This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
I was directed to this movie to get a proper introduction to why the Climate Scientists are "correct".
Every one of the Mathematicians in this show needs to read "Sorry, Wrong Number!"
The wanded charts ... Oh man the wanded charts. Chartmanship is hard enough to control when you are on a solid piece of graph paper. A chart floating on a screen that was walked across!
Then they put the "Computed world picture" up on the screen with its simulated clouds swirling. Looks sort of "real", except the swirling has patterns in it that cause my neck to twitch. Pretty pictures do sell. Always be afraid of pretty pictures.
Kriging? There is nothing wrong with using the idea to assign mining rights. Using it to adjust temperatures is a different subject altogether.
League Tables? Apparently the Wage of the team is its most important indicator. Pick the team with the highest wage ...
"How did the IPCC get 95% when their results say > 99% chance than 50% of the warming is human caused?"
They just adjusted the number downward so they wouldn't seem overconfident.
Kriging. The original idea was about taking samples every couple of kilometers, assessing the amount of ore in each location and then creating a distribution map. Seems like a perfectly reasonable idea to apply ores in the ground. The ores in the ground are sort of stable in their place. Doing the same thing with temperatures? Instead of being kilometers or less between sample locations, the distance is orders of magnitude greater. The metric being distributed is changing on you by the minute. The resolution of the data you have is at best daily. You can have step changes in daily temperatures due to the magical properties of water. We don't actually have the metric the tells us about those magical properties in the data set (T wet). Yet the mathematical magicians manage to Krig the temps across the world.
What happened to all the gray haired men? (apologies to women, gray haired women are allowed to slap down young punks with their wild "new" ideas also). [Now my PC mania is in gear.... gray means experienced. Gray means "That's a great idea son. Take a week and write it up. We will put it in the file and revisit it in 5 years!"
The gray hairs aren't trying to shut down the young punks. They are just trying to say. "Yes, ideas are wonderful and can be applied in many glorious ways. I was there once. I wanted to change the world. Then I learned that you can't chase a delayed signal and control it. Make a tiny adjustment and wait for the perturbations to wither away."
That documentary "Climate change by numbers" was shown on British TV, the BBC of course, about three weeks ago. It was the talk of the British AGW sceptic blogosphere for about the first week of March. The current "Season 1 Episode 1" description on the Youtube upload is misleading - it is only a single documentary as far as I am aware.
A couple of noteworthy reactions to the documentary from the Daily Telegraph's Christopher Booker and GWPF's David Whitehouse:
I don't think the purpose of the documentary is to convert us AGW sceptics to the cause, the idea behind it is probably to try to reduce the influence, such as it is, of AGW sceptics on politicians and the media. AGW sceptics have I think had some success in promoting the notion that climate scientists are not all that competent at statistics thanks to the efforts of people like Steve McIntyre, Doug Keenan and Matt Briggs. The documentary appears to me to be trying to bolster up the impression of statistical competence of climate science by bringing in three academics not connected with climate science to say that all the work is hunky dory.
As I remember it, the last documentary that the executive producer of "Climate change by numbers", Jonathan Renouf, made on climate change was a notorious one back in 2008 called "Earth: the climate wars". This documentary used a geologist academic, Iain Stewart, as the main presenter. At that particular time (200 geologists seemed to have a bit of a reputation for being inclined towards AGW scepticism, and the idea of bringing in the warmist Stewart might have been to counteract the influence of AGW sceptic geologists.
Well. Some of the warmists think that that show tells it well. I am tempted to go back and try and engage the people who sent me on the show. The cynic in me suggests that this is a futile idea. I can't even stimulate an interest in what enthalpy is in such arenas.
Reading the articles you linked to here doesn't make me think that anyone is likely to engage the enthalpy elephant. It is way too easy to lose listeners if you start talking about units of energy.