Posts by Steve Curtis
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The upgrades required for a cinema are to the screen and a digital projector, around $100,000 plus.
So I dont think the cinema in Hokitika is really showing it in 3D.
The posters may claim otherwise. -
Didnt the Myers family give a few million to Auckland University new School of Dance , which opened in the old 1YA/AKTV2 building in Shortland St, getting their name over the door.
Oh that would be the' Kenneth' Myers Centre
-
Answer is easy .
Have a reverse pyramid for funding by the NZRU.
Those like Auckland & Canterbury get nothing , those at the bottom get the most.
Problem solved.
But it does seem like Steve Tew couldnt run a barbeque at the local rugby club -
The gist of the Statistical Review of Manns Hackey Stick series is shown in the wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversyMBH98 and MBH99 were found to be "somewhat obscure and incomplete" and the criticisms by McIntyre and McKitrick were found to be "valid and compelling."
The report found that MBH method creates a PC1 statistic dominated by bristlecone and foxtail pine tree ring series (closely related species). However there is evidence in the literature, that the use of the bristlecone pine series as a temperature proxy may not be valid (suppressing "warm period" in the hockey stick handle); and that bristlecones do exhibit CO2-fertilized growth over the last 150 years (enhancing warming in the hockey stick blade).
It is noted that there is no evidence that Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.They continue to publish papers without expert co authors who are statisticians
-
The serious skeptics have been saying for some time the CRU and the group around Mann and Real Climate have been withholding the data. The emails and the lets not forget the code for the programs have shown much is amiss in the House of climate, wether it will be a house of cards we will see.
Remember the great hurricane debate, Russell was amoung those hitching that weather phenomena to the global warming horse, but of course it turned out to be a donkey, much as the sceptics predicted -
ExxonMobils profit last year was $48 billion, Im sure $10,000 for a few papers by willing dupes would probablybe taken out of the flowers budget for the head office.
Of course the Guardian hardly had a clean nose on this calling it ExxonMobils money when it was from AEI.
Meanwhile their web site has been heavy with Shell advertising. So some big oil money isnt so bad after all.
Back at he NY Times their reporter on Climate Andrew Revkin was much more directly shown to be shilling for Mann and co. he could all ways go and work for them like GWB aides did for their sponsors -
Russell , apart from getting off ' wheres the data path', your link
And ExxonMobil offered researchers $10,000 each to dissent from a major climate change report in 2007. goes to AEI via The Guardian.Yes AEI, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, not quite ExxonMobil, but well accept that perhaps Exxon has given some money to a business orientated policy research outfit who cover many topics .
Any way regarding the IPCC AR4 the AEI says thisIn general, the three working group reports do an admirable job of reviewing and evaluating an enormous body of scientific work and are well worth careful reading. A careful reading, however, will disabuse any fair-minded reader that many important aspects of climate science are "settled" and beyond argument.
Thats really flinging the mud. Thats what happens when you offer $10,000 , everybody debases themselves.
AS for GWBs aides, that was deplorable, but was a feature of other agencies that were politicised as well, and hey they were politicians doing what they do.
Meanwhile back to emails AND the search for the data this email sequence has been examined in detail
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/Emails, from CRUs Phil Jones and NOAAs Kevin Trenberth (a Kiwi)to Professor Wibjorn Karlen.
In short, the problem is that I cannot find data supporting the temperature curves in IPCC and also published in e.g. Forster, P. et al. 2007: Assessing uncertainty in climate simulation. Nature 4: 63-64.
-
A comparison with Tobacco would be if the world had warmed say 10C over the last century instead of 0.6C and the skeptics would ask where is the evidence?
From memory the risk factor for smoking and lung cancer was 30 times that of a non smoker.
-
Honest scientists ??
The emails show differently.When they want the rest of the world to change their ways, at the cost of 100's of billions, is disclosing the detailed raw data that difficult?
In fact most peer reviewed journals require it, but dont enfoce it.Faux Climate makes a big deal of open sources ...now. But its authors have those behind the hiding of source data for published research. Of course its a public relations gesture,as they will only give to 'approved researchers'
NIWA says we have told you 'Why' so go away. And when asked 'How' they say you are not scientists or something
The people NIWA fear most is the Met Service , who they have been in open conflict for some time, with a truce papering over the cracks
-
The CSC was told by NIWA two years ago why the data were corrected, and seems to have simply ignored that explanation in the hope of getting a "gotcha" story to take hold.
Ah no.. The WHY is not in dispute , its the HOW where NIWA are digging in their heels or they play the trick of 'putting it in plain site', its up to you to find it ?.
eg
"The graph of the New Zealand temperature record on the NIWA website is based on just seven weather stations. What, precisely, gives NIWA confidence that they are representative of the whole country?""2. What, precisely, are the adjustments made to the temperature readings at each of those seven stations and when were they each made? We request access to the raw data involved in the making of these adjustments."
Mr Dunleavy comments: “We disagree. We have no record of receiving an explanation. NIWA has in fact refused numerous requests over the years to disclose the corrections. The most recent one was a written request to Dr James Renwick - over a month ago - still unanswered
www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0911/S00057.htmOf course the AGW people want the change the way "everybody else works" , but hey they want just stick to their research without these pesky FOI/OIA requests.