It has been my position that the temps in 2015 would have to be at least 0.2 degC higher in 2015 to validate the AGW position. This was a crude calculation based on the CO2 sensitivity ranges presented in the IPCC report.
Your graphs come up with that same spread for different reasons.
That said, I don’t trust the GISS and HadCRUT datasets for the same reason I would not trust the unaudited financial statements produced by the Enron. I realize the satellite measurements have their own issues but there are two competing groups using the same dataset which helps ensure that self-serving data manipulation is kept to a minimum.
Would you take the bet on the average of UAH and RSS or is it limited to the GISS/HadCRUT?
Instead of betting money would you be willing to publicly acknowledge that AGW alarmists got the science wrong if you lost? Would you be willing to publicly apologize to skeptics who you have denigrated?
If not what would it take for you to do that?
The way I see it bets for money are a red herring since most people are prudent and would never bet more than they could afford to lose even if they were 95% sure about the outcome. Instead of fooling around with bets for money you should state what it will take to change your mind.
[Response: Your implication that GISS or HadCRU is guilty of “self-serving data manipulation” is mean-spirited, offensive, and unsupported by any evidence. Unless you can offer EVIDENCE with documentation to back it up, don’t repeat it here.
Your questions make me wonder whether you actually read the post. What part of “I’ll also emphasize that I’m not interested in betting money on it” is unclear? What part of “If, however many years from now, the no-more-warming side wins the bet, and no unequivocal caveats are identified, then I’ll admit that our understanding of global climate is insufficient and that we can’t rely on the prognostications of the climate science community” is unclear?
Shame on you.]
Posted by Jeff Id on March 28, 2009
I made another mistake again today. It’s really not my day, the Red Wings lost too. I went over to Tamino’s closed mind blog where his mindless followers swarm any dissent. Yeah, I know I never learn. Tammie simply amputates any views his angry mind can’t handle. He really is an unusually angry person. I’ve tried to discuss things with Tamino and his followers simply pile on, insult and have no idea you’re not allowed to respond.
Today my eyes caught a discussion between Ravin and Tammie …… After reading, I realized that I actually have a blog and an audience as well. So instead of getting my comments clipped, I’ll just post it here and let anyone who feels the need, make comments.
Yes I did misread your post about not wanting to make bets for money. I apologize for that. I had mixed you up with James Annan who has frequently talked about betting money.
For my I part I would also concede that the AGW point view is most likely correct if the warming trend continued into the ranges you identify. I feel your targets are a fair representation of the two possibilities.
My suspicions of the GISS and HadCRUT datasets comes from a general suspicion of any situation where there is a conflict on interest. One could argue that most executives would not deliberately manipulate their books even if they did not get audited. However, I would never invest money in company that did not allow its books to be audited by third parties.
A lot of money is riding on the temperature data so feel there is no excuse for allowing the ‘perception of possible bias’ to go on. The fact that many resist acknowledging the potential for bias simply re-enforces my view that the data should not be trusted unless it is audited by third parties.
[Response: All the data used by GISS can be downloaded from the web; the procedures they use are documented in the peer-reviewd literature; even the code for their computer programs is freely available. Their books are “open” and have been subjected to intense scrutiny.]
US taxpayers a fair amount of money for the GISS data to be produced. Expecting volunteers to replicate this work for free is not enough. Also volunteers have attempted to use the computer programs that were made available but were forced to give up because of poor documentation and OS/compiler problems.
You cannot say it has been audited unless proper funding has been provided to people who sole objective is to identify problems and ensure they get corrected.
More importantly, there have been a number of people producing analyses that suggest that the data is quite biased yet these criticisms are ignored (Anthony Watts, Ross McKitrick, Roger Peike Sr). You cannot claim that the GISS data has been subject to intense scrutiny if legitimate criticisms are regularly dismissed by the gatekeepers.
[Response: What a load of crap. Watts, McKitrick, and Pielke have generated ZERO real evidence — just as you have zero evidence of any misconduct — but they’ve slung a lot of unfounded insults — just like you have.
It seems you’re one of those who, no matter how closely the data and results are examined, will just invent yet another reason to claim it’s not enough. Keep moving the goalposts.]
It does not make a difference if you think they have zero evidence. What matters is whether their criticisms have been dealt with reasonably. Your response is typical and demonstrates that they are not being dealt with reasonably.
Right now the keepers of the data are free to arbitrarily dismiss any criticism. This state of affairs is unacceptable. Governments should take control of the data aways from the agencies developing the models. The conflict of interest is huge and would not be tolerated in any other field.
[Response: It doesn’t matter that they have zero evidence of any wrongdoing or mistake? It doesn’t matter that after years of trying to discredit the surface record, they’ve managed zip? What dream-world do you inhabit?
It would appear that from your point of view, it’s the *truth* that doesn’t matter.]
If the GISS has been fixed the Micheals and McKitrick would not have been able to find correlations between temps and social economic data. Nor would Peike be able to demonstrate biases in the measurement techniques. BTW – IPCC IR4 acknowledges the correlations found by McKitrick but dismisses them as mere “coincidence”.
Auditing is not perfect but it is a lot better than doing nothing and expecting to people to blindly trust the data. Especially when the gatekeepers like Hansen have long since dispensed with any notion of scientific objectivity and become political activists.
The limited disclosure of GISS methods was only done after the government forced NASA to do so. More critically: the information that was disclosed did not allow others to replicate the work which means the disclosure was meaningless.
I consider the fact that it was necessary to fight to get any disclosure from NASA is more evidence of bad faith on the part of the gatekeepers and yet one more reason why the data should be treated as suspect until proven otherwise.
The idea that the fossil fuel industry should finance the effort is absurd – you know damn well that you would reject any work funded in that manner. The money should come the governments that fund the people making the alarmist claims.
[Response: You’re entitled to your own opinion. But you’re not entitled to your own facts.
GISS procedures have been part of the peer-reviewed literature for nearly a decade, and have always been an open book.
As for correlations between temps and social economic data, quite a bit of fudging and cherry-picking was included to make the correlations appear stronger than they really are; essentially, they simply removed the data they didn’t like. And if you don’t believe in the existence of coincidence, you don’t know much about statistics.
Your statement that “gatekeepers like Hansen have long since dispensed with any notion of scientific objectivity” is nothing short of libelous. It’s the last time you’ll make such a statement here; reiterations will go straight to the trashcan.]