PDA

View Full Version : Sonnabend's lie



wilbur
03-13-2010, 07:38 PM
Ok Sonnabend... you want proof of the lie you keep repeating, here it is.

Lets first look at what I'm talking about:



SONNABEND: Jones himself stated there has been no warming in 15 years


I'm not going to crawl through post after post to look for all the times Sonnabend had repeated this claim, but will simply suffice to say that he has repeated it - many times. To prove that it is a lie, we will refer to the BBC interview from which this false claim sprang. Here is the quote from Phil Jones, which got all this started, and produced also produced all those "Climate scientist U-Turn" headlines:



[BBC] B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

[Phil Jones]Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.


Thats it - thats the quote that got every bloodthirsty denialist claiming that Phil Jones said that there has been no warming in the last 15 years.

But notice that the phrase in the question was not 'no global warming'.... the phrase was 'no statistically significant global warming'. The bait and switch, courtesy of the ensuing media frenzy, was the omission or glossing over of the term 'statistically significant', which completely changes the meaning of the question - of course, the general public, Sonnabend included, don't seem to appreciate what the term 'statistically significant' means.

* As an aside, Constitutionally Speaking, despite being a stats guy, has not bothered to offer his insight on this issue - curious.

So, lets unpack this a bit shall we?



[Phil Jones]Yes, but only just.


Ok, so here, Jones "admits" that there is no statistically significant warming trend, during the given time period. But he does so with the caveat that the trend during this period is a hairs width away from being statistically significant. Does this mean Jones is saying that there has been no warming trend? Not a chance. See below.



I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.


Here Jones talks about the trend during the time period in question.... see the part in italics. In no uncertain terms, Jones actually says that there is a positive trend (0.12C per decade). In other words, he says that there is a warming trend. This is enough to prove my point, but lets continue a bit, just to bring light upon the issue - I'm sure CS, should he chose to comment here, can explain this better than I.

The second part of the sentence is where he claims that during this time slice, the warming trend is not statistically significant to the 95% confidence level. This means, that there is slightly less than a 95% chance, that the warming trend during this time period is actually indicative of a trend, and not just coincidental. This also means that there is only a slightly higher than 5% chance, that the warming trend is actually coincidence. 95% confidence is where climate scientists like to be before deciding that an apparent trend, is a real trend.



The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.


So, the trend is quite close to being statistically significant, but the time period is too short to say for sure. Analysis from other information sources have confirmed that the warming trend does in fact reach statistical significance when one increases the time period back from 1995 ALL the way back to.... 1994!! One year! It really makes one wonder at the deafening silence from the camp who seems to love to go on and on about allegedly cherry picked data.. can anyone see now why the reporter chose to choose such a specific time interval on which to question Jones? Its almost like they set him up... hmm.

So there yo have it - Sonnabend uncritically accepts bad information, even when it is obviously false, and repeats it ad nauseam - no, he shouts it repeatedly with the sort of certitude and confidence only a fool can have, with all the sense of an enraged mob, torches and pitchforks in hand.

PoliCon
03-13-2010, 07:49 PM
Give that this thread is an attempt to call out someone - shouldn't it be in the dome?

Rockntractor
03-13-2010, 07:49 PM
no statistically significant global warming'
Lame Wilbur, just lame. What is even worse is you have so little life you wrote two pages to defend this. How terribly pathetic of you!:rolleyes:

wilbur
03-13-2010, 07:56 PM
Lame Wilbur, just lame. What is even worse is you have so little life you wrote two pages to defend this. How terribly pathetic of you!:rolleyes:

Yea, how lame of me to actually make it a point to understand the meaning of words. :rolleyes:

Rockntractor
03-13-2010, 08:06 PM
Yea, how lame of me to actually make it a point to understand the meaning of words. :rolleyes:
Seriously Wilbur, your thirty one years old, it's time to get a life.

wilbur
03-13-2010, 08:14 PM
Seriously Wilbur, your thirty one years old, it's time to get a life.

But then whose ankles would be left for you to bite? You'd be devastated.

SarasotaRepub
03-13-2010, 08:15 PM
God, I love it when we get under someones skin so bad they resort to a thread like this. :cool::p:D

Zeus
03-13-2010, 08:17 PM
Yea, how lame of me to actually make it a point to understand the meaning of words. :rolleyes:

Wilbur I know not of the situations with Sonnebend of which you speak. It does seem like ya be nit picking/splitting hairs.

Carry on.:D

wilbur
03-13-2010, 08:32 PM
Wilbur I know not of the situations with Sonnebend of which you speak. It does seem like ya be nit picking/splitting hairs.

Carry on.:D

Again, refer back to the Jones quote, where he clearly claims there is a warming trend:



I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.


To rephrase - Jones is saying, there appears to be a warming trend, and there is a slightly less than 95% confidence that this apparent trend is a real trend, rather than coincidence. I don't think its being nit picky to illustrate why what Jones actually said is the complete opposite of the claims that Sonna has been repeating.

wilbur
03-13-2010, 08:34 PM
God, I love it when we get under someones skin so bad they resort to a thread like this. :cool::p:D

Trust me when I tell you, it doesnt make you guys look good...

Rockntractor
03-13-2010, 08:41 PM
Trust me when I tell you, it doesnt make you guys look good...

Wilbur you idiot! your trying to convince Zeus the god of weather that there is global warming. Go ahead Zeus, nail him with a lightening bolt!

SarasotaRepub
03-13-2010, 08:44 PM
Wilbur, at what point do you think you Warmers are going to finally admit you were wrong?? I honestly don't see it ever happening because whatever happens, you guys will just say it's a "Mini-Trend" and Global Warming will pick right back up...just you wait and see.

Does it even occur to you how dishonest that sounds???

And why do you Warmers think the USA is to blame for Global Warming???

PoliCon
03-13-2010, 08:45 PM
Trust me when I tell you, it doesnt make you guys look good...

look good to whom? The left? :rolleyes:

SarasotaRepub
03-13-2010, 08:58 PM
Trust me when I tell you, it doesnt make you guys look good...

LOL!!! It's going to very interesting when the planet doesn't burn up, the Bahamas aren't flooded, and we all carry on. Wilbur, I wish you well.

FlaGator
03-13-2010, 09:56 PM
Trust me when I tell you, it doesnt make you guys look good...

Actually your continued denials of what has been evident to many for a long time now doesn't make you look very good but hey I admire your sticktoitivness. You exemplify someone with an abundance of faith.

wilbur
03-13-2010, 10:47 PM
Actually your continued denials of what has been evident to many for a long time now doesn't make you look very good but hey I admire your sticktoitivness. You exemplify someone with an abundance of faith.

It sounds like you think faith is a bad thing!

Rockntractor
03-13-2010, 10:55 PM
It sounds like you think faith is a bad thing!

Your as dense as a block of cheese.

Articulate_Ape
03-13-2010, 11:01 PM
Good grief, Wilbur, give it up. Your time would be much better spent concocting an alibi for why you fell for this Ponzi scheme so your grandkids don't flick spoonfuls of acorn squash at you across the table at Thanksgiving every year.

Rockntractor
03-13-2010, 11:55 PM
I'm worried about Wilbur, we need to find him a support group with other losers that have fallen for the climate scam and have learned to live in reality again. He could hurt himself by sticking his head in an electric oven or running an electric car with the garage door shut to try and asphyxiate himself.

Sonnabend
03-14-2010, 12:35 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html


And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0i7sschoL

He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

and as for lies...


It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee made a statement in regards to the alleged non-availability for disclosure of Swedish climate data.

Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.

This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data.

All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), the UK Met Office and Dr. Jones (the last correspondence dated yesterday March 4), this has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit.

STOCKHOLM INITIATIVE
Göran Ahlgren, secretary general
Kungsgatan 82
12 27 Stockholm, Sweden

Jones lied and wilbur cried.....

wilbur
03-14-2010, 01:32 AM
LOL!

Tell us Sonna, what does 'statistically significant' mean? Maybe if you try and do that, the lightbulb will click, and you'll finally grasp the point that the phrases 'no statistically significant warming' and 'no warming' mean two entirely different things. The former is what Jones said, and the latter is what you have been saying. The difference is not trivial.

And while we're waiting, lets highlight the Jones quote again, that the daily mail is referring too, where Jones clearly says that there appears to be a warming trend:



[Phil Jones]Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Sonnabend
03-14-2010, 03:41 AM
Tell us Sonna, what does 'statistically significant' mean? Maybe if you try and do that, the lightbulb will click, and you'll finally grasp the point that the phrases 'no statistically significant warming' and 'no warming' mean two entirely different things.

It means that he cant prove any real warming, and that his data is suspect, and that his "statistics" (as massaged by the CRU) cant prove any warming has occurred.


The former is what Jones said, and the latter is what you have been saying. The difference is not trivial.

Jones is a liar. Nothing he says has any credence with me, as he has admitted to lying. Once a liar, always a liar.


And while we're waiting, lets highlight the Jones quote again, that the daily mail is referring too, where Jones clearly says that there appears to be a warming trend:

"Appears" "maybe" "perhaps" "theory"

No real PROOF.

In other words, he is GUESSING,

Now how about you comment on this


It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee made a statement in regards to the alleged non-availability for disclosure of Swedish climate data.

Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.

This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data.

All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), the UK Met Office and Dr. Jones (the last correspondence dated yesterday March 4), this has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit.

STOCKHOLM INITIATIVE
Göran Ahlgren, secretary general
Kungsgatan 82
12 27 Stockholm, Sweden

wilbur
03-15-2010, 08:43 PM
It means that he cant prove any real warming, and that his data is suspect, and that his "statistics" (as massaged by the CRU) cant prove any warming has occurred.


OK, so thats progress of sorts. We've now moved you from "Jones said there was no warming", to "well.... he just can't prove it". You're getting this wrong at every turn, because thats not true either. Warming was demonstrated with his calculation, and he even told us by how much right there in his answer in the interview. What isnt demonstrated, is the claim that the warming is a trend (when considering only that 15 year period in isolation).

But that doesnt really matter either.

Here's why. All you have to do is include 1994 in the mix, and you have a statistically significant trend. And guess what? Thats solid evidedence that the warming that has occured is indicitive of a trend - solid enough to believe the trend is real.



Jones is a liar. Nothing he says has any credence with me, as he has admitted to lying. Once a liar, always a liar.


So I take it you won't be trusting any more Daily Mail or Fox news articles about global warming then. Good.



"Appears" "maybe" "perhaps" "theory"

No real PROOF.


Ugh - you know better than to make this dumb ass mistake again - you've been schooled on this before, by yours truly. Theories are the strongest explanatory mechanism in science, period.



In other words, he is GUESSING,


No, not really. He's saying that we're just shy of statistical significance for the 15 year period in question. But since we're concerned with more than just the past 15 years in climate science, its pretty irrelevant. Going back 16 or more years gets us to the level of statistical significance required to indicate a trend.


On a related note, this whole situation highlights the remarkable (but amusing) stupidity and inconsistency of denialist arguments. How long has it been a staple of AGW contrarians to claim that the past 100 years, or 1000 years, etc, is just a blip in time for the Earths climate, and that we cannot seriously detect trends from such a small sample size? Now we have denialists claiming that AGW is false because of a cherry picked 15 year long sample size!

Sonnabend
03-15-2010, 09:00 PM
OK, so thats progress of sorts. We've now moved you from "Jones said there was no warming", to "well.... he just can't prove it". Well, duh, thats what he said. But its really not that important.No proof = theory = wild assed guess = I could say a giant mutant star goat was going to swallow the sun...and it'd have as much credibility. I.E NONE


Here's why. All you have to do is include 1994 in the mix, and you have a statistically significant trend. And guess what? Thats solid evidedence that warming has occured - solid enough to believe the trend is real.Yet there is no trend, Jones lied, the IPCC lied, there is no warming, he massaged the figures and got caught. Reason: MILLIONS in grant money.


So I take it you won't be trusting any more Daily Mall or Fox news articles about global warming then. Good. They have more credibility than Jones ever had. Or you for that matter.


Ugh - you know better than to make this dumb ass mistake again - you've been schooled on this before, by yours truly. Theories are the strongest explanatory mechanism in science, period. Yeah, I mentioned your "germ theory" to my local doctor, he laughed and said that you are welcome to go ahead and get infected by any disease you like.


No, not really. He's saying that we're just shy of statistical significance for the 15 year period in question.So he cant prove his THEORY.


But since we're concerned with more than just the past 15 years in climate science, its pretty irrelevant. It's all irrelevant, its all lies, the Himalayas aren't melting, the seas aren't rising, AGW is a myth, a scam.


Going back 16 or more years gets us to the level of statistical significance required to indicate a trend.I'll give you a trend...the reputation of "climate science" going down the toilet thanks to the machinations and "manufactured data" of Jones and his ilk

And you STILL havent commented on THIS


It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee made a statement in regards to the alleged non-availability for disclosure of Swedish climate data.

Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.

This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data.

All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), the UK Met Office and Dr. Jones (the last correspondence dated yesterday March 4), this has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit.

STOCKHOLM INITIATIVE
Göran Ahlgren, secretary general
Kungsgatan 82
12 27 Stockholm, Sweden

wilbur
03-15-2010, 09:04 PM
Now how about you comment on this

Well, no, because I don't know much about it, though I'll look into it soon. But in the meantime, this kind of ruins the piss parade for you in another way. Because look, data right there in the open, in the public domain (just like I said). How about that.

wilbur
03-15-2010, 09:15 PM
No proof = theory = wild assed guess = I could say a giant mutant star goat was going to swallow the sun...and it'd have as much credibility. I.E NONE


You are scientifically illiterate. Theories all suffer from the problem of induction - they cannot be proven, ever. They are hardly wild assed guesses.



Yet there is no trend, Jones lied, the IPCC lied, there is no warming, he massaged the figures and got caught. Reason: MILLIONS in grant money.


There's only no trend (and only just so) when you artificially restrict the sample size. Thats called cherry picking - but I guess your cool with it, just as long as you think it works in your favor.



They have more credibility than Jones ever had. Or you for that matter.


No they really don't. These sorts of lies are typical.



Yeah, I mentioned your "germ theory" to my local doctor, he laughed and said that you are welcome to go ahead and get infected by any disease you like.

So he cant prove his THEORY.


All theories are unprovable, duh. But you can provide evidence for them, so that it seems unreasonable they will ever be disproved.



It's all irrelevant, its all lies, the Himalayas aren't melting, the seas aren't rising, AGW is a myth, a scam.


Well, you arent proving to be a very good judge of whats a lie and whats truth. This thread is irrefutable proof that you uncritically believe transparent and trivially debunked lies



I'll give you a trend...the reputation of "climate science" going down the toilet thanks to the machinations and "manufactured data" of Jones and his ilk


Only in your mind, and the minds of the other suckers like you. But then again, thats basically no change from how it was a year ago, or two years ago, or probably even 10.

Swampfox
03-15-2010, 09:18 PM
OK, so thats progress of sorts. We've now moved you from "Jones said there was no warming", to "well.... he just can't prove it". You're getting this wrong at every turn, because thats not true either. Warming was demonstrated with his calculation, and he even told us by how much right there in his answer in the interview. What isnt demonstrated, is the claim that the warming is a trend (when considering only that 15 year period in isolation).

Statistical significance is whether observed data can be considered "real" or whether it may just be due to chance. If it's not statistically significant, then it can be due to chance.

Moreover, the statistically significant level doesn't address the vast problems with virtually all of the temperature data sets which are flawed, the flaws in the methodology, flaws in the assumptions, the "lost data" and all the other shenanigans pulled by AGW scientists.

On edit: It doesn't address the cause of any "real" or "chance" warming either.

Rockntractor
03-15-2010, 09:21 PM
You are scientifically illiterate. Theories all suffer from the problem of induction - they cannot be proven, ever.



There's only no trend (and only just so) when you artificially restrict the sample size. Thats called cherry picking - but I guess your cool with it, just as long as you think it works in your favor.



No they really don't. These sorts of lies are typical.



All theories are unprovable, duh. But you can provide evidence for them, so that it seems unreasonable they will ever be disproved.



Well, you arent proving to be a very good judge of whats a lie and whats truth. This thread is irrefutable proof that you uncritically believe transparent and trivially debunked lies



Only in your mind, and the minds of the other suckers like you. But then again, thats basically no change from how it was a year ago, or two years ago, or probably even 10.

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/retard-catthumbnail.jpg?t=1268706034

wilbur
03-15-2010, 09:23 PM
Statistical significance is whether observed data can be considered "real" or whether it may just be due to chance. If it's not statistically significant, then it can be due to chance.


This is what I have been trying to say - the issue is trend vs coincidence, not "there's warming" vs "there's no warming".



Moreover, the statistically significant level doesn't address the vast problems with virtually all of the temperature data sets which are flawed, the flaws in the methodology, flaws in the assumptions, the "lost data" and all the other shenanigans pulled by AGW scientists.

Except most of these claims come from the same contrarian media sources that so misrepresented Jones. In any case, this thread is about one particular colossal (but obvious) lie repeated by the media, and Sonnabend.

Rockntractor
03-15-2010, 09:28 PM
This is what I have been trying to say - the issue is trend vs coincidence, not "there's warming" vs "there's no warming".



Except most of these claims come from the same contrarian media sources that so misrepresented Jones. In any case, this thread is about one particular colossal (but obvious) lie repeated by the media, and Sonnabend.

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/tard.jpg?t=1268706458

Sonnabend
03-15-2010, 09:52 PM
Only in your mind, and the minds of the other suckers like you.

JONES LIED

Admit it.


It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee made a statement in regards to the alleged non-availability for disclosure of Swedish climate data.

Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.

This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data.

All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), the UK Met Office and Dr. Jones (the last correspondence dated yesterday March 4), this has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit.

STOCKHOLM INITIATIVE
Göran Ahlgren, secretary general
Kungsgatan 82
12 27 Stockholm, Sweden