# Marcott2013



## IanC (Mar 14, 2013)

Willis has done a good job of posting up the proxies and showing how many of them fail to meet the criteria laid out in the Marcott methodology. Marcott?s proxies ? 10% fail their own criteria for inclusion | Watts Up With That?

but the main problem is still pasting high resolution high variance recent data onto low resolution low variance historic data


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2013)

More junk science from climate science.  Apparently you can't be a climate superstar if you can't make a hockey stick magically appear from nothing.  Even marcott admits that the "blade" of his hockey stick isn't statistically signifigant.  

Q:  If it isn't, why put it there?

A:  Because the media won't research....don't know enough to ask the question...aren't intestested in the answer.  The media will run with anything that seems to promote the agenda whether it is actual science or not.


----------



## IanC (Mar 15, 2013)

apparently his PhD thesis didn't have an uptick. And he has called the uptick "not robust". Retraction coming soon I wager.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2013)

IanC said:


> apparently his PhD thesis didn't have an uptick. And he has called the uptick "not robust". Retraction coming soon I wager.



A retraction doesn't matter.  Idiots like thunder and siagon will be posting that rediculous graph till the hoax completely implodes and the present crop of climate scientists have taken to the tall grass in order to avoid justice.

That idiot graph will take its place alongside mann's idiot graph and the fact that it has been completely discredited will be meaningless to the usefull idiots of the world.  Look how they still defend man even though his work was found to be garbage.

The question usefull idiots should be asking themselves if they have any active brain cells left is what sort of science actually pushes that sort of garbage through peer review for publishing?


----------



## IanC (Mar 18, 2013)

> Read McIntyre&#8217;s latest here
> 
> Related articles
> 
> ...



there have been some very serious 'inconsistencies' pointed out for Marcott2013. how did they get past peer review and when will they be addressed by the authors?






saigon- if you have some some articles defending M2013 I would certainly be interested in reading them. what is your opinion on yet another of the Team's papers being so slipshod?


----------



## IanC (Mar 18, 2013)

I don't think the ordinary Joe understands the profound dishonesty involved with grafting cherrypicked high resolution endpoints on to low resolution proxy reconstructions. But 'useful idiots' like Old Rocks and Saigon just accept it without question.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 18, 2013)

IanC said:


> I don't think the ordinary Joe understands the profound dishonesty involved with grafting cherrypicked high resolution endpoints on to low resolution proxy reconstructions. But 'useful idiots' like Old Rocks and Saigon just accept it without question.



Lucky for all of us there are some folks out there much smarter than the average Joe looking at this material.  

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/...-before-science-has-to-retract-marcott-et-al/

McIntyre writes:


The Marcott-Shakun Dating Service

*Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix did not use the published dates for ocean cores, instead substituting their own dates.* The validity of Marcott-Shakun re-dating will be discussed below, but first, to show that the re-dating &#8220;matters&#8221; (TM-climate science), here is a graph showing reconstructions using alkenones (31 of 73 proxies) in Marcott style, comparing the results with published dates (red) to results with Marcott-Shakun dates (black). As you see, there is a persistent decline in the alkenone reconstruction in the 20th century using published dates, but a 20th century increase using Marcott-Shakun dates. (It is taking all my will power not to make an obvious comment at this point.)

It is really time to stop playing nice with these people.  This is deliberate fraud.


----------



## IanC (Apr 1, 2013)

RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.

a response from Marcott that manages to ignore all the pertinent questions brought up about his methodologies. at least he has publically admitted that the 20th century 'uptick' has no validity and should not have been a part of the paper.

The Marcott Filibuster « Climate Audit

McIntyre's response to marcott's FAQ. lots of links to related material.

Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: Fixing the Marcott Mess in Climate Science

Pielke,Jr brings up ethical questions about Marcott's paper, and what the author's, media and scientific journals should do to remedy this infraction and stop further gross misrepresentations from happening.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

IanC said:


> Pielke,Jr brings up ethical questions about Marcott's paper, and what the author's, media and scientific journals should do to remedy this infraction and stop further gross misrepresentations from happening.




Maybe marcott shoud be busted from PhD back to BS or maybe even AS till he can demonstrate that he actually knows enough to be labeled PhD.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 1, 2013)

RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.

Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called &#8220;uptick&#8221; in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record. Although not part of our study, high-resolution paleoclimate data from the past ~130 years have been compiled from various geological archives, and confirm the general features of warming trend over this time interval (Anderson, D.M. et al., 2013, Geophysical Research Letters, v. 40, p. 189-193; Welcome to AGU Online Services).

Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?

A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record. Any small &#8220;upticks&#8221; or &#8220;downticks&#8221; in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 1, 2013)

*If one reads the whole of the article, it seems that Marcott has been a good deal more honest than the people here cherry picking sentences in order to make the paper appear to say something it did not.

*

RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.

Q: Are the proxy records seasonally biased?

A: Maybe. We cannot exclude the possibility that some of the paleotemperature records are biased toward a particular season rather than recording true annual mean temperatures. For instance, high-latitude proxies based on short-lived plants or other organisms may record the temperature during the warmer and sunnier summer months when the organisms grow most rapidly. As stated in the paper, such an effect could impact our paleo-reconstruction. For example, the long-term cooling in our global paleotemperature reconstruction comes primarily from Northern Hemisphere high-latitude marine records, whereas tropical and Southern Hemisphere trends were considerably smaller. This northern cooling in the paleotemperature data may be a response to a long-term decline in summer insolation associated with variations in the earth&#8217;s orbit, and this implies that the paleotemperature proxies here may be biased to the summer season. A summer cooling trend through Holocene time, if driven by orbitally modulated seasonal insolation, might be partially canceled out by winter warming due to well-known orbitally driven rise in Northern-Hemisphere winter insolation through Holocene time. Summer-biased proxies would not record this averaging of the seasons. It is not currently possible to quantify this seasonal effect in the reconstructions. Qualitatively, however, we expect that an unbiased recorder of the annual average would show that the northern latitudes might not have cooled as much as seen in our reconstruction. This implies that the range of Holocene annual-average temperatures might have been smaller in the Northern Hemisphere than the proxy data suggest, making the observed historical temperature averages for 2000-2009 CE, obtained from instrumental records, even more unusual with respect to the full distribution of Holocene global-average temperatures.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

He hasn't been honest enough to make his paper credible....If the uptick was not supported by the evidence...why even put it there if not for dishonest reasons?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 1, 2013)

LOL. You mean that for the denialists, you people are going to hang your hat on any nonsense to disprove honest scientific work. And fellow scientists found his work adaquete for a Phd. Have you reached that point yet?


----------



## IanC (Apr 1, 2013)

There was no uptick in his PhD thesis. That is the point. The only reason the media was interested was because it was fraudulently turned into a hockey stick. Which they now say was denied in the fine print, and contrary to their statements in interviews.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. You mean that for the denialists, you people are going to hang your hat on any nonsense to disprove honest scientific work. And fellow scientists found his work adaquete for a Phd. Have you reached that point yet?



Fellow scientists?  You mean like pal review?  Clearly his work isn't adequate.  He sacrificed his integrity for the sake of a hockey stick.


----------



## flacaltenn (Apr 1, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. You mean that for the denialists, you people are going to hang your hat on any nonsense to disprove honest scientific work. And fellow scientists found his work adaquete for a Phd. Have you reached that point yet?



Actually GoldiRocks -- we've gotten what we wanted all along. And that is to make these worthless proxy studies honest enough so that the authors cannot be used as promotional tools for the "cause". Because NOW --- people are watching and investing time to FORCE them to be honest. 

There is nothing about worms burrowing in the mud or tree rings that substitutes for satellite data and tide meters.. So there SHOULDN'T be any leaping to conclusions due to heavily massaged tea leaf reading..... But that won't stop you from finding hockey sticks laying around in every PhD thesis that hits the press release circus --- will it dear?


----------



## polarbear (Apr 1, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> *If one reads the whole of the article, it seems that Marcott has been a good deal more honest than the people here cherry picking sentences in order to make the paper appear to say something it did not.
> *


Bullshit ! That`s like saying Jodi Arias was honest.
*That lie has been exposed since 2009* (!!!) just as soon when  it was published and had  supposedly been "peer reviewed". But implodes like all the rest of this garbage science when it is reviewed by scientists who make a living as professional scientists.
The problem was that nobody paid attention to it until somebody finally posted it on a web site with enough Google key hit words and Google-click tracers which registered over 60 000 hits in the last 20 hours.
A game that AGW bloggers have played so well and now it "back radiated"...that`s all
Marcott should have stayed away from the New York Times, then perhaps nobody would have noticed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/s...s-highest-in-4000-years-study-says.html?_r=1&


> *Global Temperatures Highest in 4,000 Years*
> 
> 
> In the new research, scheduled for publication on Friday in the journal Science, Shaun Marcott, an earth scientist at Oregon State University,  and his colleagues compiled the most meticulous reconstruction yet of  global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, virtually the entire  Holocene. They used indicators like the distribution of microscopic,  temperature-sensitive ocean creatures to determine past climate.        Its another important achievement and significant result as we continue to refine our knowledge and understanding of climate change, *Dr. Mann said*.


But nobody in their right mind would consent by acquiescence,  especially not after that (exposed) fraud artist chimed in....implying he`s been vindicated


----------



## mamooth (Apr 1, 2013)

Ian, if you didn't take all you data from crank denialist sites, your claims of being a skeptic would be taken a little more seriously.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Ian, if you didn't take all you data from crank denialist sites, you claims of being a skeptic would be taken a little more seriously.



That's rich...trying to defend Marcott..even when he admits that his hockey stick is a fraud.


----------



## IanC (Apr 11, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Ian, if you didn't take all you data from crank denialist sites, your claims of being a skeptic would be taken a little more seriously.



unlike you, I actually look at a lot of different sites, from both sides and in the middle.

Climate Audit (in the middle despite how warmers hate it) is probably the best site on the web if you actually want pertinent information on the ongoing status of climate science. it actually does science and is the peer review that should have been done in the first place.

I challenge anyone to read the Marcott13 articles there and not come away with a vastly greater understanding on how paleo reconstructions are done. and what their strengths and weaknesses are.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 11, 2013)

Climate Audit? You mean where Steve McIntyre was caught red-handed lying brazenly about the East Anglia people?

Once someone gets revealed as a liar like that, rational people start assuming everything they say is a lie, unless independent evidence shows otherwise. That's why most denialist leaders get no respect, because they get caught lying so often. In contrast, mainstream scientists have a long record of honesty (cultist rambling to the contrary), so they do get respect.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 11, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Climate Audit? You mean where Steve McIntyre was caught red-handed lying brazenly about the East Anglia people?
> 
> Once someone gets revealed as a liar like that, rational people start assuming everything they say is a lie, unless independent evidence shows otherwise. That's why most denialist leaders get no respect, because they get caught lying so often. In contrast, mainstream scientists have a long record of honesty (cultist rambling to the contrary), so they do get respect.



I am afraid that you have your "facts" crossed.  McIntyre caught east anglia in a web of lies which prompted the warmists spin machine to run for days on end.  Too bad they didn't have a generator hooked up to it...could have generated enough electricity to power new york for days on end.  Here is just one example of the sort of lies they told and then got caught telling:



> August 2010, the university had said that they were not in possession of the attachments to the Wahl-Briffa emails. However, two months later, they unequivocally told the Parliamentary Committee that they could produce &#8220;all&#8221; the emails and that Jones and Briffa had deleted nothing. But in their submissions to the ICO in 2011, they said that they were not able to produce the Wahl-Briffa documents, arguing that:
> 
> 
> It is highly likely, even good records management practice, that such emails and attachments would have been deleted in the normal course of business between 2006 and 2008, well in advance of any request for either the emails or the attached documents.




It seems that all of the warmists leaders are liars...proven liars.  Hell look at mann always claiming to have been vindicated when in fact, it was found that the methodology for his hockey stick had no more predictive power than random numbers from a telephone book.


----------



## gslack (Apr 11, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. You mean that for the denialists, you people are going to hang your hat on any nonsense to disprove honest scientific work. And fellow scientists found his work adaquete for a Phd. Have you reached that point yet?



Oh good, another numan...

It's "DENIER" dumbazz.. WTF is a "denialist" ?

Leave it to the guy screaming science and peer review to use words like "denialist"..

Nice work genius, perhaps you can quote some Tennyson or Longfellow for us next?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 11, 2013)

SSDD said:


> I am afraid that you have your "facts" crossed.  McIntyre caught east anglia in a web of lies which prompted the warmists spin machine to run for days on end.



Too bad you can't get anyone outside of your crybaby cult to believe your cult's lies.

And we find it hilarious, how much that bothers you.

Here's a fine rundown on one of McIntyre's lie-a-thons:

McClimategate continues: Yet another false accusation from McIntyre and McKitrick | Deep Climate

No, I don't expect any denialists to read it. No good cultist would risk sullying the purity of his immortal soul by looking at such heresy. The cult told them the scientists lie, so they BELIEVE.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 11, 2013)

gslack said:


> Nice work genius, perhaps you can quote some Tennyson or Longfellow for us next?



A helpful hint ...

To pull off the condescending act, you have to demonstrate that you're intelligent first. Otherwise, you just look ridiculous.


----------



## gslack (Apr 11, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Nice work genius, perhaps you can quote some Tennyson or Longfellow for us next?
> ...



As opposed to you right?

LOL, BS artist... Tell me about your fear of cosmic rays again.. What was that you said? Cosmic rays can cause exposure....ROFL... really?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 11, 2013)

gslack said:


> LOL, BS artist... Tell me about your fear of cosmic rays again.. What was that you said? Cosmic rays can cause exposure....ROFL... really?



So now you're also claiming cosmic rays don't cause radiation exposure?

This is almost too easy. I just have to state a fact, and the 'tard brigade will instantly scream that the opposite is true, just to spite me. They've made themselves my happy little puppets.


----------



## gslack (Apr 12, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, BS artist... Tell me about your fear of cosmic rays again.. What was that you said? Cosmic rays can cause exposure....ROFL... really?
> ...



LOL, tool, do you know what the difference between what you said before and now? Yes you do now that I explained it.. Let's review..You said..

*"The EPA seems to think cosmic radiation causes significant exposure."*

Now you try and change it to ...

*So now you're also claiming cosmic rays don't cause radiation exposure?*

LOL, swim socko swim! 

You're an idiot. I explained it before, you can be exposed to radiation, but you can't be radiation-ed to exposure.. Catching on yet genius???


----------



## mamooth (Apr 12, 2013)

So your lack of basic english skills is my problem? I don't think so.

Do you 'tards ever wonder why no one else will join your 'tard crusade against me? Even most of the conservatives are embarrassed by you.


----------



## gslack (Apr 12, 2013)

mamooth said:


> So your lack of basic english skills is my problem? I don't think so.
> 
> Do you 'tards ever wonder why no one else will join your 'tard crusade against me? Even most of the conservatives are embarrassed by you.



Aww, you cryin dude?

Sorry lil fella...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 12, 2013)

mamooth said:


> No, I don't expect any denialists to read it. No good cultist would risk sullying the purity of his immortal soul by looking at such heresy. The cult told them the scientists lie, so they BELIEVE.



I read it but it is laughable.  If that sort of mewling claptrap is indicative of where you get your information, then it goes a long way towards explaining why you have fallen victim to the hoax.


----------



## IanC (Apr 12, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I am afraid that you have your "facts" crossed.  McIntyre caught east anglia in a web of lies which prompted the warmists spin machine to run for days on end.
> ...




you consider McIntyre's expose on the Briffa bodge to be a 'lie'? hahaha

I suppose McIntrye pointing out many of the weaknesses in Marcott or Gergis is also another grand lie in your eyes.

I can only encourage people to look at the evidence and explanations from both sides before they make up their own minds. the recent climb-down in alarmist conclusions by Marcott and Shakur would not have happened without outside criticism by skeptics. and you would have not had the opportunity to learn more about the actual proxy reconstructions that are released in the media to large fanfare only to be shown as very weak once critics like McIntyre do the work that peer review is supposed to do.


----------



## IanC (Jun 15, 2013)

England's Met Office finally took down their link to Marcott13 siting changes in the author's claims compared to the press release at the time. Good thing the horse didn't get out of the barn while the door was open.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 16, 2013)

IanC said:


> England's Met Office finally took down their link to Marcott13 siting changes in the author's claims compared to the press release at the time. Good thing the horse didn't get out of the barn while the door was open.



I guess mamooth thinks that the MET office is part of the skeptic conspiracy now.


----------



## IanC (Jul 24, 2013)

IanC said:


> Willis has done a good job of posting up the proxies and showing how many of them fail to meet the criteria laid out in the Marcott methodology. Marcott?s proxies ? 10% fail their own criteria for inclusion | Watts Up With That?
> 
> but the main problem is still pasting high resolution high variance recent data onto low resolution low variance historic data



Bump for those posters telling us that the Marcott proxies are unequivocal.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 24, 2013)

IanC said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Willis has done a good job of posting up the proxies and showing how many of them fail to meet the criteria laid out in the Marcott methodology. Marcott?s proxies ? 10% fail their own criteria for inclusion | Watts Up With That?
> ...



That's the humor that keeps me coming back....   There's a signal in there somewhere. A few contenders for the YAD061 trophy in there for sure.. Too many do the hockey stick before their time.

What can ya say?


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 24, 2013)

What's really sad is when people cite a crackpot creationist like Anthony Watt, and then expect others to read their posts with a straight face.  That truly is sad.  Guys, hasn't it dawned on you that the only thing these guys have going for them is for idjuts like you to take what they say as gospel truth?  Watt has published one peer reviewed paper, and it was rather easily refuted.  He has since not published anything in any professional peer reviewed journal.  All he has education-wise is allegedly a B.S. in meteorology.  He doesn't generate any reproducible peer-reviewed work.  In fact, it seems that his entire career rests on bad mouthing people who do.  You might as well hire a goat herder to remove that brain tumor, because that's pretty much what you are doing here.  Congratulations.


----------



## IanC (Jul 24, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> What's really sad is when people cite a crackpot creationist like Anthony Watt, and then expect others to read their posts with a straight face.  That truly is sad.  Guys, hasn't it dawned on you that the only thing these guys have going for them is for idjuts like you to take what they say as gospel truth?  Watt has published one peer reviewed paper, and it was rather easily refuted.  He has since not published anything in any professional peer reviewed journal.  All he has education-wise is allegedly a B.S. in meteorology.  He doesn't generate any reproducible peer-reviewed work.  In fact, it seems that his entire career rests on bad mouthing people who do.  You might as well hire a goat herder to remove that brain tumor, because that's pretty much what you are doing here.  Congratulations.



Watts didn't write the piece, Willis E did. Are you saying that those are not the Marcott proxies?


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 24, 2013)

Great, we are supposed to take the word of a message therapist on matters of climate science now.  Good god, man, are you daft?


----------



## westwall (Jul 24, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Great, we are supposed to take the word of a message therapist on matters of climate science now.  Good god, man, are you daft?









McIntyre destroyed Gergis et al in 10 hours.  AFTER the paper had gone through peer review.  Suck on that for awhile mr. socko.


----------



## IanC (Jul 25, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Great, we are supposed to take the word of a message therapist on matters of climate science now.  Good god, man, are you daft?



You didn't answer the question. Are you saying that Willis changed the proxies from the ones made available in the marcott SI? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to download and print up files of data. (hahaha, Phil Jones excluded of course)


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 25, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Great, we are supposed to take the word of a message therapist on matters of climate science now.  Good god, man, are you daft?
> ...



Gee, moving the goalpost.  What a novel solution to your problem.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 25, 2013)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Great, we are supposed to take the word of a message therapist on matters of climate science now.  Good god, man, are you daft?
> ...



I'm saying that you should try to present a scientific argument from someone other than a massage therapist.  I know you people don't understand the problem with doing this, but you should thank the stars that there isn't a similar group of 'pundants' following behind the brain surgeons telling you that they can do better for your tumor using banana enemas.


----------



## westwall (Jul 25, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Not at all.  Merely pointing out to the sock that the climatologists suck at what they do.  Why would anyone pay attention to them after that debacle?


----------



## westwall (Jul 25, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Why?  A statistician has been demonstrating beyond doubt that the climatologists can't do math.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 25, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Proving yet again that any claim you have to being a PhD in anything is nothing more than wishful thinking.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 25, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



And many others have shown your statistician for what he is, a liar with a political agenda.  And you are apparently his groupie.  Congratulations.


----------



## IanC (Jul 25, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



What scientific argument? I am trying to pin you down on whether you believe the proxies reproduced here from the information provided in M13 are valid or not. Do you think they have been altered? If they had been altered someone from Marcott's side would have used it to embarrass the skeptics.

If the proxies are as accurate as the information provided by Marcott, what does the shape of the proxies say about the precision and uncertainties in the final graph? Some go up, some go down, some are well constrained, some are not. I am unconvinced that we can get more than a general guideline from them.

The end dates for these proxies is a vexing problem. As McIntyre demonstrated, using the proxies as originally produced by the individual authors gives a different result in the modern timeframe. Are Marcott,s changes improvements or agenda driven? I am unqualified to judge but in many cases they lead to warming in the 20th C rather than cooling. Marcott eventually conceded that his results were not 'robust' for modern times despite his numerous public comments when it was first released. Why did he collaborate with other hockeystick producers and re-release his PhD thesis with a hockeystick at the end? I don't know but it got him a lot of publicity. 



Since you do not like my reproductions of the proxies, perhaps you could find the data elsewhere. But I doubt it. The Team doesn't like to share equivical evidence with the public. Only polished graphs with solid average lines and constrained standard deviations are released to the public. The biggest accomplishments of the skeptics has been to get data sets released. Every new hockeystick is rebutted in days now, rather than the years it took to demolish MBH98.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 25, 2013)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I don't know the origin of those graphs you posted, and frankly, if they didn't come directly from Marcott's paper, then no they are not valid.  You people seem to think the scientific process includes knock down drag out flame wars on forums such as this one, or on so-called science blogs.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it doesn't.

What I know for a fact is this:

Marcott's 73 proxies are valid, and represent the best database of its kind that is available anywhere.  If you know of a better database, by all means, we are all ears.  Now, instead of trying to convince us that your rightwing anti-science agenda is anything other than that, how about getting out from behind your iphones and into the friggin field conducting some original scientific research of your own!  Now that would be a different turn, wouldn't it?  But you can't do that can you?  Why?  Because you're not a frelling scientist, and are unqualified to do the frelling work.

If you want Marcott's 73 proxies, I suggest you actually read his paper.


----------



## IanC (Jul 25, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Those graphs are plotted up directly from the information supplied with Marcott2013. As I said before. I have not downloaded them myself. If you think Willis screwed with them, say so. Otherwise they are what the proxies look like. I personally don't think they are overwhelmingly convincing but they are similar to any other proxy records. Lots of noise to little signal.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 25, 2013)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



That's because you don't know what you are looking at.  For instance, I am an amateur astronomer.  I take lots of astrophotographs of very faint objects.  Modern astrophotography is much more sophisticated than the days when they used photographic plates.  And in fact, the technology and methods used today by the amateur astronomer was not only not available to us 20 years ago, they were unavailable to professional astronomers.  The result is that amateurs, with far less equipment and expense are producing stunning images that rival and in some cases, surpass anything the large observatories were producing 20 years ago.

I bring this up for this reason.  When you look at the raw master image below, you don't see much: just some stars with a very black background.






 Very little signal apparent, right?  Wrong.  Once the image if fully processed, this is the result:






To the untrained eye, there wasn't much there.  But to the skilled technician, it's a gold mine of data.

So what's the point of all this?  The point is that if you don't know what you are doing, and there is no doubt that you don't, then, of course, all you are going to see is a lot of noise, and no signal.  So my advice to you is to either take a class, or let the big boys who actually know what they are doing do their work.


----------



## IanC (Jul 26, 2013)

Oro- I have no doubt that there are legitimate ways of teasing more info from noisy data. Unfortunately there are also illegitimate ways of finding corroborating evidence such as YAD061 which had a growth spurt that was obviously caused in main part by factors other than temperature. The problem with PC analysis is that it gives so much weight to outliers. It is easy to screw up, and climate science is not known for seeking out help from statisticians.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 26, 2013)

IanC said:


> Oro- I have no doubt that there are legitimate ways of teasing more info from noisy data. Unfortunately there are also illegitimate ways of finding corroborating evidence such as YAD061 which had a growth spurt that was obviously caused in main part by factors other than temperature. The problem with PC analysis is that it gives so much weight to outliers. It is easy to screw up, and climate science is not known for seeking out help from statisticians.



Getting stuck on one tree is rather silly, don't you think?  Particularly when that issue has been addressed ad nausea.  And IanC, Marcott isn't giving untoward weight to outliers.  His is the most inclusive database in the business.  And finally, you are assuming that PhD scientists are unfamiliar with statistics.  Poor assumption.  Marcott has addressed all of the concerns of the denialist league.  The problem is not that his answers are unsatisfactory.  The problem is that there is no answer he or anyone else can give that will satisfy them.

But let me ask you a question.  Why did McIntyre hound Briffa for his data for such a long time when he actually had it all along?  Is this the kind of honesty you look forward to every morning when you get up and read Wattsupwiththat?


----------



## IanC (Jul 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Oro- I have no doubt that there are legitimate ways of teasing more info from noisy data. Unfortunately there are also illegitimate ways of finding corroborating evidence such as YAD061 which had a growth spurt that was obviously caused in main part by factors other than temperature. The problem with PC analysis is that it gives so much weight to outliers. It is easy to screw up, and climate science is not known for seeking out help from statisticians.
> ...



Do you really think Marcott didn't use principle component analysis on that hodgepodge of proxies? His graph certainly isn't just an average.

McIntyre has collected many data sets over the years. Some public, some confidential. Many are gray, having only partial inclusion of all the available specimens, like Briffa's. MC was hounding Briffa to find which trees, what methodology of inclusion. Briffa was cherry picking, now less so, that is why his new series looks like McIntyre said it should.


----------



## westwall (Jul 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







And yet, he was proven correct....wasn't he?  Why YES HE WAS!  Must suck to be you.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 26, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



McIntyre wrote a paper that showed a mistake that amounted to an error of 0.001 that made no difference whatsoever to the results of the paper in question.  He patted himself on the back and people like you ate it up as if he'd discovered a new natural law.  Pathetic.


----------



## IanC (Jul 26, 2013)

Do you really want a list of all the things McIntyre has accomplished at Climate Audit?

Even more important is the fact that he has made the internal workings of climate science accessible to the ordinary layman. There is no deferring to authority over there. And a lot less censorship of dissenting opinions as well.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 26, 2013)

IanC said:


> Do you really want a list of all the things McIntyre has accomplished at Climate Audit?



No sir I do not.  It would be like me asking you to provide a list of accomplishments by Leonard Nimoy on his old television show about ancient astronauts.



> Even more important is the fact that he has made the internal workings of climate science accessible to the ordinary layman. There is no deferring to authority over there. And a lot less censorship of dissenting opinions as well.



And no science.  Congratulations.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



  you got my thanks above..

 HOWEVER, a collection of simple data series, all purporting to represent T = F(x) is NOT the image processing "teasing" (as Ian said) all that beauty out.. You are using THOUSANDS of spectral, temporal, radiometric spatial properties to make that image enhancement..  T = F(x) a hundred times over doesn't REALLY offer that much up when the ORIGINAL data is mostly disconsonant noise.. 

Tell ya what captain.. Take that same photo thru 100 different telescopes including some that Santa brought for Christmas.. Try to use ALL the data in the reconstruction, and let's see the result...


----------



## IanC (Jul 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Do you really want a list of all the things McIntyre has accomplished at Climate Audit?
> ...




No science? Since when has correcting other's mistakes not been science?

Steig got his flawed Antarctica paper printed in Nature, on the cover no less. Statisticians at Climate Audit showed him where it was wrong. The Team laughed and said, so what are you going to write you're own paper?

So they did. Peer reviewers would not accept it as a direct rebuttal of Steig, it had to be just an improved version. Back and forth the paper was bounced with reviwer B making ever more shrill, nitpicking, or bizarre changes. After a year of being savaged in peer review (unlike pal review) the paper wad finally published, albeit with many of its fangs pulled by reviwer B.

Steig was allowed to reply, as is only fair. He made a big fuss over one of the changes implimented on reviwer B's insistence. But on the whole the paper was successful in showing that Steig' paper had incorrectly smeared warmth from the peninsula over into the rest of the continent by flawed methodology. CAHad won a small victory, the Team had shown its muscles in making it next to impossible for skeptical papers to get published. 

But that was not the end of the story. Steig tripped himself up and subsequently admitted that he.........was reviwer B!!!!

How dishonorable is it to force an incorrect alteration on a paper from the anonymity of reviwer, only to publically criticize it later?

I would like to be able to hold climate scientists in the highest esteem and defer to their authority but as the climategate emails and this specific example show, there is plenty of pettiness and distortion going on in the background that makes it reasonable to doubt their ethics, especially when they are backed into a corner.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 26, 2013)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



If you believe that correcting mistakes (and not obfuscating the issues) is what they are doing, you are sadly mistaken.  And you don't correct mistakes in science in a frelling political blog.   You submit your manuscript to the relevant peer reviewed scientific journal for rebuttal.  Yes, I know, they've complained that they can't get their crap published because the scientific community is biased against them.  But that's true of any CRAP submitted for scientific publication.  Even valid submissions take time to get published.  It took me nearly ten years to get my first paper submitted, partially because it was so large, and contained submission of 8 species new to science, but also because of the backlog of submissions.  We all have these issues.  The system is not perfect.  Welcome to the real frelling world.

Climategate e-mails?  Are you kidding me?  Of course, you have no problem with the fact that a government server was hacked in violation of national and international law, that confidential e-mails were posted all over the internet, and that the good names of respected scientists were smeared all over the media, despite the fact that panel after panel found no wrongdoing other than a misdemeanor violation of the FOIA that was past its statute of limitations, requested for information the person requesting the information later admitted that he ALREADY frelling HAD!!!  And you think this is the kind unethical  behavior is what scientists should aspire to?  Really?  REALLY???

If you want any credibility in your arguments, you should leave bs like that at the door.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 26, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



No one said it was easy.  But I tell yas what, Private, that kind of work is done all the time.  You didn't know this?  Huh.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 26, 2013)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Yes, I know McIntyre has collected lots of datasets over the years.  He has also requested data that he ALREADY had and then made a huge stink about his request allegedly being ignored.  How asinine is that?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



There's a lot I don't know.. But image and signal processing have been essential tools for my wonderful career.. I think I could handle a few hundred Temp vs Time proxies that were previously vetted by experts in those fields.. Don't know. That might be an excess of self-esteem --- but I don't think so... 

In FACT Captain.. In my experience, it's often when someone comes in cold from ANOTHER DISCIPLINE that the most wondrous scientific things starts to happen.. 

You should try that sometime up in the old dark observatory...


----------



## westwall (Jul 26, 2013)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...








One correction Ian, it is not dishonorable to do what Steig did, it is fucking unethical and a violation of the peer review process flat and simple.  Had he been a geologist found to have corrupted the process like that, he would be out on his ass in a heartbeat and unemployable in the academic world.


----------



## westwall (Jul 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







Fuck you and your lecturing you twerp.  The "team" has made it almost impossible to have skeptical papers published as you well know and as even the whitewashing CLIMATEGATE "investigations" held.

Credibility is far beyond you or your clones to ever attain again.  You are frauds, pure and simple, and it is giving me great pleasure to see you clowns dismantled piece by piece.


----------



## westwall (Jul 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







Not easy?  Actually it is.  I worked on the LANDSAT Thematic Mapper when I worked for SBRC back in the day and while incredibly expensive the process was amazingly simple.


----------



## Zona (Jul 26, 2013)

IanC said:


> Willis has done a good job of posting up the proxies and showing how many of them fail to meet the criteria laid out in the Marcott methodology. Marcott?s proxies ? 10% fail their own criteria for inclusion | Watts Up With That?
> 
> but the main problem is still pasting high resolution high variance recent data onto low resolution low variance historic data



Fascinating.  More graphs please.


----------



## IanC (Jul 26, 2013)

Zona said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Willis has done a good job of posting up the proxies and showing how many of them fail to meet the criteria laid out in the Marcott methodology. Marcott?s proxies ? 10% fail their own criteria for inclusion | Watts Up With That?
> ...






I cannot tell if you're joking or not. I actually like seeing the less processed individual proxies but I know its not everybody's cup of tea. I can easily bump up the Shakun proxies printed in the same style if you actually want to see them.


----------



## IanC (Jul 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Really? If someone has data on 10,000 trees in an area but the author of a paper only uses a few hundred of those, you consider it improper to ask which trees were used? And the selection criteria?

Why are you an apologist for bad scientific practise? I don't understand why you support Briffa, Mann and others refusing to make their data available. Part of the scientific method is for others to reproduce the experiment and get the same result.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 26, 2013)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Because the claim that their data is not available is a lie.  McIntyre whined about Briffa not providing his data for a couple of years until it was revealed - HE HAD IT ALL ALONG!  So why do you support liars working on behalf of the petrochemical industry who aren't even scientists?


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 26, 2013)

Marcott's response.

RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.


----------



## IanC (Jul 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



If you have aproblem with the climategate emails being released then take it up with the person who released them. It certainly wasn't McIntyre or Watts. Once the genie is out of the bottle.....

The Inquiries were a whitewash. I have gone through all of this before. Jones wasn't even asked about whether he sent the 'delete all emails' email. Somehow I don't think they were actually looking to find wrongdoing.


----------



## IanC (Jul 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Explain exactly what you mean by saying 'he had it all along'. Briffa would not divulge the data set he used until the journal Phil Trans B forced him to. And even then he only released it in parts, over the course of a year, in secluded, unannounced links on his website. How is that open science? I believe you are accusing the wrong party of unethical behaviour.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 26, 2013)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Yamal controversy - RationalWiki

The Yamal controversy was an explosion of drama in the global warming blog wars that spilled over into the pages of mainstream newspapers. In the wake of Climategate, deniers latched onto a set of tree-ring data called the Yamal series that had been the topic of some of the leaked e-mails (after they were done squawking about "nature tricks" and "hiding the decline," of course). The Yamal series refers to the tree-ring data taken from the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia by a team of Russian researchers, Hantemirov and Shiyatov, in the late '90s. Hantemirov and Shivatov released more of their data in 2009 and Steve McIntyre jumped all over it, snarking: 


Im assuming that CA readers are aware that, once the Yamal series got on the street in 2000, it got used like crack cocaine by paleoclimatologists, and of its critical role in many spaghetti graph reconstructions, including, most recently, a critical role in the Kaufman reconstruction.[1]


Keith Briffa, a climatoligist at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia, had based a number of temperature reconstructions on a subset of the Yamal data. He claimed he had used a different methodology than Hantemirov and Shivatov because the original methodology didn't preserve long-term climate change.[2] McIntyre accused Briffa of cherry-picking. Of course, it would be perfectly legitimate to criticize Briffa's reconstruction and perform a new reconstruction on one's own. However, McIntyre just downloaded some other unrelated Yamal dataset from the internet and chucked it into the original set.[3] Deniers, obviously, failed to care about this and the "Yamal is a lie!" claim shot through the deniosphere, with Anthony Watts picking up the story next.[4] It then found its way into the right-wing rags, with James Delingpole and others declaring that the "hockey stick" graph had been soundly "debunked."[5][6] 

However, Briffa's Yamal reconstructions were only included in four of the twelve hockey stick reconstructions and even McIntyre criticized other deniers for blowing his "critique" of Briffa out of proportion and walked back his accusations of cherry-picking. Sure enough, both Briffa and a member of the original Russian team released full reconstructions using the previously unreleased data and the hockey stick shape returned, confirming Briffa's original assertions.[7][8] 

However, the incident was still missing something: That classic McIntyre hypocrisy. McIntyre had been whining for quite some time that Briffa had been blowing him off (gee, wonder why?). However, Briffa, even though he had a good excuse, hadn't been stonewalling McIntyre  the complete dataset was under the control of the Russian team that had collected it. After Briffa notified him of this, McIntyre then flippantly replied he had had the data all along! 


In response to your point that I wasn't "diligent enough" in pursuing the matter with the Russians, in fact, I already had a version of the data from the Russians, one that I'd had since 2004.[9]


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Good thing it was incredibly expensive.. Paid my salary helping to design the image array processors that drove some of the LandSat and other earth resource processing..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Quite telling here the "TONE" of this "alternate" Wiki... 



> However, McIntyre just downloaded some other unrelated Yamal dataset from the internet and chucked it into the original set.[3] Deniers, obviously, failed to care about this and the "Yamal is a lie!" claim shot through the *deniosphere*, with Anthony Watts picking up the story next.[4] It then *found its way into the right-wing rags*, with James Delingpole and others declaring that the "hockey stick" graph had been soundly "debunked."[



To tell ya the truth, I'd never BEEN to the "rationalWiki" before.. So I thought I'd bop on over there.. Front page proudly proclaims its objectives.. 



> Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:
> 
> 1.Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
> 2.Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
> ...



NOTE CAREFULLY #4.. If you DISAGREE --- you are welcome to "engage in constructive dialogue", but any chance of you CONTRIBUTING or swaying our mission is hopeless. Remind you of any academic roadblocks to publishing that you've seen lately in science anywhere?? 

And then you find an ENTIRE screed section on anti-religious debunking and baiting.. 

My God --- these are the boys who can't get along and decide to go form their own minute and inconsequential site catering to their over-inflated egos.. 

I'm beginning to doubt if I'm gonna learn much from our new contributor...


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 26, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I suppose the statement "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue" bypassed your frontal cortex altogether, eh?  What the "anti-religious debunking and baiting" done elsewhere on that site has to do with my posts or our discussion is for you to explain.  Having said that, I could care less, just so you know.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Told you... I might get "constructive dialogue" but would never have a chance striking the inflammatory language from your RationalWiki quote above.. THAT'S editorial style book and DESIGNED to attract narrow-minded folks such as yourself who must be always protected from being subjected to facts and opinions you don't like. 

*All the news we're screened for you in a political dialectic wrapper you can comprehend.* 

Think I'll go back -- register --- and offer them that front page banner idea for free.

As well as being given the warm feeling that you will find NO GOOD words or deeds of "religious" zealots in the following pages.. 

Really man --- can't you use a PUBLIC Wiki that doesn't incite partisian bashing on every entry?  Please explain...


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 26, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Have you read the crap posted at Wattsup?  At McIntyre's web site?  And you are complaining that someone not a right wing born again anti-science crusader is daring to use inflammatory language on their web site?  Oh my.  Dude, there is no "Wiki" that doesn't have some sort of bias.  Many of them do, however, have valid information, and what's even more important, at least they provide bibliographies with their postings.


----------



## westwall (Jul 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







Did you happen to work with a guy named Mitch Levitz?  He was a hell of a bike rider.


----------



## westwall (Jul 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...








It's not possible to learn from a clone.  They are all the same.  They are fun to bop though!


----------



## westwall (Jul 27, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...









Yeah, that's code for we might talk to you but your posts will never see the light of day.  Funny how the scientists who are so sure that they're right are so damned afraid to conduct a dialogue for all to see.


----------



## westwall (Jul 27, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Yes, there is a HUGE difference between them and your sissy boys.  They invite you to challenge them and their statements.  They don't edit or prevent posts from AGW supporters, unlike YOUR people.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The old Landsat thematic mapper is old technology, and has nothing to do with the kind of processing I'm talking about.  But back to the point, which apparently went over your pointy little heads, the point being that there is a lot that can be done to clean up noisy data.  It's done all the time.  And the more data you have, the more signal you have, the easier it is to filter out the noise.  Marcott's database is the most extensive proxy database, and the best calibrated available.  Again, if ANY of you know of a better one, I'm all ears.

By the way, when are the boys at Wattsup going to collect their own original database?  Or are they going to continue ad nauseum to scavenge off of the rest of the scientific community?  One would think that if they truly want to prove that global warming is not real, or whatever it is that they are actually attempting to do, I mean, being the renowned scientists that you folks see them as being, they would go out of their way to not only collect their own original data so no one can accuse them of using "faulty data" and wouldn't have to whine for two years because no one will let them steal their own data, but then could use said original database to make a serious case to present to the scientific community.  Why don't they so this like everyone else does?  What makes them so special?  Oh right.  What makes them so special is that they aren't actually scientists.  Next.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Actually, I know at least four people who have posted at Wattsup that had their posts removed because they disagreed with Watt.  But so frelling what?  Again, science is not a democracy, nor a popularity contest.  And there is plenty of dissention on many issues within the scientific community.  The difference is that they do it in formal peer reviewed publications.  That's what scientists do.  Your folks aren't scientists.  They've done virtually no original work of consequence.  What goes on at a political blog site is irrelevant to the scientific process.  If their work isn't formally submitted before the scientific community, it doesn't mean squat.


----------



## IanC (Jul 27, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...





Your link seems more of a political screed than an information source. I would recommend that people read both sidesbefore making up their minds as to who is more forthcoming.

Here is a link that describes the chronology of the yamal fiasco.

- Bishop Hill blog - The Yamal*deception

Choose for yourself. Better yet, investigate further and see which side appears to match the known facts. B-H has a bibliography too.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 27, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I use those sites as "spyders" to scope out what may be interesting.. WUWT and McIntryre's site are NOT REFERENCE MATERIAL. NOT a compendium of basic facts and encyclopedic knowledge.. The only use for a wiki as biased as that one is because some flaming zealots have an axe to grind.. 

There have been controversies on WikiPedia.. But these are resolved in what I can tell is a wonderfully open process. It has been remarkably Bullshit proof. If you asked me 10 years if that would EVER happen with a Wiki --- I would have been skeptical.. 

That RationalWiki is simply appalling to any serious investigator... It's embarrassing.


----------



## IanC (Jul 27, 2013)

Wikipedia is a good source for basic subjects but not so much for controversial ones like global warming. W Connelly has been a one-man wrecking crew on rewriting any thing sceptical, to the point where he lost his management authpority for a time.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Might have been an Exec at Ramtek by that name. It's ancient to me now.. There were many suppliers like Gould, Ramtek, Inter. Imaging Sys (I2S), ect. I2S was one of my last employee gigs before I went independent. Was Mgr. of Adv Development there. And worked with Ramtek on NextRad Doppler as a consultant. Got a broad exposure to MANY fields doing that. Medical, Earth Resource, Machine Vision, miltary,  etc, etc..


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



And yet, you apparently agree with its finding that (essentially) WUWT and McIntyre's site are NOT REFERENCE MATERIAL.  Duly noted.


----------



## IanC (Jul 27, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Climate Audit is definitely a reference site. More importantly it is a site where statisticians analyze papers in real time. One discovery leads to the next. Even the false trails are enlightening. I have learned more of the techniques of climate science there than anywhere else. Anyone who can't learn something from the expert discussion there isn't paying attention.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 27, 2013)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



You mean "statistician" singular.  As in Mcintyre.  Climate audit is NOT a valid scientific references, and I can guarantee that were you to use it as a reference in a professional paper, they'd laugh you out of the university.  And speaking of universities, if you are truly interested in learning about the scientific method, may I suggest you take a class?


----------



## IanC (Jul 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




I am not writing referreed papers. If I want data from a certain paper I check CA first because I know I won't find it elsewhere because of paywalls.         


There are a large contingent of scientists from many fields who regularly comment at CA. Or didn't you know?


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...








He knows, but he's intellectually dishonest so doesn't care.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 28, 2013)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



In other words, you are a welfare 'scientist' (you want others to do the work for you; you want the information without paying for it).  McIntyre is like that too.  No wonder you two get along.  Wow, that must be embarrassing when you go to your tea party meetings.


----------



## IanC (Jul 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



McIntyre is a forensic auditor. What skill set did you expect him to bring to the table? Should he go out and collect tree cores? Wait, didn't he actually do that?

In any other field occasional scrutinization is expected and necessary. Why do you think climate science should be exempt?


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 28, 2013)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



He worked on the stock market side of the mineral exploration business.  That hardly qualifies him as a climate scientist.  De holds no science degree, no advanced degree, holds no scientific certifications, but has published two articles in a journal that is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals.  But I wasn't, strictly speaking, talking about McIntyre.  I was talking about you.


----------



## gslack (Jul 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



And you hold no such degrees and here you are trying to argue it anyway.. See that's the reality here. Anyone can argue anything they choose, and if they are found right, they win. No degrees required, but if you want to win you should be able to debate it meaning some form of education would be helpful. Mcintyre was correct, degree in "climate science" or not, he can do the math well enough, actually better than the schmuck he was correcting.

And what degree did that schmuck have? Seems Shaun Marcott is a post-doctoral researcher at the oregon state university..

Home



> Im a postdoctoral researcher at Oregon State University working on a number of different projects that involve paleoclimatology, glacial geology, geochemistry, and both numerical and statistical modeling.  Presently, I am developing a carbon dioxide record from WAIS Divide, Antarctica for the last 20,000 years, which will shed new light on the relationship between past climate changes and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
> My professional interests span a broad range of geological and climatological questions that typically encompass the last 100,000 years.  I consider myself an Earth Scientist, which is reflected in my research interests and education in geology, oceanography, and mathematics.  Part of the pleasure I receive from my research comes from working on new approaches to long standing problems in glacial geology and paleoclimatology, the ability to split my time between the lab and field, and working with a number of different people and friends who share similar professional interests, but who approach the scientific questions much differently than I.  Please explore the site where youll find information about myself, my research, and other areas of interest.



That is quite literally all I can find about the man... LOL, WTH is he? A paleo-climatologist? what exactly?

The vague information makes me wonder... You should be wondering as well. After all you seem to think degrees in climatology matter most...


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 28, 2013)

gslack said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I have a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Louisville and a Masters of Science degree from the University of Kentucky.  I was a registered geologist for 15 years before I became disabled.  From 1990 to 2003 I was an environmental consultant.  Clients included The States of Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Louisiana, and Florida, Chevron, BP, Shell, Ashland Petroleum, Enro Marketing, which is a subsidiary of Marathon,  Marathon, Caterpillar, the City of Louisville, and many others.  I've written over 400 proprietary environmental reports (though many are accessible via FOIA request with various agencies).  I am also published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology, and in the Journal of the Louisville Museum of Natural History (now the Louisville science Center).  And two of my astrophotographs were published today in the Courier Journal newspaper in relation to an article about the Louisville Astronomical Society's 80th anniversary, of which I am currently a board member and have been a member since 1984.  That's the reality here, gslack.



> And what degree did that schmuck have? Seems Shaun Marcott is a post-doctoral researcher at the oregon state university..



Right, as opposed to McIntyre, who holds no advanced degree in any field whatsoever, holds no science certifications, and is not published in any recognized peer reviewed journal.  Next.


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








And who regularly destroys every assertion that the climatologists make.  Every single one.  Must piss you off to have one of the unwashed make you all look like idiots.  It sure amuses the hell out of me.


----------



## gslack (Jul 29, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



BULLSHIT...

Pure and simple and complete bullshit...You sir are a forum trolling sock..If you had one tenth of those credentials you wouldn't be spending so much time on here. You'd have shit to do.. I don't have all of thos ecredentials and I am lucky to spend one hour a day on here, so what's your excuse? By disabled I assume you mean you can't do the physical work any longer? So why not use that academic knowledge? Why not DO SOMETHING other than trolling a web forum most of the day?

The only thing in your BS I beleive is you no longer working. If you ever did...

Why not call yourself president of the united states? Moron..


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 29, 2013)

gslack said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



I hate to burst your bubble, but that is all me.  Or was.  I use to be a damned good hydrogeologist until my health failed.  I have plenty of time these days, pal, because I am disabled with COPD, coronary artery disease, and other chronic problems; and I live alone.  I volunteer as a board member of the Louisville Astronomical society, which, of course, is a non-paying very part-time position.  And I only participate when I am healthy enough to get out and do so.  Not that any of this is any of your business.  But I have nothing to hide, do you?  If you go here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/304917-awaken-to-astronomy.html

You will see some of what I have been doing since I became disabled.  I haven't been idle.  I have been doing what I can when I can.


----------



## gslack (Jul 29, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Really? Well then I suppose people like Hawking should just sit home on their asses too.. 

Dude, you're full of shit.. Another in a long line of internet bullshit artists who continually try and claim themselves somehow more qualified than the rest of us. The fact none of your posts back up the claim, means nothing.. Seriously when are you idiots going to grow up? Your claimed list of accomplishments is the most exagerrated yet... All those credentials, why not do something? You can write, consult, teach, any number of things, yet instead you sit on your ass and collect disability...

My son had a teacher, recently passed away. She had heart disease, diabtetes so bad she lost her leg, as well as probably the worst breathing I have ever heard from anybody still wotrking. She worked until she passed away at 55.. Please don't give me your BS..


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 29, 2013)

gslack said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...




And I am probably not far behind her.  Look, you guys love to do FOIA requests.  Contact the Kentucky Division for Environmental Protection, or any of the other states I've cited, and submit a FOIA request.  Or not.  I really don't give a shit.  I didn't come here to be insulted by low lifes like you.  I've been completely honest with you about who I am and my circumstances.  Maybe you've lied to yourself and others for so long in your own life that you don't even recognize anymore when somebody is telling you the truth.  I don't know.  What I do know is that if the only responses you can manage are petty, childish insults, then you've got worse problems than I do.


----------



## gslack (Jul 29, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Do an FOIA request for what purpose? I have no clue who the hell you are nor do I care. I do care that you try and claim some kind of scientific superiority over people with your BS.

Calling me a low life? LOL, you came into this forum on your fisrts day speaking to people as if you knew them from experience. At no point have you shown any form ofexpertise in this, yet now you suddenly pull credentials that would be the envy of most Climate researchers.. WTH kind of nonsense is that? The funny thing is you aren't the first totry this even in the last few weeks.. You're a carbon copy of at least one other poster here, and that one used the same nonsense..

Grow up. No one cares about your BS credentials, and frankly no one can prove or disprove them anyway. What you should try and do is prove YOUR ability to debate and discuss on the level your BS credentials would imply. Then I wouldn't bother doubting you,it would be pointless...

You freaking internet "experts" are ridiculous.. All of you have degrees yet none of you have a life beyond here.. WTH? Seriously, it's just not believable, so give it a rest, mammooth or whoever the hell you are this time..


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 29, 2013)

gslack said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Gee, you must be McIntyre's mother.  I hate that for you.  But don't take your own personal problems out on others.  It just makes you look petty and, frankly, stupid.  And by the way, if you don't care about the credentials of others, don't challenge them on the issue.  You're not too very good at this, are you?


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 29, 2013)

IanC said:


> I don't think the ordinary Joe understands the profound dishonesty involved with grafting cherrypicked high resolution endpoints on to low resolution proxy reconstructions. But 'useful idiots' like Old Rocks and Saigon just accept it without question.



So you reject all of paleoclimatology.


----------



## gslack (Jul 29, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Oh stop crying ya bullshit artist.. Don't understand this very well do ya? Read very carefuly this time...

I DON"T CARE ABOUT YOU"RE CREDNTIALS..Get it yet? YOU not anybody, just YOU.... 

LOL, Do you internet experts understand the difference between reality and your BS anymore? LOL, you're another mamooth, claiming some kind of expertise and daring people to doubt you..The fact you act like a teenager begging for acceptance doesn't scream "educated adult" to us moron..


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 29, 2013)

gslack said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



I understand that you took a nose dive off the reality tree and hit every branch going down.  It must suck being you.


----------



## gslack (Jul 29, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Uh-huh, BUT.. I work for a living, and pay taxes, hell I even coach baseball half of the year. And the pay for coaching, I give back to the school to pay for things like uniforms... And I don't have a made-up list of degrees and credentials.. Yet I find a way to get by just the same.

Reality? Reality is paying your own way ..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 29, 2013)

gslack said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



You just can't seem to pick your battles so as to preserve any of your personal dignity -- or humanity can ya? This fellow is new to USMB, seems to have put in his time studying the environment (although he consumes some toxic rubbish here and there), and SAYS he is a man of science.. Really Slack, lighten up.. Read my footer quote again.. I chose it JUST BECAUSE I know message boards are full of folks like you.. 

Don't know what set you off.. I used to actually enjoy your posts...


----------



## gslack (Jul 29, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Oh go take a hike.. He's another BS artist...He came in here talking to people as if he knew them... He's no more new than I am... In fact it was your pal Ian he was claiming should have learned not to use Spencerby now... WTH? By now? It was his first freaking day here.. And his excuse was? Oh he actually does know some people herepersonally... WTF? 

You want to buy his BS, be my guest, but when he starts to clone IFITZPMZNEUMANMAOOTHSAIGON, which he already has, don't say you weren't warned...

Nothing set me off, what set you off? I argue with Ian over something we have fundamentally disagreed on from day one on here, and you go on a rant about me daring to discredit SPencer? And what's worse when you finally realize your position is no more scientifically sound than mine, you go off in a huff...

I am the same I have always been. I have never been tolerant of socks or clones. And my postion has been the same for years. You want to defend the schmuck? LOL, be my guest..if you think your principles can handle it have at it... ROFL


----------



## IanC (Jul 29, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think the ordinary Joe understands the profound dishonesty involved with grafting cherrypicked high resolution endpoints on to low resolution proxy reconstructions. But 'useful idiots' like Old Rocks and Saigon just accept it without question.
> ...



That's a good question. I Hope you actually try to understand my response.

Paleo recontructions are fine, for what they are. A rough guideline to what may have happened in the past. May. The intrinsic uncertainty does not go away just because someone uses sophisticated mathematical tools. 

Proxies need to be chosen for an underlying signal but manipulating the start and end dattes to maximize correlation with preconceived conclusions is dishonest. That is what has happened a lot lately. Why did MBH98 chose to hide data? Unscientific and misleading

Even pasting on modern thermometer readings is misleading because the ordinary layman doesn't understand that they are different types of data, and assumes the thick black average line implies the same validity for the whole length of the graph.

The same types of arguments hold for climate models. Just because we can fine tune them to approximate past temps, that does not mean you can infer that projections will be skillful. Both reconstructions and models are useful tools to help access our understanding of the underlying processes but they cannot be handed out to people who are expecting the 'truth'. Marcott just got caught making public statements about how his graph confirmed that modern times are 'the warmest', only to be forced to back away from his claims because they were not scientifically true.

Scientists should stick to science in clear terms and leave politics to politicians.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 29, 2013)

Orogenicman, just ignore the energy creature. He wants to pull you into endless pissing matches, because he gets emotional sustenance from it. You annoy him most by depriving him of the attention he so badly wants. Do as everyone else eventually learns to do, and ignore him. Arguing with him is like winning the Special Olympics. You may have won, but you're still retarded for having played.

As for McIntyre, he was disgraced 4 years ago, so no one of note pays any attention to him now. The guy had good intentions once, but then he got a taste of being worshiped as a cult leader, and it went to his head big time. Now he's all about making up red meat to keep that cult adulation flowing towards him.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 29, 2013)

> Scientists should stick to science in clear terms and leave politics to politicians.



The problem with that is modern science depends on funding from governments, and that often requires bending the ears of politicians to their concerns.  Now, if the politicians were savvy with regard to science issues, that wouldn't be such a problem.  Unfortunately, the average politician doesn't know the first thing about science. And so that takes education.  I will be the first to admit that us scientists have done a piss poor job of educating not only the politicians, but the public at large with regard to what the issues are (and just as important, what they are not).  We have to do better if we are going to get anywhere with these issues.


----------



## westwall (Jul 29, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








I am saddened when anyone is overtaken by a chronic disease...I too have CAD and underwent a sextuple bypass a couple of years ago so know what it's like.  I am a tad older than you I think however.  The COPD definitely makes things more difficult.  

However, as a hydrologist don't you find it in the slightest bit strange that empirical testing refutes every claim made by the warmists?


----------



## westwall (Jul 29, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think the ordinary Joe understands the profound dishonesty involved with grafting cherrypicked high resolution endpoints on to low resolution proxy reconstructions. But 'useful idiots' like Old Rocks and Saigon just accept it without question.
> ...








Not at all.  We do reject that which is factually incorrect however.  Start messing with the facts to suit your pre-conceived idea and we have a serious problem.  All good scientists do.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 29, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



What?  As a hydrogeologist (not a hydrologist), I find the bulk of the scientific research on climate change to be very compelling.  What I find disturbing and annoying is that so many people are so easily swayed by people who bring no appropriate scientific skill sets or credentials to the table.  What I find even more annoying is that these people who bring no appropriate scientific skill sets or credentials to the table expect to be treated as peers.  It's like expecting to survive heart surgery performed by a dish washer.  It is a sad statement about the state of education today.


----------



## westwall (Jul 29, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Why do you place so much emphasis on credentials?  I place the emphasis on what is factually correct.  The credentialed "consensus" scientists of the day thought that Wegener was a quack.

But, like McIntyre, he was correct and the consensus scientists were flat assed wrong.  Put another way, anyone who places credentials over facts has chosen to no longer think for themselves and is no longer a true scientist, who's raison d'etre is the pursuit of knowledge....wherever and whoever advances that knowledge.

And, you still haven't addressed the HARVARD study, with all those credentials you care so much about, that says acidification is bollocks.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 29, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Having credentials does not equal authority.  We have credentials in professions for many very good reasons.    Among them are:

1) It assures people that the professional in question has received the appropriate training, both on the job, and through educational experience, to qualify him/her to perform in the profession in question.

2) People with credentials, particularly professional certifications are expected to meet high standards of performance, educational training, and can lose their certifications (and not be allowed to perform in said profession) if they fail to meet these standards.

3) It insures that everyone working in said profession is essentially on the same professional page, and have a high level of understanding of the work they are expected to perform.

As I've pointed out, you would not expect an allergist (though he has many years of medical training) to perform spine surgery on you.  I dare say you would not.

These credentials weed out that snake oil salesmen from the dedicated, knowledgeable professionals, and the people who  know what they are doing from those who don't.  If it perfect?  No.  but it is the best we have.

If you don't believe this is true, hire a sail boat captain to perform your next colonoscopy.  Let us know how that works out for you.  And for the record, the difference between Wegener and McIntyre is that:

1) The former was, otherwise, respected in his field (continental drift was rejected in his day because no one could come up with a mechanism - it took another 40 years before one was found);

2) The former had a real science education; and

3) The former was actually right because he knew what he was doing.


----------



## westwall (Jul 29, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








And what happens to those credentials and how people view them, when the "snake oil" salesman are the ones with the credentials?  Any time you have to falsify as much data as Hansen has you have become that snake oil salesman...what's worse is the public has figured it out.  

Whenever I look at Yahoo or the UK newspapers and they are touting the newest and greatest of the global warming fear mongering the overwhelming majority of comments are anti AGW.  By 90%.  That wasn't true 5 years ago.  

I have a feeling that when Phil Jones stated that he couldn't find his raw data, in effect claiming the "dog ate it" he and the AGW cheerleaders lost them.  They can't trust anyone who would so boldly lie as he did and it became very clear through the CLIMATEGATE emails that they had and have a lot to hide.

Scientists don't hide their results.  How can the scientific method work when you don't release anything for others to check your work


And once again you fall back on the tried and true medical specialty false analogy.  Climatologists are not magicians.  Nor are they very good at math.  If they were a statistician wouldn't be showing them their mistakes all the time......now would he?


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 30, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Right.  And he has falsified so much data that he will likely never see the light of day, having been thrown in the deepest dungeon in GITMO for his crimes.  Oh wait...



> Whenever I look at Yahoo or the UK newspapers and they are touting the newest and greatest of the global warming fear mongering the overwhelming majority of comments are anti AGW.  By 90%.  That wasn't true 5 years ago.



Erm, am I supposed to apologize for all the stupid people posting online?  How is that my fault?  More importantly, how does so many uninformed people giving their uninformed opinions at yahoo or at the UK rags falsify AGW?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 30, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Actually -- believe it or not --- getting thrown into Gitmo could be less important than having the elite members of former NASA glory write and sign a declaration saying how embarrassing Hansen et al are to them and their legacy.. Did happen.. Uh Ha.. It did... 

I'd be crushed..


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 30, 2013)

Right.  Meanwhile, NASA's official position is that AGW is real, and continues to conduct research on the matter.  Next.


----------



## gslack (Jul 30, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Right.  Meanwhile, NASA's official position is that AGW is real, and continues to conduct research on the matter.  Next.



Nah, they do research. Making often bad decisions based on that still on going research is what the media and you do...


----------



## IanC (Dec 15, 2013)

IanC said:


> Willis has done a good job of posting up the proxies and showing how many of them fail to meet the criteria laid out in the Marcott methodology. Marcott?s proxies ? 10% fail their own criteria for inclusion | Watts Up With That?
> 
> but the main problem is still pasting high resolution high variance recent data onto low resolution low variance historic data






Abe-   I am assuming you will continue to duck my straightforward request to identify which Marcott or Shakun paper you were refering to, so I will bump up two of my threads that discussed them at the time. here are thumbnails of the proxies used. isnt it amazing how such wildly different shapes can be combined to form a nice smooth line with so little _uncertainty?_


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 15, 2013)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

and

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198

[[Apologies, initially pasted the first link in twice]]

These two papers were WIDELY discussed and earned mention in the mainstream media.  I should have thought given that and the context of our discussion that you would have been able to identify which papers were most likely intended by "Marcott 2013" and "Shakun 2012"  Putting precisely those terms and no others into Google took me directly to both papers.  No alternate possibilities were presented.

Just a few points about your display of proxy data.

Those graphs are the temperature reconstructions from proxies located in different places all over the world.  Note the vertical scale.  When attempting to calculate the average temperature of the entire planet, it will be necessary to combine temperatures from the hollows of the Antarctic mountains to the sand dunes of the Gobi desert.  Right? Such datasets will subtend a relatively large vertical expanse of your workspace.  Thus your first plot. 

Second, the conversion ratios between proxy parameters and temperature are almost _never_ linear or constant over time (thus "the decline").  

The data presentation you've posted is disingenuous; intended to make the process look faulty in a manner you should know it was not.

When you found yourself criticizing the Marcott paper for the way his data "looked" you should have realized you'd taken a wrong turn.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 15, 2013)

Another wee point.  Uncertainty is uncertainty.  It is not a guaranteed measure of absolute error.  A large number of your comrades (and a fair number of YOUR sources) treat +/- X degrees as an admission of a known X degree error in the data.

Regarding "ducking" your requests.  As noted, the references I provided "Marcott 2013" and "Shakun 2012" had and have been sufficiently precise for dozens of different conversations, here and elsewhere, by myself as well as that of others.  I was not convinced your claim to any uncertainty was genuine.  Additionally, today is the first time this thread has been posted in since JULY 30TH.  I suspect it was a VERY long ways down the list.  Having failed to post in it is only "ducking" to someone looking to make accusations regardless of the facts of the matter.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 15, 2013)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Ian, if you didn't take all you data from crank denialist sites, you claims of being a skeptic would be taken a little more seriously.
> ...



*That's rich...trying to defend Marcott..even when he admits that his hockey stick is a fraud*

indeed 

--LOL


----------



## IanC (Dec 15, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
> 
> and
> 
> ...



hahahaha! look faulty?

I am trying to show people how uncertain proxy data is. not only is the data uncertain but the methodology for choosing the proxies and then standardizing them also adds more uncertainty.

the OP actually starts off questioning why Shakun truncates CO2 at the beginning of the interglacial. the reason, of course, is that temps start going down while CO2 continues to rise. that dilutes the message somewhat doesnt it?

proxy reconstructions are a good and necessary thing. so are climate models. the problem arises when they are presented to an unsuspecting public as 'a sure thing', and the conclusions drawn from them as solid evidence. Shakun had very little evidence about the CO2 levels yet made pronouncements as if he did, to the press. Marcott made a reasonable paleoreconstruction for his PhD thesis but then added a hockeystick at the end incorrectly and went out on a press release tour.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 15, 2013)

IanC said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
> ...



I have just flipped through this entire thread.  I find nothing from you concerning Shakun truncating CO2 data at the beginning of the interglacial.  So you will have to explain that charge if you want to talk about it.

As to running down Marcott because he put a 20th century proxy on the end of his data: that charge has always appeared to me to be a ridiculous stretch.  You described the rapid temperature rise of the 20th century as a "preconceived conclusion".  Sorry, Ian, but that boat has sailed.

Try again.


----------



## IanC (Dec 15, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...





and why would the Marcott2013 thread have information about Shakun2012? you refused to answer the simplest request just to clarify which paper you had refered to, so I bumped one of each to the top. are you really so obtuse that you cannot find the thread with 'hide the decline' in the title?


----------



## IanC (Dec 15, 2013)

IanC said:


> > Read McIntyres latest here
> >
> > Related articles
> >
> ...





Abe-  this post makes a mockery of Marcott's 20th century addition. there are other thread with even more explanations of the inconsistencies and errors of Marcott2013. I would look for them but I have a funny feeling that you arent taking in any info, so it would just be a waste of my time.

you never did answer whether or not you defend 'hide the decline'.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 15, 2013)

Why would I think to find a discussion of Shakun and interglacial CO2 in a thread titled "Hide the Decline"?


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 15, 2013)

Marcott did not use his 20th century proxy data in arriving at his paper's conclusions.  

That the 20th century's temperatures rose sharply and did not fall sharply is an established fact, not a "preconceived conclusion".  

The use of paleoclimatic proxies REQUIRES calibration against modern instrumented measurements by some means.  There was nothing deceptive about appending 20th century instrument data to the latter end of proxy data.  It is a common practice and it is clearly indicated in the legend and the discussion.  Your complaints that the world is filled with idiots to whom the data must be tailored is specious.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 15, 2013)

IanC said:


> you never did answer whether or not you defend 'hide the decline'.



I don't recall ever having been asked the question.

IF, you are asking me whether I have any problem with what Jones _actually_ did in the process he described as "hide the decline", the answer is a firm "no". 

Do you?

I do recall having asked you about this point.  Did you answer it somewhere and put the question back to me?  If so, I missed it.


----------



## IanC (Dec 15, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > you never did answer whether or not you defend 'hide the decline'.
> ...



ok, I'll bite. what do you think 'hide the decline' means.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 15, 2013)

IanC said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



This can't be too difficult to figure out.  Start with the point that I do not believe any of the parties involved are dishonest: That they are trying to trick anyone.  I believe "hide the decline" concerns the well known divergence problem with tree ring proxies moving into the 20th century; just like every dendrochronologist and paleoclimatologist told us.

To what do you think it refers?


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 15, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



That is, dealing with the divergence problem.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 15, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Ive posted interviews with Marcott concerning proxy accuracy..  Hes very honest about not having either time resolution or temp resolution left after the averaging process.. Resolutions of 100s of years ARE NOT GOOD enough for Abe to rely on them to show that either the current temp or THE RATE OF CHANGE of that temp is exceptional for the modern era..

INDIVIDUALLY  those regional proxies might be meaningful.  But there is not adequate spatial sampling to ever give credibility to a "GLOBAL AVERAGE.

Replacing proxy data with modern data is not a crime..  But you SHOULD BE OBLIGED to show how well the proxy average APPROXIMATES the modern record..  if u dont do that you are misrepresenting the credibility of the study..  No temp rez or time rez for the modern record out of the proxies by themselves?   Then dont make outrageous claims in the headlines comparing modern temps and rates to millenia ago...  Simple academic honesty.

And Marcott has attempted to quell the proxy hype...


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 15, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Ian SHOWED YOU the divergence problem.. The proxy result BY ITSELF was garbage for the modern era after he cherry picked proxies..  as I said above  ---thats a major oopss.  And any attempt to hide that revelation, would be academically very very dishonest...

Maybe you need the youtube hiphop version of hide the decline that  HelenaHandbag posted today to see the the dishonesty..

becuz IAN already gave you the data dump and u waltzed right by it..


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 15, 2013)

You need to find that 15 year old to look that up.  Ian did NOT show us the divergence problem. The divergence problem, as I explained, is a change ion the conversion factors for tree ring to temperature as one moves into the 20th century.  It has nothing to do with cherry picking data.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 15, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> You need to find that 15 year old to look that up.  Ian did NOT show us the divergence problem. The divergence problem, as I explained, is a change ion the conversion factors for tree ring to temperature as one moves into the 20th century.  It has nothing to do with cherry picking data.



Abe 

Lately youve walked right by IANs hard work to respond to you and my hard work to respond to you.  In the recent thread where this came up --- I SAW you walk right past his response to HIDE THE DECLINE.. it consisted of several graphs showing the diff btwn Manns PRE pub proxy data  and what it looked like after the fix..  

AND NOW you couldnt find "my proof about the ice records on another thread.   WTF man? Are u not reading or are you not understanding or do you still not know how to use USMB?


----------



## westwall (Dec 15, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > You need to find that 15 year old to look that up.  Ian did NOT show us the divergence problem. The divergence problem, as I explained, is a change ion the conversion factors for tree ring to temperature as one moves into the 20th century.  It has nothing to do with cherry picking data.
> ...








No, it's called intellectual dishonesty and ole abe chooses to suffer from it.  He's just another in a long line of internet trolls who ignore scientific data if it interferes with their pre-conceived notions.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 16, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > You need to find that 15 year old to look that up.  Ian did NOT show us the divergence problem. The divergence problem, as I explained, is a change ion the conversion factors for tree ring to temperature as one moves into the 20th century.  It has nothing to do with cherry picking data.
> ...



The loyal church members will often ignore parts of the scripture in order to maintain the religious propaganda.


----------



## IanC (Dec 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...





dishonest? maybe not in the beginning. misguided, certainly.

'hide the decline' originated with the manipulation of data used in the famous hockeystick graph of MBH98. Briffa's series in particular was truncated at 1960 to remove the obvious divergence of proxy temps in relation to measured temps. there has been no satisfactory explanation of the divergence problem, perhaps another one of Trenberth's travesties.

I could live with the proxy record being shortened, especially if it had been properly documented. but they didnt stop there. 'Mike's Nature (the journal Nature) Trick' involves padding the proxy record with instrumental data _before_ and after the splice at 1960 (edit- the data were mixed and then smoothed), which altered the shape and joint of the graph as it moved from proxy to instrument data. this is a much more blatant and indefensible anti scientific methodology that shows that the misdirection was intentional rather than accidental. the 'Trick' really was a trick.


back to treerings for a bit. you seem to think it is OK to drop data that is inconvenient. whatever, you can think anyway you want. but Briffa's Yamal treering series had only a few handfuls of trees going right up to the present era. one of them was YAD061, a five sigma outlier that gave the series most of its hockeystick shape. would you keep a 5 standard deviation sample in a small sample size cohort? if you did want to keep it, why would you think that temperature alone caused the 5 SD jump? wouldnt it be more reasonable to assume that a nearby tree fell down and rotted, allowing more light to reach YAD061 and feeding it as the fallen tree composted?

I would like to believe all scientists were neutral and honest. but too many of these climate science jokers get caught stacking the deck to think it is an honest game. science should have no preferred outcome, it should not be adjusted to fit preconceived conclusions.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 16, 2013)

At the point in time when the instrumented record becomes available, the value of proxy data, from my POV, drops to nothing more than a tool for calibration of earlier data.  For me, then, who is only interested in the most accurate temperature dataset, they are worthless.  I don't give a damn about an outlier tree in Briffa's proxy data.  The INSTRUMENTED DATA display a rapid and unprecedented rise in the 20th century.  All of your complaints seem to me to be only an attempt to distract us from that point.  

The divergence of tree ring values from the instrumented record is not a problem of one tree, or of only Trenberth's data or only Briffa's data.  It is a widespread problem that all dendrochronologists face and are attempting to deal with.

The only people I see around here who are attempting to deceive the public are the denier folks for whom you seem to drop whatever scientific integrity you possess down the crapper.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 16, 2013)

When one has to explain "hide the decline" to an AGW church goer it just continues to prove that AGW is a religious belief vs any type of science.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 16, 2013)

Kosh said:


> When one has to explain "hide the decline" to an AGW church goer it just continues to prove that AGW is a religious belief vs any type of science.



When one has to waste one's time reading the comments of someone whose input to this conversation most closely resembles an annoying squeak in one's chair...


----------



## westwall (Dec 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > When one has to explain "hide the decline" to an AGW church goer it just continues to prove that AGW is a religious belief vs any type of science.
> ...








Hate to break it to ya socko but your responses are every bit the same as the nutter evangelicals.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 16, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



Are you calling Kosh a "nutter evangelical"?

I admit you're spot on with the evangelical - looking at the deniers around here - you could not FIND a better example of belief, based on faith and DESPITE the evidence.

But I don't know about "nutter".  I think it's more a problem of ignorance.  Like yours.


----------



## IanC (Apr 29, 2015)

IanC said:


> RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.
> 
> a response from Marcott that manages to ignore all the pertinent questions brought up about his methodologies. at least he has publically admitted that the 20th century 'uptick' has no validity and should not have been a part of the paper.
> 
> ...




Bump for Orogenicman. Click the Pielke link


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

IanC said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.
> ...



Yeah, I've read that, and I posted Marcott's response (and that of others) earlier, yesterday, I think.

Here it is:

RealClimate Response by Marcott et al.


----------



## IanC (Apr 29, 2015)

Same link as in my post. Did you actually read the Pielke article? Are you OK with press releases stating all that crap about a new hockey stick and Marcott basking in the attention and giving interviews, only to have him turn around afterwards and say they misquoted me I never said the 20th century portion was relevant or significant. In fact it was extremely close to fraud as was amply shown.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

IanC said:


> Same link as in my post. Did you actually read the Pielke article? Are you OK with press releases stating all that crap about a new hockey stick and Marcott basking in the attention and giving interviews, only to have him turn around afterwards and say they misquoted me I never said the 20th century portion was relevant or significant. In fact it was extremely close to fraud as was amply shown.



I don't care about press releases.  The press rarely gets it right whenever they talk about science.  I roll my eyes nearly every time I read a news article about anything to do with science.  If it isn't the grammar and spelling, it is the incorrect usage of terms, and downright just getting the science wrong.  After all, they aren't the best journalists in the business.  Those guys work for 60 minutes.  lol 

Climate science is no exception with respect to the press getting things wrong.  I do care about Marcott's paper, which I happen to think it very good.


----------



## westwall (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Same link as in my post. Did you actually read the Pielke article? Are you OK with press releases stating all that crap about a new hockey stick and Marcott basking in the attention and giving interviews, only to have him turn around afterwards and say they misquoted me I never said the 20th century portion was relevant or significant. In fact it was extremely close to fraud as was amply shown.
> ...









You avoided Ian's question.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I stand by my statement.


----------



## westwall (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Which addresses nothing.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You are certainly entitled to your opinion.  You do know what they say about opinions, right?


----------



## westwall (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








I don't think my opinion of your response could get any lower than it already is.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



And I should care, because?


----------



## IanC (May 5, 2015)

this is the part of Marcott's graph that he claimed was 'robust'. I wont bother going into the proxy dating issues that were ducked in Marcott's reply to critics.

this is the full graph showing 'non-robust' data that was the focus of almost all of the media attention for a week, and in that time Marcott never thought to point out that the 20th century portion was 'for entertainment purposes only'.







(the following is from Pielke, jr link)

...However, here I document the gross misrepresentation of the findings of a recent scientific paper via press release which appears to skirt awfully close to crossing the line into research misconduct, as defined by the NRC....

The paper I refer to is by Marcott et al. 2013, published recently in _Science_. A press release issued by the National Science Foundation, which funded the research, explains the core methodology and key conclusion of the paper as follows (emphasis added):*
...What that history shows, the researchers say, is that during the last 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit--until the last 100 years, when it warmed about 1.3 degrees F.*The press release clearly explains that the paper (a) combines data from many sites around the world to create a "temperature reconstruction" which gives a "sense of the Earth's temperature history," and (b) "that history shows" a cooling over the past 5000 years, until the last 100 years when all of that cooling was reversed.

*Examples of Media Coverage*
Here is Justin Gillis at the _New York Times_, with emphasis added to this excerpt and also those further below:
*The modern rise* that has recreated the temperatures of 5,000 years ago is occurring at an exceedingly rapid clip on a geological time scale, *appearing in graphs in the new paper as a sharp vertical spike*.

Any association with the so-called "hockey stick" is sure to capture interest in the highly politicized context of the climate debate, in which the iconic figure is like catnip to partisans on both sides. Here is Michael Lemonick at _Climate Central_:
The study... confirms the now famous “hockey stick” graph that Michael Mann published more than a decade ago. *That study showed a sharp upward temperature trend over the past century* after more than a thousand years of relatively flat temperatures. . .

There is a big problem with the media reporting of the new paper. It contains a fundamental error which (apparently) originates in the NSF press release and which was furthered by public comments by scientists.

In a belatedly-posted FAQ to the paper, which appeared on Real Climate earlier today,Marcott et al. make this startling admission: 
_Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?_

A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. *Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.*

(and ends with)

*How to Fix This *

Here are the steps that I recommend should be taken:

1) _Science_ should issue a correction to the paper, and specially do the following:

(a) retract and replot all figures in the paper and SI eliminating from the graphs all data/results that fail to meet the paper's criteria for "statistical robustness."
(b) include in the correction the explicit and unambiguous statement offered in the FAQ released today that the analysis is not "statistically robust" post-1900.

2) NSF should issue a correction to its press release, clarifying and correcting the statements of Peter Clark (a co-author, found above) and Candace Major, NSF program manager, who says in the release:
"*The last century stands out as the anomaly in this record of global temperature since the end of the last ice age*," says Candace Major, program director in the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Division of Ocean Sciences.3) The _New York Times_ (Gillis and Revkin, in particular), _Nature_ and _New Scientist _as outlets that pride themselves in accurate reporting of science should update their stories with corrections. Grist and Climate Central should consider the same.

*[UPDATE: Andy Revkin at DotEarth has updated his posts here and here to reference the "lost blade" from the hockey stick and link to this post. That was quick and easy. Others take note.] *

Let me be perfectly clear -- I am accusing no one of scientific misconduct. The errors documented here could have been the product of group dynamics, institutional dysfunction, miscommunication, sloppiness or laziness (do note that misconduct can result absent explicit intent). However, what matters most now is how the relevant parties respond to the identification of a clear misrepresentation of a scientific paper by those who should not make such errors.

That response will say a lot about how this small but visible part of the climate community views the importance of scientific integrity.


IanC- obviously none of that was done. another typical example of how climate science is done.


----------



## orogenicman (May 5, 2015)

You are still quoting Pielke?  Oh dear.

If Pielke (a PhD in Political Science) is so sure that his objections have a scientific basis, why doesn't he publish them in a peer reviewed science publication?  Why has NONE of your deniers done so?


----------



## IanC (May 5, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> You are still quoting Pielke?  Oh dear.
> 
> If Pielke (a PhD in Political Science) is so sure that his objections have a scientific basis, why doesn't he publish them in a peer reviewed science publication?  Why has NONE of your deniers done so?




more deflection? I think anyone who investigates Pielke will find that his credentials are first rate.

back to what you are trying to avoid. Marcott revised his doctoral thesis with the help of Shakun and Mann, and reported a new hockeystick, which was feted i press releases as such for a week. when pressed to support his work Marcott backed away from his weaselly words and pronounced the 20th century part of his results as not significant and therefore no conclusions should be drawn from them. 

so, orogenicman, was Marcott lying when he agreed that his paper produced a new hockeystick? he certainly let everybody interviewing him think that. 


I believe I bumped this thread to buttress my statement " press releases live forever but rebuttals never make the headlines". you, Old Rocks, crick, and others use this paper in the original press release form. any time someone brings up the fact that it has problems you just say it was explained at Real Climate and link up to a FAQ that in actuality is more 'answers to unasked questions' than replies to the real criticisms.


----------



## orogenicman (May 5, 2015)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > You are still quoting Pielke?  Oh dear.
> ...



Indeed, if I want or need first rate political analysis, I might even consider Mr. Pielke's opinion on politics though that is doubtful considering his political leanings.  If I want real scientific research done on AGW, I wouldn't give him a second thought because he has no credentials in climatology.  And it is not deflection to ask why you people never publish these retarded rants of yours.  I guess it is too embarrassing, eh?



> back to what you are trying to avoid. Marcott revised his doctoral thesis with the help of Shakun and Mann, and reported a new hockeystick, which was feted i press releases as such for a week. when pressed to support his work Marcott backed away from his weaselly words and pronounced the 20th century part of his results as not significant and therefore no conclusions should be drawn from them.



Considering that the proxies had a resolution of only 120 years, and that everything prior to 150 years ago was the more important data being released in the study because no one has released anything so comprehensive for that period of time, ever, erm, what's your point?  The past 150 years is covered by instrumentation, and was not important for this work.



> so, orogenicman, was Marcott lying when he agreed that his paper produced a new hockeystick? he certainly let everybody interviewing him think that.



It's easy to denigrate a man's reputation behind the anonymity of the web, isn't it?  So Ian, you should say that to his face, if you are man enough.  Good luck with that.


----------



## IanC (May 6, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Pielke's last statement to the US Senate-   http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...Store_id=a6df9665-e8c8-4b0f-a550-07669df48b15

an interesting read. here is his bio from that.  



> Biography of Roger Pielke Jr.
> 
> Roger Pielke, Jr. has been on the faculty of the University of Colorado since 2001 and is a
> Professor in the Environmental Studies Program and a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for
> ...



while you may be willing to dismiss him, it seems as if quite a few others hold him in high repute.


----------



## IanC (May 6, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Considering that the proxies had a resolution of only 120 years, and that everything prior to 150 years ago was the more important data being released in the study because no one has released anything so comprehensive for that period of time, ever, erm, what's your point?  The past 150 years is covered by instrumentation, and was not important for this work.



I do not have a big problem with Marcott's paleoreconstruction, although there are technical details that were raised and ignored in the Real Climate response. Proxy reconstructions do not show the large spike in recent temperatures. that was the whole point of 'hide the decline'.

I believe that Mann and Shakun led Marcott down the garden path by showing him how to turn his doctoral thesis into a hockeystick. it is more of the same bogus grafting of high resolution data on to truncated low resolution proxy data. it is dishonest and meaningless. if the proxies dont work for the present, why should we think they work for the past?


----------



## IanC (May 6, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> It's easy to denigrate a man's reputation behind the anonymity of the web, isn't it?  So Ian, you should say that to his face, if you are man enough.  Good luck with that.



obviously you ( and Old Rocks and Crick and others) have a different idea of what denigrate means. you dismiss Pielke out of hand for having a PolySci doctorate while ignoring his large contribution to the field of climate change. Crick dismissed Lewis as 'unemployed' rather than retired, an amateur in the field with numerous important published papers. Mamooth and the rest of you dismiss McIntyre by not acknowledging the numerous improvements he has forced onto the field of climate science. and when I ask you for particular reasons why you hate these guys you splutter and say "we just do".

when I call someone's character into question, I do it in conjunction with the specific reason. In this thread I call out Marcott for allowing a week's worth of press release false advertising of a new hockeystick. he could have pointed out at the beginning that the 20th century portion of his work was unsuitable to draw any conclusions from but he didnt until he was forced to defend his work. by web review not peer review I might add.


----------



## orogenicman (May 6, 2015)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



He is still a political scientist, not a real scientist.  Next.


----------



## orogenicman (May 6, 2015)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Considering that the proxies had a resolution of only 120 years, and that everything prior to 150 years ago was the more important data being released in the study because no one has released anything so comprehensive for that period of time, ever, erm, what's your point?  The past 150 years is covered by instrumentation, and was not important for this work.
> ...



Proxy reconstructions were never expected to show a large spike in recent temperatures.  They aren't that sensitive.  as for your "hide the decline" remark, I call bullshit.



> I believe that Mann and Shakun led Marcott down the garden path by showing him how to turn his doctoral thesis into a hockeystick. it is more of the same bogus grafting of high resolution data on to truncated low resolution proxy data. it is dishonest and meaningless. if the proxies dont work for the present, why should we think they work for the past?



Because if you put a bunch of proxies together and they all tell you the same thing, it is not something that you can simply ignore, particularly out of political expediency.


----------



## orogenicman (May 6, 2015)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > It's easy to denigrate a man's reputation behind the anonymity of the web, isn't it?  So Ian, you should say that to his face, if you are man enough.  Good luck with that.
> ...



A PhD in political science doesn't qualify one to call themselves a climate scientist any more than a diesel mechanic certification qualifies one to call themselves a brain surgeon.


----------



## IanC (May 7, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



What the hell are you talking about!?!?!

Pielke is a professor of Environmental Studies. His speciality is how climate change interacts with govt policies. His dad is a foremost climate scientist. And you are saying he is unqualified to bring up the moral dishonesty of Marcott letting people misconstrue his paper, until forced to acknowledge that blade portion of his hockey stick was garbage. What an amazing set of double standards you live with. I bet there is basically nothing that can get past your series of 'Catch-22s'.


----------



## orogenicman (May 7, 2015)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




He has a PhD in political science.  He is not his dad.  He does not have his dad's degrees, expertise, or experience.  End of story.  And for YOU or any of your denier fraudsters to claim that Marcott is morally dishonest is disingenuous and slanderous, and proves that you will do and say anything no matter the cost to your own credibility.  Letting people misconstrue his paper?  You fucking conservatards are so into the notion of taking responsibility, and yet it is his fault that others misconstrue his paper?  This is almost as idiotic as you people blaming anything and everything that happens in the world on Obama. And just as transparent.


----------



## IanC (May 7, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




All Marcott had to do, at the beginning of the press releases, was to say that his findings said nothing about the last hundred years of warming. He didn't. Instead he basked in the glory of new found fame. When forced to come clean he said he was misinterpreted but he knew it all along and was quite willing to let everyone make the wrong implications. 

How is it that you cannot recognize dishonesty?


----------



## orogenicman (May 7, 2015)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Right.  So you can read minds from afar, can you?  Interesting.


----------



## IanC (May 7, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I am not reading minds, I am quoting the man's words and actions. If he knew that the modern portion of his work was not fit for purpose, why did he let everyone focus on it? Why did he not stop the the erroneous implications immediately?


----------



## orogenicman (May 7, 2015)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Those are your words, not his, and you know it.  Trying to demonstrate someone's dishonesty by being dishonest yourself, is just plain stupid.  But you knew that already.  The fact of the matter is that his work is valid, and has been accepted all this time despite rantings by people such as you.  Get over it.


----------



## IanC (May 7, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




You have read the Real Climate FAQ. What does he say about the modern portion of the graph?

And this is just Marcott's statements. We could delve into some of the 'inconsistencies' of the dating of the proxies as well. 

The paper is garbage for the last hundred years as was admitted by Marcott. Just because they are brazening out the mistakes doesn't make it any thing else but garbage.


----------



## orogenicman (May 7, 2015)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



His paper is valid.  End of story.


----------



## IanC (May 7, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




Are you saying that Marcott lied in the RC FAQ? He said no valid conclusions could be derived from the modern portion. 

Which is it? Did he lie at the beginning or after he was caught? It has to be one or the other.


----------



## orogenicman (May 7, 2015)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Zzzzz.


----------



## IanC (May 7, 2015)

Run away and hide. That is your typical response when you cannot answer the straightforward question.


----------



## orogenicman (May 7, 2015)

IanC said:


> Run away and hide. That is your typical response when you cannot answer the straightforward question.



You put words in my mouth and expect me to stay awake for it?  Oh dear.


----------



## IanC (May 7, 2015)

I am not putting words in your mouth. I am asking you a pointed direct question. Which version of Marcott's story is the correct one? Early on when he agreed that his study showed warming unheard of in thousands of years, or the later version when he said his study did not show pertinent information on the 20th century. Do you care to answer?


----------



## orogenicman (May 7, 2015)

IanC said:


> I am not putting words in your mouth. I am asking you a pointed direct question. Which version of Marcott's story is the correct one? Early on when he agreed that his study showed warming unheard of in thousands of years, or the later version when he said his study did not show pertinent information on the 20th century. Do you care to answer?



Look, most scientists are pretty smart.  They know how to read scientific papers.  Then modern data included in his paper wasn't particularly robust, and wasn't meant to be.  But it wasn't contrary to anything that has been published before.  In other words, the uptick in modern temperatures is there whether the resolution is high or low.  You can't get around this fact.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 27, 2022)

orogenicman said:


> I'm saying that you should try to present a scientific argument from someone other than a massage therapist.  I know you people don't understand the problem with doing this, but you should thank the stars that there isn't a similar group of 'pundants' following behind the brain surgeons telling you that they can do better for your tumor using banana enemas.



Since you couldn't counter what the "message therapist" wrote about does this mean you are unable to overcome such a man?

By the way look up the word POLYMATH.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 27, 2022)

orogenicman said:


> I have a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Louisville and a Masters of Science degree from the University of Kentucky.  I was a registered geologist for 15 years before I became disabled.  From 1990 to 2003 I was an environmental consultant.  Clients included The States of Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Louisiana, and Florida, Chevron, BP, Shell, Ashland Petroleum, Enro Marketing, which is a subsidiary of Marathon,  Marathon, Caterpillar, the City of Louisville, and many others.  I've written over 400 proprietary environmental reports (though many are accessible via FOIA request with various agencies).  I am also published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology, and in the Journal of the Louisville Museum of Natural History (now the Louisville science Center).  And two of my astrophotographs were published today in the Courier Journal newspaper in relation to an article about the Louisville Astronomical Society's 80th anniversary, of which I am currently a board member and have been a member since 1984.  That's the reality here, gslack.
> 
> 
> 
> Right, as opposed to McIntyre, who holds no advanced degree in any field whatsoever, holds no science certifications, and is not published in any recognized peer reviewed journal.  Next.



So, you think having a science degree automatically exclude people who didn't have such a degree like Harland Bretz, Otto Wegener Clyde Tombaugh and Milton Humason from making discoveries OUTSIDE of their fields of expertise?

What about Henrietta Leavitt?

That is really snobbish of you.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 27, 2022)

orogenicman said:


> He is still a political scientist, not a real scientist.  Next.



Yawn your snobbery is really boring, you post Marcott's link but you show no evidence that you read it.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 27, 2022)

orogenicman said:


> Zzzzz.



This is why your credibility went from 100 to 10 in just a few pages in the thread you ignored the low-resolution level of the proxies that IanC and Flacaltenn brought up and you ignored Marcott's statement that the blade isn't valid.

The paper isn't robust enough to support their outlandish claims made on it.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 27, 2022)

orogenicman said:


> You are still quoting Pielke?  Oh dear.
> 
> If Pielke (a PhD in Political Science) is so sure that his objections have a scientific basis, why doesn't he publish them in a peer reviewed science publication?  Why has NONE of your deniers done so?



Your snobbery is so dumb that I am going to show what a High Schooler did what Professional Astronomers failed after several decades of looking, I am talking about Clyde Tombaugh who was hired in the fall of 1929 to do some photographs and blinking of the plates in the search for the mysterious body that became known as Pluto.

He searched differently a after a few days realizing he would have a better chance to find it by going into the deepest part of its possible orbit calculation which then took him just three months to find it when he took over the blinking part to discover he had found it in January 1930.

This same Kansas boy also discovered the Cluster of Galaxies years before when he tried to show the evidence to Edwin Hubbell who ignored it because...... Tombaugh didn't have a PHD in his back pocket that's right he was a victim of Hubbel's snobbishness which was later eventually officially discovered by Geoge Abell in the 1950's.

Yup just a hick farmer from Kansas discovered the trans Neptunian object in just 3 months after many Professional Astronomers failed after years of looking.

He built several Telescope and mirrors all by himself and so impressed Lowel Observatory on the quality of Jupiter Mars sketches he made using his 9" Telescope who figured his mirrors by digging a mirror test set up trench 24' long and 8' deep and 7' wide.

But YOU would say he isn't qualified because he is a 23-year-old skinny hillbilly Kansas farm boy with a High School degree.

Shall I talk about Milton Humason next?

You diminish yourself when you talk that way and disappoint me because of your education you posted which is why expected better from you.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 27, 2022)

orogenicman said:


> Look, most scientists are pretty smart.  They know how to read scientific papers.  Then modern data included in his paper wasn't particularly robust, and wasn't meant to be.  But it wasn't contrary to anything that has been published before.  In other words, the uptick in modern temperatures is there whether the resolution is high or low.  You can't get around this fact.



Gee you don't seem to be that smart because a simple question IanC asked was too hard for you to answer.


----------



## westwall (Feb 27, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> Gee you don't seem to be that smart because a simple question IanC asked was too hard for you to answer.






Quite the necro thread.  Oreoboi was clearly a sock, probably for trader, who was also most likely a sock, either way, the thread died because,  like most warmers, they lied, and when caught they fled.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 27, 2022)

westwall said:


> Quite the necro thread.  Oreoboi was clearly a sock, probably for trader, who was also most likely a sock, either way, the thread died because, like most warmers, they lied, and when caught they fled.



I get irritated when I encounter prevaricating snobs who doesn't show significant indication of alleged training then to evade IanC like that was pathetic.

Too bad IanC left he was a credit to the science area with his strong civility on display.

threegoofs is just as useless and stupid at another forum who finally got a moderator unhappy slapped hard for his endless trolling in the science threads. Longview a 40 year science veteran might have finally turned him in. 

You were Moderator then he was able to hide his identity on you?


----------



## westwall (Feb 27, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> I get irritated when I encounter prevaricating snobs who doesn't show significant indication of alleged training then to evade IanC like that was pathetic.
> 
> Too bad IanC left he was a credit to the science area with his strong civility on display.
> 
> ...





Yeah, I could never pin him down because he used proxy IPs


----------



## Crick (Feb 27, 2022)

Early on in this thread, several posters suggested that Marcotte would be withdrawing his paper.  That has not happened.  The original paper has now been cited over 1,400 times.  So, who won this debate?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 27, 2022)

westwall said:


> Yeah, I could never pin him down because he used proxy IPs



If they are from Korea, China, Russia and other places where *non*-English-speaking people would not bother coming here is someone evading you.

I would have blocked such people at WUWT because it is against blog policy to allow them through the front door along with a valid e-mail that should be from the same country, they really live in.

David Appell (who was long banned) kept coming into the blog over and over this way until I became Moderator 5 years ago when I figured out how to slow him way down to a trickle his style of posting always gives him away haven't seen him a year now must has gotten tired of being discovered so quickly and the other Mods getting up to speed on the unreliability of roving IPS.


----------



## ding (Feb 27, 2022)

Seems like that was predicted too .



SSDD said:


> A retraction doesn't matter. Idiots like thunder and siagon will be posting that rediculous graph till the hoax completely implodes and the present crop of climate scientists have taken to the tall grass in order to avoid justice.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 27, 2022)

Crick said:


> Early on in this thread, several posters suggested that Marcotte would be withdrawing his paper.  That has not happened.  The original paper has now been cited over 1,400 times.  So, who won this debate?



His* THESIS* paper is good, but the later contrived uptick damaged the paper again you overlook what Marcott says about it:

Marcott said:

"20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

Stop being a fool, Crick!


----------



## Crick (Feb 27, 2022)

ding said:


> Seems like that was predicted too .


The "Uptick" is based on the instrumental record and is completely robust.  What is it you think his merger of the proxy and the instrument data did to the validity of that graphic or the claims in his conclusion?


----------



## ding (Feb 27, 2022)

Crick said:


> The "Uptick" is based on the instrumental record and is completely robust.  What is it you think his merger of the proxy and the instrument data did to the validity of that graphic or the claims in his conclusion?


What was predicted early in this thread was "A retraction doesn't matter. Idiots like thunder and siagon will be posting that rediculous graph till the hoax completely implodes and the present crop of climate scientists have taken to the tall grass in order to avoid justice."


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 27, 2022)

Crick said:


> The "Uptick" is based on the instrumental record and is completely robust.  What is it you think his merger of the proxy and the instrument data did to the validity of that graphic or the claims in his conclusion?



Marcott doesn't agree with you why resort to LYING about it?

"Marcott said:

"20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

LOL


----------



## westwall (Feb 27, 2022)

Crick said:


> The "Uptick" is based on the instrumental record and is completely robust.  What is it you think his merger of the proxy and the instrument data did to the validity of that graphic or the claims in his conclusion?





Not according to the author.


----------



## Crick (Feb 27, 2022)

Did Marcotte say that his conclusions were unsupported or in error?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 27, 2022)

Crick said:


> Did Marcotte say that his conclusions were unsupported or in error?



  

"Marcott said:

"20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."


----------



## Crick (Feb 27, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> "Marcott said:
> 
> "20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."


Yes, that quote was directly above.  I assumed that couldn't be the author's statement to which he referred since it counters nothing in my statement.  So, again, what is the problem you all seem to believe was caused in Marcotte's conclusion by the merger of his proxy and a dozen other people's instrumental data?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 27, 2022)

Crick said:


> Yes, that quote was directly above.  I assumed that couldn't be the author's statement to which he referred since it counters nothing in my statement.  So, again, what is the problem you all seem to believe was caused in Marcotte's conclusion by the merger of his proxy and a dozen other people's instrumental data?



Your blindness keeps you from understanding this from Marcott himself.

"Marcott said:

"20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

He is talking about that giant uptick nothing more how can that be so hard for YOU to understand?


----------



## westwall (Feb 27, 2022)

Crick said:


> Did Marcotte say that his conclusions were unsupported or in error?




Try READING it!

DURRRRR


----------



## Crick (Feb 27, 2022)

I have read it.  He does NOT say his conclusions are in error or unsupported.


----------



## westwall (Feb 27, 2022)

Crick said:


> I have read it.  He does NOT say his conclusions are in error or unsupported.





Oh, on which planet is that?  Or are you unaware that things get updated?  You know, once upon a time it was thought the Earth was flat, but now we know better.


----------



## Crick (Feb 27, 2022)

Then show me the quote.  The comments you've all been pasting around do NOT say any such thing.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 27, 2022)

Crick said:


> I have read it.  He does NOT say his conclusions are in error or unsupported.



But you DON"T think rationally with it here it is again:

*"He is talking about that giant uptick nothing more* how can that be so hard for YOU to understand?"

Read the red words several times maybe you finally get the freaking obvious.

Already stated several times that his THESIS paper (which doesn't have that bogus uptick in it) is good but the resolution is at least 60 years to 300 years (According to Marcott himself) which is WHY grafting a yearly resolution rate temperature data onto the end of it is for science illiterates like you to have a hard on over.

You have serious brain problems here?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 27, 2022)

westwall said:


> Oh, on which planet is that?  Or are you unaware that things get updated?  You know, once upon a time it was thought the Earth was flat, but now we know better.



The stupid fuck has been given the links to what Marcott said several times, but he keeps ignoring what *Marcott himself stated about the uptick part of the paper.*

"Marcott said:

"20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

He isn't talking about his entire paper just *the TWENTIETH CENTURY part of the chart!

 *


----------



## westwall (Feb 27, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> The stupid fuck has been given the links to what Marcott said several times, but he keeps ignoring what *Marcott himself stated about the uptick part of the paper.*
> 
> "Marcott said:
> 
> ...




Crick is a bot.


----------

