Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Dead Tree-Ringer
One of those "independent researchers" who supposedly replicated the Michael Mann hockey stick is a fellow by the name of Shaun Marcott. Yeah, well guess what, people, he's a frigging liar as well. The dude was busted by Stephen McIntyre and this time the offense was changing the dates on the data. Mr. Marcott of course tried to double-down and move the goal posts but he ultimately had to fess up and uttered this little ditty in an E-mail to McIntyre himself - “The 20th-century portion of our
paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered
representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the
basis of any of our conclusions.” So, in other words, the most recent part of the data – the very part in which Marcott, etc. had claimed was proof positive of a dramatic warming was and is garbaaage. Gee, what a huge surprise - NOT!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
.
You Win!!!
There is absolutely, ABSOLUTELY NO climate change! Man has ABSOLUTELY NO affect on the environment. Nothing people have done on and to the earth in the past 100 years can be shown to be under people's control. Every body is a liar!
The scientific method which is the systematic approach to problem solving using trial and error is a total waste of time because it can be shown to have no absolutes.
And all people are liars!
Give me absolutes or give me nothing!!! Good for you.
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
Ema,
You will never even have the possibility of knowing what man's effect on the climate is if the science is built on lies and fabrications.
Climate scientists that want to be taken seriously have only themselves to blame for allowing the rampant amount of garbage to passed off as science.
So many strawmen. a) I've never said that there wasn't climate change. The climate always changes (and has for some 4 billion years now). b) I've never said that human activity doesn't influence the environment. Humans have been putting massive amounts of sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, and particulate matter into the air and massive amounts of plastic into our landfills and oceans and that is obviously a concern. c) I've never even said that man doesn't influence the climate through urbanization, deforestation, and greenhouse gas emissions. The only question here is one of degree and magnitude. I personally feel that things such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, solar cycles, sun spots, planetary perturbations, cloud cover, and cosmic rays are infinitely more important than us having a role in changing the CO2 composition of the earth's atmosphere from 25 thousands of 1% to 40 thousands of 1%. d) As for the scientific method, yes, I respect it. And that's exactly why I hold individuals such as Mann, Hansen, and this Marcott character in such very low regard.
Justin, welcome. How did you find me?
Will: I am ready to cede that the "hockey stick graph" actually has a bit of a double blade(i.e. the "Medieval Warming Period", etc.) I know how highly you think of McIntyre/McKitrick however should we ignore the work of of Huybers(2005) or Wahl/Amman 2007??
These gents suggest that the model purposed by Mann/Bradley is more robust than critics like McIntyre and McKitrick allege. In their work they contest the findings of McIntyre and McKiteridge showing statistical and methodological errors that they made...As far as Marcott: IF what you allege is so than it is unfortunate because a)Yes it was dishonest and b) It was totally unnecessary.There are supposedley two dozen other models that show validity to Mann/Bradley...The "shaft" portion of the hockey stick shows variation in all the other models, which is not unexpected. Moreover, the shaft part of the graph may not be as "flat" as the Mann/Bradley original model. Even so there is a lot of agreement with the Mann/Bradley model despite the shortcomings. Are you going to shoot down everyone else besides Marcott??
Ema: how can Will "win" on the points you describe... when he never argued them?
For example, in just about every post on this he has been defending science, evidence, and the scientific method.
The stuff Mann and the hoaxers do when they specifically suppress large amounts of empirical data that makes their shaky "theories" collapse? Now, that's not science at all.
I'm reminded of Galileo...
Marcus, so, in spite of the fact that he utilized an unreliable proxy, omitted critical data, and completely and totally mischaracterized what Hubert Lamb stated in 1965 (and ignoring completely what the dude had said in 1977), Michael Mann is correcto mundo after all?......Think for a minute what these individuals are asserting here. They're asserting that the earth's climate was essentially static...FOR TEN CENTURIES, and that it was only after the atmospheric CO2 went from 26 thousands of 1% to 40 thousands of 1% that the mayhem finally started (and, please, do keep in mind here that the mayhem is little more than .7-.8 of a degree Celsius over 130 years). Does that really make any sense at all?......And even if Mr. Mann wants to turn it into a numbers game (that whole consensus thing), he kinda loses badly there, too. Baliunas from Harvard did an exhaustive search of the climatalogical journals and literally found hundreds of studies citing documentary evidence, ice cores, glacier advancements and retreats, boreholes, stalagmites, stalactites, tree growth limits, peat cellulose, fossil pollen, pheneologeal evidence, sea floor sediments, tree growth, coral, and lake fossils and they all stated that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age both existed and that the Medieval Warm Period was AT LEAST as warm the current warming (it was actually much warmer than today in Greenland, Iceland, Norway, England, and all throughout the Alps). I'm sorry but Mr. Mann and his friends simply need to give me more.
Les and dmarks, here's a good one. Mr. Mann in his 1998 reconstruction of the climate record actually included 4 data sets from the southern hemisphere in his analysis of the northern hemisphere. The dude doesn't even know his geography.
Marcus, this is an article written by McIntyre pertaining to his ongoing debate (a seemingly cordial one) with Mr. Huybers. It's extraordinarily technical but it's interesting nonetheless (they actually seem to agree more so than disagree) - http://climateaudit.org/2005/09/16/369/
RN: Mann and the hoaxers are indeed like the Vatican of Galileo's day.
Will: This is interesting but understand: I am not trying to vindicate Mann. All I am saying is others have validated some of his work.(don't mean to get cute here, but there is a difference between validation and vindication... Moreover I made a small concession about the "hockey stick" being double bladed...)These replications used a variety of proxies that all climatologists use. What I am learning is there IS debate within the Climatology community. I am trying to take a look at Soon/Baliunas now. There is debate about they did too. In sum, I give you "props" for your knowledge and passionate pursuit of this debate. If I can add something to the discussion, that's my goal.
According to the Wegman Report (which I'm sure that alarmists have castigated as well), these other studies are hardly independent. They are written by the same small circle of authors with only the names being displayed in different orders, and they also reuse many of the same data climate proxy series over and over.......As for this Wahl individual, he was one of the people who Phil Jones E-mailed in attempt to avoid disclosing the data and statistical methods. I'm not entirely certain just how independent he is, either.
It is my opinion that global warming is TOTALLY fake. In other words, I agree more with Emma than with Will.
Well played, Barlowe. I guess that that makes me a centrist on this one.
Post a Comment