Posted by: graemebird | February 21, 2009

Archibald:Where The Science Is.

This four-part video presentation by David Archibald ought to be considered a very good summary of what the science is telling us. Now the science EVIDENCE is something different from dumb-science-worker sentiment and from the outright science fraud of the hard-core global warming movement.

Why am I singling out Archibald as arbiter of the actual scientific evidence when he has been subjected to so much ridicule by that most malign of Michelin-men Tim Lambert?

Simply because Lambert and every stupid idiot in the world can make an ass of themselves and this is not scientific evidence.

There is a cliche around the place that “the science is summarised in the IPPC reports”. This is just a lie. But the relevant evidence has been very nicely summarised by Archibald in these videos and what the science tells us is that we are headed for cooling.

Now can we get an even better presentation than this? Yes I think so. I think in the future we will be able to be able to get some sort of relationship between the solar wind and climate change that is even better than the solar cycle relationships. The sunspot data has predictive value. The length of the solar cycle is better than that. But the solar wind is probably going to be a better indicator than that again if indeed it can be predicted.

Also insights to do with the electric universe theory could lead to even better understanding. But for the moment I would consider this presentatoin the best indication of what we can expect if WE ONLY WORRY ABOUT THE EVIDENCE AND NOTHING ELSE.

We are not saying here that this is all the last word on the subject. Or even that I fully agree with everything here. But if you were to ask “Where abouts is the authentic science on this controversy right now” then it would be hard to do better than this presentation and we can be pretty sure that we are headed for cooling.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Archibald?

    NO YOU ARE LYING. SO I HAVE TO WIPE YOUR POST. ADDED TO THAT YOU ARE AN IDIOT AND A COMPLETE CUNT. EVEN IN RETROSPECT YOU DON’T ADMIT IT WHEN YOU ARE PROVEN TOTALLY WRONG.

    ARCHIBALD DID A COST-EFFECTIVE STUDY WHICH TURNED OUT TO BE ENTIRELY CORRECT. SO HE CHOSE THE 5 WEATHER STATIONS VERY CAREFULLY. THATS WHAT BEING COST-EFFECTIVE IS ABOUT. HIS CONCLUSIONS WERE DRAMATICALLY PROVEN RIGHT AFTER MCINTYRE AND OTHERS CORRECTED FOR THE BODGY DATA. AS IT TURNS OUT THE 30’S WERE ABOUT AS WARM AS THE 90’S. PERHAPS WARMER. AND ARCHIBALD IS SUCH A GOOD SCIENTIST THAT EVEN THOUGH HE MUST HAVE SPENT PENNIES ON HIS STUDY HE WOUND UP GETTING IT RIGHT EVEN BEFORE THE BODGY DATA WAS CORRECTED. WHAT ARCHIBALD SUSSED OUT ON A BUDGET IS NOW KNOWN REALITY. WHICH JUST SHOWS HOW SOLID THIS GUY IS….

    …. AND IT GIVES US A TASTE OF HOW MUCH FANTASTICALLY MORE COST-EFFECTIVE FREE ENTERPRISE SCIENCE WOULD BE. AND HOW MUCH BETTER OFF WE WOULD BE TO CUT OFF ALL THE FUNDS.

  2. To provide a baseline for projecting temperature to the projected maximum of solar
    cycle 25 in 2024, data from five, rural, continental US stations with data from 1905 to
    2003 was averaged and smoothed.

    What were his criteria? How would I go about replicating his results?

    YOU’D ASK HIM PERHAPS. OR YOU WOULD THINK ABOUT THE PROBLEM AND CHOOSE THE BEST FIVE ON THE CRITERIA THAT YOU THINK WOULD BE BEST. IF YOU DO IT RIGHT YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO WIND UP WITH IMMENSELY ROBUST RESULTS LIKE HIS THAT CUT THROUGH ALL THE LIES AND DATA MANIPULATION AND ANTICIPATED THE RIGHT CONCLUSIONS AFTER MCINTYRE HAD TAKEN THE BLOWTORCH TO THE DECREPID SOCIALIST SCIENCE.

    NOW WHAT WAS YOUR PROBLEM YOU STUPID CUNT? YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT SCIENCE DO YOU!!!!

    WHAT EXACTLY YOUR PROBLEM WITH THE NUMBER 5? IS IT JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE AN IDIOT? IT ACTUALLY MIRRORED EARLIER DATA FROM EUROPE IF MY MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECTLY. EARLIER DATA FROM EARLIER CENTURIES.

    WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR PROBLEM AGAIN?

  3. What is your point again? Repeatability and audit? How you going to audit Michael Manns Antarctic study? Why bother when you know its a lie. But in fact Archibalds study lends itself to repeatability much more easily than just about anything else I’ve seen.

    If he’s working for some small institute and he’s not a bullshitartist leftist they aren’t going to worry about too much else then him getting it right at a good cost. He did both and amazingly so.

    Are you going to be able to repeat the results more easily on 5 stations or 500?

    You see you are a dumb cunt and you don’t have a point.

  4. “OR YOU WOULD THINK ABOUT THE PROBLEM AND CHOOSE THE BEST FIVE ON THE CRITERIA THAT YOU THINK WOULD BE BEST.”

    What if my criteria were “the 5 stations which show the largest increase in surface temperatures”?

    Would that be “immensely robust”?

  5. No that would be terrible. Clearly he didn’t do that because he’s a scientist. How many stations would you choose and why?

    I’m asking because I want to find out how an idiot would do things.

  6. I ASKED YOU A QUESTION YOU FUCKING CUNT. SO ANSWER IT. THIS IS NOT CATALLAXY AND YOU DON’T GET TO WASTE MY TIME HERE FILIBUSTING FOR DAYS ON END.

  7. See if you weren’t full of shit Zed you would ask and answer questions honestly and in pretty equal measure. But because you are full of shit you could never be cut out to be a scientist.

  8. Well there you go. You are just no good without the dishonest filibuster. And suppose you had been able to filibuster?

    Would that have changed the nature of reality and made your crap answers any good?

  9. Archy rejects urban weather stations on the grounds of the urban heat island effect. This is a clear, if contestable criteria for the exclusions.

    NO ITS NOT CONTESTABLE YOU FUCKWIT. HENCE HE DID THE RIGHT THING AND YOU HAVE CONFESSED YOU WOULD HAVE POLLUTED THE DATA.

    NOW YOU HAVE A QUESTION TO ANSWER SO STOP FILIBUSTING.

  10. THIS POST CONTAINS A LIE THAT YOU HAD ANSWERED THE QUESTION BEFORE. SO I HAD TO WIPE IT. TRY AGAIN. IF YOU ARE ANSWERING FOR THE FIRST TIME DON’T PRETEND THAT YOU ANSWERED EARLIER ON.

  11. Just in case Z wipes my post on his new forum dedicated to me. Its not the first blog dedicated to me and it won’t be the last.

    “He is being cost-effective. And he is relating modern information to the earlier information he had from Europe two centuries before.

    Less is more. You pick 5 stations you can be sure of and it will give you an honest indication but the implied error bars will be wider. This effort to include all the available data is not cost-effective and you can always go back for more.

    If we look at the global averages they were not only buggered by the heat island effect. But they were also buggered by the collapse of the Soviets, leading to the Siberian stations closing down. Thus giving us a spurious higher average figure for the 90’s. By choosing 5 you save time and money and if more time and money become available you can then go back and pick out 25 that you can be sure of.

    The proof is in the pudding. Archibalds study came through with the goods and was robust enough to anticipate the corrections in the data that McIntyre forced on NASA.

    Archibald is an extremely solid scientist. And I would say this comes from working in industry as much as anything else.”

    Archibald sometimes has a sweeping way with words that may trip people up a bit. As a scientist he makes a good journalist because he seems to hone in on the scoop. A very solid guy. He’d make a great director of research. Finding what you want to know in the most cost-effective way. Or at least thats the impression I’ve got so far. I couldn’t be more impressed.

  12. Z appears to be saying that because Archibald picked 5 stations they must have been cherry-picked. But if they were cherry-picked they wouldn’t serve the purpose of giving a scientific indication and so it would be a waste of time.

    What appears to be going on here is that Z is so dishonest he cannot imagine someone picking 5 stations on the basis that one wants to find out the truth of the situation. If you want to find the answer the last thing you are going to do is cherrry-pick the five. Because if you rig the answer you don’t get the right answer.

    The problem here is that a leftist like Z thinks that you go out to create reality. Rather than simply find out about reality.

    You can go with 5 stations, see what results you get, relate it to the earlier study, and then if you don’t think the scope of the data was enough to provide an accurate answer, you might then go back and select 25.

    Thats the way you would do things in the private sector when you want a fast and cheap answer.

    It should be noted that Archibald got better results from 5 stations then anyone else seems to have got from more extensive data at least until McIntyre forced NASA to update the data.

    Less is more.

    “Here you are fighting a battle. You want cost-effectiveness, time-effectiveness and truthfulness on the one hand. And on the other hand you have statistical significance. You can always go back to get more of the latter. But its not real important. 5 good central continental stations ought to have been good enough. And as it turned out they were.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: