ReinyDays
Gold Member
- Oct 5, 2019
- 14,745
- 7,074
Silly, embarrassing lie that would get you laughed out of the room, if in the company of research scientists.None of the models, when past climate data is plugged in, can accurately represent current climate.I'm no expert on climate science...but I am an expert on the scientific method.Well, I haven't said any if those things. I've only said their models have been terribly inaccurate and they have no scientific proof of manmade global warming.
And that whole hockey stick "hide the decline" fiasco somewhat soured any uncritical faith in their prognostications.
Understanding Climategate's Hidden Decline
Close followers of the Climategate controversy know that much of the mêlée surrounds an e-mail in which Climate Research Unit (CRU) chief Phil Jones wrote about using “Mike’s Nature Trick” (MNT) to “hide the decli...www.americanthinker.com
I'm sorry but your talking points here show that you are not particularly familiar with this topic. Global climate models (GCMs) have been quite accurate though several denier factions have been utterly dishonest and intentionally deceptive in their attempts to make them look bad (ex: Roy Spencer). * The original "hockey stick" graph (Mann, Bradley, Hughes, 1998) was criticized for a flaw in its statistical analysis and was corrected (MBH 1999 and later). No lay person could tell the difference between the old and the new, particularly since the numerical results - how much warmer the world has become than it once was - were completely unchanged by this "correction". The comment about hiding the decline and was a comment taken completely out of context. Phil Jones, then director of the Hadley Met Office in the UK was referring to a statistical procedure used by researchers Michael Mann and Keith Briffa to compensate for changes over time in the proportionality between tree ring thicknesses and temperature. Before you jump to the conclusion that this was done to make warming look worse than it did, note that this change happened in the latter half of the 20th century where there were plenty of accurate thermometer data against which to see the change. The "trick" made the data more accurate, not less.
If you have rejected global warming because of these two points, I think you need to reexamine your position.
* - A Google search on scholarly articles on the accuracy of climate models: Google Scholar
For a layman's critique of Spencer's GCM "analysis", see: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception
For a lengthy but objective discussion on the development and accuracy of global climate models, see General Circulation Models of the Atmosphere
If HR= all human recorded temperature data from 1850 to present...
...and if AP=all reconstructed proxy temperature pre 1850...
...and MA=all post 1850 proxy temperatures...
...and AP and MA were extrapolated using the exact same method...
If MA is not congruent with HR then AP is not valid data.
My understanding is that Climategate revolves around this very anomoly...and to hide the anomoly, the post 1850 algorithmically reconstructed data (MA) was eliminated after 1960 and the human recorded data (HR) was substituted because the MA data was not congruent with the historical human recorded record beyond 1960...casting significant doubt of the entire set of reconstructed data (AP).
MA being congruent with HR is the science.
Failing that check on the reconstructed proxy data makes all the proxy data suspect.
Without valid reconstructed data, there is no data to apply any science to.
So instead of divulging the truth...they covered it up by misrepresenting the data to fit the desired result.
That's not science.
Silly, embarrassing lie that would get you laughed out of the room, if in the company of research scientists.
What would you know about the company of research scientists? ...
But I'll bite ... post your scientific paper that plugs in the climate data from 100 years ago and have the climate model corrected predict today's climate ... just one ...
