2/9/2010 7:31:08 PM

figured i'd keep the theme alive on the 43rd page

2/9/2010 7:35:24 PM

Quote :

"Note that the article also asserts that the hockey stick graph has been proven to be a fraud"

The author is an idiot, like anyone else who makes that claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

2/9/2010 7:36:57 PM

43rd page is only intended for crazy ass pictures. plz make a corrective edit. the circle-jerk can continue on the 44th page.

2/9/2010 7:38:53 PM

Even if the data was partially false. Temperature isn't always going up, heat is.

2/9/2010 7:39:18 PM

This picture is relevant to the discussion:




Carry on.

2/9/2010 7:40:37 PM

So anyone who doesn't believe in Mann's predictions is an idiot?

I thought science was based on observed data, not projected models

2/9/2010 7:41:09 PM

This is a picture of Aimee Mann:

2/9/2010 7:41:55 PM

Quote :

"So anyone who doesn't believe in Mann's predictions is an idiot?"

Yep, that's exactly what I said.

2/9/2010 7:43:30 PM

Well then, thanks for elaborating. I now certainly know your exact point and don't have any uncertainties about the point you were trying to make.

Your wikipedia link indicates that there is still a debate/controversy. And while wikipedia isn't the best source, your own source you provided doesn't give any type of closure to the point you were trying to make.

Not only is the hockey stick graph somewhat flawed in its actual data, but the main 'danger' it shows is based on projected data, not actual, observed, scientific data. Its based on interpolations, extrapolations and predictions.

2/9/2010 7:45:51 PM

Quote :

"What authority or ability Penn State University has to be the be-all end-all source in scrutinizing Mann's questionable actions is anyone's guess "

ha! I don’t think anyone is saying they’re the “be all end all” but they have the closest access to the data at issue, and have yet to find actual flaws the conspiracy nuts claim are there.

2/9/2010 7:53:37 PM

My point was to correct the misinformation from the author and parroted by you. I don't know why that is beyond your grasp.

Quote :

"Your wikipedia link indicates that there is still a debate/controversy. And while wikipedia isn't the best source, your own source you provided doesn't give any type of closure to the point you were trying to make."

Don't act like you can discuss this after you've obviously only scanned the article.

2/9/2010 7:56:14 PM

scanned the article? oh lord...the hockey stick graph has been debunked probably 30 times in this thread or the al gore thread, probably 3-4 times by me...this is nothing new, its amazing how clueless some of you are

2/9/2010 7:58:29 PM

^ huh?

The data used for the original hockey-stick has only become more bolstered as new data sources are found.

2/9/2010 8:01:22 PM

Yeah sure you debunked it, by quoting McIntyre or something else.

2/9/2010 8:03:37 PM

Quote :

"So in your view, it's wrong to correct data that was interpreted to be Celsius*10 when it was instead kelvins? Or to correct for a station that is biased by an unusual warm or cold localized temperature effect?"

If only those were the ONLY corrections, you might have a point. Again, what about the fantastic step-pyramid at Darwin Airport Australia or the fact that there is only one station used for all the land in Canada above a certain line of latitude; and that station just happens to be at an unusually warm location.

Quote :

"The author is an idiot, like anyone else who makes that claim. "

So, you think that a model that produces the same result, no matter if you plug in proxy data or the New York phone book isn't a fraud? Really?


what the FUCK is wrong w/ quoting McIntyre? Because he's right? come the fuck on. ad hominem at its worst, dude.

2/9/2010 8:04:10 PM

^^^

Quote :

"your reasoning is so tortured and twisted, you could have only derived it if you were trying to reach a conclusion you had pre-determined, rather than objectively looking at the facts of the situations"

^^remind me again where you have ever discussed climate science as a science and not as a political device? or discussed an article past the breadth of its headline? btw, that quote applies to you too...so does solinari's post about religion

2/9/2010 8:04:27 PM

Quote :

"what the FUCK is wrong w/ quoting McIntyre?"

In this case, because he in no way has the final word on whether the hockey stick is valid.

Quote :

"ad hominem at its worst, dude."

By the way, you really need to stop throwing around misplaced accusations of fallacies. It makes you look like an idiot who's trying too hard to look smart.


[Edited on February 9, 2010 at 8:13 PM. Reason : .]

2/9/2010 8:10:32 PM

then who the fuck does? his analysis PROVED that it was bullshit. his analysis PROVED that you got the same result, no matter what you used as input data. Penn State certainly doesn't have the last word. At what point do you call a spade a spade?

2/9/2010 8:11:39 PM

Quote :

"then who the fuck does? his analysis PROVED that it was bullshit. his analysis PROVED that you got the same result, no matter what you used as input data. "

No, it didn't. And if you actually took the time, just this once, to read about it you would find out that his analysis was not perfect.

2/9/2010 8:15:00 PM

Quote :

"I've always said that global warmism was nothing more than a religion for pseudo-intellectuals. Now they're sounding more and more like my preacher did when I asked him questions about christianity. some things never change. "

That’s funny, because it’s been the deniers that are the dogmatic ones, who KNOW the only conclusion must be pre-supposed that humans must not be able to cause climate change.

Vs. the normal people who are going by what the data says, and basing their conclusions from that.

Do you think there is any actual evidence to convince someone like aaronburro that humans might actually be able to affect the climate?

If there were some model or evidence that showed that the relationship that has been measured between anthropogenic GHG emissions and climate was in fact due to some factor as of yet unknown, it would be accepted. To date, no such model exists.

[Edited on February 9, 2010 at 8:22 PM. Reason : ]

2/9/2010 8:22:03 PM

Quote :

"Vs. the normal people who are going by what the data Holy Bible says, and basing their conclusions from that."

2/9/2010 8:22:54 PM

^^^ nothing in the link you posted even begins to say that McIntyre's analysis was flawed. did YOU even read your own link?

Quote :

"That’s funny, because it’s been the deniers that are the dogmatic ones, who KNOW the only conclusion must be pre-supposed that humans must not be able to cause climate change."

wow, very convincing. just saying the same thing the other guy accused pro-AGWers of. good work!

[Edited on February 9, 2010 at 8:26 PM. Reason : ]

2/9/2010 8:24:00 PM

^^ ha!

So in your opinion, math and science are equivalent to the holy bible?

Intelligent design is an equally valid conclusion to evolution?

2/9/2010 8:27:03 PM

i'm gonna enjoy the response

2/9/2010 8:31:34 PM

^^no thats not what im saying

i'm echoing solinari's comments that there are people out there who arent religious, but need SOMETHING to put their energy and time towards, and some people choose global warming...some people choose their favorite sports team...some work "religiously" at their job

but just as there are people who believe in god or their god or a particular religion because they hear it from people they trust/believe, there are people who believe in lots of things because they trust the source

as far as religion, ive been agnostic for about 10 years...same with AGW...maybe I'm just a cynic in general

2/9/2010 8:34:43 PM

I’m well aware of your stated perspective on religion.

The point was that the “deniers” are in a position that makes it significantly more difficult to back-pedal or re-adjust as new evidence comes to light.

The pro-anthropogenic climate change people, whether as a guise or not, have always claimed to be following the data. If the data drifts towards something non-human causing the climate change that the data indicates, the rational thing to do, from their on-going as-stated perspective, would be to change their view.

aaronburro et al don’t have this luxury. He can’t just say “well, maybe humans can cause it” because he’s been spouting his propaganda for the past couple of years that it’s all some big, massive conspiracy that has been going on for decades now (even BEFORE the IPCC — imagine that! ). Therefore, he has MUCH more cause than any of the people looking at the science to dogmatically assert his opinion.

[Edited on February 9, 2010 at 8:41 PM. Reason : ]

2/9/2010 8:40:40 PM

I don't think anybody would argue that humans impact the environment. But I think the main issue that people are skeptical about, is whether or not humans' impact on the environment is leading to a dangerous increase in temperature, or if our old planet is simply fluctuating in a natural way and we're only recently able to observe it, and what we observe is a rise in temperatures.

When you think that the planet is over 4,000,000,000 years old, and we've only got semi-accurate data from the last 100-150 years, its pretty easy to be skeptical of some catastrophic anthropogenic cause without having any other agendas swaying your opinion.

2/9/2010 8:43:43 PM

that's a beautiful strawman you've built against me, there, moron. It's really nice

2/9/2010 8:52:52 PM

Quote :

"nothing in the link you posted even begins to say that McIntyre's analysis was flawed."

I know it must be so hard for you to read, but it's there:

"Wahl and Ammann (2007) showed that this was a consequence of differences in the way McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) had implemented the method of Mann et al. (1998) and that the original reconstruction could be closely duplicated using the original proxy data."

"...so-called 'correction' was nothing more than a botched application of the MBH98 procedure, where the authors (MM) removed 80% of the proxy data actually used by MBH98 during the 15th century period... Indeed, the bizarre resulting claim by MM of anomalous 15th century warmth (which falls within the heart of the "Little Ice Age") is at odds with not only the MBH98 reconstruction, but, in fact the roughly dozen other estimates now published that agree with MBH98 within estimated uncertainties...".

"The IPCC AR4 says [the McIntyre] paper may have some theoretical foundation, but Wahl and Amman (2006) also show that the impact on the amplitude of the final reconstruction is very small."

"the National Research Council publication constituted a "near-complete vindication for the work of Mann et al.";[33] Nature reported it as "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph.""

Not to mention all of the other proxy reconstructions that basically show the same thing as the hockey stick. I guess you think all those are fraudulent too.

2/9/2010 9:03:32 PM

^^ so you don’t believe that evidence that indicates climate change from humans has been manipulated by the IPCC since the late 80s, and by some unknown entity that predates the IPCC?

2/9/2010 9:11:23 PM

that other studies "get the same result" is NEVER vindication of a fraudulent study, dude.

Wahl and Ammann (2007) does NOT disprove McIntyre analysis. nice try

Quote :

"...so-called 'correction' was nothing more than a botched application of the MBH98 procedure, where the authors (MM) removed 80% of the proxy data actually used by MBH98 during the 15th century period..."

Is taken directly from the mouth of Mann. NOT proof that McIntyre's analysis is flawed. Rather, it;'s just ad hominem on the part of Mann.

Quote :

"but, in fact the roughly dozen other estimates now published that agree with MBH98 within estimated uncertainties.."

Again, that others "agree" does not support the validity of your fraudulent model. Getting the same answer means nothing of you got there fraudulently.

Wahl and Ammann 2006 is NOT the smoking gun, either.
http://climateaudit.org/2005/05/13/wahl-and-amman-2/

Quote :

"Reading between the lines, it looks like Wahl and Amman get virtually the same results [as we do]."

W-A 2006 was spun massively to suggest that MM was invalid, when it did NOT do any such thing.

The NRC report is anything but a "complete vindication." it is, in fact, quite the opposite.

Quote :

"The National Research Council Report on the hockey stick was released in June 2006. They accepted our argument that Mann's method is biased towards producing hockey stick-shaped PCs, that uncertainties have been underestimated and that the bristlecone data, on which the famous hockey stick shape depends, should not have been used. They also express very little confidence in the IPCC's claim about the 1990s being the warmest decade in the millennium. But you have to read the report closely to pick all these things up--they bury it in a lot of genteel and deferential prose."

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html


Jesus, dude, just because Mann and his cronies say M&M are discredited doesn't make it so.


All you need to know about MBH98 is this:

Quote :

"... [U]sing the same steps as Mann et al., they were able to obtain a hockey stick shape as the first principal component in 99 percent of cases even if trendless red noise was used as input."

2/9/2010 9:17:01 PM

^ the McKintyre report didn’t show 100% of input data resulted in a hockey-stick. Only certain input data did.

The wegman report to congress noted that the Mann 98 model was odd, but that the reasons for using their method were valid.

None of this is remotely as resounding a rejection as your deluded brain is tricking you into believing.

2/9/2010 9:57:57 PM

Quote :

""Reading between the lines, it looks like Wahl and Amman get virtually the same results [as we do].""

---McIntyre

Quote :

"They accepted our argument that Mann's method is biased towards producing hockey stick-shaped PCs"

---McIntyre

Jesus dude, just because McIntyre and his cronies say they discredited the hockey stick doesnt make it so.

You pathetic redneck, how can you do nothing but quote McIntyre when you just criticised me for including the words of Mann?

Quote :

"Again, that others "agree" does not support the validity of your fraudulent model. Getting the same answer means nothing of you got there fraudulently."

Um, when the reconstructions are independently repeatable, it does support its validity. Unless you are implying all of the models are fraudulent or something.


[Edited on February 9, 2010 at 10:07 PM. Reason : .]

2/9/2010 10:03:50 PM

Are you calling all of these fraudulent? Or is it just coincidence that they look similar? It couldn't possibly be that they accurately reflect reality.



[Edited on February 9, 2010 at 10:11 PM. Reason : .]

2/9/2010 10:11:33 PM

Just because there's been a conspiracy to overhype AGW, doesn't mean its not happening. If proof were revealed by credible sources (read: not IPCC), I don't think it would be difficult at all for aaronburro to acknowledge that AGW was occurring. However, this is an easy claim to make because climate science is so hopelessly complex as to render the question meaningless.

2/10/2010 8:13:37 AM

The burden of proof isn't on "deniers" to prove that AGW doesn't exist. It's on "warmists" to prove that it does!

Decades later and billions spent, they have failed to do so.

2/10/2010 9:39:36 AM

When one gets an inflection point right at the place where two data sources are spliced, as is the case here, one should be suspicious that maybe the inflection is an artifact of mismatches in the data sources, and not representative of a natural phenomenon. And, in fact, when one removes the black line from measured temperatures and looks at only proxies, the hockey stick shape goes away:




http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/11/the-splice.html

[Edited on February 10, 2010 at 10:51 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/10/2010 10:44:47 AM

Quote :

"The burden of proof isn't on "deniers" to prove that AGW doesn't exist. It's on "warmists" to prove that it does! Decades later and billions spent, they have failed to do so. "

It’s not an issue of proof to the deniers, because they always fall back to the “massive liberal conspiracy going back decades” angle.


in any case, this was a decent article i thought:
How to Reform the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Quote :

"Of course, retractions are a big part of self-correction in science—and responsible for much of the robustness of the scientific method in general. And none of these errors detract from the central theory of climate change: Rising CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere from human activity are "very likely" responsible for the observed temperature change over the industrial era, as the IPCC puts it. A more robust way to expose such errors and correct them more quickly is proposed by former IPCC lead author and atmospheric scientist John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Writing in the February 11 edition of Nature, Christy called for a "living, 'Wikipedia-IPCC.'" (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) After all, as he noted: "Voluminous printed reports issued every six years by government-nominated authors cannot accommodate the rapid and chaotic development of scientific information today." Lead IPCC author and director of climate change and adaptation at the environmental group World Wildlife Fund, Jeff Price similarly argued in the same issue for producing more reports faster. "

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=reform-the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change

2/10/2010 7:23:00 PM

Quote :

"the McKintyre report didn’t show 100% of input data resulted in a hockey-stick. Only certain input data did."

No, it showed that 99% of absolutely random data thrown in resulted in a hockey-stick. That's more than just "certain data."

Quote :

"You pathetic redneck, how can you do nothing but quote McIntyre when you just criticised me for including the words of Mann?"

Because McIntyre has actual defenses behind his statements. Durrr. Thx for the ad hominem, though.

Quote :

"Um, when the reconstructions are independently repeatable, it does support its validity. Unless you are implying all of the models are fraudulent or something."

Bullshit. Considering that most of the "independent reconstructions" were actually done by members of the original MBH study, as shown by the Wegman report, they mean very little. Moreover, that someone else comes up with the same answer does NOT mean that the original study was not a fraud. it just means that someone else came up with the same answer.

2/10/2010 9:09:45 PM

Quote :

"Because McIntyre has actual defenses behind his statements. Durrr. "

Yeah, because nobody provided "actual defenses" of the hockey stick. Not Mann and his team, not other studies, not the National Research Council.

When you think a valid way to defend McIntyre's position is to quote McIntyre, you have serious cognitive issues. Which, of course, everyone already knows.

But go on and continue to act a fool and worship this guy's word like it's gospel. Meanwhile, the rational world has moved on from the hockey stick.

2/10/2010 10:52:00 PM

If by "rational world" you mean "global warmists" and by "moved" on you mean "wishes everyone would forget about it"

2/10/2010 10:54:53 PM

Clever troll thinks he's clever.

2/10/2010 10:56:19 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, because nobody provided "actual defenses" of the hockey stick. Not Mann and his team"

No, they didn't, not in the quote you posted. Which was why I objected to it.

Quote :

"not the National Research Council"

who ended up effectively agreeing with McIntyre... Again, just because they say "gee, it's hot," doesn't mean that Mann's hockey-fraud is defended.

Quote :

"Meanwhile, the rational world has moved on from the hockey stick."

Is that why you were defending it just now?

2/10/2010 10:58:13 PM

Dude, just give up. Every time you post everyone loses an IQ point.

2/10/2010 11:00:41 PM

I'll take that as a tacit admission of defeat. Keep up the good work

2/10/2010 11:01:18 PM

I'll take that as a tacit admission of defeat. Keep up the good work

2/10/2010 11:03:34 PM

You ever wonder why you usually end up thinking you've won an argument?

Because it's impossible to defeat stupidity, especially when it's got a big ego behind it.

2/10/2010 11:14:53 PM

You know what else seems impossible? Proving that AGW exists. Decades of research and nothing that would stand up to scientific scrutiny in court.

2/11/2010 10:05:46 AM

So TKEKEG, is global warming still 100% unrelated to carbon emissions?? haaha

2/11/2010 10:09:47 AM