Liberals Continue Their Assault On Anything That Casts Doubt on Climate Change

[Old Rocks]

Here is just a small portion of that proof:

The rise and fall of the Hockey Stick

Eventually a US senate committee of inquiry was set up under the chairmanship of Edward Wegman a highly respected Professor of mathematics and statistics and in 2006 his report was published. You can download it here.

Oh yeah, brittlepatsy, here's the actual facts on your fraudulent 'Wegman Report' that you denier cult dingbats take as gospel....

Wegman Report
RationalWiki
The Wegman Report (14 July, 2006) (officially the Committee on Energy and Commerce Report) was a report on the "hockey stick" graph produced by a commission headed by statistician Edward Wegman. It is now remembered as the epitome of global warming denier stupidity, in terms of both its factual errors and its college freshman-level plagiarism from textbooks and Wikipedia.

Keep going!
After notorious deniers Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published a paper in Geophysical Research Letters criticizing Michael Mann et al.'s reconstruction of global temperatures that led to the hockey stick graph, the scientific community reconfirmed Mann's analysis with similar data from independent studies.[1] The denier community would not stand for this absurd science stuff, so they decided to launch a second attack on the hockey stick.

In 2006, Republican US Representatives Joe Barton and Ed Whitfield commissioned Wegman to produce a study discrediting the hockey stick. Totally ignoring any of the independent lines of research backing up Mann, Wegman went back and used McIntyre and McKitrick's shoddy models (coloquially referred to as "M&M," candies included) to claim that Mann had just made up the hockey stick. By ignoring the other lines of research and using algorithms that were intended to cherry-pick data to spit out a non-hockey stick shaped graph, Wegman produced a "refutation" of Mann's work. Of course, Wegman never submitted his "research" for peer review. The report went straight to the desks of Barton and Whitfield without any vetting besides some "review" by Wegman's colleagues. The Wegman Report was then used as "definitive evidence" by Republicans in Climategate hearings that Mann and his colleagues were guilty of scientific fraud. Never mind that Wegman's work had already been debunked by this point.

In November of 2010, the story broke that a good deal of the report had been copy-pasted from Wikipedia and some old textbooks, one of which was authored by Mann's colleague Raymond Bradley.[2] George Mason University dragged its feet in investigating charges of plagiarism and misconduct. The delay led to a scathing editorial in Nature stating that "long misconduct investigations do not serve anyone, except perhaps university public relations departments that might hope everyone will have forgotten about a case by the time it wraps up."[3]

No more gas
In 2008, Wegman submitted a modified version of the report to the journal Computational Statistics and Data Analysis. In an egregious case of "pal review," the journal's editor accepted the paper six days after submission, apparently on his own say-so without sending it out for standard peer review. The modified version dropped the climate-related material, leaving only a "social network analysis." The goal of this "analysis" seemed to be to reveal the secret warmist cabal controlling climate science. In reality, all it revealed was that Mann had written other papers with his co-authors.

Wegman apparently forgot that there are things you can get away with in politics that will get you in very hot water in the scientific world, one of those being to copy-and-paste without attribution. In 2011, the journal retracted the paper and apologized for not having detected the plagiarism earlier.[4][5][6] Keeping it classy, Wegman blamed this cock-up on one of his grad students.[7]

so your entire criticism of the Wegman report is that some of it was plagiarized? Was there any claim that the plagiarized portion was incorrect?

Here we have a well know example of a classic leftwing propaganda technique: Find some small piece of an argument to attack, and then harp on that piece with a megaphone. You totally ignore the big issue of whether the larger argument is correct.

Furthermore, there's the National Academy of Sciences report:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: There He Goes Again: Mann Claims His Hockey Stick was Affirmed by the NAS

1. The NAS indicated that the hockey stick method systematically underestimated the uncertainties in the data (p. 107).

2. In subtle wording, the NAS agreed with the M&M assertion that the hockey stick had no statistical significance, and was no more informative about the distant past than a table of random numbers. The NAS found that Mann's methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless. Mann’s data set does not have enough information to verify its ‘skill’ at resolving the past, and has such wide uncertainty bounds as to be no better than the simple mean of the data (p. 91). M&M said that the appearance of significance was created by ignoring all but one type of test score, thereby failing to quantify all the relevant uncertainties. The NAS agreed (p. 110), but, again, did so in subtle wording.

3. M&M argued that the hockey stick relied for its shape on the inclusion of a small set of invalid proxy data (called bristlecone, or “strip-bark” records). If they are removed, the conclusion that the 20th century is unusually warm compared to the pre-1450 interval is reversed. Hence the conclusion of unique late 20th century warmth is not robust—in other word it does not hold up under minor variations in data or methods. The NAS panel agreed, saying Mann’s results are “strongly dependent” on the strip-bark data (pp. 106-107), and they went further, warning that strip-bark data should not be used in this type of research (p. 50).

4. The NAS said " Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions", i.e. produce hockey sticks from baseball statistics, telephone book numbers, and monte carlo random numbers.

5. The NAS said Mann downplayed the "uncertainties of the published reconstructions...Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.’​

And after all of that, stated that Mann's graph was essentially the same as the one derived after all the corrections.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html

Academy affirms hockey-stick graph
Geoff Brumfiel

Topof page
Abstract
But it criticizes the way the controversial climate result was used.

It's probably the most politicized graph in science — an icon of the case for climate change to some, and of flawed science in the service of that case to others — and it has coloured the climate-change debate for nearly a decade. Now the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has weighed in with a report on the ‘hockey-stick’ plot, which it hopes will finally lay the controversy to rest.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://climateknowledge.org/figures...0_Documents/Nature_News_Hockey_Stick_2006.pdf

In its report, released on 22 June, the NAS committee more-or-less endorses the work behind the graph. But it criticizes the way that the plot was used to publicize climatechange concerns. And it leaves open big questions about whether researchers should be obliged to make their data available (see ‘Plotting a course’).

“We roughly agree with the substance of their findings,” says Gerald North, the committee’s chair and a climate scientist at Texas A&M University in College Station. In particular, he says, the committee has a “high level of confidence” that the second half of the twentieth century was warmer than any other period in the past four centuries. But, he adds, claims for the earlier period covered by the study, from AD 900 to 1600, are less certain. This earlier period is particularly important because global warming sceptics claim that the current warming trend is a rebound from a ‘little ice age’ around 1600. Overall, the committee thought the temperature reconstructions from that era had only a two-to-one chance of being right.

Now you see why lying little bastards like Bripat take things out of context.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.nap.edu/read/11676/chapter/1

Of course lying little bastards like Bripat could actually read NAP papers. But of course, he will not. He is and will remain willfully ignorant.

 

[bripat9643]

Here is just a small portion of that proof:

The rise and fall of the Hockey Stick

Eventually a US senate committee of inquiry was set up under the chairmanship of Edward Wegman a highly respected Professor of mathematics and statistics and in 2006 his report was published. You can download it here.

Oh yeah, brittlepatsy, here's the actual facts on your fraudulent 'Wegman Report' that you denier cult dingbats take as gospel....

Wegman Report
RationalWiki
The Wegman Report (14 July, 2006) (officially the Committee on Energy and Commerce Report) was a report on the "hockey stick" graph produced by a commission headed by statistician Edward Wegman. It is now remembered as the epitome of global warming denier stupidity, in terms of both its factual errors and its college freshman-level plagiarism from textbooks and Wikipedia.

Keep going!
After notorious deniers Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published a paper in Geophysical Research Letters criticizing Michael Mann et al.'s reconstruction of global temperatures that led to the hockey stick graph, the scientific community reconfirmed Mann's analysis with similar data from independent studies.[1] The denier community would not stand for this absurd science stuff, so they decided to launch a second attack on the hockey stick.

In 2006, Republican US Representatives Joe Barton and Ed Whitfield commissioned Wegman to produce a study discrediting the hockey stick. Totally ignoring any of the independent lines of research backing up Mann, Wegman went back and used McIntyre and McKitrick's shoddy models (coloquially referred to as "M&M," candies included) to claim that Mann had just made up the hockey stick. By ignoring the other lines of research and using algorithms that were intended to cherry-pick data to spit out a non-hockey stick shaped graph, Wegman produced a "refutation" of Mann's work. Of course, Wegman never submitted his "research" for peer review. The report went straight to the desks of Barton and Whitfield without any vetting besides some "review" by Wegman's colleagues. The Wegman Report was then used as "definitive evidence" by Republicans in Climategate hearings that Mann and his colleagues were guilty of scientific fraud. Never mind that Wegman's work had already been debunked by this point.

In November of 2010, the story broke that a good deal of the report had been copy-pasted from Wikipedia and some old textbooks, one of which was authored by Mann's colleague Raymond Bradley.[2] George Mason University dragged its feet in investigating charges of plagiarism and misconduct. The delay led to a scathing editorial in Nature stating that "long misconduct investigations do not serve anyone, except perhaps university public relations departments that might hope everyone will have forgotten about a case by the time it wraps up."[3]

No more gas
In 2008, Wegman submitted a modified version of the report to the journal Computational Statistics and Data Analysis. In an egregious case of "pal review," the journal's editor accepted the paper six days after submission, apparently on his own say-so without sending it out for standard peer review. The modified version dropped the climate-related material, leaving only a "social network analysis." The goal of this "analysis" seemed to be to reveal the secret warmist cabal controlling climate science. In reality, all it revealed was that Mann had written other papers with his co-authors.

Wegman apparently forgot that there are things you can get away with in politics that will get you in very hot water in the scientific world, one of those being to copy-and-paste without attribution. In 2011, the journal retracted the paper and apologized for not having detected the plagiarism earlier.[4][5][6] Keeping it classy, Wegman blamed this cock-up on one of his grad students.[7]

so your entire criticism of the Wegman report is that some of it was plagiarized? Was there any claim that the plagiarized portion was incorrect?

Here we have a well know example of a classic leftwing propaganda technique: Find some small piece of an argument to attack, and then harp on that piece with a megaphone. You totally ignore the big issue of whether the larger argument is correct.

Furthermore, there's the National Academy of Sciences report:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: There He Goes Again: Mann Claims His Hockey Stick was Affirmed by the NAS

1. The NAS indicated that the hockey stick method systematically underestimated the uncertainties in the data (p. 107).

2. In subtle wording, the NAS agreed with the M&M assertion that the hockey stick had no statistical significance, and was no more informative about the distant past than a table of random numbers. The NAS found that Mann's methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless. Mann’s data set does not have enough information to verify its ‘skill’ at resolving the past, and has such wide uncertainty bounds as to be no better than the simple mean of the data (p. 91). M&M said that the appearance of significance was created by ignoring all but one type of test score, thereby failing to quantify all the relevant uncertainties. The NAS agreed (p. 110), but, again, did so in subtle wording.

3. M&M argued that the hockey stick relied for its shape on the inclusion of a small set of invalid proxy data (called bristlecone, or “strip-bark” records). If they are removed, the conclusion that the 20th century is unusually warm compared to the pre-1450 interval is reversed. Hence the conclusion of unique late 20th century warmth is not robust—in other word it does not hold up under minor variations in data or methods. The NAS panel agreed, saying Mann’s results are “strongly dependent” on the strip-bark data (pp. 106-107), and they went further, warning that strip-bark data should not be used in this type of research (p. 50).

4. The NAS said " Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions", i.e. produce hockey sticks from baseball statistics, telephone book numbers, and monte carlo random numbers.

5. The NAS said Mann downplayed the "uncertainties of the published reconstructions...Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.’​

And after all of that, stated that Mann's graph was essentially the same as the one derived after all the corrections.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html

Academy affirms hockey-stick graph
Geoff Brumfiel

Topof page
Abstract
But it criticizes the way the controversial climate result was used.

It's probably the most politicized graph in science — an icon of the case for climate change to some, and of flawed science in the service of that case to others — and it has coloured the climate-change debate for nearly a decade. Now the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has weighed in with a report on the ‘hockey-stick’ plot, which it hopes will finally lay the controversy to rest.

The one derived after all the corrections is still a fraud. It still uses principle component analysis incorrectly and it still includes Bristle cone Pine tree ring logs, which have been shown to be inaccurate yardsticks for temperature. They indicate rainfall, not temperature.

 

[bripat9643]

http://climateknowledge.org/figures...0_Documents/Nature_News_Hockey_Stick_2006.pdf

In its report, released on 22 June, the NAS committee more-or-less endorses the work behind the graph. But it criticizes the way that the plot was used to publicize climatechange concerns. And it leaves open big questions about whether researchers should be obliged to make their data available (see ‘Plotting a course’).

“We roughly agree with the substance of their findings,” says Gerald North, the committee’s chair and a climate scientist at Texas A&M University in College Station. In particular, he says, the committee has a “high level of confidence” that the second half of the twentieth century was warmer than any other period in the past four centuries. But, he adds, claims for the earlier period covered by the study, from AD 900 to 1600, are less certain. This earlier period is particularly important because global warming sceptics claim that the current warming trend is a rebound from a ‘little ice age’ around 1600. Overall, the committee thought the temperature reconstructions from that era had only a two-to-one chance of being right.

Now you see why lying little bastards like Bripat take things out of context.

What it really said is that the graph is only accurate for the last 400 years. For periods before that it can't be trusted.

 

[Old Rocks]

Remember when liberals were all about debate and questioning? Against banning, always open to new ideas. Now they are intolerant to other views or ideas. No questioning just following what the dear leaders say. This is the Regressive Left.

All about debate? Have you seen some of the debates on this forum? Avid deniers have screwed up ideas of the laws of physics and don't believe in basic tenets like quantum mechanics, and radiation physics. It is hard to be open to ideas of those who are anti-science and can only guess what science actually is. They put scientific words in sentences that make absolutely no sense. Many of the more thoughtful folks here have kept up long patient dialogues with those who can't understand even simple scientific issues. Debating of that kind is impossible.

If it was only on this board I would not say a thing. You already have settled the debate in your mind, you aren't open to any discussion as you already labeled deniers as screwed up. You don't want debate, you want silence.

We have presented the scientists findings and evidence. People like you have presented lies and such perverted versions of chemistry and physics that are completely self contradictory and completely laughable.

You want to present some scientific evidence that shows that increasing the GHGs in the atmosphere is not going to warm it, be my guest. But make damned sure it will pass the inspection of basic chemistry and physics. Otherwise you are just going to get derision, and be labeled as another fool.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://climateknowledge.org/figures...0_Documents/Nature_News_Hockey_Stick_2006.pdf

In its report, released on 22 June, the NAS committee more-or-less endorses the work behind the graph. But it criticizes the way that the plot was used to publicize climatechange concerns. And it leaves open big questions about whether researchers should be obliged to make their data available (see ‘Plotting a course’).

“We roughly agree with the substance of their findings,” says Gerald North, the committee’s chair and a climate scientist at Texas A&M University in College Station. In particular, he says, the committee has a “high level of confidence” that the second half of the twentieth century was warmer than any other period in the past four centuries. But, he adds, claims for the earlier period covered by the study, from AD 900 to 1600, are less certain. This earlier period is particularly important because global warming sceptics claim that the current warming trend is a rebound from a ‘little ice age’ around 1600. Overall, the committee thought the temperature reconstructions from that era had only a two-to-one chance of being right.

Now you see why lying little bastards like Bripat take things out of context.

What it really said is that the graph is only accurate for the last 400 years. For periods before that it can't be trusted.

No, asshole, what it says is that for periods prior to that it is less accurate. Tell me, do you even have a GED? Because you seem to be totally ignorant of statistics.

And there have been a dozen or more studies that have confirmed the shape of the graph since Dr. Mann did his basic work. That you have not bothered to read any of that work is an indication of your determination to remain ignorant and stupid.

 

[Old Rocks]

If it was only on this board I would not say a thing. You already have settled the debate in your mind, you aren't open to any discussion as you already labeled deniers as screwed up. You don't want debate, you want silence.

I am specifically referring to SSDD and others like him who are screwed up. If you want to defend their ideas on science I'm honestly willing to listen to your observations and comment on them without resorting to insults.

I am more about schools that start banning books that inspire debate. I am not a Trump supporter however Trump and Sanders are both inspiring debate and challenge the status quo. Which I love.

As fas as SSDD, I understand your frustration but you lumped many into one.

If the challenge is to the science, using science, I am all for that. However, what we have seen so far is the same sort of tactics used by the creationists. With the same scientific accuracy.

 

[Old Rocks]

bripat and crick did a good job of putting information out on the Wegman and NAS reports, as I have done in the past.

one thing I would like to point out is that the IPCC has guidelines as to what types of papers can be inserted into the reports, specifically cut off dates so that peer reviewed papers can only be used if they have been accepted for publication. these rules have been broken repeatedly, in all the reports.

eg. McIntyre and McKittrick's paper criticizing the Hockeystick was dismissed by citing Amman and Wahl's papers supporting Mann. unfortunately they did not pass review and were not published. embarrassing.

this was a major issue, and precipitated the climategate email release. the emails relating to AR4 and the skullduggery used to deny McIntyre access to information were the reason Jones put out the 'delete all emails' email, in defiance to FOI. they have never been released

Well Ian, that is about the dumbest statement I have seen from you.

 

[Old Rocks]

Here is just a small portion of that proof:

The rise and fall of the Hockey Stick

Eventually a US senate committee of inquiry was set up under the chairmanship of Edward Wegman a highly respected Professor of mathematics and statistics and in 2006 his report was published. You can download it here.

Oh yeah, brittlepatsy, here's the actual facts on your fraudulent 'Wegman Report' that you denier cult dingbats take as gospel....

Wegman Report
RationalWiki
The Wegman Report (14 July, 2006) (officially the Committee on Energy and Commerce Report) was a report on the "hockey stick" graph produced by a commission headed by statistician Edward Wegman. It is now remembered as the epitome of global warming denier stupidity, in terms of both its factual errors and its college freshman-level plagiarism from textbooks and Wikipedia.

Keep going!
After notorious deniers Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published a paper in Geophysical Research Letters criticizing Michael Mann et al.'s reconstruction of global temperatures that led to the hockey stick graph, the scientific community reconfirmed Mann's analysis with similar data from independent studies.[1] The denier community would not stand for this absurd science stuff, so they decided to launch a second attack on the hockey stick.

In 2006, Republican US Representatives Joe Barton and Ed Whitfield commissioned Wegman to produce a study discrediting the hockey stick. Totally ignoring any of the independent lines of research backing up Mann, Wegman went back and used McIntyre and McKitrick's shoddy models (coloquially referred to as "M&M," candies included) to claim that Mann had just made up the hockey stick. By ignoring the other lines of research and using algorithms that were intended to cherry-pick data to spit out a non-hockey stick shaped graph, Wegman produced a "refutation" of Mann's work. Of course, Wegman never submitted his "research" for peer review. The report went straight to the desks of Barton and Whitfield without any vetting besides some "review" by Wegman's colleagues. The Wegman Report was then used as "definitive evidence" by Republicans in Climategate hearings that Mann and his colleagues were guilty of scientific fraud. Never mind that Wegman's work had already been debunked by this point.

In November of 2010, the story broke that a good deal of the report had been copy-pasted from Wikipedia and some old textbooks, one of which was authored by Mann's colleague Raymond Bradley.[2] George Mason University dragged its feet in investigating charges of plagiarism and misconduct. The delay led to a scathing editorial in Nature stating that "long misconduct investigations do not serve anyone, except perhaps university public relations departments that might hope everyone will have forgotten about a case by the time it wraps up."[3]

No more gas
In 2008, Wegman submitted a modified version of the report to the journal Computational Statistics and Data Analysis. In an egregious case of "pal review," the journal's editor accepted the paper six days after submission, apparently on his own say-so without sending it out for standard peer review. The modified version dropped the climate-related material, leaving only a "social network analysis." The goal of this "analysis" seemed to be to reveal the secret warmist cabal controlling climate science. In reality, all it revealed was that Mann had written other papers with his co-authors.

Wegman apparently forgot that there are things you can get away with in politics that will get you in very hot water in the scientific world, one of those being to copy-and-paste without attribution. In 2011, the journal retracted the paper and apologized for not having detected the plagiarism earlier.[4][5][6] Keeping it classy, Wegman blamed this cock-up on one of his grad students.[7]

so your entire criticism of the Wegman report is that some of it was plagiarized? Was there any claim that the plagiarized portion was incorrect?

Here we have a well know example of a classic leftwing propaganda technique: Find some small piece of an argument to attack, and then harp on that piece with a megaphone. You totally ignore the big issue of whether the larger argument is correct.

Furthermore, there's the National Academy of Sciences report:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: There He Goes Again: Mann Claims His Hockey Stick was Affirmed by the NAS

1. The NAS indicated that the hockey stick method systematically underestimated the uncertainties in the data (p. 107).

2. In subtle wording, the NAS agreed with the M&M assertion that the hockey stick had no statistical significance, and was no more informative about the distant past than a table of random numbers. The NAS found that Mann's methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless. Mann’s data set does not have enough information to verify its ‘skill’ at resolving the past, and has such wide uncertainty bounds as to be no better than the simple mean of the data (p. 91). M&M said that the appearance of significance was created by ignoring all but one type of test score, thereby failing to quantify all the relevant uncertainties. The NAS agreed (p. 110), but, again, did so in subtle wording.

3. M&M argued that the hockey stick relied for its shape on the inclusion of a small set of invalid proxy data (called bristlecone, or “strip-bark” records). If they are removed, the conclusion that the 20th century is unusually warm compared to the pre-1450 interval is reversed. Hence the conclusion of unique late 20th century warmth is not robust—in other word it does not hold up under minor variations in data or methods. The NAS panel agreed, saying Mann’s results are “strongly dependent” on the strip-bark data (pp. 106-107), and they went further, warning that strip-bark data should not be used in this type of research (p. 50).

4. The NAS said " Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions", i.e. produce hockey sticks from baseball statistics, telephone book numbers, and monte carlo random numbers.

5. The NAS said Mann downplayed the "uncertainties of the published reconstructions...Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.’​

And after all of that, stated that Mann's graph was essentially the same as the one derived after all the corrections.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html

Academy affirms hockey-stick graph
Geoff Brumfiel

Topof page
Abstract
But it criticizes the way the controversial climate result was used.

It's probably the most politicized graph in science — an icon of the case for climate change to some, and of flawed science in the service of that case to others — and it has coloured the climate-change debate for nearly a decade. Now the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has weighed in with a report on the ‘hockey-stick’ plot, which it hopes will finally lay the controversy to rest.

The one derived after all the corrections is still a fraud. It still uses principle component analysis incorrectly and it still includes Bristle cone Pine tree ring logs, which have been shown to be inaccurate yardsticks for temperature. They indicate rainfall, not temperature.

Little dumb ass, don't you realize that many, many different proxies have been used in the various studies? And the result is basically the same hockey stick graph. Of course you are just going to say that it is all a conspiracy among all them thar pointy headed commie scientists from all those different nations.

 

[bripat9643]

http://climateknowledge.org/figures...0_Documents/Nature_News_Hockey_Stick_2006.pdf

In its report, released on 22 June, the NAS committee more-or-less endorses the work behind the graph. But it criticizes the way that the plot was used to publicize climatechange concerns. And it leaves open big questions about whether researchers should be obliged to make their data available (see ‘Plotting a course’).

“We roughly agree with the substance of their findings,” says Gerald North, the committee’s chair and a climate scientist at Texas A&M University in College Station. In particular, he says, the committee has a “high level of confidence” that the second half of the twentieth century was warmer than any other period in the past four centuries. But, he adds, claims for the earlier period covered by the study, from AD 900 to 1600, are less certain. This earlier period is particularly important because global warming sceptics claim that the current warming trend is a rebound from a ‘little ice age’ around 1600. Overall, the committee thought the temperature reconstructions from that era had only a two-to-one chance of being right.

Now you see why lying little bastards like Bripat take things out of context.

What it really said is that the graph is only accurate for the last 400 years. For periods before that it can't be trusted.

No, asshole, what it says is that for periods prior to that it is less accurate. Tell me, do you even have a GED? Because you seem to be totally ignorant of statistics.

And there have been a dozen or more studies that have confirmed the shape of the graph since Dr. Mann did his basic work. That you have not bothered to read any of that work is an indication of your determination to remain ignorant and stupid.

It uses the term "less certain," not less accurate. How much less? It doesn't say. That's another way of saying it could be total bullshit. The periods before 1600 are therefore complete fiction, and those are the only periods of interest.

All those douche bag "studies" use the same discredited methods that Mann used.

 

[bripat9643]

Here is just a small portion of that proof:

The rise and fall of the Hockey Stick

Eventually a US senate committee of inquiry was set up under the chairmanship of Edward Wegman a highly respected Professor of mathematics and statistics and in 2006 his report was published. You can download it here.

Oh yeah, brittlepatsy, here's the actual facts on your fraudulent 'Wegman Report' that you denier cult dingbats take as gospel....

Wegman Report
RationalWiki
The Wegman Report (14 July, 2006) (officially the Committee on Energy and Commerce Report) was a report on the "hockey stick" graph produced by a commission headed by statistician Edward Wegman. It is now remembered as the epitome of global warming denier stupidity, in terms of both its factual errors and its college freshman-level plagiarism from textbooks and Wikipedia.

Keep going!
After notorious deniers Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published a paper in Geophysical Research Letters criticizing Michael Mann et al.'s reconstruction of global temperatures that led to the hockey stick graph, the scientific community reconfirmed Mann's analysis with similar data from independent studies.[1] The denier community would not stand for this absurd science stuff, so they decided to launch a second attack on the hockey stick.

In 2006, Republican US Representatives Joe Barton and Ed Whitfield commissioned Wegman to produce a study discrediting the hockey stick. Totally ignoring any of the independent lines of research backing up Mann, Wegman went back and used McIntyre and McKitrick's shoddy models (coloquially referred to as "M&M," candies included) to claim that Mann had just made up the hockey stick. By ignoring the other lines of research and using algorithms that were intended to cherry-pick data to spit out a non-hockey stick shaped graph, Wegman produced a "refutation" of Mann's work. Of course, Wegman never submitted his "research" for peer review. The report went straight to the desks of Barton and Whitfield without any vetting besides some "review" by Wegman's colleagues. The Wegman Report was then used as "definitive evidence" by Republicans in Climategate hearings that Mann and his colleagues were guilty of scientific fraud. Never mind that Wegman's work had already been debunked by this point.

In November of 2010, the story broke that a good deal of the report had been copy-pasted from Wikipedia and some old textbooks, one of which was authored by Mann's colleague Raymond Bradley.[2] George Mason University dragged its feet in investigating charges of plagiarism and misconduct. The delay led to a scathing editorial in Nature stating that "long misconduct investigations do not serve anyone, except perhaps university public relations departments that might hope everyone will have forgotten about a case by the time it wraps up."[3]

No more gas
In 2008, Wegman submitted a modified version of the report to the journal Computational Statistics and Data Analysis. In an egregious case of "pal review," the journal's editor accepted the paper six days after submission, apparently on his own say-so without sending it out for standard peer review. The modified version dropped the climate-related material, leaving only a "social network analysis." The goal of this "analysis" seemed to be to reveal the secret warmist cabal controlling climate science. In reality, all it revealed was that Mann had written other papers with his co-authors.

Wegman apparently forgot that there are things you can get away with in politics that will get you in very hot water in the scientific world, one of those being to copy-and-paste without attribution. In 2011, the journal retracted the paper and apologized for not having detected the plagiarism earlier.[4][5][6] Keeping it classy, Wegman blamed this cock-up on one of his grad students.[7]

so your entire criticism of the Wegman report is that some of it was plagiarized? Was there any claim that the plagiarized portion was incorrect?

Here we have a well know example of a classic leftwing propaganda technique: Find some small piece of an argument to attack, and then harp on that piece with a megaphone. You totally ignore the big issue of whether the larger argument is correct.

Furthermore, there's the National Academy of Sciences report:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: There He Goes Again: Mann Claims His Hockey Stick was Affirmed by the NAS

1. The NAS indicated that the hockey stick method systematically underestimated the uncertainties in the data (p. 107).

2. In subtle wording, the NAS agreed with the M&M assertion that the hockey stick had no statistical significance, and was no more informative about the distant past than a table of random numbers. The NAS found that Mann's methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless. Mann’s data set does not have enough information to verify its ‘skill’ at resolving the past, and has such wide uncertainty bounds as to be no better than the simple mean of the data (p. 91). M&M said that the appearance of significance was created by ignoring all but one type of test score, thereby failing to quantify all the relevant uncertainties. The NAS agreed (p. 110), but, again, did so in subtle wording.

3. M&M argued that the hockey stick relied for its shape on the inclusion of a small set of invalid proxy data (called bristlecone, or “strip-bark” records). If they are removed, the conclusion that the 20th century is unusually warm compared to the pre-1450 interval is reversed. Hence the conclusion of unique late 20th century warmth is not robust—in other word it does not hold up under minor variations in data or methods. The NAS panel agreed, saying Mann’s results are “strongly dependent” on the strip-bark data (pp. 106-107), and they went further, warning that strip-bark data should not be used in this type of research (p. 50).

4. The NAS said " Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions", i.e. produce hockey sticks from baseball statistics, telephone book numbers, and monte carlo random numbers.

5. The NAS said Mann downplayed the "uncertainties of the published reconstructions...Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.’​

And after all of that, stated that Mann's graph was essentially the same as the one derived after all the corrections.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html

Academy affirms hockey-stick graph
Geoff Brumfiel

Topof page
Abstract
But it criticizes the way the controversial climate result was used.

It's probably the most politicized graph in science — an icon of the case for climate change to some, and of flawed science in the service of that case to others — and it has coloured the climate-change debate for nearly a decade. Now the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has weighed in with a report on the ‘hockey-stick’ plot, which it hopes will finally lay the controversy to rest.

The one derived after all the corrections is still a fraud. It still uses principle component analysis incorrectly and it still includes Bristle cone Pine tree ring logs, which have been shown to be inaccurate yardsticks for temperature. They indicate rainfall, not temperature.

Little dumb ass, don't you realize that many, many different proxies have been used in the various studies? And the result is basically the same hockey stick graph. Of course you are just going to say that it is all a conspiracy among all them thar pointy headed commie scientists from all those different nations.

Actually, a lot of the tree ring records are common to all these so-called "studies." They all include the Bristle cone pine records, if my memory is not mistaken. McIntyre deconstructs them all on his web site.

 

[bripat9643]

bripat and crick did a good job of putting information out on the Wegman and NAS reports, as I have done in the past.

one thing I would like to point out is that the IPCC has guidelines as to what types of papers can be inserted into the reports, specifically cut off dates so that peer reviewed papers can only be used if they have been accepted for publication. these rules have been broken repeatedly, in all the reports.

eg. McIntyre and McKittrick's paper criticizing the Hockeystick was dismissed by citing Amman and Wahl's papers supporting Mann. unfortunately they did not pass review and were not published. embarrassing.

this was a major issue, and precipitated the climategate email release. the emails relating to AR4 and the skullduggery used to deny McIntyre access to information were the reason Jones put out the 'delete all emails' email, in defiance to FOI. they have never been released

Well Ian, that is about the dumbest statement I have seen from you.

I marvel at your conceit that you understand science. All you do is insult everyone who posts the proof that you're wrong. That's your idea of a scientific argument.

 

[Papageorgio]

Remember when liberals were all about debate and questioning? Against banning, always open to new ideas. Now they are intolerant to other views or ideas. No questioning just following what the dear leaders say. This is the Regressive Left.

All about debate? Have you seen some of the debates on this forum? Avid deniers have screwed up ideas of the laws of physics and don't believe in basic tenets like quantum mechanics, and radiation physics. It is hard to be open to ideas of those who are anti-science and can only guess what science actually is. They put scientific words in sentences that make absolutely no sense. Many of the more thoughtful folks here have kept up long patient dialogues with those who can't understand even simple scientific issues. Debating of that kind is impossible.

If it was only on this board I would not say a thing. You already have settled the debate in your mind, you aren't open to any discussion as you already labeled deniers as screwed up. You don't want debate, you want silence.

We have presented the scientists findings and evidence. People like you have presented lies and such perverted versions of chemistry and physics that are completely self contradictory and completely laughable.

You want to present some scientific evidence that shows that increasing the GHGs in the atmosphere is not going to warm it, be my guest. But make damned sure it will pass the inspection of basic chemistry and physics. Otherwise you are just going to get derision, and be labeled as another fool.

I haven't presented anything, either way. I question both sides as I follow the money.

Learn how comprehend what you read. Idiot!

 

[Crick]

Remember when liberals were all about debate and questioning? Against banning, always open to new ideas. Now they are intolerant to other views or ideas. No questioning just following what the dear leaders say. This is the Regressive Left.

All about debate? Have you seen some of the debates on this forum? Avid deniers have screwed up ideas of the laws of physics and don't believe in basic tenets like quantum mechanics, and radiation physics. It is hard to be open to ideas of those who are anti-science and can only guess what science actually is. They put scientific words in sentences that make absolutely no sense. Many of the more thoughtful folks here have kept up long patient dialogues with those who can't understand even simple scientific issues. Debating of that kind is impossible.

If it was only on this board I would not say a thing. You already have settled the debate in your mind, you aren't open to any discussion as you already labeled deniers as screwed up. You don't want debate, you want silence.

We have presented the scientists findings and evidence. People like you have presented lies and such perverted versions of chemistry and physics that are completely self contradictory and completely laughable.

You want to present some scientific evidence that shows that increasing the GHGs in the atmosphere is not going to warm it, be my guest. But make damned sure it will pass the inspection of basic chemistry and physics. Otherwise you are just going to get derision, and be labeled as another fool.

BINGO!

 

[IanC]

here is the original Hockeystick graph. the one that was prominently placed in TAR IPCC six times, and sent to every Canadian household to shore up support for Kyoto. a slow steady decline, with no MWP or LIA, for 900 of the thousand years and a sudden spike in the twentieth century. is history wrong?

'hide the decline' and 'Mike's Nature trick' refers to trimming off the bits that 'dilute the message' and adding in unacknowledged instrumental data to exaggerate and change the shape.

phil jones email-

...I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH lan
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 wit
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

which turns

into this

Amazing!! this was considered acceptable science!

 

[jc456]

I have posted this picture for you four times now. This is a DIRECT MEASUREMENT OF BACK RADIATION. Yet you keep insisting that no evidence exists of back radiation. Are you stupid or just a liar?

dude, it's a picture. Where is it from, and what was the test? this tells us absolutely nothing.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The Media Is Ignoring The Most Important Part Of Stephen Hawking’s Comments On Trump

A lot of people consider astrophysicist Stephen Hawking to be the smartest man in the world. His research and theories have explained some of the deepest mysteries of time and space.

So it’s understandable why, on Tuesday, people sort of freaked out when Hawking said there was one thing he could not explain: The popularity of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

“I can’t,” Hawking responded, when asked to explain Trump’s rise as part of an exclusive interview with British news station ITV News. “He is a demagogue, who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator.”

But here’s the thing: in that same interview, Hawking also said he didn’t believe Trump was the greatest threat facing America, or even the world. The greatest threat, he said, is human-caused climate change.

“A more immediate danger is runaway climate change,” Hawking said. “A rise in ocean temperature would melt the ice-caps, and cause a release of large amounts of carbon dioxide from the ocean floor. Both effects could make our climate like that of Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees.”

The Media Is Ignoring The Most Important Part Of Stephen Hawking’s Comments On Trump

 

[Crick]

I have posted this picture for you four times now. This is a DIRECT MEASUREMENT OF BACK RADIATION. Yet you keep insisting that no evidence exists of back radiation. Are you stupid or just a liar?

dude, it's a picture. Where is it from, and what was the test? this tells us absolutely nothing.

As you have been informed repeatedly, it is the directly measured spectrum of atmospheric back radiation from Evans and Puckrin (2006). This is the radiative energy you claim does not exist. Go to this link [P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)] and click on the hypertext that says "Extended abstract".

 

[mamooth]

'hide the decline' and 'Mike's Nature trick' refers to trimming off the bits that 'dilute the message' and adding in unacknowledged instrumental data to exaggerate and change the shape.

Poor Ian. Nobody believes his fairy tales, but he keeps trying. A devoted cultist, that one.

Look at him, still proudly backing all of DearLeaderMcIntyre's frauds, still pushing his list of conspiracy theories. He's a loyal soldier of the CultofMcIntyre, I'll give him that.