So it is deliberate. I get you.
APP - Placeholder for climate FAQs
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
It isn't irrelevant, specifically who makes up the panels that rendered "judgment" is definitely relevant. This is just another long-winded attempt to distract. Why do you find it necessary to distract rather than to answer relevant questions? (I'd also ask why you were so bad at creating distraction, but in reality the simple list of questions repeated so many times makes it unnecessary to even point that out.)
You select one of the questions, attempt to distract from the fact you aren't answering it, then render judgment based on insufficient data.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
ROFLMAO....
AGAIN YOU BRAIN DEAD DOLT.... I AM ASKING YOU FOR THEIR NAMES AND BACKGROUNDS (JUST THEIR NAMES WOULD BE FINE).
How is asking for their names equivalent to 'u don't like them because they are scientists'????
Now... as to your 'u creatin a strawman' comment.... WHAT strawman? I am asking questions relevant to the independent panels. I am asking for answers. You on the other hand are continually spinning away from answering them with one bullshit excuse after another.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Good call, on the vast left wing scientific conspiracy!
Yo, that’s just a partial list of internationally-recognized reputable scientific institutions that concur with human-caused climate change.
It would be the greatest hoax in human history if all these scientists and science organizations are lying, deceiving, or have been willfully duped into a global conspiracy of fraudulent science. I stand in awe that anonymous rightwing message boarders have uncovered a global plot that has easily duped the most brilliant scientists on the planet!
But there’s not doubt that the hapless band of climate gate clowns are sticking to their story! I guess, sadly, once you are addicted to noted science denier blogs like ClimateFraudit, and Wattsupwiththat.com, it’s apparently impossible return to the world of reason and facts....
ROFLMAO.... once again the ultimate fear mongering brain dead flat earth global warming lemming is to afraid to answer the questions.
Instead he posts the NAS from various countries that have 'approved' of the AGW theory. He does this despite the FACT that he has already proclaimed that NO ONE who is not specifically in the field of climatology can have any credibility on this topic.
I already posted the numbers of climatologists each country has for their NAS. Yet he ignored it then. Now he is going to pretend that same data is not out there?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
That tells me you didn't ever bother to read the link to the pdf I posted. Trying reading before jumping to conclusions.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Oh yes. curse us fear mongering lemmings and our leftwing nuts leaders in the American Pysics Institute and the American Chemical Society, those damned comies!
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I do apologize, I didn't see the second post when I responded to that email. I will take a look at it.
One quick note... it is not a strawman to state that Cypress has again and again proclaimed that the 'debate is over'. He has. Numerous times.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
again, mr Strawman maker ... where did I state anything about those two institutions?
While there is limited comedy value in the wails of the conspiracy theorists, and in the keyboard-pounding of the "investigate the investigators" cabal, the science is far more interesting.
And the science has moved well beyond the preposterous and irrelevant rants of the rightwing blogs. Climate Gate is just a bad joke now.
Here's the current state of the actual science, and as I keep telling science deniers, the 2012 IPCC international assessment is going to not only affirm the 2007 assessment, its going to state the the science of human caused climate change is even stronger, and we are balanced on the edge of the worst case scenarios that go beyond even the conservative 2007 IPCC projections. I imagine the rightwing blogs in 2012 will continue to assert that the science is all mucked up and full of lies, deceptions, and that scientists are fabricating data a la' Climate Gate. Should be hilarious!
Global Atmospheric Concentrations continue to accelerate, nearing the 400ppm threshold.
Carbon Sinks are being Saturated, which exponentially makes human contributions to atmospheric CO2 more problematic……
Present concentration of CO2 is the highest its been 20 million years:
CO2 hasn’t been this high in 15 million years, when sea level was 75 feet higher and temperatures 5 to 10 degrees F warmer.
With the clownish comedy of Climate Gate behind us, and reduced to nothing more than a bad joke, the science in the last two years has eclipsed the last gasps of the science deniers: it is now widely accepted by people who actually do climate research that the predicted impacts of human-caused climate change are occurring much faster than anyone expected – particularly ice melt - and far faster than the conservative 2007 IPCC assessment. If we stay on our current emission path we are likely facing rapid sea level rise, massive wildfires, widespread drought conditions, large dead ocean zones, and up to 10 degrees F of mean global warming….having significant and potentially catastrophic results to agriculture, human health and welfare, to national economies, and to the biosphere.
And the science has moved well beyond the preposterous and irrelevant rants of the rightwing blogs. Climate Gate is just a bad joke now.
Here's the current state of the actual science, and as I keep telling science deniers, the 2012 IPCC international assessment is going to not only affirm the 2007 assessment, its going to state the the science of human caused climate change is even stronger, and we are balanced on the edge of the worst case scenarios that go beyond even the conservative 2007 IPCC projections. I imagine the rightwing blogs in 2012 will continue to assert that the science is all mucked up and full of lies, deceptions, and that scientists are fabricating data a la' Climate Gate. Should be hilarious!
Global Atmospheric Concentrations continue to accelerate, nearing the 400ppm threshold.
Source: US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Adminstration
Carbon Sinks are being Saturated, which exponentially makes human contributions to atmospheric CO2 more problematic……
Present concentration of CO2 is the highest its been 20 million years:
CO2 hasn’t been this high in 15 million years, when sea level was 75 feet higher and temperatures 5 to 10 degrees F warmer.
With the clownish comedy of Climate Gate behind us, and reduced to nothing more than a bad joke, the science in the last two years has eclipsed the last gasps of the science deniers: it is now widely accepted by people who actually do climate research that the predicted impacts of human-caused climate change are occurring much faster than anyone expected – particularly ice melt - and far faster than the conservative 2007 IPCC assessment. If we stay on our current emission path we are likely facing rapid sea level rise, massive wildfires, widespread drought conditions, large dead ocean zones, and up to 10 degrees F of mean global warming….having significant and potentially catastrophic results to agriculture, human health and welfare, to national economies, and to the biosphere.
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
What makes you such a Super Freaking preposterous figure is the chronology of the posts, which shows Cyp going point for point with you and your like minded bretheren. All you jokers can do is just DENY and LIE about what Cyp posts, and then REPEAT your mantras ad nauseum.
BUT WHAT YOU CAN'T GET PAST IS THE FACT THAT THE VERY PEOPLE YOU TOUTED AS THE SAINTED AUTHORITIES THAT PROVED CLIMATE-GATE HAD TO PUBLICALLY ADMIT THAT THEY WERE WRONG!
Grow the fuck up, you SuperFreak....deal with it.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Is just Southy saying "no it isn't" and accusing Cyp of lying, although Southy offers NO evidence and discusses no points of reference or comparison that can justify his accusation. In short, Southy just blows smoke.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I was being sarcastic about your comment because of the letter I posted where those organizations (among other professional science organizations) signed off on the scientific consensus supporting the factual basis of ACC. That was why I was being sarcastic. My point being, these are not political organizations nor do they have a political bias towards the left (or the right for that matter). If anything, the memberships of these organizations tend towards the conservative side. I should know, I'm a member of the ACS. Liberal they are not.
Make a stick, make a stick
NASA blogger Gavin Schmidt as part of his ongoing attempt to rehabilitate Mannian paleoclimate reconstructions, characterized here as dendro-phrenology, has drawn attention to a graphic posted up at Mann’s website in November 2009. In this graphic, Mann responded to criticisms that his “no-dendro” stick had been contaminated by bridge-building sediments despite warnings from the author (warnings noted by Mann himself but the contaminated data was used anyway.) I’ll show this figure at the end of the post, but first I’m going to show the “raw materials” for this “reconstruction” and my results from the same data.
I’m going to show a lot of plots of “proxies” today. The intuitive idea of a proxy is that the thing being measured (tree ring width, sediment thickness, ice core O18, etc) has a linear relationship with a temperature “signal” plus low-order red noise. Therefore, if the temperature “signal” is a hockey stick, the various proxy plots should look like a hockey stick plus low-order red-noise. I encourage readers to look at the no-dendro no-Tilj data for Mann’s November 2009 example with that in mind. If the topics were being discussed by proper statisticians, the properties of the “noise” would be discussed, rather than ignored.
To illustrate the calculation, I’ve picked the AD1000 Mann 2008 data set as an example since it covers the MWP. I’ve used the late-miss version (calibration 1859-1949) to work through, since it will give a look at any potential “divergence problems” in non-dendro data.
There were 29 “proxies” in the data set- 11 sediments, 2 “documentary” (both Chinese), 9 speleo and 7 ice core. Eleven of these were annually resolved; the other 18 were “decadal” resolution. 22 were NH; 7 SH.
The first step in Mann’s algorithm is determining the orientation of speleo and documentary proxies through their after-the-fact correlation to instrumental data. (The orientation of other proxies is presumed to be known a priori). In this network, there were 11 speleo+documentary proxies and 5 of 11 were flipped. (Interestingly, it is possible in Mann’s algorithm for the same proxy to have opposite “significant” orientations depending on the calibration period.)
The next step is to screen out proxies that do not have a “significant” correlation to gridcell temperature. Although we’ve heard much invective against the meaningful of r^2 statistics from Mann, Schmidt and others in the context of MBH98, Mann then uses correlation (r) to screen series in Mann et al 2008. (Perhaps it is the squaring of the correlation statistic that Schmidt takes exception to.)
There were 16 proxies that “passed” Mannian significance: – 3 of 11 sediments, both “documentary (Chinese), 7 of 9 speleo and 4 of 7 ice cores. Seven of 11 annually resolved passed; nine of 18 decadally resolved passed. 12 of 22 NH passed; 4 of 7 SH passed.
In the figure below, I’ve plotted all 22 NH “proxies” (standardized), coloring the “rejected” proxies in green. I don’t think that anyone can reasonably look at these 22 series and say that the individual “proxies” can be reasonably interpreted as different linear transformations of a Hockey Stick plus low-order AR1 red noise or that the individual proxies look much like one another. They are a hodge-podge to say the least. This is the problem of proxy inconsistency that I’ve talked about frequently and that Ross and I reported in our comment at PNAS in Mann 2008. Mann either didn’t understand or pretended not to understand the problem, which is fundamental to the entire enterprise of proxy reconstructions and readily apparent merely by plotting the “proxies”.
While “ex post screening” by correlation is accepted as a given by realclimatescientists, ex-post screening by correlation is not a statistical procedure that is recommended or discussed in Draper and Smith or standard statistical texts. The tendency of this procedure to produce sticks from red noise is well known in the technical blogosphere (Jeff Id, David Stockwell, Lubos Motl and myself have all more or less independently noticed and reported the phenomenon, with David publishing a short note in an Australian mining newsletter that Ross and I cited in our PNAS comment. However professional climate scientists appear unaware of the effect and it remains unreported in the PeerReviewedLiterature.
The top left proxy (192) is an interesting one. It is Baker’s speleothem record from Scotland that was discussed at CA in early 2009 and here as an interesting example of Upside-Down Mann. In the orientation applied in Mann’s no-dendro no-Tiljander reconstruction endorsed by Gavin Schmidt, Scotland is shown as having experienced the unique phenomena of the Medieval Cold Period and Little Warm Age – bizarro Hubert Lamb, as it were.
The “proxies” show little evidence of an overall pattern, let alone a Stick.
more at link
http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/30/make-a-stick-make-a-stick/#more-11591
NASA blogger Gavin Schmidt as part of his ongoing attempt to rehabilitate Mannian paleoclimate reconstructions, characterized here as dendro-phrenology, has drawn attention to a graphic posted up at Mann’s website in November 2009. In this graphic, Mann responded to criticisms that his “no-dendro” stick had been contaminated by bridge-building sediments despite warnings from the author (warnings noted by Mann himself but the contaminated data was used anyway.) I’ll show this figure at the end of the post, but first I’m going to show the “raw materials” for this “reconstruction” and my results from the same data.
I’m going to show a lot of plots of “proxies” today. The intuitive idea of a proxy is that the thing being measured (tree ring width, sediment thickness, ice core O18, etc) has a linear relationship with a temperature “signal” plus low-order red noise. Therefore, if the temperature “signal” is a hockey stick, the various proxy plots should look like a hockey stick plus low-order red-noise. I encourage readers to look at the no-dendro no-Tilj data for Mann’s November 2009 example with that in mind. If the topics were being discussed by proper statisticians, the properties of the “noise” would be discussed, rather than ignored.
To illustrate the calculation, I’ve picked the AD1000 Mann 2008 data set as an example since it covers the MWP. I’ve used the late-miss version (calibration 1859-1949) to work through, since it will give a look at any potential “divergence problems” in non-dendro data.
There were 29 “proxies” in the data set- 11 sediments, 2 “documentary” (both Chinese), 9 speleo and 7 ice core. Eleven of these were annually resolved; the other 18 were “decadal” resolution. 22 were NH; 7 SH.
The first step in Mann’s algorithm is determining the orientation of speleo and documentary proxies through their after-the-fact correlation to instrumental data. (The orientation of other proxies is presumed to be known a priori). In this network, there were 11 speleo+documentary proxies and 5 of 11 were flipped. (Interestingly, it is possible in Mann’s algorithm for the same proxy to have opposite “significant” orientations depending on the calibration period.)
The next step is to screen out proxies that do not have a “significant” correlation to gridcell temperature. Although we’ve heard much invective against the meaningful of r^2 statistics from Mann, Schmidt and others in the context of MBH98, Mann then uses correlation (r) to screen series in Mann et al 2008. (Perhaps it is the squaring of the correlation statistic that Schmidt takes exception to.)
There were 16 proxies that “passed” Mannian significance: – 3 of 11 sediments, both “documentary (Chinese), 7 of 9 speleo and 4 of 7 ice cores. Seven of 11 annually resolved passed; nine of 18 decadally resolved passed. 12 of 22 NH passed; 4 of 7 SH passed.
In the figure below, I’ve plotted all 22 NH “proxies” (standardized), coloring the “rejected” proxies in green. I don’t think that anyone can reasonably look at these 22 series and say that the individual “proxies” can be reasonably interpreted as different linear transformations of a Hockey Stick plus low-order AR1 red noise or that the individual proxies look much like one another. They are a hodge-podge to say the least. This is the problem of proxy inconsistency that I’ve talked about frequently and that Ross and I reported in our comment at PNAS in Mann 2008. Mann either didn’t understand or pretended not to understand the problem, which is fundamental to the entire enterprise of proxy reconstructions and readily apparent merely by plotting the “proxies”.
While “ex post screening” by correlation is accepted as a given by realclimatescientists, ex-post screening by correlation is not a statistical procedure that is recommended or discussed in Draper and Smith or standard statistical texts. The tendency of this procedure to produce sticks from red noise is well known in the technical blogosphere (Jeff Id, David Stockwell, Lubos Motl and myself have all more or less independently noticed and reported the phenomenon, with David publishing a short note in an Australian mining newsletter that Ross and I cited in our PNAS comment. However professional climate scientists appear unaware of the effect and it remains unreported in the PeerReviewedLiterature.
The top left proxy (192) is an interesting one. It is Baker’s speleothem record from Scotland that was discussed at CA in early 2009 and here as an interesting example of Upside-Down Mann. In the orientation applied in Mann’s no-dendro no-Tiljander reconstruction endorsed by Gavin Schmidt, Scotland is shown as having experienced the unique phenomena of the Medieval Cold Period and Little Warm Age – bizarro Hubert Lamb, as it were.
The “proxies” show little evidence of an overall pattern, let alone a Stick.
more at link
http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/30/make-a-stick-make-a-stick/#more-11591
Is there some reason you keep asking the same questions, and yelling out the same assertions over and over, when your question has been answered ad naseum?
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=674738&postcount=138
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=674524&postcount=133
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=683341&postcount=71
The national academies of sciences of the world, aren’t just a small commission of six elderly white guys. It’s an institution. An institution that provides the world’s government’s the best available scientific advice.
The Academies commission and convene panels of their nation’s best scientists, including climate scientists, often pro bono to synthesize and provide scientific advice to their governments. The fact that climate change involves economic and biologic impacts means by neccessity, there will be some biologists and economists on those panels. The expert panels, and the Academies themselves, collectively issue the report and conclusions.
If want to think that somehow, Climate Gate is some the vast left wing conspiracy, that somehow multiple independent panels were unable to penetrate, and that the National Academies of Sciences of all the world’s developed countries and the dozens upon dozens of highly reputable scientific bodies that Mott and I hooked you up with are not credible sources, then that’s fine. I get it. You are denying climate science for emotional reasons. You are incapable of citing reputable internationally-recognized scientific organizations, or bodies of modern peer-reviewed science to support your guesses and assertions.
Dude, the world of science has moved beyond climate gate, and beyond this fantastical world of lying liberal scientists that you and Dixie seem to imagine are out there.
Can you please stop asking the same questions, and making the same assertions over and over an over?
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I see, so how does the authors data reform Mann's data and what conclusion would you draw from the reformed data?
My next question is what is the source for the authors data, references and has he published his findings for peer review? If so, where?
I hope you were being sarcastic, man, because this almost made me fall out of my chair laughing!
Tinfoil's "arcticle" is from a blog that is never going to be published in a reputable peer reviewed science journal like Nature, Eos, GRL, or PNAS.
ClimateFraudit.com is a noted science denier blog, and is operated by a guy who is a former mining company stock analyst, and who has no training in climate science. Steve McIntyre. That's who wrote tinfoil's blog.
In the actual world of peer reviewed science Dr. Michael Mann's hockey stick has been repeatedly validated and corroborated by multiple independent sources. Dr. Michael Mann is universally considered by his peers to be a giant of modern science; with unimpeachable integrity and capability as a scientist. The temperature records and proxies are subject to tweaking as the science advances, but the core findings and trends have been repeatedly tested and validated by actual, real scientists.
The climate deniers are shooting blanks, let's face it. All they have are rightwing blogs and non-peer reviewed blather. And the best they can muster are wails and pleas for people to waste their time on easily debunked, non-peer reviewed, nonsense.
It's too bad they had to descend into a world of fantastical conspiracy theories of global cabals, lying climate scientists, and worldwide diabolical coverups of almost superhuman cunning by all the worlds reputable scientific bodies. They totally overplayed their hand. Because climate science - real science - would actually be an interesting topic to blab about.
Last edited:
I hope you were being sarcastic, man, because this almost made me fall out of my chair laughing!
Tinfoil's "arcticle" is from a blog that is never going to be published in a reputable peer reviewed science journal like Nature, Eos, GRL, or PNAS.
ClimateFraudit.com is a noted science denier blog, and is operated by a guy who is a former mining company stock analyst, and who has no training in climate science. Steve McIntyre. That's who wrote tinfoil's blog.
In the actual world of peer reviewed science Dr. Michael Mann's hockey stick has been repeatedly validated and corroborated by multiple independent sources. Dr. Michael Mann is universally considered by his peers to be a giant of modern science; with unimpeachable integrity and capability as a scientist. The temperature records and proxies are subject to tweaking as the science advances, but the core findings and trends have been repeatedly tested and validated by actual, real scientists.
The climate deniers are shooting blanks, let's face it. All they have are rightwing blogs and non-peer reviewed blather. And the best they can muster are wails and pleas for people to waste their time on easily debunked, non-peer reviewed, nonsense.
It's too bad they had to descend into a world of fantastical conspiracy theories of global cabals, lying climate scientists, and worldwide diabolical coverups of almost superhuman cunning by all the worlds reputable scientific bodies. They totally overplayed their hand. Because climate science - real science - would actually be an interesting topic to blab about.
you idiot, you missed the link to the peer reviewed version of this thast I linked earlier. The study led to the wegman report.
warmers live in their own little world. LOL
You see, it's not climate science in question, it's the misuse of statistics to make the case for governemnt action.
You fucking faggot warmers just don't know how to separate science(which mann does not do. he just uses other peoples data) from statistical analysis of said data.
Warmers use bad stats to make their case.
They choose their samples by correlation to their expected results.
They cook the books when it comes to stats.
And when that doesn't work, they just swap whole data portions and sew it in like a patchwork rug!!
You fucking faggot warmers just don't know how to separate science(which mann does not do. he just uses other peoples data) from statistical analysis of said data.
Warmers use bad stats to make their case.
They choose their samples by correlation to their expected results.
They cook the books when it comes to stats.
And when that doesn't work, they just swap whole data portions and sew it in like a patchwork rug!!
edited with info from tinfoil's OWN link....
Wow. Holy effing christ.
Tinfoil owned by HIS OWN link.
this is exactly what I said bro. The hockey stick has been affirmed. Inconsequential tweaks and adjustments are made as the science advances, but the basic findings of Dr. Mann have been affirmed as your own link states. You own link says the adjustments that were made based on additional statistical analysis are inconsequential, and didn't change Dr. Mann's basic findings.
Another thing to note is how outdated the crap is you dudes routinely post. This stuff your posting is from 2006. Which is even before the 2007 IPCC assessment. And in the world of climate science, stuff from 2006 is already getting pretty outdated. Hey man, I hope you don't have a heart attack when the 2013 International Assessment comes out. Because it's going to conclude that the science of human-caused climate change is even stronger and that we are changing the climate even faster than some of the worst predictions of the 2007 assessment.
And don't even try to bring up the 2006 wegman report. That non-peer reviewed crap isn't even worth responding too.
Anway, bravo, on some nice self-ownage there bro.
Wow. Holy effing christ.
Tinfoil owned by HIS OWN link.
this is exactly what I said bro. The hockey stick has been affirmed. Inconsequential tweaks and adjustments are made as the science advances, but the basic findings of Dr. Mann have been affirmed as your own link states. You own link says the adjustments that were made based on additional statistical analysis are inconsequential, and didn't change Dr. Mann's basic findings.
Another thing to note is how outdated the crap is you dudes routinely post. This stuff your posting is from 2006. Which is even before the 2007 IPCC assessment. And in the world of climate science, stuff from 2006 is already getting pretty outdated. Hey man, I hope you don't have a heart attack when the 2013 International Assessment comes out. Because it's going to conclude that the science of human-caused climate change is even stronger and that we are changing the climate even faster than some of the worst predictions of the 2007 assessment.
And don't even try to bring up the 2006 wegman report. That non-peer reviewed crap isn't even worth responding too.
Anway, bravo, on some nice self-ownage there bro.
Last edited: