Why do so many people deny climate change

[bripat9643]

Thanks for saving me the trouble of doing that.

He doesn't. The NAS confirmed that his criticism of the Hockey Stick graph were valid.

I'm sure the CultOfMcIntyre told you that, and thus you believe it with all your heart. It's what cultists do. However, your cult lied to you. Let's check out what actually happened, as opposed to denialist cult revisionist history.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/science/22cnd-climate.html?_r=0
---
The panel said that a statistical method used in the 1999 study was not the best and that some uncertainties in the work "have been underestimated," and it particularly challenged the authors' conclusion that the decade of the 1990's was probably the warmest in a millennium.

But in a 155-page report, the 12-member panel convened by the National Academies said "an array of evidence" supported the main thrust of the paper. Disputes over details, it said, reflected the normal intellectual clash that takes place as science tests new approaches to old questions.
---

Now, if you had any self-respect, you'd call your cult leaders to the carpet, and demand to know why they lied to you. After all, now you're left humiliated and twisting in the wind. You should be angry about that. Alas, I don't think you have the fortitude to demand honesty. Instead, you're going to crawl back to your cult and demand more lies.

And SSDD? Why did you lie and say the NAS refuted Mann, when the exact opposite happened? You got some 'splainin to do as well. Were you just a dupe like Bri, or were you being deliberately dishonest?

You are the liar around here and everyone knows it.

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

2. 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).

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.’

A subsequent House Energy and Commerce Committee report chaired by Edward Wegman totally destroyed the credibility of the ‘hockey stick’.

CHAIRMAN BARTON: Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

DR. NORTH [Head of the NAS panel]: No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

DR. BLOOMFIELD [Head of the Royal Statistical Society]: Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

WALLACE [of the American Statistical Association]: ‘the two reports [Wegman's and NAS] were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.’

 

[mamooth]

No I don't, but as I said, any paper that has referenced mann et al and taken his findings to be sound has been corrupted by that work. You don't seem to be able to grasp what an error cascade is or how it gets initiated, or how terribly it can damage an entire field of study.

Oh, please tell us about the error cascade. This ought to be informatve, as far as revealing your thought processes, the way you imagine that the science works.

Since you are clearly to stupid to follow the links I have provided to the 45 papers in this conversation alone, I guess you will just have to take my word for it. ......idiot.

No, you copied a cherrypicked list of 45 papers, many of which didn't even say that the MWP in that spot was warmer than current conditions.

Honest people don't cherrypick only the spots that support them and then call it the truth. Honest people would use the global averages. And you won't do that, solely because the results aren't to your liking.

 

[bripat9643]

You are the liar around here and everyone knows it.

So instead of looking at the whole report and the conclusions, you're still cherrypicking snippets and ignoring the parts that directly contradict you. Because it's all you can ever do.

Good luck with that. You've certainly convinced the rest of the choir. If you keep shouting the same things over and over, maybe you can convince someone outside the cult. But probably not.

When a report says that his methods were biased and flawed, and his data comes from inappropriate sources, and that the skill of the method to predict was not signifigantly different from zero, what else do you need? It is you who is cherry picking around the pertinent facts of the report and that is that his work was wrong.

Of course, most of the members of the NAS are sympathetic to Mann and they provided plenty of sugar coating to make it appear they weren't giving Mann a giant spanking.

 

[mamooth]

You two cultists have fun, now. You've definitely convinced each other. Your cult non-reality bubble remains intact.

Say, you two should offer your expert testimony in the Mann case! One wonders why the defense isn't using the "attack Mann" tactic, if it's so valid.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Only a brainwashed troll would believe what Wikipedia says. I quoted excerpts from the report. Those excerpts clash decidedly with the way Wikipedia describes them. Everyone with a brain knows that AGW cult members have edited all the entries in Wikipedia related to AGW to conform with warmist dogma.

You obviously prefer to consult dogma rather than go to original sources and learn the facts for yourself. Why don't you quote from the original report the material that backs up Wikipedias account of the issue?

I all fairness, I find Wikipedia to be about 99% accurate. BUT the bias of the author does influence the post.

 

[PMZ]

You are the liar around here and everyone knows it.

So instead of looking at the whole report and the conclusions, you're still cherrypicking snippets and ignoring the parts that directly contradict you. Because it's all you can ever do.

Good luck with that. You've certainly convinced the rest of the choir. If you keep shouting the same things over and over, maybe you can convince someone outside the cult. But probably not.

When a report says that his methods were biased and flawed, and his data comes from inappropriate sources, and that the skill of the method to predict was not signifigantly different from zero, what else do you need? It is you who is cherry picking around the pertinent facts of the report and that is that his work was wrong.

Google ''science climate change position''. There are nearly endless publications pointing out that your position is unsupported.

I would expect that virtually every scientific paper over a year or so old has been upgraded by more advanced work. That’s the nature of science. The denier strategy, which is a purely political maneuver, is to take bodies of work like Mann's, find some detail for which they can either manufacture or imply is somehow questionable, then impune all of his work as either questionable, or unsound.

So your role in the big oil funded denier army is as a character assassin. Typical politics, but completely unacceptable science.

The good news for you, which is the bad news for the world, is that you have cost them about 15 years of progress. The bad news for you, which is the good news for the world, is that your effort has been completely exposed and discredited.
You thought that you could kill science but the opposite happened.

 

[SSDD]

No, you copied a cherrypicked list of 45 papers, many of which didn't even say that the MWP in that spot was warmer than current conditions.

OK. You name a region in the world and I will provide you with published, peer reviewed papers finding that the MWP was as warm or warmer than the present. The only reason I didn't post 100 instead of 45 was that I knew that pmz wouldn't look at any. Clearly, you didn't either.


Go go ahead and name a region. And you can answer the question as well....how many peer reviewed papers published in respectable journals would it take to convince you that mann was wrong?

 

[SSDD]

When a report says that his methods were biased and flawed, and his data comes from inappropriate sources, and that the skill of the method to predict was not signifigantly different from zero, what else do you need? It is you who is cherry picking around the pertinent facts of the report and that is that his work was wrong.

Google ''science climate change position''. There are nearly endless publications pointing out that your position is unsupported.

I would expect that virtually every scientific paper over a year or so old has been upgraded by more advanced work. That’s the nature of science. The denier strategy, which is a purely political maneuver, is to take bodies of work like Mann's, find some detail for which they can either manufacture or imply about that is somehow questionable, then impune all of his work as either questionable, or unsound.

So your role in the big oil funded denier army is as a character assassin. Typical politics, but completely unacceptable science.

The good news for you, which is the bad news for the world, is that you have cost them about 15 years of progress. The bad news for you, which is the good news for the world, is that your effort has been completely exposed and discredited.
You thought that you could kill science but the opposite happened.[/QUOTE]

How many peer reviewed papers published in respectable journals would it take to convince you that mann was wrong? Name a number.

Do you think you could manage a number in a separate thread just for this question?

 

[PMZ]

No, you copied a cherrypicked list of 45 papers, many of which didn't even say that the MWP in that spot was warmer than current conditions.

OK. You name a region in the world and I will provide you with published, peer reviewed papers finding that the MWP was as warm or warmer than the present. The only reason I didn't post 100 instead of 45 was that I knew that pmz wouldn't look at any. Clearly, you didn't either.


Go go ahead and name a region. And you can answer the question as well....how many peer reviewed papers published in respectable journals would it take to convince you that mann was wrong?

The MWP is over. It had and has not a thing to do with today's problem. If you have time and energy to spare, invest it usefully in solving our problems, not the Vikings.

Your political assassination work is over as the world understands what motivates it.

Call 1 800 big oil and ask for a new job.

 

[Uncensored2008]

McIntyre has a masters degree in statistics. However, until he took up and pro-global warming cause,

Don't you mean "the anti-fraud cause?"

Because that's what this is. AGW has many facets, the primitive religious aspect that is the darling of the mindless left. But the greed issue is also huge. There is BIG money in the AGW fraud - the opulent life of scumbags like Michael Mann depends on the anthropogenic element to the changes in climate we saw a couple of decades past.

Government loves the global warming fraud, as a vehicle to curtail civil rights and impose authoritarian controls on the hoi polloi. And there are many looters more than willing to create any answer the customer wants - which defines most of the voodoo practitioners of climatology.

I don't believe he had ever been employed as a statistician. He worked for a mining company. I'm sure he used some math at his job there, but he's not the world's greatest statistician and he has made mistakes. Besides that, on a personal level, he's a jerk.

Everyone makes mistakes. The issue is that those on the voodoo side are engaged in deliberate fraud. Mann is paid to produce a particular result set. He is not a scientist, he is a whore, paid to falsify result sets for a paying customer.

I assume you have your fingers in the pie as well, right? Legitimate research would shut off the stream of grant monies, so the result sets are whatever keeps the cash flowing. AND that, is the truth about climate fraud - and every last one of us here, knows it.

Why do the public not believe you? Because they aren't as stupid as you assume them to be, in your arrogance - they see through you. Your fraud isn't even clever; it's the same one every two bit shaman has used for that last 3 millennium.

 

[bripat9643]

No, you copied a cherrypicked list of 45 papers, many of which didn't even say that the MWP in that spot was warmer than current conditions.

OK. You name a region in the world and I will provide you with published, peer reviewed papers finding that the MWP was as warm or warmer than the present. The only reason I didn't post 100 instead of 45 was that I knew that pmz wouldn't look at any. Clearly, you didn't either.


Go go ahead and name a region. And you can answer the question as well....how many peer reviewed papers published in respectable journals would it take to convince you that mann was wrong?

The MWP is over. It had and has not a thing to do with today's problem. If you have time and energy to spare, invest it usefully in solving our problems, not the Vikings.

Your political assassination work is over as the world understands what motivates it.

Call 1 800 big oil and ask for a new job.

Toto, ignore that man behind the curtain!

 

[SSDD]

The MWP is over. It had and has not a thing to do with today's problem. If you have time and energy to spare, invest it usefully in solving our problems, not the Vikings.

But mann's research found that it was confined to a small region and not aw warm as the present. If he was wrong on that count, then all of the research that has come after which used his work as reference has been corrupted.

So again, how many peer reviewed papers published in respectable journals would it take to convince you that mann was wrong? State a number. Or should we take this to a new thread and show the whole board what a coward you are?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The IPCC on the MWP, from AR4.

6.6 The Last 2,000 Years - AR4 WGI Chapter 6: Palaeoclimate

They also say it's warmer now than during the MWP. But then, the cult can fall back on the vast global socialist conspiracy to fake the data, their all-purpose excuse. It's what makes it so obvious that denialism is unfalsifiable pseudoscience. Don't like the data? Just say it's all forged!

Take a desired conclusion, then nudge the data until it kinda, sorta, somewhat fits..

That thar be wutz the IPCC calls "science."

You are too arrogant in your fraud. You are not different than the Catholic Church at the time of Luther - you rub the noses of the public in your outrageous fraud and corruption.

 

[PMZ]

McIntyre has a masters degree in statistics. However, until he took up and pro-global warming cause,

Don't you mean "the anti-fraud cause?"

Because that's what this is. AGW has many facets, the primitive religious aspect that is the darling of the mindless left. But the greed issue is also huge. There is BIG money in the AGW fraud - the opulent life of scumbags like Michael Mann depends on the anthropogenic element to the changes in climate we saw a couple of decades past.

Government loves the global warming fraud, as a vehicle to curtail civil rights and impose authoritarian controls on the hoi polloi. And there are many looters more than willing to create any answer the customer wants - which defines most of the voodoo practitioners of climatology.

I don't believe he had ever been employed as a statistician. He worked for a mining company. I'm sure he used some math at his job there, but he's not the world's greatest statistician and he has made mistakes. Besides that, on a personal level, he's a jerk.

Everyone makes mistakes. The issue is that those on the voodoo side are engaged in deliberate fraud. Mann is paid to produce a particular result set. He is not a scientist, he is a whore, paid to falsify result sets for a paying customer.

I assume you have your fingers in the pie as well, right? Legitimate research would shut off the stream of grant monies, so the result sets are whatever keeps the cash flowing. AND that, is the truth about climate fraud - and every last one of us here, knows it.

Why do the public not believe you? Because they aren't as stupid as you assume them to be, in your arrogance - they see through you. Your fraud isn't even clever; it's the same one every two bit shaman has used for that last 3 millennium.

We should have a climate change politics thread for you while we discuss climate change science here.

The science world had the temerity to uncover truth unfavorable to big oil. Big oil, in search of the last dollar of profit from their obsolete and toxic product, has invested heavily in purely political character assassination. Conservatives love that work so were easily recruited.

Here's the score.

Science. Has advanced by leaps and bounds mankind's understanding of climate science.

Big oil. Has delayed necessary action by 15 years.

Conservatives. Have been routed and have given up virtually all political relevance and credibility.

Liberals. Have reinforced their long standing reputation as problem solvers for humanity.

Government. Have been given the basis for sound policy.

 

[SSDD]

The IPCC on the MWP, from AR4.

6.6 The Last 2,000 Years - AR4 WGI Chapter 6: Palaeoclimate

They also say it's warmer now than during the MWP. But then, the cult can fall back on the vast global socialist conspiracy to fake the data, their all-purpose excuse. It's what makes it so obvious that denialism is unfalsifiable pseudoscience. Don't like the data? Just say it's all forged!

That was not always the IPCC's position on the MWP. Here is how it has changed as a result of mann's work:

So again, how many published, peer reviewed papers published in respectable journals would it take to convince you that mann was wrong regarding the MWP?

 

[bripat9643]

We should have a climate change politics thread for you while we discuss climate change science here.

The science world had the temerity to uncover truth unfavorable to big oil. Big oil, in search of the last dollar of profit from their obsolete and toxic product, has invested heavily in purely political character assassination. Conservatives love that work so were easily recruited.

Here's the score.

Science. Has advanced by leaps and bounds mankind's understanding of climate science.

Big oil. Has delayed necessary action by 15 years.

Conservatives. Have been routed and have given up virtually all political relevance and credibility.

Liberals. Have reinforced their long standing reputation as problem solvers for humanity.

Government. Have been given the basis for sound policy.

You're totally delusional, PMZ. You know that, don't you?

 

[bripat9643]

You two cultists have fun, now. You've definitely convinced each other. Your cult non-reality bubble remains intact.

Say, you two should offer your expert testimony in the Mann case! One wonders why the defense isn't using the "attack Mann" tactic, if it's so valid.

Are you going to run home to momma crying now?

 

[PMZ]

The IPCC on the MWP, from AR4.

6.6 The Last 2,000 Years - AR4 WGI Chapter 6: Palaeoclimate

They also say it's warmer now than during the MWP. But then, the cult can fall back on the vast global socialist conspiracy to fake the data, their all-purpose excuse. It's what makes it so obvious that denialism is unfalsifiable pseudoscience. Don't like the data? Just say it's all forged!

Take a desired conclusion, then nudge the data until it kinda, sorta, somewhat fits..

That thar be wutz the IPCC calls "science."

You are too arrogant in your fraud. You are not different than the Catholic Church at the time of Luther - you rub the noses of the public in your outrageous fraud and corruption.

Another bought and paid for soldier in the Army of Big Oil.

Ignorance leaves individuals defenseless against manipulation.

In fact, unlike sex whores , they enjoy their work.

Of course they are blind to the ultimate cost.

That giant flushing sound is their movement swirling in the bowl.

 

[PMZ]

The MWP is over. It had and has not a thing to do with today's problem. If you have time and energy to spare, invest it usefully in solving our problems, not the Vikings.

But mann's research found that it was confined to a small region and not aw warm as the present. If he was wrong on that count, then all of the research that has come after which used his work as reference has been corrupted.

So again, how many peer reviewed papers published in respectable journals would it take to convince you that mann was wrong? State a number. Or should we take this to a new thread and show the whole board what a coward you are?

''But mann's research found that it was confined to a small region and not aw warm as the present. If he was wrong on that count,''

Does not in any way lead to

''then all of the research that has come after which used his work as reference has been corrupted.''

Not that you have any way of knowing that.

 

[SSDD]

Another bought and paid for soldier in the Army of Big Oil.

You are the one who is bought and paid for. I keep asking how many peer reviewed papers published in respected journals finding that mann was wrong re: the MWP and you keep dodging the question because you are a f'ing coward who is afraid to admit that you are more interested in politics than the scientific method.

Tell me what would the scientific method say regarding a paper or two who find a slight MPW restricted to a small region vs hundreds that find otherwise. What does the scientific method suggest in such a circumstance?


How many peer reviewed papers published in respected journals would it take to convince you that mann was wrong? Name a number.