Why do so many people deny climate change

[itfitzme]

"The mean relative temperature history of the earth (blue, cool; red, warm) over the past two millennia - adapted from Loehle and McCulloch (2008) - highlighting the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA), together with a concomitant history of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration (green)."

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N10/EDIT.php

 

[itfitzme]

"So what Mann is doing is combing proxy temperatures with actual temperatures. Anyone knowledgeable in statistics would tell you that such a procedure is totally illegitimate."

Well, I am knowledgeble in statistics.

So explain how it is illegitimate?

 

[itfitzme]

Patrick, given that you're an expert on these matters, how would you join a proxy dataset of with an instrumented dataset? What's the proper technique that those knowledgeable in statistics would agree was legitimate?

You don't. If you display them on the same chart, then you damn well better put that information on the chart. Failure to do so is deliberate deception.

"Millennial temperature reconstruction. (top) NH reconstruction (solid) and raw data (dotted) from AD 1000 1998. Smoother version of NH series (thick solid), linear trend from AD 1000-1850 (dot dashed) and two standard error limits (shaded) are also shown."

I see two seperate data sets, "instrumental" and "reconstruction".

Paleo Pubs - Mann et al, 1999

 

[itfitzme]

So-Called Medieval Warm Period Not So Warm After All

God buy you are stupid. One paper looking at one small chain of islands overturns hundreds of papers that find that the MWP was warmer and global in your mind?

Africa:
Level 1 Studies:
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science

Level 2 Studies:
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science

Level 3 Studies:
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science


Antarctica
Level 2 Studies:
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science

Level 3 Studies:
CO2 Science


Asia
Level 1 Studies:
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science

Should I continue? I can if you like. Study after study after study in every region of the globe finding that the MWP was warmer than the present and global in nature. How many peer reviewed papers published in respected journals would it take to make you believe that mann missed the mark and was incorrect in his findings. Name a number.

CO2 Science

"Description
D'Arrigo et al. (2006) assembled mostly tree-ring width (but some density) data from living and subfossil wood of coniferous tree species found at 66 high-elevation and latitudinal treeline North American and Eurasian sites, after which they analyzed the data via the Regional Curve Standardization detrending technique to reconstruct a history of annual temperature for the Northern Hemisphere between 20 and 90°N for the period AD 713-1995. In comparing the temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP, 950-1100 A.D.) with those of the Current Warm Period (CWP), based on the six longest chronologies they analyzed, they concluded that "the recent period does not look particularly warmer compared to the MWP." However, the mean of the six series did depict a warmer CWP; but they describe this relationship as "a bias/artifact in the full RCS reconstruction where the MWP, because it is expressed at different times in the six long records, is 'averaged out' (i.e., flattened) compared to the recent period which shows a much more globally consistent signal." Nevertheless, the data are what they are; and for the period covered only by the proxy data (so that "apples and oranges" are not compared), they found that peak twentieth century warmth (which occurred between 1937 and 1946) exceeded peak MWP warmth by 0.29°C."


CO2 Science

"Description
The authors present a temperature history of the Northern Hemisphere that spans the past two millennia. It was produced from two different sources of paleoclimatic data: tree-rings, which capture very high frequency climate variations, and lake and ocean sediments, which Moberg et al. say "provide climate information at multicentennial timescales that may not be captured by tree-ring data." Using data provided by the authors, we have produced a graph of average decadal temperature anomalies, shown below, in which the Medieval Warm Period peaks just prior to AD 900 and is strongly expressed between about AD 650 and 1250. Peak temperatures during this time period are about 0.22°C higher than those at the end of the Moberg et al. record. Instrumental data suggest significant subsequent warming; but the directly-measured temperatures cannot be validly compared with the reconstructed ones. Hence, it is not possible to determine if current temperatures have eclipsed those of a thousand years ago or whether they still fall below them; and the fairest thing to do, in our estimation, is to tentatively conclude (for this data set only) that the peak temperatures of both periods are approximately equivalent

What to think...what to think....hmmm.....

 

[itfitzme]

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.’

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

"Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years"

Statement of

Gerald R. North, Ph.D.
Chairman, Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years
Division on Earth and Life Studies
National Research Council /National Academy of Sciences
The National Academies
and
Distinguished Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Texas A&M University
before the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Energy and Commerce
U.S. House of Representatives

July 19, 2006

"Let me summarize five key conclusions we reached after reviewing the evidence:

1. The instrumentally measured warming of about 1°F during the 20th century is also reflected in borehole temperature measurements, the retreat of glaciers, and other observational evidence, and can be simulated with climate models.

2. Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700.

3. It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.

4. Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.

5. Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900."

The link to the actual paper is broken.

 

[itfitzme]

Be specific about what you claim that he was wrong about.

The hockey stick and all that it has led to.

His paper is in a very very small minority that claim the MWP wasn't warmer than the present and global in nature.

Answer the question you f'ing coward.....how many peer reviewed papers published in respected journals would it take to convince you that the work that led to the hockey stick was wrong?

It's impossible to take you seriouly while you still present

"Oh, the fundamental mechanism of the second law is statistics. - Mamooth"

as if it means something.

 

[bripat9643]

In other words, you avoid science. You maintain ignorance so you can avoid solving the problem.

Good for conservatives but a failure for those building a better future.

You're a pathetic brainwashed drone. labeling everything you believe "science" doesn't make it so.

I don't define science, it defines me. I don't call it science unless I know it is. You are unequipped to make that call.

science defines you to be a low grade moron.

 

[bripat9643]

Who?

The state and federal government. He's also getting money from "Earth in the balance" and from the sale of CurrentTV. In other words, he's making a fortune off the anthropogenic global warming scam.

The evidence is?

He's a professor at a public university. Where do you think his salary comes from? As for the other two things, you'll have to ask uncensored about that. He submitted the information.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Demonstrably one of the best Presidents we've had.

What you are demonstrating is why conservatives need to be, and are being, and will continue to be, persona non grata in Washington.

They keep coming out with new meds that could help with those issues you have.

Usually you don't display your toxic personality until the end of the day.

 

[bripat9643]

The state and federal government. He's also getting money from "Earth in the balance" and from the sale of CurrentTV. In other words, he's making a fortune off the anthropogenic global warming scam.

The evidence is?

Here's what Wikipedia says about Current.

Current TV was an American television channel from August 1, 2005 to August 20, 2013. Al Gore, Joel Hyatt, and Ronald Burkle each held a sizable stake in Current, and Comcast and DirecTV each held a smaller stake.[1]

On January 2, 2013, it was announced that Current was sold by Gore and Hyatt to Qatar-based broadcaster Al Jazeera Media Network,[2][3][1] which stated that it planned on shutting down the Current TV channel, retaining its off-air staff and launching a new New York-based channel called Al Jazeera America using Current's distribution network.[4] It also planned on scrapping the channel's programming lineup and brand.[5]

No mention of Mann. He gets paid by the state because he works for the state. He gets paid for his book because he wrote it.

No mention anywhere of getting paid by the federal government.

They aren't going to list every shareholder, numbnuts. The state is government. Furthermore, many students pay their tuition with student aid - which are mostly state and federal programs. Furthermore, Mann gets research grants from the federal government.

 

[flacaltenn]

Each and every one lists the title of the study, the authors, and the journal in which it was punished and the date or issue number.

Then it should have been trivial for them to show or link to the actual study. They deliberately did not do that. Instead, they wrote up fake abstracts and tried to pass them off as the actual abstracts.

It's not complicated. Ethical people don't write up fake abstracts and then try to pass them off as the real abstracts. Ethical people will show the actual abstract of the paper, and not make up a fake one. They will make every effort to show or link to the actual paper, instead of conveniently forgetting to do so and then telling everyone what it really said.

Your heroes are bald-face liars, and you fully approve. 'Nuff said. For your cult, the ends always justify the means.

(And Flac, declaring you did the research and then copying a faked abstract from the website isn't doing wonders for your credibility either.)

Nope sorry.. Your misconception stems from the fact that you do not comprehend the realities of doing 2000 yr proxy temp. studies.. You don't write papers on that topic just to win a bet on the MWPeriod. Thus the paper ABSTRACTS would not provide the relevent information for the MetaStudy we are discussing.

What the authors did is to SUMMARIZE the content of the papers with only the parts RELEVENT to the MWperiod.. This is CLEARLY indicated as the summary says "DESCRIPTION" --- not "ABSTRACT"..

As I said --- I have tracked 6 or 8 of them..
1) They all exist.
2) The "descriptions" were very accurate.
3) I have institutional access to some of the paywalls and have read the papers.

Why not supply the links?
Because of Capitalism.. 85% of those papers are behind paywalls. The one I cited can be found thru the Wiley on-line library.. Costs $35 for stupid people to retrieve.

There is no direct OPEN SOURCE links for most of them.
You've got nothing but whining.. Go pay some money and find me ONE or TWO "Descriptions" that are wrong.. I have yet to find that.

 

[itfitzme]

Patrick, given that you're an expert on these matters, how would you join a proxy dataset of with an instrumented dataset? What's the proper technique that those knowledgeable in statistics would agree was legitimate?

To begin with, the current instrumented data set would take precidence over the proxy data.

 

[flacaltenn]

"The mean relative temperature history of the earth (blue, cool; red, warm) over the past two millennia - adapted from Loehle and McCulloch (2008) - highlighting the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA), together with a concomitant history of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration (green)."

CO2 Science

Here's the problem chief.... Nobody in their right mind should be reconstructing GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURES from a smattering of temp. proxies in the 11th Century. That would be comedy central.. To have ONE or TWO readings from Argentina? To have virtually NO COVERAGE of the ocean surface which is 70% of the Globe surface?

ARE YOU NUTS??? You're gonna shove a Global Average in my face (which BTW consists of nothing but tree rings, snail shells, ice cores, mud isotopes, and mollusk bore holes == not thermometers!!!!) from poorly sampled and VARIANT sources of proxy and expect me to eat that??

On top of that --- you want me to accept that ON PARITY with the modern day temp. record with no remaining biases, errors, or uncertainties stated??

Best we can do --- is to sum up the HUNDREDS of proxy studies done around the world and read the results for the period in question.. When you do that --- you find out how much actual evidence of a MWP Global Event had to be ignored to make the Mann stick up his ass. They are what they are.. Trying to PRETEND you can divine a "global average" from them --- is just comical..

 

[itfitzme]

"The mean relative temperature history of the earth (blue, cool; red, warm) over the past two millennia - adapted from Loehle and McCulloch (2008) - highlighting the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA), together with a concomitant history of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration (green)."

CO2 Science

Here's the problem chief.... Nobody in their right mind should be reconstructing GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURES from a smattering of temp. proxies in the 11th Century. That would be comedy central.. To have ONE or TWO readings from Argentina? To have virtually NO COVERAGE of the ocean surface which is 70% of the Globe surface?

ARE YOU NUTS??? You're gonna shove a Global Average in my face (which BTW consists of nothing but tree rings, snail shells, ice cores, mud isotopes, and mollusk bore holes == not thermometers!!!!) from poorly sampled and VARIANT sources of proxy and expect me to eat that??

On top of that --- you want me to accept that ON PARITY with the modern day temp. record with no remaining biases, errors, or uncertainties stated??

Best we can do --- is to sum up the HUNDREDS of proxy studies done around the world and read the results for the period in question.. When you do that --- you find out how much actual evidence of a MWP Global Event had to be ignored to make the Mann stick up his ass. They are what they are.. Trying to PRETEND you can divine a "global average" from them --- is just comical..

"Nobody in their right mind should be reconstructing GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURES from a smattering of temp. proxies in the 11th Century."

Your science and statistics education is from what university?

Really, here is a problem with your reasoning. There are no instrumental records for MWP, only proxy data. So, given that you have nothing to say. You can't say anything about the temp record before the current period because you have no data that you consider valid. So why are you posting your opinion about a subject for which you have to data upon which to base an opinion? Is that your thing, having opinions based on nothing?

 

[flacaltenn]

"The mean relative temperature history of the earth (blue, cool; red, warm) over the past two millennia - adapted from Loehle and McCulloch (2008) - highlighting the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA), together with a concomitant history of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration (green)."

CO2 Science

Here's the problem chief.... Nobody in their right mind should be reconstructing GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURES from a smattering of temp. proxies in the 11th Century. That would be comedy central.. To have ONE or TWO readings from Argentina? To have virtually NO COVERAGE of the ocean surface which is 70% of the Globe surface?

ARE YOU NUTS??? You're gonna shove a Global Average in my face (which BTW consists of nothing but tree rings, snail shells, ice cores, mud isotopes, and mollusk bore holes == not thermometers!!!!) from poorly sampled and VARIANT sources of proxy and expect me to eat that??

On top of that --- you want me to accept that ON PARITY with the modern day temp. record with no remaining biases, errors, or uncertainties stated??

Best we can do --- is to sum up the HUNDREDS of proxy studies done around the world and read the results for the period in question.. When you do that --- you find out how much actual evidence of a MWP Global Event had to be ignored to make the Mann stick up his ass. They are what they are.. Trying to PRETEND you can divine a "global average" from them --- is just comical..

"Nobody in their right mind should be reconstructing GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURES from a smattering of temp. proxies in the 11th Century."

Your science and statistics education is from what university?

Really, here is a problem with your reasoning. There are no instrumental records for MWP, only proxy data. So, given that you have nothing to say. You can't say anything about the temp record before the current period because you have no data that you consider valid. So why are you posting your opinion about a subject for which you have to data upon which to base an opinion? Is that your thing, having opinions based on nothing?

Three different universities actually...

I didn't say we have NOTHING.. I SAID --- we don't have nearly enough COHERENT data to form a "Global Average".. THat act is just performed for the peons..

You can look at the pile of various wood, mud, bugs, and shit and SEE that there IS evidence for a GLOBAL event in the 10th 11th centuries... And make some educated guesses about LOCAL TEMPERATURES taken at the sight of the proxies.

But don't make me laugh with a "global average" graph that includes the common era.. Especially not on a graph graduated in TENTHS of a degree...

I give you my word.. If there is ever a "problem with my reasoning" --- I will apply for disability the next day...

 

[Abraham3]

If you don't want to accept that graph, don't accept that graph. There was no MWP. There was no LIA. Climate changes didn't begin till the invention and widespread use of the thermometer. Whatever temperature the first thermometer read was the constant temperature of the Earth for the prior 4.5 billion years.

Right?

Right.

Did you notice the CO2 line running in parallel with IfItzMe's graphic? Neither the MWP nor the LIA were associated with any dramatic changes in CO2, either as cause or effect. Yet these days we have a monstrous increase. Do you still think these periods have anything in common?

 

[westwall]

If you don't want to accept that graph, don't accept that graph. There was no MWP. There was no LIA. Climate changes didn't begin till the invention and widespread use of the thermometer. Whatever temperature the first thermometer read was the constant temperature of the Earth for the prior 4.5 billion years.

Right?

Right.

Did you notice the CO2 line running in parallel with IfItzMe's graphic? Neither the MWP nor the LIA were associated with any dramatic changes in CO2, either as cause or effect. Yet these days we have a monstrous increase. Do you still think these periods have anything in common?

Quick look at the Vostock Ice core data. See that lag in time (400 to 800 years) between the onset of warming and the rise in CO2, yes, that one right there. How long ago was the MWP? Oh yeah, it ended about 800 years ago. Funny that. Looks like another cause of the current CO2 rise is the MWP of 800 years ago. The Vostock ice core data supports that theory...Not yours though

 

[IanC]

Some temp proxies, especially ones used by Mann and Briffa, show that temps dropped in the second half of the 20th century. Those climate scientists decided to truncate the series so that it would not spoil the effect, hence 'hide the decline'.

Chosing and manipulating proxies for the express purpose of supporting a preformed conclusion is not science, not good science anyways.

 

[bripat9643]

Patrick, given that you're an expert on these matters, how would you join a proxy dataset of with an instrumented dataset? What's the proper technique that those knowledgeable in statistics would agree was legitimate?

You don't. If you display them on the same chart, then you damn well better put that information on the chart. Failure to do so is deliberate deception.

"Millennial temperature reconstruction. (top) NH reconstruction (solid) and raw data (dotted) from AD 1000 1998. Smoother version of NH series (thick solid), linear trend from AD 1000-1850 (dot dashed) and two standard error limits (shaded) are also shown."

I see two seperate data sets, "instrumental" and "reconstruction".

Paleo Pubs - Mann et al, 1999

Where do you see that noted on this graph?

 

[bripat9643]

Patrick, given that you're an expert on these matters, how would you join a proxy dataset of with an instrumented dataset? What's the proper technique that those knowledgeable in statistics would agree was legitimate?

To begin with, the current instrumented data set would take precidence over the proxy data.

It's two difference kind of data. For example, the instrumental data has a resolution of one day, at the highest. The proxy data has a resolution of one year, at the lowest, and it's probably not even that low.