or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global Warming Hysteria Building
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Global Warming Hysteria Building - Page 3

post #81 of 440
Hey. If burning piles of money to help get our country off fossil fuels is what it takes -- then let's burn it. Seriously. Because there are a TON of benefits other than reducing global warming for doing so.

Like giving the middle east the bird.

Telling Opec it can go screw itself.

Those are the first two that come to mind.

Oh. How about better and cleaner air to breathe here at home?

Let's not be so short sighted. Okay?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #82 of 440
Sorry. Can't resist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

The recent IPCC summery (today's SPM release).

'Summary',

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

The recent IPCC summery (today's SPM release) http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG...ryApproved.pdf has been promoted as just more sensationalist hooey from the science illiterate press, giving a forum to global warming idealogues.

'ideologues'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

confusing their scientific training with a talent to devine and pontificate on the human conditiion.

'Divine'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

The interested reader (if not numbed the continual fear mongering)

'Numbed by.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

propoganda though has been the REDUCTION of claims from the third report.

'Propaganda.'

Quote:
It seems that a cadre of climate hyterics is the group are getting stressed by the better news, and sounding far more alarmist than ever:

'Hysterics'.

I could go on, but I think I've been anal enough.
post #83 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsLan^ View Post

That's awesome

In breaking news, seven die in terror attack staged by polar bear extremists. The bears infilitrated the coastline, apparently floating on ice bergs, and began their suicidal rampage

[CENTER]



Run for your effin' LIVES![/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #84 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Nonsense. Whatever the effects of a few degrees will be on global climate man will adapt, as it has for 10,000 years. Consider: the Sahara has been drier and wetter than today; Europe has been wermer and colder than today; the same that can be said of North America, Asia, Siberia, etc. All regions of the world have experienced dramatic climate shifts at various times in human history. So what?

Changes will continue. The little Ice Age is over, New York had a mild winter, GDP increased this winter because of mild weather...who knows.



Doesn't look that dramatic to me (the thick black line)?



After looking at this graph (it just came to me I swear), if you look at it rotated 90 degrees CW, why it looks just like a hockey stick!

But in another 500 years or so you won't need to rotate the graph! Why? Because the blade will become the stick and vica versa!



Yeah, it was so easy to deal with just Mother Nature over the past 10K years, when humans WERE a small group of people living the simple life, in a relatively mild environment as benign as the last 10K years!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #85 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Hey. If burning piles of money to help get our country off fossil fuels is what it takes -- then let's burn it. Seriously. Because there are a TON of benefits other than reducing global warming for doing so.

Like giving the middle east the bird.

Telling Opec it can go screw itself.

Those are the first two that come to mind.

Oh. How about better and cleaner air to breathe here at home?

Let's not be so short sighted. Okay?

And you will get no argument from me on any of those three points. I'm personally advocating we spend insane piles of money building subways throughout the entire Toronto area.

Just don't tell me we're doing it to stop some crazy doomsday predictions from hyperventilating activists based on flawed, twisted and incomplete data.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #86 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

And you will get no argument from me on any of those three points.
Just don't tell me we're doing it to stop some crazy doomsday predictions from hyperventilating activists based on flawed, twisted and incomplete data.

"Doomsday", "hyperventilating", "flawed", "twisted"...I think you forgot "satanic". For someone criticizing the "hysterians", you strike me as a little nutty yourself Dr. I'm assuming you're qualified to disregard that data?
post #87 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Doesn't look that dramatic to me (the thick black line)?

You made several of mistakes:

1) We are speaking of Climate Change not Temperature Change. Climate is a combination of precipitation, humidity, temperature averages and extremes, winds, cloud cover, and seasonal variations.

2) My point was that individual areas, at different times, have experienced greater extremes in climate than we have today (not that they all experienced the same extreme and the same time).

3) The Holocene graph is a ad hoc compilation by Dragoon systems, not a scientific claim. Holocene temperatures proxies are very problematical and the different colored lines show wild swings, some of them way above current temperatures.

4) The modern wiki spaghetti proxy graph is a product of proxy studies by a group of con-artists and pseudo scientists. Mann is one of the leading con men who has been caught lieing and dissembling, the rest are associates. The NAS study showed them to be tricksters, its too bad they continue to fool people with their bull.
post #88 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

You made several of mistakes:

1) We are speaking of Climate Change not Temperature Change. Climate is a combination of precipitation, humidity, temperature averages and extremes, winds, cloud cover, and seasonal variations.

2) My point was that individual areas, at different times, have experienced greater extremes in climate than we have today (not that they all experienced the same extreme and the same time).

3) The Holocene graph is a ad hoc compilation by Dragoon systems, not a scientific claim. Holocene temperatures proxies are very problematical and the different colored lines show wild swings, some of them way above current temperatures.

4) The modern wiki spaghetti proxy graph is a product of proxy studies by a group of con-artists and pseudo scientists. Mann is one of the leading con men who has been caught lieing and dissembling, the rest are associates. The NAS study showed them to be tricksters, its too bad they continue to fool people with their bull.

1 & 2) YOU titled this thread "Global Warming ...," not I. And DOH! to "climate change" you know until you told me so, all along I thought the climate was STATIC, that it had NEVER changed!

3 & 4) I saw that one coming, trust me. So before posting those figures, I did a little background checking about the paleoclimate (PC) proxy temperature reconstructions, in fact a WHOLE LOT of background checking, very recent work, in fact. But it's all summed up quite nicely at Hockey stick controversy and very recent peer reviewed scientific papers such as Climate Over the Past Two Millennia by Mann, M. (2007) and Millennial temperature reconstruction intercomparison and evaluation by Juckes, M. N., et. al. (2006), plus the NAS study, plus the NRC study, plus about 40 other peer reviewed scientific references, plus getting enough background on the ClimateAudit hitmen, go figure, "The Miner and the Economist" (M&M) versus "The Climate Scientists."

The NAS study? You mean the one assembled at the request of U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, an outspoken global warming skeptic;

Quote:
The (NAS) Wegman report has itself been criticized for a number of things:

The report was not subject to formal peer review.

The result of fixing the alleged errors in the overall reconstruction does not change the general shape of the reconstruction. Similarly, studies that use completely different methodologies also yield very similar reconstructions.

The social network analysis has no value without comparative studies in other tightly defined areas of science. The network of co-authorship is not unusual at all.

Quote:
The report of Wegman and his colleagues has been criticized by a group of climate scientists for drawing unjustified conclusions. Using the original MBH emulation and centered paleoclimate analysis, they say they have conclusively shown that if Dr. Mann had consulted the paleoclimate centering conventions at the time which Wegman and his colleagues single out, it would have made no practical difference to Dr. Mann’s assessments at all.

And from the NRC report;

Quote:
The instrumentally measured warming of about 0.6°C during the 20th century is also reflected in borehole temperature measurements, the retreat of glaciers, and other observational evidence, and can be simulated with climate models.

Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The existence and extent of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents. Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse but more limited set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia, but the exact timing and duration of warm periods may have varied from region to region, and the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain.

It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.

Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.

Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods.

And from Stefan Rahmstorf's website;

Quote:
Cutting through all this rhetoric, it becomes evident that the positions of von Storch and colleagues and Mann and colleagues are in fact not very far apart any more, for all practical purposes. There is no more talk about the "hockey stick" being "nonsense" and similar unwarranted claims by von Storch, which had brought the issue into the media and the US Senate. A panel of the US National Academy of Sciences has also just vindicated the "hockey stick". The remaining debate has now come down to rather small errors in the proxy method, of the order of 0.1 - 0.2 ºC (not a large bias of 0.7 ºC as initially claimed by von Storch et al.) This is interesting for experts but need not concern the general public. All political and media excitement about this issue has in fact been in vain.

Note also from the above website, on the publications page Rahmstorf's most recent publication titled "Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections." With some additional commentary at NewScientist, Sea level rise outpacing key predictions. So basically the IPCC report is just doing what scientists inherently do, erring on the side of conservatism in making future climate forecasts, in this case future sea level rise.

So you see, when someone spews their Beliefs (i. e. you) versus someone who spews the Facts (i. e. myself), let's just say you are an easy mark!

Inotherwords, you took the bait, hook, line, and sinker!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #89 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Run for your effin' LIVES!

Thanks for that
post #90 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Global Warming Hysteria Building

Can you back this claim up with solid evidence? How do you define "hysteria"? Where is your proof of an upward trend in this alleged "hysteria"? Are there any truly accurate measures of hysteria levels over time on which you are basing your conclusion, or do you have nothing more than unsubstantiated personal impressions and/or crazy theoretical models to go by? Where is your proof of a link between hysteria and global warming? Have you considered that you might simply be observing a natural fluctuation in hysteria levels that has nothing to do with global warming?

Even if there is growing hysteria over global warming, there's probably nothing we can do about it anyway, so you might as well just accept it and stop wasting time fussing about it and creating more global warming hysteria hysteria.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #91 of 440
If there would be hysteria about global warming, there wouldn't be one car on the road. As far as I can tell the 5 freeway is still a complete mess every day. The stacks are still smokin' and the snowmobiles are still stinking as well as the lawn mowers.
post #92 of 440
Found this for all you folks to read.

Global Warming - The mini series.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #93 of 440
Quote:
If there would be hysteria about global warming, there wouldn't be one car on the road. As far as I can tell the 5 freeway is still a complete mess every day. The stacks are still smokin' and the snowmobiles are still stinking as well as the lawn mowers.


That's a central point, which engenders a slightly mystifying one:

Where is this army of hippies and environmentalists and free market haters, and why haven't they been more successful?

Typically when reactionaries mount disinformation campaigns it is because they actually feel threatened, but in the case of Business as Usual vs. Dirty Hippies I'm hard pressed to find any evidence that the Dirty Hippies are having any influence at all, aside from the odd stand of trees or snow mobile.

The way Max (and his ilk) carry on you would think that Dirty Hippies are on the cusp of stripping us of our modern amenities, or plunging the world into some kind of self-inflicted dark age, or otherwise so disrupting global economies that there's no telling what will happen.

And they want to do this because they, uh, hate modern life? Have irrational animosity towards industrial society? Just like to fuck things up? Because of the big bucks to made in the Environmental-Hippy complex?

I mean, the fake science hand waving is pretty obviously bullshit, but the stated motivational underpinnings are just so bizarre-- from the imputations of a global warming industry that somehow co-opts the entire scientific community in a giant corrupt funding scam (why? there are far easier ways to score some public money than to go through these elaborate machinations), to intimations of monkey wrenching on a vast scale, somehow carried out by the same feckless losers that are otherwise the subject of endless derision and dismissive contempt by the same people that, in this instance, grant them fiendish powers of manipulation.

I have a theory: it's all just plain old hippy hating, writ large, and particularly a reflexive revulsion that a hippy might be in a position to tell a proper man what he can and cannot do.

One thing your right wing ideologue really really hates is being told what he can and cannot do, a trait your right wing ideologue shares with the average three year old. Talk of "limits"-- of American power, of the right to do whatever the hell you want, of the capacity of the planet to absorb abuse-- is guaranteed to get your wingnut pundit fulminating into his Wheaties.

And having limits posited by those people-- the fey, the liberal, the feminine, the losers, the socialists and just generally the kind of people whose fear and jealously of real men make them the ankle biters of society--is absolutely intolerable.

Usually it's not a problem, because power makes it own rules. Fags, poor people and dusky foreigners don't really get much say in how it all goes down, so that's all good.

But this Mother Earth thing-- she seems to be getting quite the hearing, and that just won't do, the lying bitch. Worse, Dirty Hippies are using her bullshit to empower themselves! And "science" claims they have a case!

Well, fuck that. Science has obviously been pussy whipped, so science can shut the fuck up, thank you very much.

Everything else, all the tediously circular citations of controversy and aggressively beside the point minutiae, is just theater. I mean, you can't very well just go around saying "science is pussy whipped, fuck science", so you need some kind of framework to hang it all on, no matter how ramshackle and ad hoc.

So I think we're arguing up the wrong tree when we try to "refute" that framework, since it has never been about that, really.

It's about rage against limits, and the hippies that want to rub our noses in it.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #94 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Can you back this claim up with solid evidence? How do you define "hysteria"? Where is your proof of an upward trend in this alleged "hysteria"? Are there any truly accurate measures of hysteria levels over time on which you are basing your conclusion, or do you have nothing more than unsubstantiated personal impressions and/or crazy theoretical models to go by? Where is your proof of a link between hysteria and global warming? Have you considered that you might simply be observing a natural fluctuation in hysteria levels that has nothing to do with global warming?

Even if there is growing hysteria over global warming, there's probably nothing we can do about it anyway, so you might as well just accept it and stop wasting time fussing about it and creating more global warming hysteria hysteria.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #95 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

1 & 2) YOU titled this thread "Global Warming ...," not I. And DOH! to "climate change" you know until you told me so, all along I thought the climate was STATIC, that it had NEVER changed!

PT I

I am more than willing to discuss paleo-climate hooey, but let's be clear - the thread was global warming hysteria (regarding what is coming). This hysteria is based on feared climate changes caused by warming. As I said:

"Nonsense. Whatever the effects of a few degrees will be on global climate man will adapt, as it has for 10,000 years. Consider: the Sahara has been drier and wetter than today; Europe has been wermer and colder than today; the same that can be said of North America, Asia, Siberia, etc. All regions of the world have experienced dramatic climate shifts at various times in human history. So what? Changes will continue. The little Ice Age is over, New York had a mild winter, GDP increased this winter because of mild weather...who knows?"

It eludes me how prior temperature graphs have anything to do with my observation that WHATEVER past temperature, past CLIMATE has varied on BOTH sides of most regions norms of climate and we have survived quite nicely.

PT II

Quote:
(3 & 4) I saw that one coming, trust me. So before posting those figures, I did a little background checking about the paleoclimate (PC) proxy temperature reconstructions, in fact a WHOLE LOT of background checking, very recent work, in fact. But it's all summed up quite nicely at Hockey stick controversy and very recent peer reviewed scientific papers such as Climate Over the Past Two Millennia by Mann, M. (2007) and...Inotherwords, you took the bait, hook, line, and sinker!

[/quote]

You don't know how much I like reading a giddy discourse against those who see signs of hysteria - makes ya think, no?

Anyway, as you mix references to two different graphs throughout your message, let's seperate the two for discussion. So let's take the Reconstructed Graph first.

As you may know, it has been a long-time objective of paleoclimate GEW's (global earth wamers) to eliminate the Medival Warm Period (Demming 1995) and to show current temperatures as higher today than at any time in the past. The first success of the cadre of Mann, et. al., occured with the ICPP (a UN political organization mandated to stop warming) publication of of Mann's graph form his 98/99 papers on reconstructing temperatures based on proxy's (tree rings, ice cores, etc.).

McIntyre a statistical geologist and math whiz, joined by McKittrich a econmetricest, in a series of papers discovered that the "path-breaking" work was of dubious value, if not useless. The controversy cumulated in an NAS panel and independent examination by Wegman, Chairman of Applied Statistics of the NAS. The NAS/NRC findings BACKED UP M&M where:

Mann should not have used the important Bristlecone/Cedar Gaspar pines for dating
Mann should have not used Principle Components
Mann should have used R2 and cross validation statistics.
Mann and all researchers should release their data bases and computational methods.
Researchers have to be careful about cherry picking.

Wegman, which was peer-reviewed, was even more scathing. Concluding that climate scientists don't know a hell of a lot about statistics and ought to have real statisticians helping them design studies.

However, NAS/NRC (same report) also said that other studies backed up Mann's findings.

As has been pointed out, this is contradictory. First because this is not actually so until the 1900's and the end of the hockstick, (e.g. Moberg finds the MWPeriod) and MORE IMPORTANTLY ALL THE SUPPORTING STUDIES HAVE THE SAME OR MOST OF THE SAME FLAWS AS MANN. In otherwords, NAS/NRC basically said that certain sources and methods were tainted BUT don't worry, other studies using the same tainted approach back up MANN.

Only a desire to protect Mann from outsider criticism and to protect ideological inspired findings can explain this ODD division of opinion - perhaps more understandable when you realize the panel was not independent and several members had direct conflicts of interest.

None the less, this has not stopped the fevered Mann-ites at Real Climate from repeasting the same bogues claims ad infnitum: the M&M were refuted, that Wegman was not peer reviewed, etc.

One way to settle this issue is for all the researchers to release complete sets of data, documentation, code, and methods of computation. With only ONE recent exception, all have refused. All of them have said, in effect "Trust me or my buddies, you don't need to know what is behind my claims".

M&M post all data, methods, and computations - the critics do not. Nuff said.

More later (superbowl is coming, gotta go to a buddy's house) but till then look at McIntyre's reconstruction. Using the data that the various studies have released (which is not complete as the authors are afraid to reveal all their data, but he has figured out most of it) he "recomputed" the proxy by replacing a couple of cherry picks with another two sets of nearby data.

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/agu06.ppt


Variations of standard reconstructions using Polar Urals update instead of Yamal and Sargasso Sea SST instead of G Bulloides wind speed proxy and Yakutia instead of problematic bristlecones/foxtails.

Note that when the subs are made, the MWP is higher. So, as McIntyre has said, given the large amount of proxy data that is available, and the cherry picking by reasearchers, one can construct a number of curves.

In otherwords, its all hooey:

BTW - All but one of the studies fail cross-validation statistics and R2...
post #96 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Found this for all you folks to read.

Global Warming - The mini series.

Nick

More work, always more work, oh well it's actually kinda fun!

OK, the first thing one does is an MO check of said link. OK, National Post, a conservative Canadian Newspaper, with a 10 part series series on GW skeptics titled "The Deniers." IMHO I much prefer the term "Denialists" or Denialism kinda reminds me of Nihilists or Nihilism, don't know why though?

So said link is part 10 in this ongoing series, about an astrophysicist Dr. Nir J. Shaviv (not Shariv as reported is said link), with his theory of GW caused by cosmic rays, see On the Role of Cosmic Ray Flux variations as a Climate Driver: The Debate, actually IMHO quite an interesting read. But basically we have three proxies, benthic, ice core, and meteorite data showing similar trends, and of course a lot of true scientific debate on underlying causualty. Svensmark is another scientist in the cosmic ray camp.

So basically, the Solar System moves through the Milky Way galaxy and cosmic rays vary on a time scale ~10^5 to ~10^8 years, kinda significantly different from the current trendline of ~10^1 to 10^2 years, see for example this link at RealClimate Taking Cosmic Rays for a spin.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #97 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

It eludes me how prior temperature graphs have anything to do with my observation that WHATEVER past temperature, past CLIMATE has varied on BOTH sides of most regions norms of climate and we have survived quite nicely.

And you missed my point entirely, that past climate changes in the last 10K years are much less than what is occuring NOW with a highly technological interdependent society of 6.5B people (and estimated at ~9B to 10B in this century).

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

You don't know how much I like reading a giddy discourse against those who see signs of hysteria - makes ya think, no?

Actually, NO! It's just politics as usual, really nothing new here, REALLY!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Anyway, as you mix references to two different graphs throughout your message, let's seperate the two for discussion.

Oh please, ClimateZenMaster, show me the error of my ways, why oh why have I been so blind?


Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

So let's take the Reconstructed Graph first.

.
.
.

Big Snip!

.
.
.

In otherwords, its all hooey.

You have heard the phrase "Publish or Perish" have you not? In a broad sense it applies to anyone in a profession. Historically this has ment professional peer reviewed publications NOT the blog-o-sphere! Until such time that the blog-o-sphere commits to a professional peer reviewed process, I'll take all the blog-o-sphere spin with a grain of salt!

So my take on M&M? Not professionally educated/trained/experienced in the fields of science, statistics, or engineering. Basically, a policy wonk and an economist, who can do statistics, maybe Major League Baseball (or the NFL) could use their talents?

Share the data, methods, procedures? Let's see now, I have worked for the federal government for over 20 years now, you know it's called IP, and the feds do consider it important to those that do the ORIGINAL work!

So basically, at such time as M&M publish in the peer reviewed scientific literature with their "spin" on things, then and only then will I give their ilk the time of day!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #98 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Why is Global Warming such a pet peeve for right-wingers. I really don't understand why this bristles them so.

The only remedy being suggested to combat global warming is conservation. Isn't conservation a good thing? Something we should strive for? Less reliance on fossil fuels. Less poison in our air as a result.

Why exactly is conservation bad?



Because they are selfish greedy bastards. It's ok to be an asshole, you have a right. But call a spade a spade damnit. Maxparrish is either a fucking asshole or a paid political operative, and therefore an evil fucking asshole. I say that with p<.05 certainty. Max knows what I mean since he is an expert scientist.

Not to mention, I think climate science is probably the most complicated field, if you could call it that, in existence. It's working with the most complicated system known to man, most likely. I mean the more papers you read, the more you realize holy shit...this is complicated. It almost seems beyond the realm of one person--you need a panel full of atmospheric physicists, oceanographers, hydrological modellers, GIS technicians, economists, environmental lawyers, industrial chemists, yadayada, to even get a beginning of a handle on this. So whenever someone like "MaxParrish" pretends to know everything about global warming, it's just funny. Because obviously, Max, you must be smarter than the entire IPCC. And Einstein. And all of us. Put together.

Sure maybe there's that 5% chance the IPCC is wrong. But look at the risk assessment. Is it really worth the risk of all the dire effects of global warming...just to have gas be a few cents cheaper at the pump? Maybe...if you're an evil scumbag, that is.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #99 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

And you missed my point entirely, that past climate changes in the last 10K years are much less than what is occurring NOW with a highly technological interdependent society of 6.5B people (and estimated at ~9B to 10B in this century).

wrong. The past climate of different regions at different times has been BOTH wetter and drier, hotter and colder. If we are to believe the proxy reconstructions the total temperature of the globe AT ONE TIME has not been hotter - but that is not my point. For example, Europe in the MWP was certainly warmer, Greenland glaciers had retreated far more than today, tree lines were higher, and the Western US much drier - but people change and adapted.
Quote:
Oh please, ClimateZenMaster, show me the error of my ways, why oh why have I been so blind?

You have heard the phrase "Publish or Perish" have you not? In a broad sense it applies to anyone in a profession. Historically this has meant professional peer reviewed publications NOT the blog-o-sphere! Until such time that the blog-o-sphere commits to a professional peer reviewed process, I'll take all the blog-o-sphere spin with a grain of salt!

I wonder if you can understand even the layman's versions of this controversy, but as you acknowledge me as your manifest superior in this matters, I shall be happy to correct "the errors of your ways". First, M&M (and Von Storch, and Burger & Chumash, etc.) have published peer reviewed articles - contrary to whatever screeds you may be consulting. An excellent guide to the controversy can be found in the following links, but you ought to start with the layman's article:

YOUR READING LIST:

(See the links boldfaced beneath your reading list)

"What is the Hockey Stick Debate All About..."
NAS Panel Presentations (PDF PPT)
NAS Supplemental Info (PDF)
The Impact of NRC Recommendations on Climate Reconstructions


Peer-Reviewed:

Research Published on MBH98 January 27th 2005
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=11#more-11

(Geophysical Research Letters, Feb 2005)
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf

Energy and Environment (2005)
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf

Mann's Responses and Our Counter-Arguments
http://www.climate2003.com/mann.responses.htm

For more detail on Counter-Arguments:
Errors Matter #1 http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=52
Errors Matter #2 http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=53
Errors Matter #3 http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=62
Was Preisendorfer’s Rule N used in MBH98? http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=34

Find these Key M&M Presentations at:
http://www.climateaudit.org/



Presentations to Scientific Panels and Congressional Committee

McKitrick, 2005, What is the Hockey Stick Debate About? (4 Star)
http://www.climatechangeissues.com/f...5mckitrick.pdf

McIntyre and McKitrick, Presentation to National Academy of Sciences Panel, NRC
March 2006 A Detailed Presentation

PDF http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/NAS.M&M.pdf
PPT http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/NAS.M&M.ppt

McIntyre and McKitrick, Supplementary Presentations to National Academy of Sciences Panel, April 2006
First http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/NAS-followup-M&M.pdf

McIntyre, Presentation to House Energy and Commerce Committee,
July 19, 2006Video http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/...87/McIntyrepdf

July 27, 2006Video
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/ram/07272006_oi.ram

Low Frequency Ranges in Multiproxy Climate Reconstructions
http://www.climatechangeissues.com/f...5mckitrick.pdf

The Impact of NRC Recommendations on Climate Reconstructions
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/agu06.ppt

Also for an excellent Powerpoint Presentation from a global warming skeptic, Joe Aleo
http://www.sneweatherconf.org/Presentations/2006/Joe%20D'Aleo%20-%20Climate%20Change.ppt

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=982

Quote:
So my take on M&M? Not professionally educated/trained/experienced in the fields of science, statistics, or engineering. Basically, a policy wonk and an economist, who can do statistics, maybe Major League Baseball (or the NFL) could use their talents?

Share the data, methods, procedures? Let's see now, I have worked for the federal government for over 20 years now, you know it's called IP, and the feds do consider it important to those that do the ORIGINAL work!

Being that your "take" is woefully uninformed, do not despair - when you read the links recommended that should no longer be an issue. Till then, I will give you "my take":

A) McIntyre was the second highest scoring student in Canada in mathematics the year he graduated from high school, and majored in mathematics/geology as an undergrad. He was offered a graduate scholarship to MIT by Paul Samuelson in econometrics. That he chose to work in private industry and in geology was, in fact, fortunate. His primary work has been in statistical modeling and analysis in an industry that takes turth telling very seriously; i.e., climate modeling is a sham compared to the full disclosure and auditing requirements for investments in his industry. After reading him, and those that support him, it is clear that his statistical and mathematical talents far exceed those of any paleo climate modeler. Mann, in particular, is a physics drop-out who drifted into climate studies when it was sort of a nerdish for 3rd rate scientists - before it got "relevant" through global warming. McKittrich is an accomplished econometricians - a discipline that is wholly statistic based. Many of the statistical approaches new to climate science have been routinely practiced by economists for decades.

As Mann has pointed out in his defense "I'm not a statistican" - well, Dr. Wegmen and his two associates are, and Wegmen is at the top of his profession as Chair of Applied Statistics for the National Association of Science. He and his team confirmed every one of M&M's criticism, as well as the need for R2 and cross-validation statistics. His report (which I will find the link for) is very direct and less polite than M&M when it comes to Mann's shortcomings.

My "take" on Mann and his site, RealClimate, is that it is populated by some or many thin-skinned and emotional individuals. I first read some climate science from that site, only later finding Climate Audit. In the process I read all the private correspondence between Mann and McIntyre and most of the background. Here is what I noted: McIntyre published all communications between himself and Mann, Mann would not. McIntyre published all his code and databases, methods, and results, Mann would not. McIntyre has been relatively restrained, Mann and his boys lash out, smear, make patently false claims and routinely censor posts from professionals who agree with McIntyre when they try to post to his board. McIntyre invites anyone to post. Mann hid his R2 calculations and has never released them. Mann never released all his data, or computational methods, fighting every step of the way.

Let me give you a few examples. You said Wegman was not peer reviewed, as does Wikipedia. That is not true, but from the day Wegman released his report the Mann crowd has attacked him on peripheral issues and repeated that claim (they know its dicey trying to question him on statistics). Wegman was peer reviewed by the board of the American Statistical Association, but the "not peer reviewed" phoney accusation by Mann and his supporters keep getting recycled and becomes an urban myth. AND, ironically, Wegman does not need to be peer reviewed ANYWAY - HE IS THE PEER reviewer of MBH (Mann's work) and M&M...you don't peer review the peer reviewer! LOL...

Or take your link on Von Storch, the author said that Von Storch said "nonsense" about the hockey stick and tried to show it was bogus. THAT IS NOT TRUE - Von Storch very clearly said he thought Mann's methods were shabby BUT that it did not materially change the results. (BTW, my comment regarding Von Storch is not support for his particular criticism of Mann on methods, the specifics of which M&M do not agree with either, but Von Storch's criticism of Mann and others for failing to make data and documentation available).

So...here are two mistakes or lies (I believe the later) which confirm the repeated attempts to smear anyone who is not a hysteric (mind you Von Storch believes in human caused global warming and McIntyre is neutral on that issue).

Quote:
So basically, at such time as M&M publish in the peer reviewed scientific literature with their "spin" on things, then and only then will I give their ilk the time of day!

Now that you know McIntyre has published in peer reviewed journals, been invited to make presentations at science conferences, and has been backed up by a top statistician then I expect you will read their "ilk".

Correct?

PS You might clarify your comment on ORIGINAL data and sharing...
post #100 of 440
Thread Starter 
Link correction to prior post

Low Frequency Ranges in Multiproxy Climate Reconstructions
www.climateaudit.org/pdf/agu05.ppt
post #101 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic View Post

Because they are selfish greedy bastards. It's ok to be an asshole, you have a right. But call a spade a spade damnit. Maxparrish is either a fucking asshole or a paid political operative, and therefore an evil fucking asshole. I say that with p<.05 certainty. Max knows what I mean since he is an expert scientist.

Not to mention, I think climate science is probably the most complicated field, if you could call it that, in existence. It's working with the most complicated system known to man, most likely. I mean the more papers you read, the more you realize holy shit...this is complicated...someone like "MaxParrish" pretends to know everything about global warming, it's just funny. Because obviously, Max, you must be smarter than the entire IPCC. And Einstein. And all of us. Put together.

I am not a paid political operative, ergo, I am a "fucking asshole". No I am not a scientist, and my familiarity with statistics is through the social sciences, economics, and multivariate regression (a long time ago) on an undergrad level. However, I can read and can compare claims such as IF a critique is answered, or if a person stays on point, or if they continually obfuscate or smear their opponent. Some papers are very technical and honest in reply and counter-reply...those are hard to judge.

No so with paleoclimate papers. Most of these fellows are mountebanks, use personal attacks, display outrage when questioned, etc. Having read a bit in peer reviewed econ journals I am really quite surprised how juvenile these folks are.

So given that, and the fact that the hide data and methods, why should we trust them? It does not mean they are wrong, but it also means that their claims can't be tested very easily.

Quote:
Sure maybe there's that 5% chance the IPCC is wrong. But look at the risk assessment. Is it really worth the risk of all the dire effects of global warming...just to have gas be a few cents cheaper at the pump? Maybe...if you're an evil scumbag, that is.

You confuse the issue. These are the things they need to know, and the chances of them being correct...

Global Warming is occuring - 90%
Global Warming is caused by man - 66%
Global Warming causes a predicatable climate change - 50%?
Global Warming causes more harm than good to a known degree? 50%
Choosing a strategy Prevention, Mitigation, Adaptation 33%
After chosing it, wee will be effective in stopping it 50%

So if the chances of us knowing there is a problem, knowing what its impact will be, chosing the right strategy, and solving it is about 2.5% (at this point).

It is stupid to spend 1 to 5% of the world GDP when your odds, at this point, is 2.5%.
post #102 of 440
Wow. I am impressed.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #103 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic View Post

Because they are selfish greedy bastards. It's ok to be an asshole, you have a right. But call a spade a spade damnit. Maxparrish is either a fucking asshole or a paid political operative, and therefore an evil fucking asshole. I say that with p<.05 certainty. Max knows what I mean since he is an expert scientist.

Not to mention, I think climate science is probably the most complicated field, if you could call it that, in existence. It's working with the most complicated system known to man, most likely. I mean the more papers you read, the more you realize holy shit...this is complicated. It almost seems beyond the realm of one person--you need a panel full of atmospheric physicists, oceanographers, hydrological modellers, GIS technicians, economists, environmental lawyers, industrial chemists, yadayada, to even get a beginning of a handle on this. So whenever someone like "MaxParrish" pretends to know everything about global warming, it's just funny. Because obviously, Max, you must be smarter than the entire IPCC. And Einstein. And all of us. Put together.

Sure maybe there's that 5% chance the IPCC is wrong. But look at the risk assessment. Is it really worth the risk of all the dire effects of global warming...just to have gas be a few cents cheaper at the pump? Maybe...if you're an evil scumbag, that is.

How typical. You can't debate the issue, so you start with the namecalling. This is what the Left calls debate.

And to answer Northgate's question, it bristles me because a lot of what is being said about this issue in the media are lies.

And as Picard says, lies must be challenged.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #104 of 440
Quote:
wrong. The past climate of different regions at different times has been BOTH wetter and drier, hotter and colder. If we are to believe the proxy reconstructions the total temperature of the globe AT ONE TIME has not been hotter - but that is not my point. For example, Europe in the MWP was certainly warmer, Greenland glaciers had retreated far more than today, tree lines were higher, and the Western US much drier - but people change and adapted.

I'm RIGHT in both cases, the first WRT MEAN global temperatures and WRT regional temperature differences (that's a no brainer, since point measurements (or subsets thereof) don't represent a GLOBAL AVERAGE). Don't parse my understanding of the science (the entire body of PC evidence) with your (or M&M's) POV!

Quote:
I wonder if you can understand even the layman's versions of this controversy, but as you acknowledge me as your manifest superior in this matters, I shall be happy to correct "the errors of your ways".

I fully understand that you understand M&M's take on things!

Quote:
First, M&M (and Von Storch, and Burger & Chumash, etc.) have published peer reviewed articles - contrary to whatever screeds you may be consulting.

Yes, the etcetera part of your above comment IS VERY important here, what others in the field of PC think on the subject, NOT just M&M's take on things! I quess those would be the "screeds" you are referring to?

Quote:
An excellent guide to the controversy can be found in the following links, but you ought to start with the layman's article:

YOUR READING LIST:

(See the links boldfaced beneath your reading list)

"What is the Hockey Stick Debate All About..."
NAS Panel Presentations (PDF PPT)
NAS Supplemental Info (PDF)
The Impact of NRC Recommendations on Climate Reconstructions


Peer-Reviewed:

Research Published on MBH98 January 27th 2005
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=11#more-11

(Geophysical Research Letters, Feb 2005)
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf

Energy and Environment (2005)
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf

Mann's Responses and Our Counter-Arguments
http://www.climate2003.com/mann.responses.htm

For more detail on Counter-Arguments:
Errors Matter #1 http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=52
Errors Matter #2 http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=53
Errors Matter #3 http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=62
Was Preisendorfer’s Rule N used in MBH98? http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=34

Find these Key M&M Presentations at:
http://www.climateaudit.org/



Presentations to Scientific Panels and Congressional Committee

McKitrick, 2005, What is the Hockey Stick Debate About? (4 Star)
http://www.climatechangeissues.com/f...5mckitrick.pdf

McIntyre and McKitrick, Presentation to National Academy of Sciences Panel, NRC
March 2006 A Detailed Presentation

PDF http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/NAS.M&M.pdf
PPT http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/NAS.M&M.ppt

McIntyre and McKitrick, Supplementary Presentations to National Academy of Sciences Panel, April 2006
First http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/NAS-followup-M&M.pdf

McIntyre, Presentation to House Energy and Commerce Committee,
July 19, 2006Video http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/...87/McIntyrepdf

July 27, 2006Video
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/ram/07272006_oi.ram

Low Frequency Ranges in Multiproxy Climate Reconstructions
http://www.climatechangeissues.com/f...5mckitrick.pdf

The Impact of NRC Recommendations on Climate Reconstructions
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/agu06.ppt

Also for an excellent Powerpoint Presentation from a global warming skeptic, Joe Aleo
http://www.sneweatherconf.org/Presentations/2006/Joe%20D'Aleo%20-%20Climate%20Change.ppt

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=982

Yes I have most of those, but what I don't have I'll get. But remenber this is ONE POV (M&M's), and not the ENTIRE PC body of work! And of ALL those links above (WOW!), how many of those were original research in established peer reviewed scientific climate journals? Please correct me but it is one or two at best. Commentary, in and of itself isn't peer reviewed, since it's supposed to be an additional "peer" review buy the outside readership, usually this is just bickering amongst individuals, as was the case here. Presentations and conference proceedings aren't peer reviewed, in and of themselves.

Quote:
Being that your "take" is woefully uninformed, do not despair - when you read the links recommended that should no longer be an issue. Till then, I will give you "my take":

A) McIntyre was the second highest scoring student in Canada in mathematics the year he graduated from high school, and majored in mathematics/geology as an undergrad. He was offered a graduate scholarship to MIT by Paul Samuelson in econometrics. That he chose to work in private industry and in geology was, in fact, fortunate. His primary work has been in statistical modeling and analysis in an industry that takes turth telling very seriously; i.e., climate modeling is a sham compared to the full disclosure and auditing requirements for investments in his industry. After reading him, and those that support him, it is clear that his statistical and mathematical talents far exceed those of any paleo climate modeler. Mann, in particular, is a physics drop-out who drifted into climate studies when it was sort of a nerdish for 3rd rate scientists - before it got "relevant" through global warming. McKittrich is an accomplished econometricians - a discipline that is wholly statistic based. Many of the statistical approaches new to climate science have been routinely practiced by economists for decades.

Yes most people have math training that go to college, how many of those (including M&M) spend their life's work on one specific subject area, that's my point!

Quote:
As Mann has pointed out in his defense "I'm not a statistican" - well, Dr. Wegmen and his two associates are, and Wegmen is at the top of his profession as Chair of Applied Statistics for the National Association of Science. He and his team confirmed every one of M&M's criticism, as well as the need for R2 and cross-validation statistics. His report (which I will find the link for) is very direct and less polite than M&M when it comes to Mann's shortcomings.

My "take" on Mann and his site, RealClimate, is that it is populated by some or many thin-skinned and emotional individuals. I first read some climate science from that site, only later finding Climate Audit. In the process I read all the private correspondence between Mann and McIntyre and most of the background. Here is what I noted: McIntyre published all communications between himself and Mann, Mann would not. McIntyre published all his code and databases, methods, and results, Mann would not. McIntyre has been relatively restrained, Mann and his boys lash out, smear, make patently false claims and routinely censor posts from professionals who agree with McIntyre when they try to post to his board. McIntyre invites anyone to post. Mann hid his R2 calculations and has never released them. Mann never released all his data, or computational methods, fighting every step of the way.

Let me give you a few examples. You said Wegman was not peer reviewed, as does Wikipedia. That is not true, but from the day Wegman released his report the Mann crowd has attacked him on peripheral issues and repeated that claim (they know its dicey trying to question him on statistics). Wegman was peer reviewed by the board of the American Statistical Association, but the "not peer reviewed" phoney accusation by Mann and his supporters keep getting recycled and becomes an urban myth. AND, ironically, Wegman does not need to be peer reviewed ANYWAY - HE IS THE PEER reviewer of MBH (Mann's work) and M&M...you don't peer review the peer reviewer! LOL...

Links please? BTW, your above comment IS very ambigious, it needs a FULL audit trail!

One person (Wegman) does not constitute a "peer review" by most people's understanding of the peer reviewed literature/process, usually a minimun of 3 independent peer reviews of a study are necessary to constitute peer review. Also, in this context of science, follow on work, or the scientific debate, provide course corrections, to correct past "mistakes." And that's my main point here, after all the M&M "dust" has settled, what's the final verdict, and as far as I can tell the PC "dust" has definitely NOT settled, irregardless of the M&M spin!

Quote:
Or take your link on Von Storch, the author said that Von Storch said "nonsense" about the hockey stick and tried to show it was bogus. THAT IS NOT TRUE - Von Storch very clearly said he thought Mann's methods were shabby BUT that it did not materially change the results. (BTW, my comment regarding Von Storch is not support for his particular criticism of Mann on methods, the specifics of which M&M do not agree with either, but Von Storch's criticism of Mann and others for failing to make data and documentation available).

Links please?

Quote:
So...here are two mistakes or lies (I believe the later) which confirm the repeated attempts to smear anyone who is not a hysteric (mind you Von Storch believes in human caused global warming and McIntyre is neutral on that issue).


Now that you know McIntyre has published in peer reviewed journals, been invited to make presentations at science conferences, and has been backed up by a top statistician then I expect you will read their "ilk".

Correct?

I will give their POV some review, along with all others in the PC body! I'd suggest you do the same! "Been invited to make presentations at science conferences." Please explain this, was he singled out specifically, by which conference(s)? Anyone can submit a paper to a conference, last time I checked, conferences papers in and of themselves, are not the end all be all to scientific acceptence. Heck, I've known some conferences that accept all papers submitted meeting the minimum editorial format requirements!

Quote:
PS You might clarify your comment on ORIGINAL data and sharing...

I work for the US Army COE (formally employed presently contracting), they have their IP requirements when doing outside work with contractors, and I'm quite sure all branches of the government have their IP documentation WRT work funded to other parties. VERY lengthy, VERY complex, and VERY long. Lawyer stuff, you know? You usually have relatively easy access to government work conducted purely by government employees, in a timely fashion, these days most computer codes have some input from outside contractors, so it is rare that others can obtain such (source) codes without the approval of those parties involved. And there are additional costs involved when requesting additional data over and above the standard data products that you can find on the web, nothing is free you know? In the old days (think 1960's and before) most governmant research work was done in house, now most of the heavy lifting is done with the help of outside contractors, thus the IP logistical log jam!

The point is that the feds are very sensitive to protecting the IP rights of those that do work for them, otherwise, if they didn't, those that would otherwise do contract work for them wouldn't!



In summary then, your POV is essentially ONE POV, the M&M POV, a detour into PC methodology, and a SMALL one at that.

My POV is taken from many scientific POV's, including the scientific PC POV (which includes the M&M scientific POV), with all the other GW scientific POV's. The scientific POV embodied in original works, and subsequent original works, or course corrections if you prefer, not in rehashing methodology details of past works, that appear to have little bearing on the current SOTA (other than everyone is on their toes now WRT PC).

So essentially my POV isn't filtered through the one POV that people like M&M would want people to take. It appears that you have bought into their single POV, lock, stock, and barrel!

Get it? Really!

PS - Like I said initially, when M&M publish scientific peer reviewed PC work, subsequent to the above detour, I'll listen, they haven't so far, that fall '06 AGU PPT wasn't peer reviewed within the PC community, when it is I'll read it.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #105 of 440
Another nice piece to peruse.

Biggest hoax ever

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #106 of 440
No Nick, that's another right-wing Canadian publication, just like the National Post.

As such, the Hysterians will dismiss its existence as part of the vast right-wing conspiratorial Climate Changing Denialist Movement and therefore there is no need to discuss its claims.

This message has been brought to you courtesy of Big Oil payola.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #107 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

No Nick, that's another right-wing Canadian publication, just like the National Post.

As such, the Hysterians will dismiss its existence as part of the vast right-wing conspiratorial Climate Changing Denialist Movement and therefore there is no need to discuss its claims.

This message has been brought to you courtesy of Big Oil payola.

At least you are admitting to the truth now!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #108 of 440
I find it interesting that you dismiss the source rather than the facts presented by the source.

If Big Oil, tells me that the earth is round and that it orbits the sun, does that somehow make it wrong? If those that claim to have to have "our" best interests at heart (and coincidentally get to condemn others while claiming to save the planet) claim the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth, then does their good intentions override the facts?

It seems like you haven't addressed a single topic in anything but have become very good at dismissing.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #109 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I find it interesting that you dismiss the source rather than the facts presented by the source.

If Big Oil, tells me that the earth is round and that it orbits the sun, does that somehow make it wrong? If those that claim to have to have "our" best interests at heart (and coincidentally get to condemn others while claiming to save the planet) claim the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth, then does their good intentions override the facts?

It seems like you haven't addressed a single topic in anything but have become very good at dismissing.

Nick

Look, one quip deserves another. I haven't had the time to research this yet. I haven't even had the time to read the entire, appearently op-ed piece yet, I very busy at the moment.

So that's my first point, I like words WITH references, not just words, I need something other than just ONE person's words, I need referenced facts, backed up with data AND underlying science. With the underlying science done through the peer reviewed process.

That's the only way that I can arrive at an informed opinion on GW.

And not to stereotype the (science) denialist, but most of them seem to be old skool (age wise), to the point that I wonder how many of them are modelers, or have extensive first hand experience coding on computers. I do detect a pattern here though, don't know if it's real though.

And if I dismiss one's opinions that aren't backed up by the science and facts, so be it!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #110 of 440
post #111 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
No Nick, that's another right-wing Canadian publication, just like the National Post.

As such, the Hysterians will dismiss its existence as part of the vast right-wing conspiratorial Climate Changing Denialist Movement™ and therefore there is no need to discuss its claims.

This message has been brought to you courtesy of Big Oil payola.

Quote:
Originally posted by franksargent
At least you are admitting to the truth now!

I dismissed it because it came from Canada and then because it's nothing but an op-ed aswell.

Hehe, funny Artman.
post #112 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

How typical. You can't debate the issue, so you start with the namecalling. This is what the Left calls debate.

No. That's what Aquatic calls debate. Not "The Left".

Quote:
And as Picard says, lies must be challenged.

Wow. That's rich.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #113 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

No. That's what Aquatic calls debate. Not "The Left".

Point taken.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #114 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Please correct me but it is one or two at best. Commentary, in and of itself isn't peer reviewed, since it's supposed to be an additional "peer" review buy the outside readership, usually this is just bickering amongst individuals, as was the case here. Presentations and conference proceedings aren't peer reviewed, in and of themselves

I am going to respond in a couple of parts. First some housekeeping:

I gave you peer-reviewed papers but, for whatever reason, you said it was one or two at best - suggesting you had not even looked. So here it is again, with additional links to other material:

New Research Published on MBH98 January 27th 2005
Links to Two M&M Papers with Commentary
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=11#more-11
(Papers listed seperately below)

Published Papers

Energy and Environment (2003)
CORRECTIONS TO THE MANN et. al. (1998)
PROXY DATA BASE AND NORTHERN HEMISPHERIC
AVERAGE TEMPERATURE SERIES

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcin...trick.2003.pdf


Geophysical Research Letters, Feb 2005
American Geophysical Union
"Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance"

http://www.climate2003.com/pdfs/2004GL012750.pdf. Pre-Publication Verison
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf Published

Energy and Environment (2005)
THE M&M CRITIQUE OF THE MBH98 NORTHERN
HEMISPHERE CLIMATE INDEX: UPDATE AND
IMPLICATIONS

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf Pre-Publication
http://www.multi-science.co.uk Publication

I have not supplied the "Replys" and "Counter-Replys" published by affected parties, they will require a little digging on your part. Nor have I included McKittriks seperate publications, available at his website. To find this and other material, look below.


Wegman Panel Report
Edward Wegman of George Mason University, also the Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Theoretical and Applied Statistics. The Wegman panel not only fully endorsed M&M findings, but also presented a wide-ranging critique of the insularity of the paleoclimate community, their isolation from mainstream statistics, and their hostility towards external review and replication work.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...gmanReport.pdf

Natuurwetenschap & Techniek (NWT)
Excellent overview of the work of M&M before 2005, and the background story of their attempts to aquire data, methods, and code.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...background.pdf

NAS/NRC Report
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NRCreport.pdf

A good backgrounder to 2005 published arcticles.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...background.pdf

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html
Scorecard on 2003 paper, Mann vs. M&M.

Links to the Background of Controversy
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...c.archive.html (Chronology)

Early Problems with Mann and His Dissembling
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...onse.Oct29.pdf

Nature Publication Paper and Difficulties
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...te.fall04.html

The presentations I listed were for confences by or about climate science. Such presentations are by inventation and published as a part of proceedings. Check the links to find out the names of them, and to obtain excellent overviews (powerpoint) of the state of the debate.

My recommendation: read the material I originally suggested in my prior post. The NAS Panel Presentation by M&M brings the "controversy" up to date so that you need not be buried in 2003 material.
post #115 of 440
one study?

What the fuck?

this is like attempting to disprove evolution by citing social darwinists...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #116 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

I am going to respond in a couple of parts. First some housekeeping.

MaxParrish, I'm really getting tired of discussing the PC "detour." OK?

And we could play the "How many links can you post game."

For example, I believe for every single scientific peer reviewed you could provide I could provide a thousand. Or approximately a 1:1000 ratio, pro-anthrophomoric GW (PAGW) to anti-anthrophomoric GW (AAGW). So what?

You have your POV and I have my POV. Until the AAGW people can prove their position beyond a reasonable doubt, and I don't see that happening, I remain convinced it's PAGW.

If you can't do that, then at least post something other than M&M stuff, but remember it needs to be original research, scientific, and peer reviewed.

That's the only material I'm willing to give some consideration to, all the MSM stuff is mostly op-ed in nature, and can be difficult to source properly. In fact I think most of the MSM is just business as usual, just trying to stur to pot, as it were.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #117 of 440
Man's impact on the environment, from pollution to local climate change, is undeniable. Anybody who thinks that a larger imapct might not be in motion is just denying the reality that surrounds them and living a selfish life. We will be dead before things start falling apart; I hope our grandkids can say the same.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #118 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

The presentations I listed were for confences by or about climate science. Such presentations are by inventation and published as a part of proceedings.

Unless you can show specificity WRT "conference invitations" it is ambigious, since I can claim being invited to hundreds of conferences myself, conferences by their nature are open to all interested parties, getting an email/mail about a conference isn't saying a whole lot.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #119 of 440
Boy, do I love the web, google, and wikipedia!

It's a great resource for "outing" the GW skeptics.

Take for example Energy and Environment.

Looking at wikipedia, I found this WRT Energy and Environment.

Quote:
The journal Energy and Environment is a social science journal published by Multi-Science. The journal's editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull in England and climate skeptic.

Energy and Environment is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals, and its peer review process has been criticised for allowing the publication of substandard papers. Numerous climate skeptics and contrarians have published in the journal and these studies have later been quoted by Republican critics of global warming science such as Senator James Inhofe and Congressman Joe Barton.

This is also an interesting read, Skeptics get a journal.

Quote:
Climate skeptics and conservative politicians find all the science they need in the journal Energy & Environment.

Just trying to keep the GW debate honest!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #120 of 440
A quick look at the Energy and Environment homepage shows they do not care enough (read: they are highly unprofessional) about what they are trying to present to present it in good English, which leads me to question anything on their site.

I used to make very good money proof-reading scientific papers before publication, and this site would have made me rather rich. Real scientists care more about their work.

"...which in turned opened up new musical possibilities."

"so we have Oil Crisis."

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global Warming Hysteria Building