Abbott: "Warmer when Jesus was a boy"

[Hawkamania!]

^ And john cook doesn't believe in natural climate changes in history contrary to the scientific data available. BTW spoiler alert: sceptical science is an opinion site.

On manipulating scientific data and making assumptions shown after Climategate to be bordering on science fiction, "the team" is well versed in using those methods. Maybe one day they will actually learn the value of The Scientific Method. Maybe.

Steve McIntyre killed the hockey stick graph by replicating mann's methods and yet global warming evangelists keep using it as if its gospel. The interactive map I posted earlier allows you to click on each graph to show which paper its derived from. Have a look at the sources supporting the Medieval Warm Period for each part of the world.

DJ, do you seriously accept the historical view as per mann's hockey stick chart? And did you contact the ipcc to complain about their chart that Bloods posted earlier?

 

[Doctor Jolly]

^ And john cook doesn't believe in natural climate changes in history contrary to the scientific data available. BTW spoiler alert: sceptical science is an opinion site.

I was only quoting sceptical science because its site seemed to say the exact opposite of what was quoted from it by someone else.

On manipulating scientific data and making assumptions shown after Climategate to be bordering on science fiction, "the team" is well versed in using those methods. Maybe one day they will actually learn the value of The Scientific Method. Maybe.

Steve McIntyre killed the hockey stick graph ....

That is ridiculas hyperbole, that only skews the debate. McIntyre never "killed" the hockey stick graph. He certainly reviewed it, and pointed out some mistakes in the data/method used, but even after the graph was adjusted, it still looked like a hockey stick. In fact...
"More than twelve subsequent scientific papers using various statistical techniques and combinations of proxy records produced reconstructions broadly the same as the original hockey stick graphs, with variations in the extent to which the Medieval Warm Period and subsequent "little ice age" were significant, but almost all of them supported the IPCC conclusion that the warmest decade in 1000 years was probably that at the end of the 20th century. "

 

[medusala]

In fact...
"More than twelve subsequent scientific papers using various statistical techniques and combinations of proxy records produced reconstructions broadly the same as the original hockey stick graphs, with variations in the extent to which the Medieval Warm Period and subsequent "little ice age" were significant, but almost all of them supported the IPCC conclusion that the warmest decade in 1000 years was probably that at the end of the 20th century. "

Not only were nearly all those studies by colleagues but they nearly all used the same faulty proxies ie Yamaska/Bristle Cones that caused the Hockey Stick.

You really havent been following this have you DJ.

 

[Hawkamania!]

but even after the graph was adjusted, it still looked like a hockey stick.

That is a false statement. Just in case you missed it, once again here is the graph with McIntyre's correction (concentrate on the green line).

It doesn't quite look like a hockey stick once you have a good look.

"More than twelve subsequent scientific papers using various statistical techniques and combinations of proxy records produced reconstructions broadly the same as the original hockey stick graphs, with variations in the extent to which the Medieval Warm Period and subsequent "little ice age" were significant, but almost all of them supported the IPCC conclusion that the warmest decade in 1000 years was probably that at the end of the 20th century. "

That quote is from wikipedia which has had its own controversies with a certain william "stoat" connolley editing climate wiki pages to show "consensus" of the un's global warming stance. He removed entries from scientists challenging the un line and locked them out of the articles. If you have a look at the history tab for that entry, you will see evidence of connolley's editing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hockey_stick_controversy&limit=500&action=history

Please see a previous post regarding connolley at wikipedia.
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17725985&postcount=30

At the very least, you could have added a citation to the wiki comment.

If these "scientists" are so sure of their views, why do they spend so much time and effort denigrating the work of others and slandering their reputations. So much for allowing the use of the Scientific Method to defend one's work.

Once again DJ, do you seriously accept the historical view as per mann's hockey stick chart? And did you contact the ipcc to complain about their chart that Bloods posted earlier?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Anyone who uses the "skeptical science" blog as a resource should have a read of this first.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html
Jo Nova did a great piece on the Medieval Warm Period.

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/
This link has an interactive map with graphs showing evidence of the Medieval Warm Period as a global influence (the image is too big to post in a forum).

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

So even with the best attempts to "correct" Mann's data, McIntyre is STILL proving that it is warmer today than at anytime during the MWP? Hmmm, interesting

 

[TheBloods]

So even with the best attempts to "correct" Mann's data, McIntyre is STILL proving that it is warmer today than at anytime during the MWP? Hmmm, interesting

No. It is clearly warmer in 1400 (and other years) than now.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

So even with the best attempts to "correct" Mann's data, McIntyre is STILL proving that it is warmer today than at anytime during the MWP? Hmmm, interesting

Exactly.

In fact the pure McINtyre green line shown in a graph above is the odd one out as far as scientific consensus goes. McIntyre is often termed a crackpot in the climate gate leaked emails, and one would think with good reason.


Thats the sad part about Bloods et al arguments. They pull out a few crackpots as proof, but scientists prefer the more consensus view, and that is that it is warmer today than the MWP.

 

[medusala]

Exactly.

Not exactly, in fact precisely the opposite

If you had followed the debate you would know that the chap wasnt trying to create a temperature history he was merely remarking on the woefulness of what the HS crew did re stats and proxies.

In fact the pure McINtyre green line shown in a graph above is the odd one out as far as scientific consensus goes.

Their criticisms were upheld by the Wegman report. ie the Hockey Stick had major issues re statistics and use of proxies. Take out strip bark and Yamaska and what happens?

No credible person defends the Hockey Stick, only luddite cheerleaders. The sort of people who think a big carbon tax will create net jobs.

 

[shiznit]

Wegman is a fraud and a plagiarist

No. It is clearly warmer in 1400 (and other years) than now.

Clearly you cant read graphs OR statistics.

 

[TheBloods]

Thats the sad part about Bloods et al arguments. They pull out a few crackpots as proof, but scientists prefer the more consensus view, and that is that it is warmer today than the MWP.

No no no no no - don't put me in either camp. It's zealots like you and the other side that prevent any meaningful discussion on this, as so many threads on this board have demonstrated. That you are keen to try to lump me in the diametrically opposite camp because of one issue - not even the most important one - is proof of your zealotry.

 

[TheBloods]

Wegman is a fraud and a plagiarist

Clearly you cant read graphs OR statistics.

It's only warmer now according to McIntyre if the red line extends his green line. The graph doesn't clearly say it does.

 

[shiznit]

No credible person defends the Hockey Stick, only luddite cheerleaders.

Yeah, like the National Academy of Sciences. Luddites, the lot of them.

 

[shiznit]

It's only warmer now according to McIntyre if the red line extends his green line. The graph doesn't clearly say it does.

Maybe we're reading different graphs because the one I'm looking at the red clearly extends well past the peaks of the green by nearly 0.03 of a degree. Oh well, never mind. At any rate, its a load of shit, McIntyre publishes on blogs and not in journals for a reason. The old adage goes; lies, damned lies and statistics.

 

[TheBloods]

Maybe we're reading different graphs because the one I'm looking at the red clearly extends well past the peaks of the green. Oh well, never mind.

Yes, but isn't the green meant to revise the blue and red?

 

[shiznit]

Yes, but isn't the green meant to revise the blue and red?

No, because the red is instrumental data, it isn't in contention, the green is only supposed to supersede the blue because the blue is based on proxies, although it is interesting that by and large McIntyre's smoothing agrees with Mann's during the period where the proxy and the instrumental data intercede. It's only deeper into the past that it diverges so wildly.

 

[mdc]

It's zealots like you and the other side that prevent any meaningful discussion on this, as so many threads on this board have demonstrated.

Precisely.

I have tried to engage with the debate at various times, but it's simply impossible to do so in any meaningful way.

My [strike]dad[/strike] scientist is better than your scientist, etc...

I have zero background in science, but I do have a background in stats, and it's genuinely frustrating to see all the pretty graphs hurled to and fro in the discussion, with little more analysis than graph up = win! (or vice-versa).

 

[TheBloods]

No, because the red is instrumental data, it isn't in contention, the green is only supposed to supersede the blue because the blue is based on proxies, although it is interesting that by and large McIntyre's smoothing agrees with Mann's during the period where the proxy and the instrumental data intercede. It's only deeper into the past that it diverges so wildly.

If charts aren't labelled properly then reading them is naturally difficult...

 

[evo]

I have zero background in science, .

You once told me you had a major in theoretical physics at Uni of Melbourne.

What a fraud you are.

 

[medusala]

Wegman is a fraud and a plagiarist

As for Wegman and NAS.

http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/06/the-wegman-and-north-reports-for-newbies/

At the July 19, 2006 House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearing, Barton asked North very precisely whether he disagreed with any Wegman’s findings and North (under oath) said no as follows:

CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that. It looks like my time is expired, so I want to ask one more question. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?
DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report. But again, just because the claims are made, doesn’t mean they are false.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that you can have the right conclusion and that it not be–
DR. NORTH. It happens all the time in science.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, and not be substantiated by what you purport to be the facts but have we established–we know that Dr. Wegman has said that Dr. Mann’s methodology is incorrect. Do you agree with that? I mean, it doesn’t mean Dr. Mann’s conclusions are wrong, but we can stipulate now that we have–and if you want to ask your statistician expert from North Carolina that Dr. Mann’s methodology cannot be documented and cannot be verified by independent review.
DR. NORTH. Do you mind if he speaks?
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, if he would like to come to the microphone.
MR. BLOOMFIELD. Thank you. Yes, Peter Bloomfield. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his coworkers 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.

 

[mdc]

You once told me you had a major in theoretical physics at Uni of Melbourne.

What a fraud you are.

Bad day? I meant to write "climate science", obviously.

 

[shiznit]

If charts aren't labelled properly then reading them is naturally difficult...

Can't argue with that. I guess that's the way people like Joanne Nova operate, they've got to keep their audiences enthralled somehow or another.

 

[shiznit]

As for Wegman and NAS.

North also said that just because the statistics may have been wanting the conclusions of Mann et. al. were sound. At any rate, I'm not basing my claims of Wegman's hackery and plagiarism on comments from North or anyone else associated with NAS. I'm basing it on an unreviewed blog critique, which is fair play considering none of the criticisms of Mann have ever been reviewed. What's good for the goose... The NSA found problems with Mann et. al. certainly, although his conclusions were sound, and he republished after taking their criticisms into account and again passed review, which is more than we can say about Wegman, who chose to air his criticisms in a politicised forum and not an academic journal. Which is telling because very little denialist woo ever gets past review, they rely on blogs and congressional hearings and media outlets such as Fox News to air their opinions. Which is why there is such a massive divergence between the public and the scientific debate. One debate is evidence based, the other is essentially PR.

 

[Hawkamania!]

So even with the best attempts to "correct" Mann's data, McIntyre is STILL proving that it is warmer today than at anytime during the MWP? Hmmm, interesting

You really need to further your research beyond wherever you get your global warming propaganda from. You may actually learn something new and based on actual scientific methodology.

The red line in mann's hockey stick graph is based on his own code that exaggerates the hockey stick at the end of the graph. Also, he changes values post 1960 to further exaggerate the warming.

From one of my earlier posts (part in red for the global warming acolytes that missed it the first time):
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/

But Steven McIntyre was suspicious. He wanted to verify it, yet Mann repeatedly refused to provide his data or methods — normally a basic requirement of any scientific paper. It took legal action to get the information that should have been freely available. Within days McIntyre showed that the statistics were so flawed that you could feed in random data, like stock prices, and still make the same hockey stick shape nine times out of ten. Mann had left out some tree rings he said he’d included. If someone did a graph like this in a stock prospectus, they would be jailed.

Also:

And finally, why does McIntyre end his graph at 1960?
http://climateaudit.org/2008/09/24/mann-2008-correlations-a-new-graphic/

Examination of his SI shows clearly that the post-1850 Luterbacher series rely almost totally on instrumental data and thus, a high correlation to CRU instrumental data is hardly remarkable or representative of the ability of “proxy” networks without instrumental data e.g. the proxies available for MWP comparison.
The Briffa MXD series form a second stratification, also with very high correlations. This data set has been discussed on a number of occasions as they are the type case for divergence. In this case, Mann has deleted post-1960 values and substituted RegEM values prior to calculating the correlations. This can hardly be considered representative of other proxies. Re-doing the analysis with original data is currently impossible as Mann deleted the post-1960 values from the “original” data as well and the “original” data, originating from another RegEM publication by Mann and associates (Rutherford et al 2005) has never been archived (despite representations to the contrary.)

 

[shiznit]

And finally, why does McIntyre end his graph at 1960?
http://climateaudit.org/2008/09/24/mann-2008-correlations-a-new-graphic/

Good thing there is a dozen other reconstructions to choose from then! Otherwise we might need to rely on BlogScience(tm) to tell us how to think. And I like the way your source changed from 'the real shape' to 'the real REAL shape', with the expertly labeled pointers from MSpaint, the tool of real professionals.

 

[Hawkamania!]

Good thing there is a dozen other reconstructions to choose from then! Otherwise we might need to rely on BlogScience(tm) to tell us how to think. And I like the way your source changed from 'the real shape' to 'the real REAL shape', with the expertly labeled pointers from MSpaint, the tool of real professionals.

Other reconstructions based on the same flawed/cherry picked data?

Post again when you have something that adheres to The Scientific Method and not from the circle jerkers at real climate.