No - you provided one paper by an economist and a mining engineer (with a background in statistics, agreed), that has been largely discredited (in terms of its significance) in the aftermath of the controversy that it started, that addressed just the validity of the temperature record in the 1400s, and you are attempting to portray it as refuting the entire body of work on GW.
Their work was reviewed by multiple investigatory committees and a number of research groups, most of whom found that while their criticisms were not completely unfounded from a theoretical point of view, they did not significantly affect the reduced data. Notable, in that they addressed McIntyre and Mckitrick directly:
Huybers, P., "Comment on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" by S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick", (2005) Geophysical Research Letters 32, 20.
Wahl, Eugene R.; Ammann, Caspar M., "Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence" (2007), Climatic Change 85 (1-2): 33–69.
Wow. I provided a link to far more than one paper, which leads me to the conclusion that you did not actually view the page. It is McKitrick's own page which is full of links to papers and articles that tell the whole story of his and McIntyre's work in critiquing Mann's hockey stick and the melee that followed. The first citation you make in reply (Huybers) was accepted by GRL, and M&M revised some calculations that did not change their final, original conclusions, and they even critiqued Huyber's own comment. Here's the link:
The second paper you cite was actually rejected by GRL in 2005. After rewriting it, it was submitted to Climatic Change and accepted in time to be included in the the IPCC's AR4, because, after all, it's the politics that count in this whole debate. Wahl/Amman, just like Mann et al originally, would not allow access to some of the key data, code, and references with which they derived their statistics that formed the basis for their arguments. In Amman/Wahl's case, it was in the Supplementary Information section, and when McIntyre asked Climatic Change for the data/info, they said to contact the authors, most likely because they (Climatic Change) didn't have, and had not seen, that data. McIntyre contacted Ammann directly and asked for it, to which Ammann replied, in essence, "pound sand". You can read McIntyre's own account of the drama here:
I have a problem when scientists can't be open about their work. If I make a claim about how the universe works, the burden of proof is on me to prove that claim, and explain the math, methodologies, and observations that lead to that claim. The AGW cabal, instead of engaging the skeptics, have consistently not been fully open about their work.
We can play this game all day. But if all you can do is refer to a Wikipedia page on climate change, I feel for you, because you're not getting the whole story.
You did, indeed provide a link to McKitrick's soap box, which, itself, links to nothing but his own papers and articles. Of those, only two were ever published, and said the same thing. So no - it looks like you didn't read the page. And no, I've read enough of his whining and bleating about how unfair it all is - I don't need to read any more. And I have no interest in discussing it with you if all you are going to do is parrot his complaints.
As for openness - bear in mind that McKitrick and McIntyre are the only ones complaining about this issue - all the other researchers seem to have no problems accessing the data and methodologies.
And we are not going to play this game all day. You don't like a Wikipedia list of citations? What's the problem - wrong format for you? The font too small? Too many for you to dismiss? Or just an opportunity to hide behind a snide comment so that you can avoid reading them? Either way, pretty rich considering that your preferred source of information is apparently just McKitrick's own website. Do you not see the irony in suggesting that I'm not getting the whole story? Do you have anything to contribute here except M&M worship? Can you find anyone credible to support M&M's position? If not, then I'm done dignifying your posts with replies.
You realize that this isn’t relevant to the point, right? The point is that once you have your temperature, it doesn’t magically change.
Then the methods evolve for future readings. It is impossible to go back in time and remeasure the temperature, so any tampering after the fact is disingenuous.
So has it been? NASA, NOAA, GISS, the IPCC; they’re all modifying the data.
Oh, that’s micro, isn’t it? My King Henry Died A Drinkin’ Chocolate Milk Under Norville’s Porch is how I learned them; should’ve run it again.
You have a question to answer. Either answer it or be reported.
I didn't grow up with Pokemon. I don't understand this battle 'til the end attitude you have, man.
Tim Cook still implemented this policy and there's nothing you can do about it (except splice up posts)... A quarter of a trillion dollars and counting baby!
I've been trying to put aside our differences and make friends. I don't know how to communicate with you though I've been trying to communicate about something different as it is obvious we cannot communicate about this topic peacefully, but you won't let go of your monomania. It's funny that you report me for the very thing you do to me and many others here. I've seen you make sick jokes about the deaths of people in tragedies in other posts, insisting that it's ok to make jokes about those deaths in poor taste. Just chill out Tallest Skil... Let's chat about something else and we can all move on from this and let sleeping dogs lie.
I've been trying to put aside our differences and make friends.
Like fun.
…you won’t let go of your monomania.
It’s almost as though there’s only ONE TRUTH, huh. What a strange concept, that only ONE thing might be true.
…the very thing you do to me…
Nowhere have I trolled or libeled you.
I've seen you make sick jokes about the deaths of people in tragedies in other posts
Reported for being physically incapable of staying on topic, replying to questions, and proving your own point.
Let's chat about something else and we can all move on from this and let sleeping dogs lie.
Either prove me wrong or concede that NASA, NOAA, and GISS are indeed fabricating data. Since you’re so certain you’re “right”, why are you so fu?king terrified to prove it? Explain.
It’s almost as though there’s only ONE TRUTH, huh. What a strange concept, that only ONE thing might be true.
Nowhere have I trolled or libeled you.
Reported for being physically incapable of staying on topic, replying to questions, and proving your own point.
Either prove me wrong or concede that NASA, NOAA, and GISS are indeed fabricating data. Since you’re so certain you’re “right”, why are you so fu?king terrified to prove it? Explain.
I'm afraid if I tell you you'll get even more mad.
Thanks for conceding that NASA, NOAA, and GISS are indeed fabricating climate data.
There is rarely only one truth. That's why research is ongoing and makes theories, but in a few cases there are laws in science. It's possible, Zeus forbid, that you could be right about some things (probably not about NASA), and muppetry and LarryJW are definitely right about others (I'll leave myself out of this as clearly it just angers you when I say anything about it). Let's say that you're right and NASA is perpetrating a fraud. But let's get this back to the topic of the actual article, Tim Cook, and not about climate science like you're trying to make this about... Tim Cook has made that argument completely irrelevant. Apple has invested and is all in on being carbon neutral. It's done, end of story, they're not turning back. Even if you wrangled together some coalition of investors angry that Apple is wasting money on being environmentally friendly, investors have already stood up in protest and Tim Cook told those investors to fluff off and go invest somewhere else. He doesn't care about your opinion even if you are totally correct. Also Apple made a quarter of a trillion dollars last fiscal year. The tact of corporate responsibility is paying off immensely for Apple. Even if you were totally correct why would Apple even care? They're making so much money for standing up for what most people believe in, and in the long run it will save them money by being green. Why don't you stay on the actual topic, rather than trying to hijack the topic, and give a good answer as to why Apple should give up an approach that's led to $250 billion in revenue to adopt what a tiny sliver of people believe, most of whom cannot afford to buy Apple products any, to be true along with you... And also in keeping on the actual topic of Apple (since this is an Apple blog and not a climate change debator thingy), and lay out your plan for how Apple could take your view, put it in cent of the public without losing all credibility (and all its profit and success that have come to them)...
Well, that’s abject nonsense. Either water is made of two hydrogen and one oxygen or it isn’t. Either the repulsion between the electrons in two gallons of water is 4.1*1026 newtons or it isn’t. Either an orange isn’t the summation of its physical properties or it isn’t.
Is or is not a reading of 56 degrees at a given time a constant? Honestly.
(probably not about NASA)
Already proved otherwise.
it just angers you
Stop with the lies, please.
…back to the topic of the actual article, Tim Cook, and not about climate science like you’re trying to make this about...
Since Tim Cook’s statements are predicated on fraud, why would you support them with the fraud uncovered? What sane person does that?
Tim Cook has made that argument completely irrelevant.
That’s not how it works.
Apple has invested and is all in on being carbon neutral.
Good for them. And that somehow magically changes the truth?
…coalition of investors angry that Apple is wasting money on being environmentally friendly…
I’m an environmentalist. I support Apple’s actions to preserve the environment. I am vehemently against Apple perpetrating the lie of AGW.
Also Apple made a quarter of a trillion dollars last fiscal year.
Appeal to popularity, authority, success; take your pick.
Even if you were totally correct why would Apple even care?
Explain why a company should be supported if it doesn’t care about objective truth.
They're making so much money for standing up for what most people believe in
How about that… making a profit off what is claimed to be a majority opinion… You don’t think that… NAH, of COURSE that can’t POSSIBLY be happening with the AGW lunatics!
Why don't you stay on the actual topic
Read the title. The actual topic is AGW. There is no AGW. If Tim doubled down on Apple’s environmentalism, that’s one thing. This is explicitly calling out AGW.
…why Apple should give up an approach that’s led to $250 billion in revenue to adopt what a tiny sliver of people believe…
BECAUSE IT’S THE TRUTH. I DON’T CARE HOW MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE IT. THAT DOESN’T CHANGE WHETHER OR NOT IT’S TRUE. I DON’T CARE HOW PROFITABLE A LIE IS–AND NO, APPLE’S SUCCESS HAS NOT THUS FAR BEEN PREDICATED ON SUPPORTING THIS LIE.
…most of whom cannot afford to buy Apple products…
Citation fucking needed.
And also in keeping on the actual topic of Apple (since this is an Apple blog and not a climate change debater thingy)
Tell the site owners to stop letting the article robot post politicized garbage outside of PoliticalOutsider, then. I hate that, myself.
…lay out your plan for how Apple could take your view, put it in cent of the public without losing all credibility (and all its profit and success that have come to them)…
Are you asking how Apple could champion a campaign against the lie of AGW, or how Apple should continue its environmentalist campaign? Thus far I’ve been quite happy with what they’ve already been doing on the environmental side of things. This new statement is a CHANGE for Apple.
Well, that’s abject nonsense. Either water is made of two hydrogen and one oxygen or it isn’t. Either the repulsion between the electrons in two gallons of water is 4.1*1026 newtons or it isn’t. Either an orange isn’t the summation of its physical properties or it isn’t.
Is or is not a reading of 56 degrees at a given time a constant? Honestly.
Ooh - is this a science quiz? Splendid.
Either water is made of two hydrogen and one oxygen or it isn’t: Yes - if we grant D = H, T = H.
Either the repulsion between the electrons in two gallons of water is 4.1*1026 newtons or it isn’t: Obviously not - since force is a vector quantity the correct answer, summed over two gallons, is zero Newtons.
Either an orange isn’t the summation of its physical properties or it isn’t: Badly posed question.
Is or is not a reading of 56 degrees at a given time a constant? No - by definition temperature is a variable, not a constant.
Is or is not a reading of 56 degrees at a given time a constant? No - by definition temperature is a variable, not a constant.
At. A. Given. Time. You want to boil it down to the Planck second, feel free.
Sorry - it doesn't matter what you boil it down to - temperature, by definition, is a state variable. Constants are properties that take only one value.
I wasn't trying to be mean, but this is a good example of the dangers of thinking that science is obvious. Even the most basic concepts are not intuitive to those without a sound background in the subject.
Comments
No - you provided one paper by an economist and a mining engineer (with a background in statistics, agreed), that has been largely discredited (in terms of its significance) in the aftermath of the controversy that it started, that addressed just the validity of the temperature record in the 1400s, and you are attempting to portray it as refuting the entire body of work on GW.
Their work was reviewed by multiple investigatory committees and a number of research groups, most of whom found that while their criticisms were not completely unfounded from a theoretical point of view, they did not significantly affect the reduced data. Notable, in that they addressed McIntyre and Mckitrick directly:
Other than that, you can find a long list of publications with similar findings on the Wikipedia page on climate reconstruction studies, so I won't bother to list all those here.
Wow. I provided a link to far more than one paper, which leads me to the conclusion that you did not actually view the page. It is McKitrick's own page which is full of links to papers and articles that tell the whole story of his and McIntyre's work in critiquing Mann's hockey stick and the melee that followed. The first citation you make in reply (Huybers) was accepted by GRL, and M&M revised some calculations that did not change their final, original conclusions, and they even critiqued Huyber's own comment. Here's the link:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL023586/full
The second paper you cite was actually rejected by GRL in 2005. After rewriting it, it was submitted to Climatic Change and accepted in time to be included in the the IPCC's AR4, because, after all, it's the politics that count in this whole debate. Wahl/Amman, just like Mann et al originally, would not allow access to some of the key data, code, and references with which they derived their statistics that formed the basis for their arguments. In Amman/Wahl's case, it was in the Supplementary Information section, and when McIntyre asked Climatic Change for the data/info, they said to contact the authors, most likely because they (Climatic Change) didn't have, and had not seen, that data. McIntyre contacted Ammann directly and asked for it, to which Ammann replied, in essence, "pound sand". You can read McIntyre's own account of the drama here:
http://climateaudit.org/2008/04/11/supplementary-information-and-flaccid-peer-reviewing/
I have a problem when scientists can't be open about their work. If I make a claim about how the universe works, the burden of proof is on me to prove that claim, and explain the math, methodologies, and observations that lead to that claim. The AGW cabal, instead of engaging the skeptics, have consistently not been fully open about their work.
We can play this game all day. But if all you can do is refer to a Wikipedia page on climate change, I feel for you, because you're not getting the whole story.
You did, indeed provide a link to McKitrick's soap box, which, itself, links to nothing but his own papers and articles. Of those, only two were ever published, and said the same thing. So no - it looks like you didn't read the page. And no, I've read enough of his whining and bleating about how unfair it all is - I don't need to read any more. And I have no interest in discussing it with you if all you are going to do is parrot his complaints.
As for openness - bear in mind that McKitrick and McIntyre are the only ones complaining about this issue - all the other researchers seem to have no problems accessing the data and methodologies.
And we are not going to play this game all day. You don't like a Wikipedia list of citations? What's the problem - wrong format for you? The font too small? Too many for you to dismiss? Or just an opportunity to hide behind a snide comment so that you can avoid reading them? Either way, pretty rich considering that your preferred source of information is apparently just McKitrick's own website. Do you not see the irony in suggesting that I'm not getting the whole story? Do you have anything to contribute here except M&M worship? Can you find anyone credible to support M&M's position? If not, then I'm done dignifying your posts with replies.
Learn what truth is and then answer my question.
At least you’re a forthright liar.
Tim Cook still implemented this policy and there's nothing you can do about it (except splice up posts)... A quarter of a trillion dollars and counting baby!
You don’t seem to understand how companies work.
You did splice up my quote and misrepresent it. There's no lying there, and that is about all you do unfortunately.
REALLY spliced. SURE cut up. DEFINITELY didn’t reply to your exact meaning.
Now either refute it or shut up.
He did no such thing. Reported for trolling.
Like fun.
It’s almost as though there’s only ONE TRUTH, huh. What a strange concept, that only ONE thing might be true.
Nowhere have I trolled or libeled you.
Reported for being physically incapable of staying on topic, replying to questions, and proving your own point.
Either prove me wrong or concede that NASA, NOAA, and GISS are indeed fabricating data. Since you’re so certain you’re “right”, why are you so fu?king terrified to prove it? Explain.
Thanks for conceding that NASA, NOAA, and GISS are indeed fabricating climate data.
Well, that’s abject nonsense. Either water is made of two hydrogen and one oxygen or it isn’t. Either the repulsion between the electrons in two gallons of water is 4.1*1026 newtons or it isn’t. Either an orange isn’t the summation of its physical properties or it isn’t.
Is or is not a reading of 56 degrees at a given time a constant? Honestly.
Already proved otherwise.
Stop with the lies, please.
Since Tim Cook’s statements are predicated on fraud, why would you support them with the fraud uncovered? What sane person does that?
That’s not how it works.
Good for them. And that somehow magically changes the truth?
I’m an environmentalist. I support Apple’s actions to preserve the environment. I am vehemently against Apple perpetrating the lie of AGW.
Appeal to popularity, authority, success; take your pick.
Explain why a company should be supported if it doesn’t care about objective truth.
How about that… making a profit off what is claimed to be a majority opinion… You don’t think that… NAH, of COURSE that can’t POSSIBLY be happening with the AGW lunatics!
Read the title. The actual topic is AGW. There is no AGW. If Tim doubled down on Apple’s environmentalism, that’s one thing. This is explicitly calling out AGW.
BECAUSE IT’S THE TRUTH. I DON’T CARE HOW MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE IT. THAT DOESN’T CHANGE WHETHER OR NOT IT’S TRUE. I DON’T CARE HOW PROFITABLE A LIE IS–AND NO, APPLE’S SUCCESS HAS NOT THUS FAR BEEN PREDICATED ON SUPPORTING THIS LIE.
Citation fucking needed.
Tell the site owners to stop letting the article robot post politicized garbage outside of PoliticalOutsider, then. I hate that, myself.
Are you asking how Apple could champion a campaign against the lie of AGW, or how Apple should continue its environmentalist campaign? Thus far I’ve been quite happy with what they’ve already been doing on the environmental side of things. This new statement is a CHANGE for Apple.
Well, that’s abject nonsense. Either water is made of two hydrogen and one oxygen or it isn’t. Either the repulsion between the electrons in two gallons of water is 4.1*1026 newtons or it isn’t. Either an orange isn’t the summation of its physical properties or it isn’t.
Is or is not a reading of 56 degrees at a given time a constant? Honestly.
Ooh - is this a science quiz? Splendid.
Either water is made of two hydrogen and one oxygen or it isn’t: Yes - if we grant D = H, T = H.
Either the repulsion between the electrons in two gallons of water is 4.1*1026 newtons or it isn’t: Obviously not - since force is a vector quantity the correct answer, summed over two gallons, is zero Newtons.
Either an orange isn’t the summation of its physical properties or it isn’t: Badly posed question.
Is or is not a reading of 56 degrees at a given time a constant? No - by definition temperature is a variable, not a constant.
Is or is not a reading of 56 degrees at a given time a constant? No - by definition temperature is a variable, not a constant.
At. A. Given. Time. You want to boil it down to the Planck second, feel free.
Is or is not a reading of 56 degrees at a given time a constant? No - by definition temperature is a variable, not a constant.
At. A. Given. Time. You want to boil it down to the Planck second, feel free.
Sorry - it doesn't matter what you boil it down to - temperature, by definition, is a state variable. Constants are properties that take only one value.
I wasn't trying to be mean, but this is a good example of the dangers of thinking that science is obvious. Even the most basic concepts are not intuitive to those without a sound background in the subject.