seeking to get data, but that was true of all the climate scientists.”<
I do not believe a reasonable and objective reading of the press could lead someone to think I'm cherry-picking. It sounds to me that they didn't like what they found, but don't want to cut Jones out for what ever reason. Maybe they believe that this report can encourage climate researchers to change their ways without firings or that the things done by Phil Jones, while regrettable, are not worthy of a firing. And further to pretend that I'm cherry picking the one or two quotes that are critical of Jones, the CRU and climate researchers is plainly idiotic.
HUnter
‘Wladotroll and Shill,
So your answer is ‘no’?’
Nah. Mine is yes. But I predict ‘credible’ is gonna be a hard one to agree on.
So what are the other uni’s that have supported fraud like you allege is happening with UEA and CRU?
Shills,
Perhaps I should reclarify what I have been saying, since you seemed confused about my position.
Unlike AGW believers, I do not think there is a grand conspiracy to commit fraud about the climate.
I think AGW- the idea that Earth is experiencing even now the early stages of a global climate catastrophe caused by CO2- is a popular delusion and mania. The errors are of the same sort one gets when proving their religious beliefs or political beliefs. Confirmation bias, a bit of fooling around, etc.
That you seem to sincerely believe that what was exposed in climategate is Okey-dokey indicates a strong ability to deceive yourself.
That you have chosen to believe that what has happened in the world climate record of the last ~150 years is as AGW promoters tell you it is shows a willingness to accept powers of suggestion.
Wally,
Here is the inspiration behind Waldotroll:
“Campaign for Climate Change (CACC)
Skeptic Alerts
Are you fed up with sceptics and pseudo-scientists dominating blogs and news articles with their denialist propaganda? Well, fight back! We are trying to create an online army of online volunteers to try and tip the balance back in the favour of scientific fact, not scientific fiction… You will receive one e-mail alert per day containing links to various climate change news articles.”
His visits here coincide neatly with this movement.
Waldo is a troll on a mission.
Waldo,
By the way,
Is Dr. Curry now a paid denialist, or is she no longer a scientist?
Methinks the Wally doth protest too much.
I caught you cherry-red-handed, Wallman, and you know it. That’s why you’re flipping out. I’ll say it one more time, you would hardly be a cool breeze if you were in the cross-hairs of the deniosphere.
Then, my droogy, you write this:
*****”It sounds to me that they didn’t like what they found, but don’t want to cut Jones out for what ever reason. Maybe they believe that this report can encourage climate researchers to change their ways without firings or that the things done by Phil Jones, while regrettable, are not worthy of a firing.”
Which is pure unsubstantiated rationalization, Wally, for why the report exonerated Jones and the CRU. Pure unsubstantiated rationalization. Unhindered and unfounded conjecture. Nowhere does the committee indicate any of this.
But this…
“And further to pretend that I’m cherry picking the one or two quotes that are critical of Jones, the CRU and climate researchers is plainly idiotic.”
Is simply denial, my man. It’s all upstairs. Take a look. Wally, for all your protestations, you epitomize the ethos of the deniosphere.
Just so there is no misunderstanding, hunter, and no cherry-picking, Wally, this is the complete…
Report of the International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to
examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit.
Introduction
1. The Panel was set up by the University in consultation with the Royal Society
to assess the integrity of the research published by the Climatic Research Unit
in the light of various external assertions. The Unit is a very small academic
entity within the School of Environmental Sciences. It has three full time and
one part time academic staff members and about a dozen research associates,
PhD students and support staff. The essence of the criticism that the Panel was
asked to address was that climatic data had been dishonestly selected,
manipulated and/or presented to arrive at pre-determined conclusions that
were not compatible with a fair interpretation of the original data. The
members of the Panel are listed in Appendix A at the end of this report.
2. The Panel was not concerned with the question of whether the conclusions of
the published research were correct. Rather it was asked to come to a view on
the integrity of the Unit’s research and whether as far as could be determined
the conclusions represented an honest and scientifically justified interpretation
of the data. The Panel worked by examining representative publications by
members of the Unit and subsequently by making two visits to the University
and interviewing and questioning members of the Unit. Not all the panel were
present on both occasions but two members were present on both occasions to
maintain continuity. About fifteen person/days were spent at the University
discussing the Unit’s work.
3. The eleven representative publications that the Panel considered in detail are
listed in Appendix B. The papers cover a period of more than twenty years and
were selected on the advice of the Royal Society. All had been published in
international scientific journals and had been through a process of peer review.
CRU agreed that they were a fair sample of the work of the Unit. The Panel
was also free to ask for any other material that it wished and did so.
Individuals on the panel asked for and reviewed other CRU research materials.
4. The Panel’s work began with a detailed reading of the published work. Every
paper was read by a minimum of three Panel members at least one of whom
was familiar with the general area to which the paper related. At least one of
the other two was a generalist with no special climate science expertise but
with experience of some of the general techniques and methods employed in
the work. Most of the members of the Panel read all the publications. The
publications provided a platform from which to gain a deeper understanding of
the Unit’s research and enabled the Panel to probe particular questions in more
detail.
2
5. Broadly the work of the Unit falls into two parts:
· Construction and interpretation of tree ring chronologies extending
over some thousands of years with a view to gaining information about
past climates:
· Studies of temperatures over the last few hundred years from direct
observations.
Dendroclimatology
1. Tree growth is sensitive to very many factors including climate. By piecing
together growth records from different trees, living or dead, it is possible to
determine the temporal variation of growth patterns going back many
hundreds of years. The dendroclimatological work at CRU seeks to go beyond
this and to extract from the dated growth patterns the local and regional history
of temperature variations. The Unit does virtually no primary data acquisition
but has used data from published archives and has collaborated with people
who have collected data.
2. The main effort of the dendroclimalogists at CRU is in developing ways to
extract climate information from networks of tree ring data. The data sets are
large and are influenced by many factors of which temperature is only one.
This means that the effects of long term temperature variations are masked by
other more dominant short term influences and have to be extracted by
statistical techniques. The Unit approaches this task with an independent
mindset and awareness of the interplay of biological and physical processes
underlying the signals that they are trying to detect.
3. Although inappropriate statistical tools with the potential for producing
misleading results have been used by some other groups, presumably by
accident rather than design, in the CRU papers that we examined we did not
come across any inappropriate usage although the methods they used may not
have been the best for the purpose. It is not clear, however, that better methods
would have produced significantly different results. The published work also
contains many cautions about the limitations of the data and their
interpretation.
4. Chronologies (transposed composites of raw tree data) are always work in
progress. They are subject to change when additional trees are added; new
ways of data cleaning may arise (e.g. homogeneity adjustments), new
measurement methods are used (e.g. of measuring ring density), new statistical
methods for treating the data may be developed (e.g. new ways of allowing for
biological growth trends).
5. This is illustrated by the way CRU check chronologies against each other; this
has led to corrections in chronologies produced by others. CRU is to be
commended for continuously updating and reinterpreting their earlier
chronologies.
3
6. With very noisy data sets a great deal of judgement has to be used. Decisions
have to be made on whether to omit pieces of data that appear to be aberrant.
These are all matters of experience and judgement. The potential for
misleading results arising from selection bias is very great in this area. It is
regrettable that so few professional statisticians have been involved in this
work because it is fundamentally statistical. Under such circumstances there
must be an obligation on researchers to document the judgemental decisions
they have made so that the work can in principle be replicated by others.
7. CRU accepts with hindsight that they should have devoted more attention in
the past to archiving data and algorithms and recording exactly what they did.
At the time the work was done, they had no idea that these data would assume
the importance they have today and that the Unit would have to answer
detailed inquiries on earlier work. CRU and, we are told, the tree ring
community generally, are now adopting a much more rigorous approach to the
archiving of chronologies and computer code. The difficulty in releasing
program code is that to be understood by anyone else it needs time-consuming
work on documentation, and this has not been a top priority.
8. After reading publications and interviewing the senior staff of CRU in depth,
we are satisfied that the CRU tree-ring work has been carried out with
integrity, and that allegations of deliberate misrepresentation and unjustified
selection of data are not valid. In the event CRU scientists were able to give
convincing answers to our detailed questions about data choice, data handling
and statistical methodology. The Unit freely admits that many data analyses
they made in the past are superseded and they would not do things that way
today.
9. We have not exhaustively reviewed the external criticism of the
dendroclimatological work, but it seems that some of these criticisms show a
rather selective and uncharitable approach to information made available by
CRU. They seem also to reflect a lack of awareness of the ongoing and
dynamic nature of chronologies, and of the difficult circumstances under
which university research is sometimes conducted. Funding and labour
pressures and the need to publish have meant that pressing ahead with new
work has been at the expense of what was regarded as non-essential record
keeping. From our perspective it seems that the CRU sins were of omission
rather than commission. Although we deplore the tone of much of the criticism
that has been directed at CRU, we believe that this questioning of the methods
and data used in dendroclimatology will ultimately have a beneficial effect and
improve working practices
Temperatures from Historical Instrumental Records
1. The second main strand of work at CRU has been the collection and collation
of instrumental land temperature records from all over the world and the
construction of regional, hemispherical and global scale temperature records.
These records are irregularly distributed in space and time. Modern records
come largely from land-based meteorological stations but their geographical
distribution is uneven and strongly biased in favour of the northern hemisphere
4
where most of the Earth’s land masses are located. Oceans cover two thirds of
the Earth’s surface and away from the main shipping routes coverage is thin.
For earlier centuries the record is much sparser. Deriving estimates of past
temperatures on a global, hemispheric and regional scale from incomplete data
sets is one of the problems faced by the Unit and in consequence an important
current interest is the discovery of useable old temperature records from a
variety of sources.
2. In the latter part of the 20th century CRU pioneered the methods for taking into
account a wide range of local influences that can make instrumental records
from different locations hard to compare. These methods were very labour
intensive and were somewhat subjective. Much of this work was supported by
the US Department of Energy and was published with the details of station
corrections several times a year. Since the 1980s the Unit has done no more of
this work and have concentrated on the merging and interpretation of data
series corrected by others. There have been various analyses of similar
publicly available data sets by different international groups. Although there
are some differences in fine detail that reflect the differences in the analytical
methods used, the results are very similar.
3. The Unit has devoted a great deal of effort to understanding how instrumental
observations are best combined to derive the surface temperature on a variety
of time and space scales. It has become apparent from a number of studies that
there is elevation of the surface temperature in and around large cities and
work is continuing to understand this fully.
4. Like the work on tree rings this work is strongly dependent on statistical
analysis and our comments are essentially the same. Although there are
certainly different ways of handling the data, some of which might be
superior, as far as we can judge the methods which CRU has employed are fair
and satisfactory. Particular attention was given to records that seemed
anomalous and to establishing whether the anomaly was an artefact or the
result of some natural process. There was also the challenge of dealing with
gaps in otherwise high quality data series. In detailed discussion with the
researchers we found them to be objective and dispassionate in their view of
the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a
particular agenda. Their sole aim was to establish as robust a record of
temperatures in recent centuries as possible. All of the published work was
accompanied by detailed descriptions of uncertainties and accompanied by
appropriate caveats. The same was true in face to face discussions.
5. We believe that CRU did a public service of great value by carrying out much
time-consuming meticulous work on temperature records at a time when it was
unfashionable and attracted the interest of a rather small section of the
scientific community. CRU has been among the leaders in international efforts
to determining the overall uncertainty in the derived temperature records and
where work is best focussed to improve them.
5
6. The Unit has demonstrated that at a global and hemispheric scale temperature
results are surprisingly insensitive to adjustments made to the data and the
number of series included.
7. Recent public discussion of climate change and summaries and
popularizations of the work of CRU and others often contain oversimplifications
that omit serious discussion of uncertainties emphasized by the
original authors. For example, CRU publications repeatedly emphasize the
discrepancy between instrumental and tree-based proxy reconstructions of
temperature during the late 20th century, but presentations of this work by the
IPCC and others have sometimes neglected to highlight this issue. While we
find this regrettable, we could find no such fault with the peer-reviewed papers
we examined
Conclusions
1. We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work
of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely
that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if
slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of
public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures
were rather informal.
2. We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that
depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close
collaboration with professional statisticians. Indeed there would be mutual
benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a
much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of
temperature specialists.
3. It was not the immediate concern of the Panel, but we observed that there were
important and unresolved questions that related to the availability of
environmental data sets. It was pointed out that since UK government adopted
a policy that resulted in charging for access to data sets collected by
government agencies, other countries have followed suit impeding the flow of
processed and raw data to and between researchers. This is unfortunate and
seems inconsistent with policies of open access to data promoted elsewhere in
government.
4. A host of important unresolved questions also arises from the application of
Freedom of Information legislation in an academic context. We agree with the
CRU view that the authority for releasing unpublished raw data to third parties
should stay with those who collected it.
Submitted to the University 12 April 2010
6
Addendum to report, 19 April 2010
For the avoidance of misunderstanding in the light of various press stories, it is
important to be clear that the neither the panel report nor the press briefing intended to
imply that any research group in the field of climate change had been deliberately
misleading in any of their analyses or intentionally exaggerated their findings.
Rather, the aim was to draw attention to the complexity of statistics in this field, and
the need to use the best possible methods.
At Hunter,
You say: ‘Unlike AGW believers, I do not think there is a grand conspiracy to commit fraud about the climate… The errors are of the same sort one gets when proving their religious beliefs or political beliefs. Confirmation bias, a bit of fooling around, etc.’
Okay. So what kind of conspiracy is it if your claims of peer-review process hijacking, data-concealing/ destroying, greed-indulging are true? You don’t believe these or do you?
Again, What uni’s support scams of this level?
Was this intended for me?: ‘Is Dr. Curry now a paid denialist, or is she no longer a scientist?’
She does not deny much. She merely thinks, I believe, that the IPCC is flawed in wg2 and 3, but wg1 is fine but has too high confidence. It is fair enough if she says that but perhaps she should release a paper on the subject to substantiate her claims?
What about Dr. Curry, hunter? She’s a real scientist. I intend to listen to her. I do not intend to give her any more weight than any of the other qualified scientists out there, pro and con, but I’m willing to listen.
I know that this will never, ever pierce your hardened skull, but I am an agnostic as far as AGW goes. I do not know if it is a real phenomena or not. I do suspect that Dr. Curry is simply another outlayer in the global conversation. But sure, she’s legit – I have no qualms.
What I’m curious about, hunter, is how you see things.
You do realize that you dismiss out of hand scientists with equal or even better qualifications than Curry, but you immediately cite Curry as an example of a scientist who is on the mark – or did I misread your intention? Why would you follow Curry over Jones or Mann? All are qualified scientists – why do you believe one scientist over all the others?
(Note, I don’t expect an honest or cogent answer from hunter, but I did want this problem posed.)
Waldotroll,
A university which profits directly from its research unit hires a guy who profits from the work done by the research unit in question to review 11 papers from this unit out of hundreds selected by a group on which sits the people under investigation and limits itself to a review so cursory that it can be summed up in 5 pages, and that is conclusive evidence to you that everything they did was OK.
Have I missed anything?
As to Dr. Curry and your claim of agnostic- Curry is saying nothing different from what skeptics have been saying for years: The IPCC should not be taken at proclaimed value. I dismiss out of hand people who claim to be scientists whose work is shoddy. Curry is pointing out some of this. You are the one in a bind, not me or other skeptics. Curry is just the beginning. The Oxburgh whitewash will have the effect of assuring more, not fewer skeptics. As to your interesting weighting method- good luck with that.
Shills,
Less than a year ago you true believers would refer to the IPCC as the gold standard of AGW proof.
Now you guys don’t really refer to it much. I think that is a huge change.
More is to come.
Waldo,
“I caught you cherry-red-handed, Wallman, and you know it. ”
That’s a laugh. Bring up certain issues raised in the report is hardly cherry picking. You have to also show that I’m ignoring other things raised in the report that contradict my points. None are there. My point was that while the investigation cleared Jones, they were critical of his and his field’s behavior. That’s the truth. Call it what you like, but you can’t deny it.
“Which is pure unsubstantiated rationalization, Wally, for why the report exonerated Jones and the CRU. Pure unsubstantiated rationalization. Unhindered and unfounded conjecture. Nowhere does the committee indicate any of this.”
Really, they never indicate that they didn’t want to fire/punish Jones, but hope he and his field act in accordence to the FIA? Hmm, wtf does this mean: “The MPs called on scientists to “become more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies”. They recommended that the Government review the rules on the accessibility of data?”
Sorry Waldo, but you got your head so far up your ass you can taste what you ate for lunch.
“Wally, for all your protestations, you epitomize the ethos of the deniosphere.”
Funny, seening as you’re the one denying the critisisms found in these reports.
“Not exactly. Your body is not particularly good at recognizing high fructose corn syrup as calories. So you end up thinking/feeling hungrier than you normally would when you eat a lot of HFCS. This is why you can drink a 60 oz soda with about 800 calories not feel full. So the effect is to simulate insulin resistance. Which of course is a hallmark of type 2 diabetes.” – Wally
Which is exactly the kind of BS the ‘gurus’ use to obfuscate simple facts. Nothing you said changes the laws of thermodynamics. Weight loss = calorie deficit; weight gain = calorie surplus. Whether or not high fructose corn syrup sates your sense of hunger has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of calories it contains. What you are missing, and what I drown in daily being involved in this industry to some extent, is that these people aren’t saying, “Eating HFCS won’t make you feel full, so you’ll tend to eat more if you don’t watch your intake and be in a calorie surplus, and therefore gain weight.” They are heavily implying to simply outright saying that if you take 800kCal of any particular macro nutrient out of your diet and replace it with 800kCal of HFCS, you will magically gain weight on the same calorie intake. They will try and drown you in jargon and abstracts from PubMed until they’re blue in the face, when the bottom line is these laws of physics are fairly well settled at this point and unless you have some kind of space-time anomoly in your digestive system that somehow allows the addition or subtraction of mass and energy across parallel dimensions, then the bottom line is calorie intake vs calories burned. Put simply:
No amount of HFCS or insulin resistance can change this.
****”A university which profits directly from its research unit hires a guy who profits from the work done by the research unit in question to review 11 papers from this unit out of hundreds selected by a group on which sits the people under investigation and limits itself to a review so cursory that it can be summed up in 5 pages, and that is conclusive evidence to you that everything they did was OK.
Have I missed anything?”
Ummmm…how about some proof? How many pages should the summary be? (the document is something like 63 ages) And no, not everything they did “was ok.” Did you actually read the investigation?
Wallman,
****”wtf does this mean”
The report is pretty clear and pretty mild. I did not deny any criticisms – reread. The investigation recommended a new level of transparency but also noted that a good many of the problems with the information had to do with pre-existing agreements with various entities that legally limited release. I can cut and paste those if you like, but they are there for you to see for yourself, so I probably wont.
No, Wally, it is pretty clear that you are heavily favoring a very small section of a report that noted some comparatively minor issues. Read the report. You ignored the majority of the findings to focus on a very small subsection. You have the entirety of the publication at your disposal but you chose to post a very small section that was not an accurate representation of the whole. That is called cherry-picking.
Then there is the follow up report which, much to hunter’s chagrin, finds the science also viable except for a few problems with statistics as noted.
And this new adolescent style of diction –
“you got your head so far up your ass you can taste what you ate for lunch”
– means you’re having a tempter tantrum. Which means I kicked your buttocks, rhetorically speaking. And you sound like hunter.
You’re right Shills, these folks are kind of jokes.
Hunter:
The Royal Society seemed to have no problem recommending Oxburgh? Are they part of the cover-up? — Which, by the way, you haven’t explained your position on yet. And talking about unanswered questions, when will you show me all these scam-supporting uni’s like the one you are suggesting?
You say: ‘Less than a year ago you true believers would refer to the IPCC as the gold standard of AGW proof. Now you guys don’t really refer to it much. I think that is a huge change.’
Umm. No I still refer to it as gold. It is still the best we have at the moment.
This link takes you to a very entertaining neurotic spiel.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/20/understanding-oxburgh.html
RichardA,
“Which is exactly the kind of BS the ‘gurus’ use to obfuscate simple facts. Nothing you said changes the laws of thermodynamics. Weight loss = calorie deficit; weight gain = calorie surplus. Whether or not high fructose corn syrup sates your sense of hunger has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of calories it contains….”
The issue is how your body reacts after having those calories. Weight gain = calories in – calories out (times a constant but I hope you can forgive that simplification). The thing HFCS messes with is mostly the calories out. Your body is going to act starved relative to what it normally would given that kind of calorie intake. So, you burn less and attempt to save more when you already have plenty in your blood. The hormonal response matters. Our bodies aren’t just engines that burn a constant rate of calories per hour.
Waldo,
“The investigation recommended a new level of transparency but also noted that a good many of the problems with the information had to do with pre-existing agreements with various entities that legally limited release.”
Sure, that’s what it said.
Lets just run through some of the things said: “Although inappropriate statistical tools with the potential for producingmisleading results have been used by some other groups, presumably by accident rather than design, in the CRU papers that we examined we did not come across any inappropriate usage although the methods they used may not
have been the best for the purpose. It is not clear, however, that better methods would have produced significantly different results.”
Exactly how did they determine other groups did this by accident when they didn’t investigate them? Also, its not clear their methods skewed their result? What kind of investigation was this exactly?
“With very noisy data sets a great deal of judgement has to be used. Decisions have to be made on whether to omit pieces of data that appear to be aberrant.”
In general, this is a HUGE statistical No-no. Having “noisy data” is not reason enough to omit outliers just to reduce noise. Exactly who was doing this reviewing again?
“It is
regrettable that so few professional statisticians have been involved in this work because it is fundamentally statistical. Under such circumstances there must be an obligation on researchers to document the judgemental decisions they have made so that the work can in principle be replicated by others.”
Again an issue with data/methods sharing that has prevented reproducibility. Yet I know, bringing this up is somehow cherry-picking…
“CRU accepts with hindsight that they should have devoted more attention in the past to archiving data and algorithms and recording exactly what they did.”
They admit they did not act correctly, gosh, I’m such a cherry picker….
“The difficulty in releasing
program code is that to be understood by anyone else it needs time-consuming work on documentation, and this has not been a top priority.”
Yeah, I know that, I’ve attempted to explain models with just 30-50 equations and maybe 50-100 parameters, its tough, but guess what, you gotta do it. This goes to the reproducibility thing. If you can’t recreate it, you might as well not have done it.
“After reading publications and interviewing the senior staff of CRU in depth, we are satisfied that the CRU tree-ring work has been carried out with integrity, and that allegations of deliberate misrepresentation and unjustified selection of data are not valid.”
So it wasn’t deliberate, but from the above quotes the science was still not very good. Ok, I guess that gets Jones off, but its still bad science.
“Funding and labour pressures and the need to publish have meant that pressing ahead with new work has been at the expense of what was regarded as non-essential record keeping.”
That’s nice, but new research becomes old research which hasn’t been documented well enough to be reproduced…It doesn’t matter what the excuse is, its bad science. You have to document everything needed to recreate your work. Like I said, if you can’t recreate it, you might as well not have done it.
“From our perspective it seems that the CRU sins were of omission rather than commission. Although we deplore the tone of much of the criticism that has been directed at CRU, we believe that this questioning of the methods
and data used in dendroclimatology will ultimately have a beneficial effect and improve working practices”
So they do find a “sin” none the less, and hope this scientific community will improve its standards. Gosh isn’t that what I’ve been saying all along? Yet I know, I cherry-picked, as you said I “ignored the majority of the findings to focus on a very small subsection.” And yet somehow I think I just dealt with the major finding of this section on tree rings….damn, I must be picking some HUGE cherries…
Ok, I’m going to stop here. I see no reason to continue. It should be pretty obvious my argument was not based on cherry-picked excerpts from the report. The report did have its criticisms and in some instances I believe it did not go far enough (you find they needed better methods, but didn’t check to see if better methods change the results?). So while you may believe I “cherry-picked” to support my argument, I would contend you’re reading this report with some rosy colored glasses.
Shills,
Dense much?
Waldo-whatever,
Whatever. Now you have bored me. Trolls should never be boring, since the only thing left after the entertainment value of a troll is lost is
Well Wally, that is the most thorough comment you’ve made yet. Which I appreciate. Wish we had more of that here. Actual discussion of the documents involved. Look at the most recent blog posts and commenter posts – very little science there, very little of anything really.
But yeah – and we need not necessarily rehash this any more unless you particularly want to – you are still picking cherries here. I liked the term “big cherries.” I think that sums it up. You’ve got Big Cherries, Wally.
No matter how you cut it, you are still focusing almost entirely on one aspect of a lengthy if not entirely thorough investigation. The big charge: sloppiness. Yup, had CRU scientists known that the pedantic, politically paranoid amateurs of the world would be breathing down their necks, they would have kept much better records. Did it make any difference in the quality of the science? Only marginally, if at all. But for you, and for the deniosphere, any aspect, no matter how marginal, is proof to you that you were right all along. Never mind the balance of the report, you will only focus on those things that, from your perspective, discredit the science community.
If I am looking through rosy glasses, you are glaring through a Darth Vader mask. I suspect, in fact I assert, that no matter what you will believe that the AGW is hiding data, unreproducible, etc. etc. etc. You will simply believe.
I wonder, Wally, what if we looked thoroughly at your career? Is your science perfect? Might we find a dirty test tube or two along the way? If the world’s self-righteous, self-aggrandizing bloggers were hacking your computer, would they find some inappropriate, potentially incriminating emails? I wonder what would happen if the world took a look at your comments here on CS?
No Wally, I’m willing to bet my booties that the only difference between the climate science field and yours is that yours is still safe in relative anonymity. Pray that you don’t discover something which might potentially cost big business money, otherwise you may find your own posterior over the Bunsen Burner.
@ Hunter:
You say:
‘Shills,
Dense much?’
Ahh snap! Damn, yo. You sure showed me!
Re. the investigation arg.
There is no suggestion of the wilful deception and the like that you deniers claim. Wally seems to agree? :
‘So it wasn’t deliberate, but from the above quotes the science was still not very good. Ok, I guess that gets Jones off, but its still bad science.’
If it is just ‘bad science’ without any of the corruption and deception, what is stopping other scientists from correcting these mistakes in the peer-reviewed lit.?
Go get ’em.
Waldo
“But yeah – and we need not necessarily rehash this any more unless you particularly want to – you are still picking cherries here. I liked the term “big cherries.” I think that sums it up. You’ve got Big Cherries, Wally. ”
No actually, this is still not cherry picking. And you can’t even support this claim.
Cherry-picking (from Wiki):
“Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.”
I did not ignore anything, nor is there any thing in these reports contradicting what I’m arguing. I delt only with the tree ring data, as clearly stated, and dealing with the second half of the document was largely unnecissary as even the authors of that report claim, “Like the work on tree rings this work is strongly dependent on statistical analysis and our comments are essentially the same.”
“No matter how you cut it, you are still focusing almost entirely on one aspect of a lengthy if not entirely thorough investigation.”
No. This is just an objectively false statement. I delt with multiple statements in the report, and just about everything involving the tree ring issue. Nor can you point to anything in the report that contradicts my argument as is required to be cherry-picking.
“The big charge: sloppiness. Yup, had CRU scientists known that the pedantic, politically paranoid amateurs of the world would be breathing down their necks, they would have kept much better records. Did it make any difference in the quality of the science? Only marginally, if at all.”
Yes sloppyness and an enviornment of hinding data/methods along with improper methods. Issues like deciding what data to include or not just because of noise? That is sloppy science, at best. At worst, it isn’t science at all. Then there is issue with not having statisticians in collaboration. Which would explain the sloppy statistical methods which the report and many others, including myself, have been critical off. Such as that paper that didn’t seem to understand how to measure their methods’ errors, which I believe we discussed at length.
“Never mind the balance of the report, you will only focus on those things that, from your perspective, discredit the science community.”
Well, when they talk about cutting out data simply because they want to reduce noise, or that they don’t keep proper records to allow for replication of their results…yeah, I’m gonna discredit these scientists, because doing these things is not practicing science.
From wiki again on science:
“It (Science) includes the use of careful observation, experiment, measurement, mathematics, and replication — to be considered a science, a body of knowledge must stand up to repeated testing by independent observers.”
By eliminating data just because its noisy they failed in the careful observation, measurement and mathematics aspect, and if they can’t keep proper records they have failed in the replication aspect as well. The issues then with sharing data/methods means they have failed the “stand up to repeated testing by independent observers” also. So how exactly can you make the claim that they only marginally, if at all, hurt the quality of their science? While this report had a realitively mild conclusion, the report also proves they had non-trivial problems with their science. From data management, data analysis, record keeping and reproducability. You can gloss over that if you like, but it doesn’t change the facts.
“I suspect, in fact I assert, that no matter what you will believe that the AGW is hiding data, unreproducible, etc. etc. etc. You will simply believe.”
Ah yes, you can assert all you like, but you can’t actually give any evidence for this claim.
“I wonder, Wally, what if we looked thoroughly at your career? Is your science perfect? ”
Everything I’ve published has been accompanied with adiquate information to reproduce the results. More so, much of my data is available in public data bases already, some of it even unpublished. See in my field, we actually make sure data and methods are out there for all to see.
“If the world’s self-righteous, self-aggrandizing bloggers were hacking your computer, would they find some inappropriate, potentially incriminating emails?”
Not involving science no.
“I wonder what would happen if the world took a look at your comments here on CS? ”
The world can if they like. But I am not doing science on these blogs, so I’m not sure how it would matter.
Regardless this whole list of retorical leading questions is completely irrelevent. First, you don’t know the first thing about my science practices. So all of these questions are the logical equivalent of “how many times a day to you beat your wife?” Second, the entire argument of “well you’re not perfect either” just doesn’t hold up. Two wrongs don’t make a right. If I’m at fault in similar ways to that of Jones, it doesn’t make Jones’ or my own faults any less severe.
“No Wally, I’m willing to bet my booties that the only difference between the climate science field and yours is that yours is still safe in relative anonymity.”
More blind guesses from someone increasingly relying on them to make an argument…I’ll take that as a sign that I have, what did you say, “kicked your buttocks, rhetorically speaking.”
“Pray that you don’t discover something which might potentially cost big business money, otherwise you may find your own posterior over the Bunsen Burner.”
Not likely to happen in my field. In fact just the opposite, I might find something that will make big money instead. So, I’m not worried. But alas, it won’t change the standards I keep when doing science.
Oh Wally, Wally, Wally – I did support the claim.
And this –
“Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.”
– is exactly, EXACTLY, what you did
And this –
*****”Everything I’ve published has been accompanied with adiquate information to reproduce the results. More so, much of my data is available in public data bases already, some of it even unpublished. See in my field, we actually make sure data and methods are out there for all to see.”
Describes the climate science world – I’ve posted numerously on this already. Again, you are cherry picking – you ignore the masses of information from any number of sources to focus on 12 sentences from a report which exonerates CRU scientists. Cherry picking, Wally. And I call BS, my friend – no human is perfect; somewhere you screwed up and let’s just hope it doesn’t come back to bite you on the ass; likewise, somewhere, someone in “your field” has lied, advanced his or her career through deception, been sloppy, destroyed data, etc. To deny this is simply ridiculous.
Now, since this conversation is going in circles, I wonder: are you sure that this science is not reproducible?
I mean, really sure?
Oh yeah-
“‘I suspect, in fact I assert, that no matter what you will believe that the AGW is hiding data, unreproducible, etc. etc. etc. You will simply believe.’”
“Ah yes, you can assert all you like, but you can’t actually give any evidence for this claim.”
I have provided ample evidence of this, circumstantial, of course, but ample. And it is ongoing.
“- is exactly, EXACTLY, what you did”
More just blind statements of fact without actually proving it, or providing any evidence for it. Please show me exactly what parts of this report I’m ignoring that also contradict my argument. If you can’t, and you haven’t, you’re just spouting BS.
Wally oh Wally oh Wally oh Wally –
On April 15th this is the extent of your commentary on the CRU probe:
Here’s one thing they concluded: “Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia, was acting “in line with common practice in the climate science community” when he refused to share his raw data and computer codes with critics.”
So, this is common practice in climate science, so its ok. That’s nice…
“The committee said that the blame for the mishandling of requests under the Freedom of Information Act lay with the university, which had “found ways to support the culture at CRU of resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics”. ”
Oh so it was the university, at which Jones holds a very prominate position and we’re talking about his work. Certainly Jones had nothing to do with that, right…
“Phil Willis, the committee’s Liberal Democrat chairman, told The Times: “There is no reason why Professor Jones should not resume his post. He was certainly not co-operative with those seeking to get data, but that was true of all the climate scientists”
What a field! Nobody can reproduce anyone elses work because no one shares their data/methods. Oh, but there is a consensus, remember! Makes perfect sense.
“Again, you are cherry picking – you ignore the masses of information from any number of sources to focus on 12 sentences from a report which exonerates CRU scientists.”
It exonerates, but it is also critical of some of their practices. I’m pointing out that those criticisms are not minor. Particularly if we’re relying on these works to pass such legislation as cap and trade. Basically, this report is saying that Jones and to a lesser extent the field as a whole made honest mistakes. My point is that honest mistakes or not, these are still mistakes that have called into questions the validity of the science.
“And I call BS, my friend – no human is perfect; somewhere you screwed up and let’s just hope it doesn’t come back to bite you on the ass”
Sure I’ve made mistakes, but all mistakes are not created equal. I’ve never omitted data to reduce noise. I’ve never failed to properly document my methods because I haven’t had time. And I’ve certainly not gone to publishers with such mistakes present in my work. But again, this whole line of argumentation is completely irrelevant. What I do or do not do, does not make the actions of another person or people right or wrong. And as I said before, you relying on such an argument is just further evidence that you’ve lost.
“likewise, somewhere, someone in “your field” has lied, advanced his or her career through deception, been sloppy, destroyed data, etc. To deny this is simply ridiculous.”
Maybe, but you’d have prove that. Otherwise its just more BS. And I’ve never suspected anything, plus my field is pretty small, so chances are low this has actually happened.
“I have provided ample evidence of this, circumstantial, of course, but ample. And it is ongoing.”
Funny, I haven’t seen it. Thus far I’ve seen you only make blind accusations, while pretending the support for those statements is somewhere else in your posts, but you’ve never really made a coherent argument proving or even suggesting “that no matter what you will believe that the AGW is hiding data, unreproducible, etc. etc. etc. You will simply believe.” Sorry, you’re still as full of shit as ever.
The only point where you began dealing with any other issues is after I pointed out that you were focusing entirely on a single sub-section in the introduction to the report. And even then all you did was rehash this same paraphrase. Not only that, you began making all sorts of inferences –
“Jones holds a very prominate position and we’re talking about his work. Certainly Jones had nothing to do with that, right…”
– which you have no evidence for. For a guy who keeps demanding evidence, you sure lack a lot of it.
Finally, you have made a determination that goes against the tone and actual findings of the report – and no, I won’t post this, it’s there, you can see for yourself; like any teacher, I can only do so much of your work for you.
If it makes you feel better, keep believing you are objective.
Now, are you sure about this statement – ?
****”Nobody can reproduce anyone elses work because no one shares their data/methods.”
Are you suuuuuure? Positive? Have you looked to see if anyone tried to reconstruct MHB hockey stick? For sure? I’m just asking…but you might want to double-check that blanket statement, particularly the “nobody” part…
“The only point where you began dealing with any other issues is after I pointed out that you were focusing entirely on a single sub-section in the introduction to the report.”
This never was the case.
““Jones holds a very prominate position and we’re talking about his work. Certainly Jones had nothing to do with that, right…”
– which you have no evidence for. For a guy who keeps demanding evidence, you sure lack a lot of it.”
You’re right, I never claimed I did, nor did I make any affirmative claim. I’m skeptical. Notice in the report they don’t even provide the evidence showing it was the universities doing… So what am I to work with if the report can not reveal everything found. Am I supposed to march over to the CRU get that information for myself? Is it published somewhere else that I’m not aware of? Where is THEIR data to make that claim? This just goes to further the point that this report is rather incomplete. Another example of which was the issue that they found improper methods being used, meaning somehow they knew of better methods, then went on to claim, “It is not clear, however, that better methods would have produced significantly different results.” Again, what kind of evidence do they have to say such a thing. And gosh, doesn’t it seem like an important question to answer if better methods would find a different result?
“Finally, you have made a determination that goes against the tone and actual findings of the report – and no, I won’t post this, it’s there, you can see for yourself; like any teacher, I can only do so much of your work for you.”
That is just a cop-out because you can’t actually provide any relevant criticisms of my argument.
“Are you suuuuuure? Positive? Have you looked to see if anyone tried to reconstruct MHB hockey stick? For sure? I’m just asking…but you might want to double-check that blanket statement, particularly the “nobody” part…”
Hyperbole Waldumbfuck, hyperbole. You don’t like it, I don’t care. I’ve since gone on to more accurately describe my argument. I wonder why you have to go back to a week old material to attack me? And then you also claim: “Now, since this conversation is going in circles.” Well of course its going to go in circles if you can’t address the most recent arguments, defenses and clarifications and insist on bring up posts a week old. So, you only have yourself to blame Waldo.
****”Am I supposed to march over to the CRU get that information for myself?”
Ah, my bad, I assumed that you knew how to use Google. Well, perhaps your kids or her admin assistant or somebody can show you. I put in “CRU climate” and the following link takes you right to them:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
As I’ve posted, Wally, it’s all on the Net. You just have to go and find it (which you seem loath to do…)
Oh but wait! This is tainted, right? Well, Wally, if you are going to accuse somebody – even a lowly scientist – of skewing, destroying, ect. shouldn’t you perhaps be sure you are right and march right over there and see for yourself? Or maybe you’d rather take the collective word of the deniosphere which seems to have about as much first hand documentation as you have?
And that wasn’t hyperbole there Wally, I wanted to know if you had in fact checked to see if anybody had tried to reproduce the “hockey stick” graph. If someone, or maybe several, had been able to reproduce the results (a point you have repeatedly returned to), wouldn’t that undercut your entire argument?
By the way, you do realize that when you write this (the 3rd time I think) –
****then went on to claim, “‘It is not clear, however, that better methods would have produced significantly different results'”
– you are still excerpting the same 12 sentences that you have been all along. I have proven repeatedly that you do this with specific examples. Deny if you like, but it’s all there.
Waldo,
” Well, perhaps your kids or her admin assistant or somebody can show you. I put in “CRU climate” and the following link takes you right to them:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/”
Please, the information I was discussing is not found on this website, and you know it. If you think it is, give a direct link, not some homepage.
“Well, Wally, if you are going to accuse somebody – even a lowly scientist – of skewing, destroying, ect”
Actually waldo, I didn’t, that report did. Sorry you can’t see it.
“And that wasn’t hyperbole there Wally, I wanted to know if you had in fact checked to see if anybody had tried to reproduce the “hockey stick” graph.”
It was MY hyperbole. And again, see the report’s claims about method/result reproducibility.
“If someone, or maybe several, had been able to reproduce the results (a point you have repeatedly returned to), wouldn’t that undercut your entire argument?”
No, because others have attempted to do the same thing and found different results as well. Like you know not missing the MWP or little ice age? And now we have the whole “field hockey stick” not “ice hockey stick” thing….
“– you are still excerpting the same 12 sentences that you have been all along. I have proven repeatedly that you do this with specific examples. Deny if you like, but it’s all there.”
Specific examples that illustrate a large point that is not contradicted by the report’s general findings nor any other specific findings…please learn the definition of “cherry-picking” and how to appropriately use it.
You’ve now made several posts in a row that have been nothing but repeating your blind accusations, as such, I consider this argument over.
I’ve considered this argument over for a long time now. You’re the one who kept it up.
By the way, how do you know that the CRU does not have your “information”?
Have you looked?
Would you like to discuss the MWP or the “hockey stick” now? Some very interesting stuff there.
“The issue is how your body reacts after having those calories. Weight gain = calories in – calories out (times a constant but I hope you can forgive that simplification). The thing HFCS messes with is mostly the calories out. Your body is going to act starved relative to what it normally would given that kind of calorie intake. So, you burn less and attempt to save more when you already have plenty in your blood. The hormonal response matters. Our bodies aren’t just engines that burn a constant rate of calories per hour.” – Wally
Congrats, you just realized both sides of the equation can change. Once more, see the laws of physics. The ‘changes in metabolism’ supposedly engendered by such foods can’t alter physics. You can’t magically become a 400lb whale of a human being just because of high fructose corn syrup.
It feels like conspiracy at times, especially when the pro AGW crowd tries to suppress questions of methods and uncertainties.
As for the rest there is also something called confirmation bias. How much is real warming and how much is manipulation and bias. The noise is bigger than the signal, even if we believe thse signal is there,this fact should be a big caution flag.