Thread View: sci.physics
25 messages
25 total messages
Started by Leonard
Sat, 31 Mar 2012 23:18
The Mann and the Hockey Stick
Author: Leonard
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 23:18
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 23:18
1284 lines
38089 bytes
38089 bytes
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3416066309_957679 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Abracadabra, No More Medi�val Warm Period! The lies behind the failed Hockey Stick October 5 2009 QUOTE: when Briffa's hand-selected figures were replaced by a broader dataset for the same Polar Ural region (much of which he had deliberately dropped), the Hockey-Stick suddenly disappeared, revealing no significant trend in the 20th century whatsoever! QUOTE: Let's get real - even experts on the subject can't seem to agree on what caused modern warming. QUOTE: alarmists know all too well that as long as citizens are convinced that warming is both enduring and unprecedented, such inconveniences as the missing hot spot, laughably mistaken climate models, 800 year CO2 /Temperature latency and perhaps even current cooling can be cleverly obfuscated with Goebbels-like double-talk and outright lies. For years, claims that UN climate reports represent the consensus of the majority of international scientists have been mindlessly accepted and regurgitated by left-leaning policy makers and the media at large. But in the past week or so, it's become more apparent than ever that those who've accused the international organization of politicizing science and manipulating data have been right all along. This latest disclosure again concerns what has become the favorite propaganda propagation tool of climate activists -- the infamous "Hockey Stick Graph." The familiar reconstruction, which deceitfully depicts last millennium's global temperatures as flat prior to a dramatic upturn last century, has been displayed and touted ad nauseum as irrefutable proof of unprecedented and, therefore, anthropogenic, global warming (AGW). Despite its previous debunking, the embattled AGW poster-child continues to languish in UN climate reports, which are unduly revered and quoted as gospel by all manner of proselytizers. In fact, just last week it had the bad timing to show up in a desperate UN compendium, released just days before Climate Audit published facts that promise to be the Hockey Stick's (HS) long overdue epitaph. And those facts not only assuage any doubt of the chart's fraudulence, but also of the deliberate and devious complicity of its creators, defenders and leading UN sponsors. But before delving into the sordid details, perhaps a little background is in order. The Real Inconvenient Truth Prior to the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), the accepted depiction of the prior millennium's warmth was that published in the panel's 1990 maiden assessment. Specifically -- global temperatures had fluctuated drastically over the period. This schematic, taken from IPCC 1990 Figure 7c, clearly demonstrates the IPCC "consensus" of the time: And data derived from sources including tree-rings, lake sediments, ice cores and historic documents bear that position out. Indeed, it's abundantly evident that since the last glacial period ended, over 14,000 years ago, the Earth's climate has undergone multi-century swings from warming to cooling that occur often and with remarkable rapidity. And not one but three such radical shifts occurred within the past millennium. The years 900-1300 AD have been labeled the Medieval Warming Period (MWP), as global temperatures rose precipitously from the bitter cold of the previous epoch -- the Dark Ages -- to levels several degrees warmer than today. A sudden period of cooling then followed and lasted until the year 1850. This Little Ice Age (LIA) brought on extremely cold temperatures, corresponding with three periods of protracted solar inactivity, the lowest temperatures coinciding with the quietest of the three, The Maunder Minimum 1645-1710. And then began the modern warming period, which, by the way, many scientists believe ended with the millennium itself. Given these natural shifts over the past 1000 years, it's certainly not surprising that after a period of cooling, which followed a period of warming, we'd again enter a period of warming. And that, of course, presented quite the quandary to opportunists hell-bent on blaming warming on industrial revolution-triggered atmospheric CO2 increases. Something had to be done to convince the world that modern warming was unprecedented and could therefore only be explained by something unnatural, specifically -- the "Greenhouse Effect." And something was. The End of a Warming Era During testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Hearing on Climate Change and the Media in 2006, University of Oklahoma geophysicist Dr. David Deming recalled "an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change" who told him that "we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." In June of this year, piece, Deming identified the year of that email as 1995 and the source only as a lead author of that month's Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States report. Many believe that man to be Jonathan Overpeck - which Prof. Deming didn't deny in an email response -- who would later also serve as an IPCC lead author. So it comes as no surprise that this reconstruction, which did indeed "get rid of the Medieval Warm Period," was featured prominently in the subsequent 2001 TAR, particularly in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM), the highly-politicized synopsis which commands the bulk of media and political attention. This, the original and by far most ubiquitous version of the HS graph, was derived from a 1998 paper by Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes (MBH98). It was promptly met with challenges to both its proxy data and statistical analysis methodology. Of these, various papers by two Canadians -- statistician Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick -- stood out in dispelling the AGW-supporting hockey-stick shape arrived at by MBH, claiming it the result of severe data defects and flawed calculations, particularly an invalid principal component analysis. In a coordinated effort to defend the refuted thesis, alarmed alarmists tendered a handful of supporting studies. Mann himself cheered those either attacking McIntyre and McKitrick or supporting his own reconstruction and dubbed them the "Hockey Team." And the position of team forward and co-captain was bestowed upon Keith Briffa of Britain's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), whose temperature graphs, derived from Yamal, Russia tree ring data were heavily cited by the IPCC as supporting evidence of MBH's assertion of unprecedented 20th century warming. While studies reaffirming both the MWP and LIA continued to be published, congressional hearings and expert panels found MBH to be largely unsupported by studies relying on legitimate proxy data other than Briffa's. Still, most alarmists continued (and continue) to defend the HS on principle. Which in no way dilutes this plain truth: By the time most Americans received their first lesson in climate hysteria in the Albert Gore lecture hall that was the 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth, the MBH chart the nutty professor stood before and offered as proof of impending doom was already held in disrepute by most serious persons of science. Lest there be any doubt, why else would the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) -- notwithstanding the appointments of both Briffa and Overpeck as lead authors - give the graph short mention and exclude it entirely from the SPM? It appeared the Hockey Team was being sent back to the minors. That is -- for the moment. Desperate Times Call For Disparate Actions Given the current economic and political climate, it's not surprising that the globe's climate ranks dead last when Americans are asked to name the "most important issue facing the country right now." Needless to say, that's an uncomfortable position for the Greenhouse Gas Team, what with a Senate Climate Bill promising even more government control than its House counterpart at the plate and the December Copenhagen Climate Summit on deck. Accordingly, on September 24th, in a transparently desperate effort to stoke the coals, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) released its Climate Change Science Compendium 2009. The eco-plea opens with these words from UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon: "The science has become more irrevocable than ever: Climate change is happening. The evidence is all around us. And unless we act, we will see catastrophic consequences including rising sea-levels, droughts and famine, and the loss of up to a third of the world's plant and animal species." Amazing. But the frantic hype of this call-to-pointless-action quickly segues to blatant lies just three sentences later when Ban states "that climate change is accelerating at a much faster pace than was previously thought by scientists." It would appear the Sec-Gen believes that the cooling temperatures the new millennium issued in have somehow escaped everyone's notice. Imagine the uphill battle he'll face should predictions of the U.S. Northeast suffering its coldest winter in a decade due to a weak El Nino come true. So it wasn't all that shocking to spot this undeniably dramatic graph on only the fifth of this end-is-near report's 75 pages. The striking chart is marked as Figure 1.3: Correlation between temperature and CO2. As its title suggests, it attempts to plot atmospheric CO2 concentrations and mean global temperature during the past millennium. Notice anything vaguely familiar about the temperature plot in red? Why, it's our old friend, Mr. Hockey Stick - apparently having sat for a bit of a makeover. Interestingly enough, this reconstruction wasn't lifted from prior IPCC assessments, or, for that matter, any UN entity at all. No, the source was actually a graphic posted to Wikimedia in 2005 by Hanno Sandvik, a Norwegian research biologist. Sandvik cited two data sources for his temperature plot - a 2004 paper by Jones and Mann (abracadabra - no more MWP) for 1000-1880, and, for the remainder, "instrumental records published on the web" by Jones, Parker, Osborn and - wait for it .. Briffa. So the chart the UN climate experts used to sell the CO2 -�C connection to an increasingly skeptical public was pulled from Wiki, crafted by an unknown biologist, conveniently ends about the same year warming ended, and based on a debunked temperature reconstruction. It would therefore appear they consider Sanvik quite the unsung authority. Yet I wonder whether these geniuses are aware of this 2006 graphic, also from Sandvik, and plotting northern hemisphere temperatures over the past 2000 years. This one cites 2005 data published by Moberg, Sonechkin, Holmgren, Datsenko, Karl�n, and Lauritzen as its source and paints a somewhat different picture. Hello MWP and LIA, where've you been? Any guesses whether or not UNEP would have used Sandvik's chart had his temperature dataset been from Moberg et al. rather than Mann et al.? I contacted Hanno Sandvik a week ago last Saturday and asked him essentially that same question. He responded that he was unaware of the UNEP Compendium and therefore had "no idea which graphics they may have chosen." He also pointed out that while Mann's was global data, Mobergs was northern hemisphere only -- a point well taken, however MHB98 was also derived from NH data yet remarkably resembles the Mann "global" data Sandvik used. Also -- Take a look at the period between 1000 and 1800 in both reconstructions. Is it even the least bit feasible that averaging southern hemisphere data into the latter would produce the former? Or that UNEP strived to present the facts honestly? Not Man Made -- Mann Made One of McIntyre's chief complaints when auditing MHB98 was Mann's refusal to provide his data, methods and source code. The Hockey Team's most dreaded opposing goaltender has been reporting the same deceptiveness from Briffa, who for years refused to release his Yamal measurement data. This, despite the fact that HS-defending papers relying solely on Yamal continued to be published in major science journals. But last year, Briffa used the data in a paper he published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Journal. As the journal adheres to its strict data archiving rules, McIntyre convinced one of its editors to help get Briffa's data released. And late last month, the data was indeed published at CRU. Last week, McIntyre analyzed the CRU archive Yamal data and proved that Briffa et al. had cherry-picked and manipulated data, intentionally omitting records not friendly to their position. In fact, when Briffa's hand-selected figures were replaced by a broader dataset for the same Polar Ural region (much of which he had deliberately dropped), the Hockey-Stick suddenly disappeared, revealing no significant trend in the 20th century whatsoever! In Steve's new graph, below, the Red represents the original 12 cherry picked Yamal trees, while the Black incorporates the broader Polar Ural dataset. Any questions whether or not global warming is Mann made? Inhofe was right The public's belief in manmade climate change doesn't hang on its grasp of geophysics or thermodynamics. Technical explanations of positive feedbacks and radiative forcings, read by few and understand by fewer still, aren't likely to foster acceptance of a new energy tax that will dramatically raise the price of literally every facet of human life. Let's get real -- even experts on the subject can't seem to agree on what caused modern warming. But alarmists know all too well that as long as citizens are convinced that warming is both enduring and unprecedented, such inconveniences as the missing hot spot, laughably mistaken climate models, 800 year CO2 /Temperature latency and perhaps even current cooling can be cleverly obfuscated with Goebbels-like double-talk and outright lies. And without the Hockey Stick's counterfeit portrait of runaway 20th century warming, climate crisis peddlers' credibility levels are reduced to those of used car salesmen. Not where you want to be when hoping to sell the instinctively absurd premise that the actions of mankind can influence temperatures in either direction. So they cheat. And they lie. And they have from the very beginning. In 1989, climate scientist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine: "To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest." Twelve years later, Schneider was a lead author of the IPCC's TAR, the same UN report that formally introduced the delusory Hockey Stick Graph. In his masterpiece work, Heaven and Earth, Ian Plimer assessed the cadre whose own assessments form the foundation of virtually every climate-related scheme, law, tax, regulation and treaty throughout the globe thusly: "The IPCC is clearly an ascientific political organization in which environmental activists and government representatives are setting the agenda for a variety of reasons including boosting trade, encouraging protectionism, adding costs to competitors and pushing their own sovereign barrow." Add lying perpetrators of fraud, and I'd say that about sums it up. Speaking on the Senate floor in July of 2003, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla) rightly called the threat of catastrophic global warming the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Let's make damned sure it doesn't become the most expensive. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html --B_3416066309_957679 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable <HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>The Mann and the Hockey Stick</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <FONT FACE=3D"Baskerville Old Face"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:14.0px'>Abracadabr= a, No More Mediæval Warm Period!<BR> <BR> The lies behind the failed Hockey Stick<BR> <BR> October 5 2009<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> QUOTE: when Briffa's hand-selected figures were replaced by a broader <BR> dataset for the same Polar Ural region (much of which he had deliberately <= BR> dropped), the Hockey-Stick suddenly disappeared, revealing no significant <= BR> trend in the 20th century whatsoever!<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> QUOTE: Let's get real - even experts on the subject can't seem to agree on = <BR> what caused modern warming.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> QUOTE: alarmists know all too well that as long as citizens are convinced <= BR> that warming is both enduring and unprecedented, such inconveniences as the= <BR> missing hot spot, laughably mistaken climate models, 800 year C= O2 <BR> /Temperature latency and perhaps even current cooling can be cleverly <BR> obfuscated with Goebbels-like double-talk and outright lies.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> For years, claims that UN climate reports represent the consensus of the <B= R> majority of international scientists have been mindlessly accepted and <BR> regurgitated by left-leaning policy makers and the media at large.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> But in the past week or so, it's become more apparent than ever that those = <BR> who've accused the international organization of politicizing science and <= BR> manipulating data have been right all along.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> This latest disclosure again concerns what has become the favorite <BR> propaganda propagation tool of climate activists -- the infamous "Hock= ey <BR> Stick Graph."<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> The familiar reconstruction, which deceitfully depicts last millennium's <B= R> global temperatures as flat prior to a dramatic upturn last century, has <B= R> been displayed and touted ad nauseum as irrefutable proof of unprecedented = <BR> and, therefore, anthropogenic, global warming (AGW).<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Despite its previous debunking, the embattled AGW poster-child continues to= <BR> languish in UN climate reports, which are unduly revered and quoted as <BR> gospel by all manner of proselytizers.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> In fact, just last week it had the bad timing to show up in a desperate UN = <BR> compendium, released just days before Climate Audit published facts that <B= R> promise to be the Hockey Stick's (HS) long overdue epitaph.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> And those facts not only assuage any doubt of the chart's fraudulence, but = <BR> also of the deliberate and devious complicity of its creators, defenders an= d <BR> leading UN sponsors.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> But before delving into the sordid details, perhaps a little background is = <BR> in order.<BR> <BR> <BR> The Real Inconvenient Truth<BR> <BR> Prior to the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), the accepted depictio= n <BR> of the prior millennium's warmth was that published in the panel's 1990 <BR= > maiden assessment. Specifically -- global temperatures had fluctuated <BR> drastically over the period. This schematic, taken from IPCC 1990 Figure 7c= , <BR> clearly demonstrates the IPCC "consensus" of the time:<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> And data derived from sources including tree-rings, lake sediments, ice <BR= > cores and historic documents bear that position out.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Indeed, it's abundantly evident that since the last glacial period ended, <= BR> over 14,000 years ago, the Earth's climate has undergone multi-century <BR> swings from warming to cooling that occur often and with remarkable <BR> rapidity.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> And not one but three such radical shifts occurred within the past <BR> millennium.<BR> <BR> <BR> The years 900-1300 AD have been labeled the Medieval Warming Period (MWP), = <BR> as global temperatures rose precipitously from the bitter cold of the <BR> previous epoch -- the Dark Ages -- to levels several degrees warmer than <B= R> today.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> A sudden period of cooling then followed and lasted until the year 1850. <B= R> This Little Ice Age (LIA) brought on extremely cold temperatures, <BR> corresponding with three periods of protracted solar inactivity, the lowest= <BR> temperatures coinciding with the quietest of the three, The Maunder Minimum= <BR> 1645-1710.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> And then began the modern warming period, which, by the way, many scientist= s <BR> believe ended with the millennium itself.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Given these natural shifts over the past 1000 years, it's certainly not <BR= > surprising that after a period of cooling, which followed a period of <BR> warming, we'd again enter a period of warming.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> And that, of course, presented quite the quandary to opportunists hell-bent= <BR> on blaming warming on industrial revolution-triggered atmospheric CO2 <BR> increases.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Something had to be done to convince the world that modern warming was <BR> unprecedented and could therefore only be explained by something unnatural,= <BR> specifically -- the "Greenhouse Effect."<BR> <BR> <BR> And something was.<BR> <BR> <BR> The End of a Warming Era<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> During testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Wo= rks <BR> Hearing on Climate Change and the Media in 2006, University of Oklahoma <BR= > geophysicist Dr. David Deming recalled "an astonishing email from a ma= jor <BR> researcher in the area of climate change" who told him that "we h= ave to get <BR> rid of the Medieval Warm Period."<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> In June of this year, piece, Deming identified the year of that email as <B= R> 1995 and the source only as a lead author of that month's Global Climate <B= R> Change Impacts in the United States report.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Many believe that man to be Jonathan Overpeck - which Prof. Deming didn't <= BR> deny in an email response -- who would later also serve as an IPCC lead <BR= > author.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> So it comes as no surprise that this reconstruction, which did indeed "= ;get <BR> rid of the Medieval Warm Period," was featured prominently in the subs= equent <BR> 2001 TAR, particularly in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM), the <BR> highly-politicized synopsis which commands the bulk of media and political = <BR> attention.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> This, the original and by far most ubiquitous version of the HS graph, was = <BR> derived from a 1998 paper by Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcol= m <BR> K. Hughes (MBH98).<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> It was promptly met with challenges to both its proxy data and statistical = <BR> analysis methodology.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Of these, various papers by two Canadians -- statistician Stephen McIntyre = <BR> and economist Ross McKitrick -- stood out in dispelling the AGW-supporting = <BR> hockey-stick shape arrived at by MBH, claiming it the result of severe data= <BR> defects and flawed calculations, particularly an invalid principal componen= t <BR> analysis.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> In a coordinated effort to defend the refuted thesis, alarmed alarmists <BR= > tendered a handful of supporting studies.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Mann himself cheered those either attacking McIntyre and McKitrick or <BR> supporting his own reconstruction and dubbed them the "Hockey Team.&qu= ot;<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> And the position of team forward and co-captain was bestowed upon Keith <BR= > Briffa of Britain's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), whose temperature graphs,= <BR> derived from Yamal, Russia tree ring data were heavily cited by the IPCC as= <BR> supporting evidence of MBH's assertion of unprecedented 20th century <BR> warming.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> While studies reaffirming both the MWP and LIA continued to be published, <= BR> congressional hearings and expert panels found MBH to be largely unsupporte= d <BR> by studies relying on legitimate proxy data other than Briffa's.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Still, most alarmists continued (and continue) to defend the HS on <BR> principle.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Which in no way dilutes this plain truth:<BR> <BR> By the time most Americans received their first lesson in climate hysteria = <BR> in the Albert Gore lecture hall that was the 2006 film An Inconvenient <BR> Truth, the MBH chart the nutty professor stood before and offered as proof = <BR> of impending doom was already held in disrepute by most serious persons of = <BR> science.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Lest there be any doubt, why else would the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report <= BR> (AR4) -- notwithstanding the appointments of both Briffa and Overpeck as <B= R> lead authors - give the graph short mention and exclude it entirely from th= e <BR> SPM?<BR> <BR> <BR> It appeared the Hockey Team was being sent back to the minors.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> That is -- for the moment.<BR> <BR> <BR> Desperate Times Call For Disparate Actions<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Given the current economic and political climate, it's not surprising that = <BR> the globe's climate ranks dead last when Americans are asked to name the <B= R> "most important issue facing the country right now."<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Needless to say, that's an uncomfortable position for the Greenhouse Gas <B= R> Team, what with a Senate Climate Bill promising even more government contro= l <BR> than its House counterpart at the plate and the December Copenhagen Climate= <BR> Summit on deck.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Accordingly, on September 24th, in a transparently desperate effort to stok= e <BR> the coals, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) released its <BR= > Climate Change Science Compendium 2009.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> The eco-plea opens with these words from UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon:<= BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> "The science has become more irrevocable than ever: Climate change is = <BR> happening. The evidence is all around us. And unless we act, we will see <B= R> catastrophic consequences including rising sea-levels, droughts and famine,= <BR> and the loss of up to a third of the world's plant and animal species."= ;<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Amazing.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> But the frantic hype of this call-to-pointless-action quickly segues to <BR= > blatant lies just three sentences later when Ban states "that climate = change <BR> is accelerating at a much faster pace than was previously thought by <BR> scientists."<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> It would appear the Sec-Gen believes that the cooling temperatures the new = <BR> millennium issued in have somehow escaped everyone's notice.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Imagine the uphill battle he'll face should predictions of the U.S. <BR> Northeast suffering its coldest winter in a decade due to a weak El Nino <B= R> come true.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> So it wasn't all that shocking to spot this undeniably dramatic graph on <B= R> only the fifth of this end-is-near report's 75 pages.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> The striking chart is marked as Figure 1.3: Correlation between temperature= <BR> and CO2. As its title suggests, it attempts to plot atmospheric CO2 <= BR> concentrations and mean global temperature during the past millennium.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Notice anything vaguely familiar about the temperature plot in red?<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Why, it's our old friend, Mr. Hockey Stick - apparently having sat for a bi= t <BR> of a makeover.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Interestingly enough, this reconstruction wasn't lifted from prior IPCC <BR= > assessments, or, for that matter, any UN entity at all.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> No, the source was actually a graphic posted to Wikimedia in 2005 by Hanno = <BR> Sandvik, a Norwegian research biologist. Sandvik cited two data sourc= es for <BR> his temperature plot - a 2004 paper by Jones and Mann (abracadabra - no mor= e <BR> MWP) for 1000-1880, and, for the remainder, "instrumental records publ= ished <BR> on the web" by Jones, Parker, Osborn and - wait for it .. Briffa.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> So the chart the UN climate experts used to sell the CO2 -°C connection= to <BR> an increasingly skeptical public was pulled from Wiki, crafted by an unknow= n <BR> biologist, conveniently ends about the same year warming ended, and based o= n <BR> a debunked temperature reconstruction.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> It would therefore appear they consider Sanvik quite the unsung authority.<= BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Yet I wonder whether these geniuses are aware of this 2006 graphic, also <B= R> from Sandvik, and plotting northern hemisphere temperatures over the past <= BR> 2000 years.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> This one cites 2005 data published by Moberg, Sonechkin, Holmgren, Datsenko= , <BR> Karlén, and Lauritzen as its source and paints a somewhat different = picture. <BR> Hello MWP and LIA, where've you been?<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Any guesses whether or not UNEP would have used Sandvik's chart had his <BR= > temperature dataset been from Moberg et al. rather than Mann et al.?<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> I contacted Hanno Sandvik a week ago last Saturday and asked him essentiall= y <BR> that same question.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> He responded that he was unaware of the UNEP Compendium and therefore had <= BR> "no idea which graphics they may have chosen." He also poin= ted out that <BR> while Mann's was global data, Mobergs was northern hemisphere only -- a <BR= > point well taken, however MHB98 was also derived from NH data yet <BR= > remarkably resembles the Mann "global" data Sandvik used.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Also -- Take a look at the period between 1000 and 1800 in both <BR> reconstructions. Is it even the least bit feasible that averaging southern = <BR> hemisphere data into the latter would produce the former?<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Or that UNEP strived to present the facts honestly?<BR> <BR> <BR> Not Man Made -- Mann Made<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> One of McIntyre's chief complaints when auditing MHB98 was Mann's refusal t= o <BR> provide his data, methods and source code.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> The Hockey Team's most dreaded opposing goaltender has been reporting the <= BR> same deceptiveness from Briffa, who for years refused to release his Yamal = <BR> measurement data. This, despite the fact that HS-defendin= g papers relying <BR> solely on Yamal continued to be published in major science journals.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> But last year, Briffa used the data in a paper he published in the <BR> Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Journal.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> As the journal adheres to its strict data archiving rules, McIntyre <BR> convinced one of its editors to help get Briffa's data released. And = late <BR> last month, the data was indeed published at CRU.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Last week, McIntyre analyzed the CRU archive Yamal data and proved that <BR= > Briffa et al. had cherry-picked and manipulated data, intentionally omittin= g <BR> records not friendly to their position.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> In fact, when Briffa's hand-selected figures were replaced by a broader <BR= > dataset for the same Polar Ural region (much of which he had deliberately <= BR> dropped), the Hockey-Stick suddenly disappeared, revealing no significant <= BR> trend in the 20th century whatsoever!<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> In Steve's new graph, below, the Red represents the original 12 cherry <BR> picked Yamal trees, while the Black incorporates the broader Polar Ural <BR= > dataset.<BR> <BR> Any questions whether or not global warming is Mann made?<BR> <BR> <BR> Inhofe was right<BR> <BR> <BR> The public's belief in manmade climate change doesn't hang on its grasp of = <BR> geophysics or thermodynamics.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Technical explanations of positive feedbacks and radiative forcings, read b= y <BR> few and understand by fewer still, aren't likely to foster acceptance of a = <BR> new energy tax that will dramatically raise the price of literally every <B= R> facet of human life.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Let's get real -- even experts on the subject can't seem to agree on what <= BR> caused modern warming.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> But alarmists know all too well that as long as citizens are convinced that= <BR> warming is both enduring and unprecedented, such inconveniences as the <BR> missing hot spot, laughably mistaken climate models, 800 year C= O2 <BR> /Temperature latency and perhaps even current cooling can be cleverly <BR> obfuscated with Goebbels-like double-talk and outright lies.<BR> <BR> And without the Hockey Stick's counterfeit portrait of runaway 20th century= <BR> warming, climate crisis peddlers' credibility levels are reduced to those o= f <BR> used car salesmen.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Not where you want to be when hoping to sell the instinctively absurd <BR> premise that the actions of mankind can influence temperatures in either <B= R> direction.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> So they cheat.<BR> <BR> And they lie.<BR> <BR> And they have from the very beginning.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> In 1989, climate scientist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine:<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> "To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary <BR= > scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any <B= R> doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between <= BR> being effective, and being honest."<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Twelve years later, Schneider was a lead author of the IPCC's TAR, the same= <BR> UN report that formally introduced the delusory Hockey Stick Graph.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> In his masterpiece work, Heaven and Earth, Ian Plimer assessed the cadre <B= R> whose own assessments form the foundation of virtually every climate-relate= d <BR> scheme, law, tax, regulation and treaty throughout the globe thusly:<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> "The IPCC is clearly an ascientific political organization in which <B= R> environmental activists and government representatives are setting the <BR> agenda for a variety of reasons including boosting trade, encouraging <BR> protectionism, adding costs to competitors and pushing their own sovereign = <BR> barrow."<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Add lying perpetrators of fraud, and I'd say that about sums it up.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Speaking on the Senate floor in July of 2003, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla)= <BR> rightly called the threat of catastrophic global warming the "greatest= hoax <BR> ever perpetrated on the American people."<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Let's make damned sure it doesn't become the most expensive.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><U><a href=3D"http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un= _climate_reports_they_lie.html">http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_cl= imate_reports_they_lie.html</a><BR> </U></FONT><BR> <BR> </SPAN></FONT> </BODY> </HTML> --B_3416066309_957679--
Re: The Mann and the Hockey Stick
Author: RLW
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 02:27
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 02:27
29 lines
2832 bytes
2832 bytes
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:18:28 -0400, Leonard wrote: > Abracadabra, No More Mediæval Warm Period! > > The lies behind the failed Hockey Stick <yada, yada, yada> I'm starting to get the impression that few posting here actually know what the "hockey stick" graph was intended to represent: runaway, nearly limitless increase in surface temperature. A) We know that's wrong. B) We know that the troposphere is getting warmer. (A) does nothing to disprove (B). Indeed, (B) is something *observed*, not a matter open to debate. (B) means that a lot of weather patterns will change and a lot of ice will melt. This doesn't mean Humanity will die off, but it will be very damn' expensive and inconvenient for a good many folks. I'll hate having to explain to my grandkids that everyone stood around debating whether it was happening instead of figuring out what impact it will have and how to solve some of the attendant problems. -- RLW
Re: The Mann and the Hockey Stick
Author: Marvin the Martian
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 05:06
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 05:06
52 lines
3562 bytes
3562 bytes
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 21:27:10 -0500, RLW wrote: > On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:18:28 -0400, Leonard wrote: > >> Abracadabra, No More Mediæval Warm Period! >> >> The lies behind the failed Hockey Stick > > <yada, yada, yada> > > I'm starting to get the impression that few posting here actually know > what the "hockey stick" graph was intended to represent: runaway, nearly > limitless increase in surface temperature. > > A) We know that's wrong. > > B) We know that the troposphere is getting warmer. We know that the data points used show warming, but as Watt pointed out, 58% are wrongly situated so they WOULD show warming. In fact, they would track US energy usage; if we do cut back on carbon emissions, these sites should show cooling! We know that 70% of the data collection stations in the US are garbage for the purpose of tracking climate change. GIGO. Now, there's better data out there, like Satellite data, but... "Climate Scientists" don't use that. Of course, it shows cooling. :-D > (A) does nothing to disprove (B). Indeed, (B) is something *observed*, > not a matter open to debate. How the data is collected is always open to debate. Or did you miss the neutrino speed limit violation debacle? Gather your data, and mistrust it. > (B) means that a lot of weather patterns will change and a lot of ice > will melt. This doesn't mean Humanity will die off, but it will be very > damn' expensive and inconvenient for a good many folks. > > I'll hate having to explain to my grandkids that everyone stood around > debating whether it was happening instead of figuring out what impact it > will have and how to solve some of the attendant problems. Instead you'll be denying that you were fooled in the great global warming fraud.
Re: The Mann and the Hockey Stick
Author: Super Turtle
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 06:10
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 06:10
78 lines
5377 bytes
5377 bytes
"RLW" wrote in message news:QIadnZ5kA-hjIerSnZ2dnUVZ_goAAAAA@giganews.com... >I'm starting to get the impression that few posting here actually know >what the "hockey stick" graph was intended to represent: runaway, nearly >limitless increase in surface temperature. >A) We know that's wrong. > >B) We know that the troposphere is getting warmer. > >(A) does nothing to disprove (B). Indeed, (B) is something *observed*, >not a matter open to debate. The idea that if you train ratings from a given era is to be used as the poster child to support and prop up global warming is ridiculous, and that's our point all along here. Crap science is crap science. If because something is a piece of junk, it thus does not prove or disprove a particular position in this whole debate. The problem is this piece of junk has been put forward as a poster child and was used as a means to sell global warming to the public. This all comes down to integrity, if the science community cannot come clean on this hockey stick, then how can we trust them? In fact, as long as the science community continues to support and prop up this piece of junk science they WILL NEVER EVER get my trust and support. It is amazing that the actual argument and idea being put forth here is that it DOES NOT matter if the hockey stick is a piece of junk, as long as the position it supports a supposedly true, then there's nothing wrong with using something that is a deception and something that is without merit. Sorry, that's not gonna fly, and no it's not acceptable to use something that is completely full of holes like Swiss cheese. This is exactly the same reasoning that Blech was using in the recent fake gate affair, in which it OK to huge forged documents, impersonate people, and commit fraud because as long as the position in the end can be justified, it doesn't matter if this lies and deceptions along the way. This is very simple: Until the science community comes along and completely throws this hunk of garbage hockey stick thing under the bus, then that science community is not worthy of our trust, they're not to be trusted, and in fact they will NEVER get our trust. The idea that as a group of intelligent and thinking people as a society we are to turn a blind eye, put our fingers and art years, and start screaming "la la la la" to ignore errors on truth, and a horrifying breach of proper science that the hockey stick represents is a ridiculous and position that borders on insanity. It is exactly issues like this that of broken the trust with the public, and Intel that trust is restored, and until the science community comes out and states that that hockey stick is a big hunk of garbage, then there in big trouble. Some people, long and state well here's another graph that shows another hockey stick, I'm sorry that will not fly, we're talking specifically about this data, and using a few stupid trees and tree rings from a limited area, and that of also that of "hiding the decline" is simply ridiculous. Why would I want to stand here and attempt a legitimate conversation with a group of people that steadfastly refuse to correct poor and rotten science? The hockey stick has been thoroughly been torn apart and it is full of holes like Swiss cheese. Corrections and faults have been pointed out repeatedly and with such information and knowledge wide available it becomes an act of WILLFUL MALICE to continue to support this hunk of junk and willful malice in refusing to correct this hunk of junk. Again: These people are not be trusted, and they will NOT get our trust and NEVER WILL get our trust until crap like this hockey stick is corrected. Super Turtle.
Re: The Mann and the Hockey Stick
Author: Earl Browning
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 06:30
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 06:30
111 lines
5877 bytes
5877 bytes
On Apr 1, 2:10 am, "Super Turtle" <supertur...@greenpiece.com> wrote: > "RLW" wrote in message > > news:QIadnZ5kA-hjIerSnZ2dnUVZ_goAAAAA@giganews.com... > > >I'm starting to get the impression that few posting here actually know > >what the "hockey stick" graph was intended to represent: runaway, nearly > >limitless increase in surface temperature. > >A) We know that's wrong. > > >B) We know that the troposphere is getting warmer. > > >(A) does nothing to disprove (B). Indeed, (B) is something *observed*, > >not a matter open to debate. > > The idea that if you train ratings from a given era is to be used as the > poster child to support and prop up global warming is ridiculous, and that's > our point all along here. > > Crap science is crap science. If because something is a piece of junk, it > thus does not prove or disprove a particular position in this whole debate. > > The problem is this piece of junk has been put forward as a poster child and > was used as a means to sell global warming to the public. > > This all comes down to integrity, if the science community cannot come clean > on this hockey stick, then how can we trust them? > > In fact, as long as the science community continues to support and prop up > this piece of junk science they WILL NEVER EVER get my trust and support. > > It is amazing that the actual argument and idea being put forth here is that > it DOES NOT matter if the hockey stick is a piece of junk, as long as the > position it supports a supposedly true, then there's nothing wrong with > using something that is a deception and something that is without merit. > > Sorry, that's not gonna fly, and no it's not acceptable to use something > that is completely full of holes like Swiss cheese. > > This is exactly the same reasoning that Blech was using in the recent fake > gate affair, in which it OK to huge forged documents, impersonate people, > and commit fraud because as long as the position in the end can be > justified, it doesn't matter if this lies and deceptions along the way. > > This is very simple: > > Until the science community comes along and completely throws this hunk of > garbage hockey stick thing under the bus, then that science community is not > worthy of our trust, they're not to be trusted, and in fact they will NEVER > get our trust. > > The idea that as a group of intelligent and thinking people as a society we > are to turn a blind eye, put our fingers and art years, and start screaming > "la la la la" to ignore errors on truth, and a horrifying breach of proper > science that the hockey stick represents is a ridiculous and position that > borders on insanity. > > It is exactly issues like this that of broken the trust with the public, and > Intel that trust is restored, and until the science community comes out and > states that that hockey stick is a big hunk of garbage, then there in big > trouble. Some people, long and state well here's another graph that shows > another hockey stick, I'm sorry that will not fly, we're talking > specifically about this data, and using a few stupid trees and tree rings > from a limited area, and that of also that of "hiding the decline" is simply > ridiculous. > > Why would I want to stand here and attempt a legitimate conversation with a > group of people that steadfastly refuse to correct poor and rotten science? > The hockey stick has been thoroughly been torn apart and it is full of holes > like Swiss cheese. Corrections and faults have been pointed out repeatedly > and with such information and knowledge wide available it becomes an act of > WILLFUL MALICE to continue to support this hunk of junk and willful malice > in refusing to correct this hunk of junk. > > Again: > These people are not be trusted, and they will NOT get our trust and NEVER > WILL get our trust until crap like this hockey stick is corrected. > > Super Turd\ Politics newsgroups are always where we want experts in MS Excel like you to tell us about the science of climatology. It's like referring to Lord Monckton's advice when it comes to how the Calgary Flames aren't in the playoffs.
Re: The Mann and the Hockey Stick
Author: Uncle Steve
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 12:30
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 12:30
95 lines
6167 bytes
6167 bytes
On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:10:31AM -0600, Super Turtle wrote: > "RLW" wrote in message > news:QIadnZ5kA-hjIerSnZ2dnUVZ_goAAAAA@giganews.com... > > >I'm starting to get the impression that few posting here actually know > >what the "hockey stick" graph was intended to represent: runaway, nearly > >limitless increase in surface temperature. > > >A) We know that's wrong. > > > >B) We know that the troposphere is getting warmer. > > > >(A) does nothing to disprove (B). Indeed, (B) is something *observed*, > >not a matter open to debate. > > The idea that if you train ratings from a given era is to be used as the > poster child to support and prop up global warming is ridiculous, and > that's our point all along here. > > Crap science is crap science. If because something is a piece of junk, it > thus does not prove or disprove a particular position in this whole debate. > > The problem is this piece of junk has been put forward as a poster child > and was used as a means to sell global warming to the public. > > This all comes down to integrity, if the science community cannot come > clean on this hockey stick, then how can we trust them? > > In fact, as long as the science community continues to support and prop up > this piece of junk science they WILL NEVER EVER get my trust and support. > > It is amazing that the actual argument and idea being put forth here is > that it DOES NOT matter if the hockey stick is a piece of junk, as long as > the position it supports a supposedly true, then there's nothing wrong with > using something that is a deception and something that is without merit. > > Sorry, that's not gonna fly, and no it's not acceptable to use something > that is completely full of holes like Swiss cheese. > > This is exactly the same reasoning that Blech was using in the recent fake > gate affair, in which it OK to huge forged documents, impersonate people, > and commit fraud because as long as the position in the end can be > justified, it doesn't matter if this lies and deceptions along the way. > > This is very simple: > > Until the science community comes along and completely throws this hunk of > garbage hockey stick thing under the bus, then that science community is > not worthy of our trust, they're not to be trusted, and in fact they will > NEVER get our trust. > > The idea that as a group of intelligent and thinking people as a society we > are to turn a blind eye, put our fingers and art years, and start screaming > "la la la la" to ignore errors on truth, and a horrifying breach of proper > science that the hockey stick represents is a ridiculous and position that > borders on insanity. > > It is exactly issues like this that of broken the trust with the public, > and Intel that trust is restored, and until the science community comes out > and states that that hockey stick is a big hunk of garbage, then there in > big trouble. Some people, long and state well here's another graph that > shows another hockey stick, I'm sorry that will not fly, we're talking > specifically about this data, and using a few stupid trees and tree rings > from a limited area, and that of also that of "hiding the decline" is > simply ridiculous. > > Why would I want to stand here and attempt a legitimate conversation with a > group of people that steadfastly refuse to correct poor and rotten science? > The hockey stick has been thoroughly been torn apart and it is full of > holes like Swiss cheese. Corrections and faults have been pointed out > repeatedly and with such information and knowledge wide available it > becomes an act of WILLFUL MALICE to continue to support this hunk of junk > and willful malice in refusing to correct this hunk of junk. > > Again: > These people are not be trusted, and they will NOT get our trust and NEVER > WILL get our trust until crap like this hockey stick is corrected. > > Super Turtle. Super Turtle? You know that Science isn't all one unified field of inquiry, that there are several distinct provinces with not all of them being equal in stature or maturity? Climate Science, like Psychology, is relatively new having also gone through some recent changes as technology has advanced. Distrusting all science merely because there is still a debate over AGW seems foolish. Regards, Uncle Steve -- "Following has never been easier" -- The Onion
Re: The Mann and the Hockey Stick
Author: Marvin the Martian
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 13:11
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 13:11
103 lines
6657 bytes
6657 bytes
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 08:30:33 -0400, Uncle Steve wrote: > On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:10:31AM -0600, Super Turtle wrote: >> "RLW" wrote in message >> news:QIadnZ5kA-hjIerSnZ2dnUVZ_goAAAAA@giganews.com... >> >> >I'm starting to get the impression that few posting here actually know >> >what the "hockey stick" graph was intended to represent: runaway, >> >nearly limitless increase in surface temperature. >> >> >A) We know that's wrong. >> > >> >B) We know that the troposphere is getting warmer. >> > >> >(A) does nothing to disprove (B). Indeed, (B) is something >> >*observed*, not a matter open to debate. >> >> The idea that if you train ratings from a given era is to be used as >> the poster child to support and prop up global warming is ridiculous, >> and that's our point all along here. >> >> Crap science is crap science. If because something is a piece of junk, >> it thus does not prove or disprove a particular position in this whole >> debate. >> >> The problem is this piece of junk has been put forward as a poster >> child and was used as a means to sell global warming to the public. >> >> This all comes down to integrity, if the science community cannot come >> clean on this hockey stick, then how can we trust them? >> >> In fact, as long as the science community continues to support and prop >> up this piece of junk science they WILL NEVER EVER get my trust and >> support. >> >> It is amazing that the actual argument and idea being put forth here is >> that it DOES NOT matter if the hockey stick is a piece of junk, as long >> as the position it supports a supposedly true, then there's nothing >> wrong with using something that is a deception and something that is >> without merit. >> >> Sorry, that's not gonna fly, and no it's not acceptable to use >> something that is completely full of holes like Swiss cheese. >> >> This is exactly the same reasoning that Blech was using in the recent >> fake gate affair, in which it OK to huge forged documents, impersonate >> people, and commit fraud because as long as the position in the end can >> be justified, it doesn't matter if this lies and deceptions along the >> way. >> >> This is very simple: >> >> Until the science community comes along and completely throws this hunk >> of garbage hockey stick thing under the bus, then that science >> community is not worthy of our trust, they're not to be trusted, and in >> fact they will NEVER get our trust. >> >> The idea that as a group of intelligent and thinking people as a >> society we are to turn a blind eye, put our fingers and art years, and >> start screaming "la la la la" to ignore errors on truth, and a >> horrifying breach of proper science that the hockey stick represents is >> a ridiculous and position that borders on insanity. >> >> It is exactly issues like this that of broken the trust with the >> public, and Intel that trust is restored, and until the science >> community comes out and states that that hockey stick is a big hunk of >> garbage, then there in big trouble. Some people, long and state well >> here's another graph that shows another hockey stick, I'm sorry that >> will not fly, we're talking specifically about this data, and using a >> few stupid trees and tree rings from a limited area, and that of also >> that of "hiding the decline" is simply ridiculous. >> >> Why would I want to stand here and attempt a legitimate conversation >> with a group of people that steadfastly refuse to correct poor and >> rotten science? The hockey stick has been thoroughly been torn apart >> and it is full of holes like Swiss cheese. Corrections and faults have >> been pointed out repeatedly and with such information and knowledge >> wide available it becomes an act of WILLFUL MALICE to continue to >> support this hunk of junk and willful malice in refusing to correct >> this hunk of junk. >> >> Again: >> These people are not be trusted, and they will NOT get our trust and >> NEVER WILL get our trust until crap like this hockey stick is >> corrected. >> >> Super Turtle. > > Super Turtle? You know that Science isn't all one unified field of > inquiry, that there are several distinct provinces with not all of them > being equal in stature or maturity? Climate Science, like Psychology, > is relatively new having also gone through some recent changes as > technology has advanced. Distrusting all science merely because there > is still a debate over AGW seems foolish. His point was that these guys were lying. Your rebuttal is that it's okay to do what they're doing (lying) since climate science (which actually is a very old "science") is a new science, like psychology. I suppose if Freud can make shit up and pass it off as "truth", so can these "climate scientists", huh? Seems you're not believable.
Re: The Mann and the Hockey Stick
Author: Uncle Steve
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 13:19
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 13:19
119 lines
7030 bytes
7030 bytes
On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 08:11:42AM -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote: > On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 08:30:33 -0400, Uncle Steve wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:10:31AM -0600, Super Turtle wrote: > >> "RLW" wrote in message > >> news:QIadnZ5kA-hjIerSnZ2dnUVZ_goAAAAA@giganews.com... > >> > >> >I'm starting to get the impression that few posting here actually know > >> >what the "hockey stick" graph was intended to represent: runaway, > >> >nearly limitless increase in surface temperature. > >> > >> >A) We know that's wrong. > >> > > >> >B) We know that the troposphere is getting warmer. > >> > > >> >(A) does nothing to disprove (B). Indeed, (B) is something > >> >*observed*, not a matter open to debate. > >> > >> The idea that if you train ratings from a given era is to be used as > >> the poster child to support and prop up global warming is ridiculous, > >> and that's our point all along here. > >> > >> Crap science is crap science. If because something is a piece of junk, > >> it thus does not prove or disprove a particular position in this whole > >> debate. > >> > >> The problem is this piece of junk has been put forward as a poster > >> child and was used as a means to sell global warming to the public. > >> > >> This all comes down to integrity, if the science community cannot come > >> clean on this hockey stick, then how can we trust them? > >> > >> In fact, as long as the science community continues to support and prop > >> up this piece of junk science they WILL NEVER EVER get my trust and > >> support. > >> > >> It is amazing that the actual argument and idea being put forth here is > >> that it DOES NOT matter if the hockey stick is a piece of junk, as long > >> as the position it supports a supposedly true, then there's nothing > >> wrong with using something that is a deception and something that is > >> without merit. > >> > >> Sorry, that's not gonna fly, and no it's not acceptable to use > >> something that is completely full of holes like Swiss cheese. > >> > >> This is exactly the same reasoning that Blech was using in the recent > >> fake gate affair, in which it OK to huge forged documents, impersonate > >> people, and commit fraud because as long as the position in the end can > >> be justified, it doesn't matter if this lies and deceptions along the > >> way. > >> > >> This is very simple: > >> > >> Until the science community comes along and completely throws this hunk > >> of garbage hockey stick thing under the bus, then that science > >> community is not worthy of our trust, they're not to be trusted, and in > >> fact they will NEVER get our trust. > >> > >> The idea that as a group of intelligent and thinking people as a > >> society we are to turn a blind eye, put our fingers and art years, and > >> start screaming "la la la la" to ignore errors on truth, and a > >> horrifying breach of proper science that the hockey stick represents is > >> a ridiculous and position that borders on insanity. > >> > >> It is exactly issues like this that of broken the trust with the > >> public, and Intel that trust is restored, and until the science > >> community comes out and states that that hockey stick is a big hunk of > >> garbage, then there in big trouble. Some people, long and state well > >> here's another graph that shows another hockey stick, I'm sorry that > >> will not fly, we're talking specifically about this data, and using a > >> few stupid trees and tree rings from a limited area, and that of also > >> that of "hiding the decline" is simply ridiculous. > >> > >> Why would I want to stand here and attempt a legitimate conversation > >> with a group of people that steadfastly refuse to correct poor and > >> rotten science? The hockey stick has been thoroughly been torn apart > >> and it is full of holes like Swiss cheese. Corrections and faults have > >> been pointed out repeatedly and with such information and knowledge > >> wide available it becomes an act of WILLFUL MALICE to continue to > >> support this hunk of junk and willful malice in refusing to correct > >> this hunk of junk. > >> > >> Again: > >> These people are not be trusted, and they will NOT get our trust and > >> NEVER WILL get our trust until crap like this hockey stick is > >> corrected. > >> > >> Super Turtle. > > > > Super Turtle? You know that Science isn't all one unified field of > > inquiry, that there are several distinct provinces with not all of them > > being equal in stature or maturity? Climate Science, like Psychology, > > is relatively new having also gone through some recent changes as > > technology has advanced. Distrusting all science merely because there > > is still a debate over AGW seems foolish. > > His point was that these guys were lying. > > Your rebuttal is that it's okay to do what they're doing (lying) since > climate science (which actually is a very old "science") is a new > science, like psychology. I suppose if Freud can make shit up and pass it > off as "truth", so can these "climate scientists", huh? I said no such thing. Fraud is fraud, and it doesn't matter which scientific dicipline is undermined by it. Sociologists who fudge their numbers are as reprehensible as physicists who fake theirs. > Seems you're not believable. I don't aspire to be believable. I prefer to be entertaining. Regards, Uncle Steve -- "Following has never been easier" -- The Onion
Re: The Mann and the Hockey Stick
Author: Gary Rock Jones
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 13:19
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 13:19
125 lines
7132 bytes
7132 bytes
On Apr 1, 9:11 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote: > On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 08:30:33 -0400, Uncle Steve wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:10:31AM -0600, Super Turtle wrote: > >> "RLW" wrote in message > >>news:QIadnZ5kA-hjIerSnZ2dnUVZ_goAAAAA@giganews.com... > > >> >I'm starting to get the impression that few posting here actually know > >> >what the "hockey stick" graph was intended to represent: runaway, > >> >nearly limitless increase in surface temperature. > > >> >A) We know that's wrong. > > >> >B) We know that the troposphere is getting warmer. > > >> >(A) does nothing to disprove (B). Indeed, (B) is something > >> >*observed*, not a matter open to debate. > > >> The idea that if you train ratings from a given era is to be used as > >> the poster child to support and prop up global warming is ridiculous, > >> and that's our point all along here. > > >> Crap science is crap science. If because something is a piece of junk, > >> it thus does not prove or disprove a particular position in this whole > >> debate. > > >> The problem is this piece of junk has been put forward as a poster > >> child and was used as a means to sell global warming to the public. > > >> This all comes down to integrity, if the science community cannot come > >> clean on this hockey stick, then how can we trust them? > > >> In fact, as long as the science community continues to support and prop > >> up this piece of junk science they WILL NEVER EVER get my trust and > >> support. > > >> It is amazing that the actual argument and idea being put forth here is > >> that it DOES NOT matter if the hockey stick is a piece of junk, as long > >> as the position it supports a supposedly true, then there's nothing > >> wrong with using something that is a deception and something that is > >> without merit. > > >> Sorry, that's not gonna fly, and no it's not acceptable to use > >> something that is completely full of holes like Swiss cheese. > > >> This is exactly the same reasoning that Blech was using in the recent > >> fake gate affair, in which it OK to huge forged documents, impersonate > >> people, and commit fraud because as long as the position in the end can > >> be justified, it doesn't matter if this lies and deceptions along the > >> way. > > >> This is very simple: > > >> Until the science community comes along and completely throws this hunk > >> of garbage hockey stick thing under the bus, then that science > >> community is not worthy of our trust, they're not to be trusted, and in > >> fact they will NEVER get our trust. > > >> The idea that as a group of intelligent and thinking people as a > >> society we are to turn a blind eye, put our fingers and art years, and > >> start screaming "la la la la" to ignore errors on truth, and a > >> horrifying breach of proper science that the hockey stick represents is > >> a ridiculous and position that borders on insanity. > > >> It is exactly issues like this that of broken the trust with the > >> public, and Intel that trust is restored, and until the science > >> community comes out and states that that hockey stick is a big hunk of > >> garbage, then there in big trouble. Some people, long and state well > >> here's another graph that shows another hockey stick, I'm sorry that > >> will not fly, we're talking specifically about this data, and using a > >> few stupid trees and tree rings from a limited area, and that of also > >> that of "hiding the decline" is simply ridiculous. > > >> Why would I want to stand here and attempt a legitimate conversation > >> with a group of people that steadfastly refuse to correct poor and > >> rotten science? The hockey stick has been thoroughly been torn apart > >> and it is full of holes like Swiss cheese. Corrections and faults have > >> been pointed out repeatedly and with such information and knowledge > >> wide available it becomes an act of WILLFUL MALICE to continue to > >> support this hunk of junk and willful malice in refusing to correct > >> this hunk of junk. > > >> Again: > >> These people are not be trusted, and they will NOT get our trust and > >> NEVER WILL get our trust until crap like this hockey stick is > >> corrected. > > >> Super Turtle. > > > Super Turtle? You know that Science isn't all one unified field of > > inquiry, that there are several distinct provinces with not all of them > > being equal in stature or maturity? Climate Science, like Psychology, > > is relatively new having also gone through some recent changes as > > technology has advanced. Distrusting all science merely because there > > is still a debate over AGW seems foolish. > > His point was that these guys were lying. > > Your rebuttal is that it's okay to do what they're doing (lying) since > climate science (which actually is a very old "science") is a new > science, like psychology. I suppose if Freud can make shit up and pass it > off as "truth", so can these "climate scientists", huh? > > Seems you're not believable. Where I come from, Oklamoma Senator Jim Inhofe tells us that global warming is a lie. And he works for the government, so we must believe what he says. If you can't believe what the government says, believe nobody. They always tell the truth because we have guns, and if they lie to us they know we will use them.
Re: The Mann and the Hockey Stick
Author: Gary Rock Jones
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 13:23
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 13:23
151 lines
7918 bytes
7918 bytes
On Apr 1, 9:19 am, Uncle Steve <stevet...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 08:11:42AM -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote: > > On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 08:30:33 -0400, Uncle Steve wrote: > > > > On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:10:31AM -0600, Super Turtle wrote: > > >> "RLW" wrote in message > > >>news:QIadnZ5kA-hjIerSnZ2dnUVZ_goAAAAA@giganews.com... > > > >> >I'm starting to get the impression that few posting here actually know > > >> >what the "hockey stick" graph was intended to represent: runaway, > > >> >nearly limitless increase in surface temperature. > > > >> >A) We know that's wrong. > > > >> >B) We know that the troposphere is getting warmer. > > > >> >(A) does nothing to disprove (B). Indeed, (B) is something > > >> >*observed*, not a matter open to debate. > > > >> The idea that if you train ratings from a given era is to be used as > > >> the poster child to support and prop up global warming is ridiculous, > > >> and that's our point all along here. > > > >> Crap science is crap science. If because something is a piece of junk, > > >> it thus does not prove or disprove a particular position in this whole > > >> debate. > > > >> The problem is this piece of junk has been put forward as a poster > > >> child and was used as a means to sell global warming to the public. > > > >> This all comes down to integrity, if the science community cannot come > > >> clean on this hockey stick, then how can we trust them? > > > >> In fact, as long as the science community continues to support and prop > > >> up this piece of junk science they WILL NEVER EVER get my trust and > > >> support. > > > >> It is amazing that the actual argument and idea being put forth here is > > >> that it DOES NOT matter if the hockey stick is a piece of junk, as long > > >> as the position it supports a supposedly true, then there's nothing > > >> wrong with using something that is a deception and something that is > > >> without merit. > > > >> Sorry, that's not gonna fly, and no it's not acceptable to use > > >> something that is completely full of holes like Swiss cheese. > > > >> This is exactly the same reasoning that Blech was using in the recent > > >> fake gate affair, in which it OK to huge forged documents, impersonate > > >> people, and commit fraud because as long as the position in the end can > > >> be justified, it doesn't matter if this lies and deceptions along the > > >> way. > > > >> This is very simple: > > > >> Until the science community comes along and completely throws this hunk > > >> of garbage hockey stick thing under the bus, then that science > > >> community is not worthy of our trust, they're not to be trusted, and in > > >> fact they will NEVER get our trust. > > > >> The idea that as a group of intelligent and thinking people as a > > >> society we are to turn a blind eye, put our fingers and art years, and > > >> start screaming "la la la la" to ignore errors on truth, and a > > >> horrifying breach of proper science that the hockey stick represents is > > >> a ridiculous and position that borders on insanity. > > > >> It is exactly issues like this that of broken the trust with the > > >> public, and Intel that trust is restored, and until the science > > >> community comes out and states that that hockey stick is a big hunk of > > >> garbage, then there in big trouble. Some people, long and state well > > >> here's another graph that shows another hockey stick, I'm sorry that > > >> will not fly, we're talking specifically about this data, and using a > > >> few stupid trees and tree rings from a limited area, and that of also > > >> that of "hiding the decline" is simply ridiculous. > > > >> Why would I want to stand here and attempt a legitimate conversation > > >> with a group of people that steadfastly refuse to correct poor and > > >> rotten science? The hockey stick has been thoroughly been torn apart > > >> and it is full of holes like Swiss cheese. Corrections and faults have > > >> been pointed out repeatedly and with such information and knowledge > > >> wide available it becomes an act of WILLFUL MALICE to continue to > > >> support this hunk of junk and willful malice in refusing to correct > > >> this hunk of junk. > > > >> Again: > > >> These people are not be trusted, and they will NOT get our trust and > > >> NEVER WILL get our trust until crap like this hockey stick is > > >> corrected. > > > >> Super Turtle. > > > > Super Turtle? You know that Science isn't all one unified field of > > > inquiry, that there are several distinct provinces with not all of them > > > being equal in stature or maturity? Climate Science, like Psychology, > > > is relatively new having also gone through some recent changes as > > > technology has advanced. Distrusting all science merely because there > > > is still a debate over AGW seems foolish. > > > His point was that these guys were lying. > > > Your rebuttal is that it's okay to do what they're doing (lying) since > > climate science (which actually is a very old "science") is a new > > science, like psychology. I suppose if Freud can make shit up and pass it > > off as "truth", so can these "climate scientists", huh? > > I said no such thing. Fraud is fraud, and it doesn't matter which > scientific dicipline is undermined by it. Sociologists who fudge > their numbers are as reprehensible as physicists who fake theirs. > > > Seems you're not believable. > > I don't aspire to be believable. I prefer to be entertaining. > > Regards, > > Uncle Steve > Well! Lookie here! We have some boy who thinks he's Elvis! Y'all gotta know that the real principals of being from the south are ruled by the actions of none other than Jerry Lee Lewis. Hell! Marrying your 13 year-old cousin in the old days wasn't bad, it was a right of passage! That's why we all love Jesus.
Re: The Mann and the Hockey Stick
Author: Bill Ward
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 13:47
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 13:47
111 lines
7142 bytes
7142 bytes
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 08:11:42 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote: > On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 08:30:33 -0400, Uncle Steve wrote: > >> On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:10:31AM -0600, Super Turtle wrote: >>> "RLW" wrote in message >>> news:QIadnZ5kA-hjIerSnZ2dnUVZ_goAAAAA@giganews.com... >>> >>> >I'm starting to get the impression that few posting here actually >>> >know what the "hockey stick" graph was intended to represent: >>> >runaway, nearly limitless increase in surface temperature. >>> >>> >A) We know that's wrong. >>> > >>> >B) We know that the troposphere is getting warmer. >>> > >>> >(A) does nothing to disprove (B). Indeed, (B) is something >>> >*observed*, not a matter open to debate. >>> >>> The idea that if you train ratings from a given era is to be used as >>> the poster child to support and prop up global warming is ridiculous, >>> and that's our point all along here. >>> >>> Crap science is crap science. If because something is a piece of junk, >>> it thus does not prove or disprove a particular position in this whole >>> debate. >>> >>> The problem is this piece of junk has been put forward as a poster >>> child and was used as a means to sell global warming to the public. >>> >>> This all comes down to integrity, if the science community cannot come >>> clean on this hockey stick, then how can we trust them? >>> >>> In fact, as long as the science community continues to support and >>> prop up this piece of junk science they WILL NEVER EVER get my trust >>> and support. >>> >>> It is amazing that the actual argument and idea being put forth here >>> is that it DOES NOT matter if the hockey stick is a piece of junk, as >>> long as the position it supports a supposedly true, then there's >>> nothing wrong with using something that is a deception and something >>> that is without merit. >>> >>> Sorry, that's not gonna fly, and no it's not acceptable to use >>> something that is completely full of holes like Swiss cheese. >>> >>> This is exactly the same reasoning that Blech was using in the recent >>> fake gate affair, in which it OK to huge forged documents, impersonate >>> people, and commit fraud because as long as the position in the end >>> can be justified, it doesn't matter if this lies and deceptions along >>> the way. >>> >>> This is very simple: >>> >>> Until the science community comes along and completely throws this >>> hunk of garbage hockey stick thing under the bus, then that science >>> community is not worthy of our trust, they're not to be trusted, and >>> in fact they will NEVER get our trust. >>> >>> The idea that as a group of intelligent and thinking people as a >>> society we are to turn a blind eye, put our fingers and art years, and >>> start screaming "la la la la" to ignore errors on truth, and a >>> horrifying breach of proper science that the hockey stick represents >>> is a ridiculous and position that borders on insanity. >>> >>> It is exactly issues like this that of broken the trust with the >>> public, and Intel that trust is restored, and until the science >>> community comes out and states that that hockey stick is a big hunk of >>> garbage, then there in big trouble. Some people, long and state well >>> here's another graph that shows another hockey stick, I'm sorry that >>> will not fly, we're talking specifically about this data, and using a >>> few stupid trees and tree rings from a limited area, and that of also >>> that of "hiding the decline" is simply ridiculous. >>> >>> Why would I want to stand here and attempt a legitimate conversation >>> with a group of people that steadfastly refuse to correct poor and >>> rotten science? The hockey stick has been thoroughly been torn apart >>> and it is full of holes like Swiss cheese. Corrections and faults have >>> been pointed out repeatedly and with such information and knowledge >>> wide available it becomes an act of WILLFUL MALICE to continue to >>> support this hunk of junk and willful malice in refusing to correct >>> this hunk of junk. >>> >>> Again: >>> These people are not be trusted, and they will NOT get our trust and >>> NEVER WILL get our trust until crap like this hockey stick is >>> corrected. >>> >>> Super Turtle. >> >> Super Turtle? You know that Science isn't all one unified field of >> inquiry, that there are several distinct provinces with not all of them >> being equal in stature or maturity? Climate Science, like Psychology, >> is relatively new having also gone through some recent changes as >> technology has advanced. Distrusting all science merely because there >> is still a debate over AGW seems foolish. > > His point was that these guys were lying. > > Your rebuttal is that it's okay to do what they're doing (lying) since > climate science (which actually is a very old "science") is a new > science, like psychology. I suppose if Freud can make shit up and pass > it off as "truth", so can these "climate scientists", huh? > > Seems you're not believable. If the rest of science is as trustworthy as Steve claims, why didn't they call bullshit on the climate science fraud as soon as it became obvious? Science requires both curiosity and integrity. Lose one and it becomes either manufacturing or fraudulence.
Re: The Mann and the Hockey Stick
Author: Bill Ward
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 13:50
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 13:50
114 lines
7492 bytes
7492 bytes
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:19:02 -0400, Uncle Steve wrote: > On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 08:11:42AM -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote: >> On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 08:30:33 -0400, Uncle Steve wrote: >> >> > On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:10:31AM -0600, Super Turtle wrote: >> >> "RLW" wrote in message >> >> news:QIadnZ5kA-hjIerSnZ2dnUVZ_goAAAAA@giganews.com... >> >> >> >> >I'm starting to get the impression that few posting here actually >> >> >know what the "hockey stick" graph was intended to represent: >> >> >runaway, nearly limitless increase in surface temperature. >> >> >> >> >A) We know that's wrong. >> >> > >> >> >B) We know that the troposphere is getting warmer. >> >> > >> >> >(A) does nothing to disprove (B). Indeed, (B) is something >> >> >*observed*, not a matter open to debate. >> >> >> >> The idea that if you train ratings from a given era is to be used as >> >> the poster child to support and prop up global warming is >> >> ridiculous, and that's our point all along here. >> >> >> >> Crap science is crap science. If because something is a piece of >> >> junk, it thus does not prove or disprove a particular position in >> >> this whole debate. >> >> >> >> The problem is this piece of junk has been put forward as a poster >> >> child and was used as a means to sell global warming to the public. >> >> >> >> This all comes down to integrity, if the science community cannot >> >> come clean on this hockey stick, then how can we trust them? >> >> >> >> In fact, as long as the science community continues to support and >> >> prop up this piece of junk science they WILL NEVER EVER get my trust >> >> and support. >> >> >> >> It is amazing that the actual argument and idea being put forth here >> >> is that it DOES NOT matter if the hockey stick is a piece of junk, >> >> as long as the position it supports a supposedly true, then there's >> >> nothing wrong with using something that is a deception and something >> >> that is without merit. >> >> >> >> Sorry, that's not gonna fly, and no it's not acceptable to use >> >> something that is completely full of holes like Swiss cheese. >> >> >> >> This is exactly the same reasoning that Blech was using in the >> >> recent fake gate affair, in which it OK to huge forged documents, >> >> impersonate people, and commit fraud because as long as the position >> >> in the end can be justified, it doesn't matter if this lies and >> >> deceptions along the way. >> >> >> >> This is very simple: >> >> >> >> Until the science community comes along and completely throws this >> >> hunk of garbage hockey stick thing under the bus, then that science >> >> community is not worthy of our trust, they're not to be trusted, and >> >> in fact they will NEVER get our trust. >> >> >> >> The idea that as a group of intelligent and thinking people as a >> >> society we are to turn a blind eye, put our fingers and art years, >> >> and start screaming "la la la la" to ignore errors on truth, and a >> >> horrifying breach of proper science that the hockey stick represents >> >> is a ridiculous and position that borders on insanity. >> >> >> >> It is exactly issues like this that of broken the trust with the >> >> public, and Intel that trust is restored, and until the science >> >> community comes out and states that that hockey stick is a big hunk >> >> of garbage, then there in big trouble. Some people, long and state >> >> well here's another graph that shows another hockey stick, I'm sorry >> >> that will not fly, we're talking specifically about this data, and >> >> using a few stupid trees and tree rings from a limited area, and >> >> that of also that of "hiding the decline" is simply ridiculous. >> >> >> >> Why would I want to stand here and attempt a legitimate conversation >> >> with a group of people that steadfastly refuse to correct poor and >> >> rotten science? The hockey stick has been thoroughly been torn apart >> >> and it is full of holes like Swiss cheese. Corrections and faults >> >> have been pointed out repeatedly and with such information and >> >> knowledge wide available it becomes an act of WILLFUL MALICE to >> >> continue to support this hunk of junk and willful malice in refusing >> >> to correct this hunk of junk. >> >> >> >> Again: >> >> These people are not be trusted, and they will NOT get our trust and >> >> NEVER WILL get our trust until crap like this hockey stick is >> >> corrected. >> >> >> >> Super Turtle. >> > >> > Super Turtle? You know that Science isn't all one unified field of >> > inquiry, that there are several distinct provinces with not all of >> > them being equal in stature or maturity? Climate Science, like >> > Psychology, is relatively new having also gone through some recent >> > changes as technology has advanced. Distrusting all science merely >> > because there is still a debate over AGW seems foolish. >> >> His point was that these guys were lying. >> >> Your rebuttal is that it's okay to do what they're doing (lying) since >> climate science (which actually is a very old "science") is a new >> science, like psychology. I suppose if Freud can make shit up and pass >> it off as "truth", so can these "climate scientists", huh? > > I said no such thing. Fraud is fraud, and it doesn't matter which > scientific dicipline is undermined by it. Sociologists who fudge their > numbers are as reprehensible as physicists who fake theirs. > >> Seems you're not believable. > > I don't aspire to be believable. I prefer to be entertaining. So far, you're neither. Try again?
Re: The Mann and the Hockey Stick
Author: Gary Rock Jones
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 13:56
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 13:56
136 lines
7914 bytes
7914 bytes
Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote: > On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 08:11:42 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote: > > On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 08:30:33 -0400, Uncle Steve wrote: > > >> On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:10:31AM -0600, Super Turtle wrote: > >>> "RLW" wrote in message > >>>news:QIadnZ5kA-hjIerSnZ2dnUVZ_goAAAAA@giganews.com... > > >>> >I'm starting to get the impression that few posting here actually > >>> >know what the "hockey stick" graph was intended to represent: > >>> >runaway, nearly limitless increase in surface temperature. > > >>> >A) We know that's wrong. > > >>> >B) We know that the troposphere is getting warmer. > > >>> >(A) does nothing to disprove (B). Indeed, (B) is something > >>> >*observed*, not a matter open to debate. > > >>> The idea that if you train ratings from a given era is to be used as > >>> the poster child to support and prop up global warming is ridiculous, > >>> and that's our point all along here. > > >>> Crap science is crap science. If because something is a piece of junk, > >>> it thus does not prove or disprove a particular position in this whole > >>> debate. > > >>> The problem is this piece of junk has been put forward as a poster > >>> child and was used as a means to sell global warming to the public. > > >>> This all comes down to integrity, if the science community cannot come > >>> clean on this hockey stick, then how can we trust them? > > >>> In fact, as long as the science community continues to support and > >>> prop up this piece of junk science they WILL NEVER EVER get my trust > >>> and support. > > >>> It is amazing that the actual argument and idea being put forth here > >>> is that it DOES NOT matter if the hockey stick is a piece of junk, as > >>> long as the position it supports a supposedly true, then there's > >>> nothing wrong with using something that is a deception and something > >>> that is without merit. > > >>> Sorry, that's not gonna fly, and no it's not acceptable to use > >>> something that is completely full of holes like Swiss cheese. > > >>> This is exactly the same reasoning that Blech was using in the recent > >>> fake gate affair, in which it OK to huge forged documents, impersonate > >>> people, and commit fraud because as long as the position in the end > >>> can be justified, it doesn't matter if this lies and deceptions along > >>> the way. > > >>> This is very simple: > > >>> Until the science community comes along and completely throws this > >>> hunk of garbage hockey stick thing under the bus, then that science > >>> community is not worthy of our trust, they're not to be trusted, and > >>> in fact they will NEVER get our trust. > > >>> The idea that as a group of intelligent and thinking people as a > >>> society we are to turn a blind eye, put our fingers and art years, and > >>> start screaming "la la la la" to ignore errors on truth, and a > >>> horrifying breach of proper science that the hockey stick represents > >>> is a ridiculous and position that borders on insanity. > > >>> It is exactly issues like this that of broken the trust with the > >>> public, and Intel that trust is restored, and until the science > >>> community comes out and states that that hockey stick is a big hunk of > >>> garbage, then there in big trouble. Some people, long and state well > >>> here's another graph that shows another hockey stick, I'm sorry that > >>> will not fly, we're talking specifically about this data, and using a > >>> few stupid trees and tree rings from a limited area, and that of also > >>> that of "hiding the decline" is simply ridiculous. > > >>> Why would I want to stand here and attempt a legitimate conversation > >>> with a group of people that steadfastly refuse to correct poor and > >>> rotten science? The hockey stick has been thoroughly been torn apart > >>> and it is full of holes like Swiss cheese. Corrections and faults have > >>> been pointed out repeatedly and with such information and knowledge > >>> wide available it becomes an act of WILLFUL MALICE to continue to > >>> support this hunk of junk and willful malice in refusing to correct > >>> this hunk of junk. > > >>> Again: > >>> These people are not be trusted, and they will NOT get our trust and > >>> NEVER WILL get our trust until crap like this hockey stick is > >>> corrected. > > >>> Super Turtle. > > >> Super Turtle? You know that Science isn't all one unified field of > >> inquiry, that there are several distinct provinces with not all of them > >> being equal in stature or maturity? Climate Science, like Psychology, > >> is relatively new having also gone through some recent changes as > >> technology has advanced. Distrusting all science merely because there > >> is still a debate over AGW seems foolish. > > > His point was that these guys were lying. > > > Your rebuttal is that it's okay to do what they're doing (lying) since > > climate science (which actually is a very old "science") is a new > > science, like psychology. I suppose if Freud can make shit up and pass > > it off as "truth", so can these "climate scientists", huh? > > > Seems you're not believable. > > If the rest of science is as trustworthy as Steve claims, why didn't they > call bullshit on the climate science fraud as soon as it became obvious? > > Science requires both curiosity and integrity. Lose one and it becomes > either manufacturing or fraudulence. Hockey Stick? Hockey is something that Canadians play, and they're a bunch of multiculturalism loving, Rye Whiskey swilling, Gay Marriage allowing subjects of The Queen who wallow in a perverted version of Obamacare somewhere up north. I've heard of them, but since they all live north of Alaska and beat seals for food, we don't get them down here in Oklahoma, where everybody has a picture of Senator Jimmy Inhofe on the wall and a Exxon tattoo on their ass. Jimmy knows all about snow. When it snowed in DC back in 2010, Jimmy said it proved that Al Gore was a liar! That means he's smart! But not near as smart as Rush.
Re: The Mann and the Hockey Stick
Author: Uncle Steve
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:02
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:02
128 lines
7762 bytes
7762 bytes
On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 08:50:34AM -0500, Bill Ward wrote: > On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:19:02 -0400, Uncle Steve wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 08:11:42AM -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote: > >> On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 08:30:33 -0400, Uncle Steve wrote: > >> > >> > On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:10:31AM -0600, Super Turtle wrote: > >> >> "RLW" wrote in message > >> >> news:QIadnZ5kA-hjIerSnZ2dnUVZ_goAAAAA@giganews.com... > >> >> > >> >> >I'm starting to get the impression that few posting here actually > >> >> >know what the "hockey stick" graph was intended to represent: > >> >> >runaway, nearly limitless increase in surface temperature. > >> >> > >> >> >A) We know that's wrong. > >> >> > > >> >> >B) We know that the troposphere is getting warmer. > >> >> > > >> >> >(A) does nothing to disprove (B). Indeed, (B) is something > >> >> >*observed*, not a matter open to debate. > >> >> > >> >> The idea that if you train ratings from a given era is to be used as > >> >> the poster child to support and prop up global warming is > >> >> ridiculous, and that's our point all along here. > >> >> > >> >> Crap science is crap science. If because something is a piece of > >> >> junk, it thus does not prove or disprove a particular position in > >> >> this whole debate. > >> >> > >> >> The problem is this piece of junk has been put forward as a poster > >> >> child and was used as a means to sell global warming to the public. > >> >> > >> >> This all comes down to integrity, if the science community cannot > >> >> come clean on this hockey stick, then how can we trust them? > >> >> > >> >> In fact, as long as the science community continues to support and > >> >> prop up this piece of junk science they WILL NEVER EVER get my trust > >> >> and support. > >> >> > >> >> It is amazing that the actual argument and idea being put forth here > >> >> is that it DOES NOT matter if the hockey stick is a piece of junk, > >> >> as long as the position it supports a supposedly true, then there's > >> >> nothing wrong with using something that is a deception and something > >> >> that is without merit. > >> >> > >> >> Sorry, that's not gonna fly, and no it's not acceptable to use > >> >> something that is completely full of holes like Swiss cheese. > >> >> > >> >> This is exactly the same reasoning that Blech was using in the > >> >> recent fake gate affair, in which it OK to huge forged documents, > >> >> impersonate people, and commit fraud because as long as the position > >> >> in the end can be justified, it doesn't matter if this lies and > >> >> deceptions along the way. > >> >> > >> >> This is very simple: > >> >> > >> >> Until the science community comes along and completely throws this > >> >> hunk of garbage hockey stick thing under the bus, then that science > >> >> community is not worthy of our trust, they're not to be trusted, and > >> >> in fact they will NEVER get our trust. > >> >> > >> >> The idea that as a group of intelligent and thinking people as a > >> >> society we are to turn a blind eye, put our fingers and art years, > >> >> and start screaming "la la la la" to ignore errors on truth, and a > >> >> horrifying breach of proper science that the hockey stick represents > >> >> is a ridiculous and position that borders on insanity. > >> >> > >> >> It is exactly issues like this that of broken the trust with the > >> >> public, and Intel that trust is restored, and until the science > >> >> community comes out and states that that hockey stick is a big hunk > >> >> of garbage, then there in big trouble. Some people, long and state > >> >> well here's another graph that shows another hockey stick, I'm sorry > >> >> that will not fly, we're talking specifically about this data, and > >> >> using a few stupid trees and tree rings from a limited area, and > >> >> that of also that of "hiding the decline" is simply ridiculous. > >> >> > >> >> Why would I want to stand here and attempt a legitimate conversation > >> >> with a group of people that steadfastly refuse to correct poor and > >> >> rotten science? The hockey stick has been thoroughly been torn apart > >> >> and it is full of holes like Swiss cheese. Corrections and faults > >> >> have been pointed out repeatedly and with such information and > >> >> knowledge wide available it becomes an act of WILLFUL MALICE to > >> >> continue to support this hunk of junk and willful malice in refusing > >> >> to correct this hunk of junk. > >> >> > >> >> Again: > >> >> These people are not be trusted, and they will NOT get our trust and > >> >> NEVER WILL get our trust until crap like this hockey stick is > >> >> corrected. > >> >> > >> >> Super Turtle. > >> > > >> > Super Turtle? You know that Science isn't all one unified field of > >> > inquiry, that there are several distinct provinces with not all of > >> > them being equal in stature or maturity? Climate Science, like > >> > Psychology, is relatively new having also gone through some recent > >> > changes as technology has advanced. Distrusting all science merely > >> > because there is still a debate over AGW seems foolish. > >> > >> His point was that these guys were lying. > >> > >> Your rebuttal is that it's okay to do what they're doing (lying) since > >> climate science (which actually is a very old "science") is a new > >> science, like psychology. I suppose if Freud can make shit up and pass > >> it off as "truth", so can these "climate scientists", huh? > > > > I said no such thing. Fraud is fraud, and it doesn't matter which > > scientific dicipline is undermined by it. Sociologists who fudge their > > numbers are as reprehensible as physicists who fake theirs. > > > >> Seems you're not believable. > > > > I don't aspire to be believable. I prefer to be entertaining. > > So far, you're neither. Try again? Hell no, you're probably too stupid to get my jokes. For that you'd require culture and good breeding, and I've seen no sign of either from you. Regards, Uncle Steve -- "Following has never been easier" -- The Onion
Re: The Mann and the Hockey Stick
Author: Bill Ward
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:08
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:08
127 lines
8387 bytes
8387 bytes
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 10:02:46 -0400, Uncle Steve wrote: > On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 08:50:34AM -0500, Bill Ward wrote: >> On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:19:02 -0400, Uncle Steve wrote: >> >> > On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 08:11:42AM -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote: >> >> On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 08:30:33 -0400, Uncle Steve wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:10:31AM -0600, Super Turtle wrote: >> >> >> "RLW" wrote in message >> >> >> news:QIadnZ5kA-hjIerSnZ2dnUVZ_goAAAAA@giganews.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> >I'm starting to get the impression that few posting here >> >> >> >actually know what the "hockey stick" graph was intended to >> >> >> >represent: runaway, nearly limitless increase in surface >> >> >> >temperature. >> >> >> >> >> >> >A) We know that's wrong. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >B) We know that the troposphere is getting warmer. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >(A) does nothing to disprove (B). Indeed, (B) is something >> >> >> >*observed*, not a matter open to debate. >> >> >> >> >> >> The idea that if you train ratings from a given era is to be used >> >> >> as the poster child to support and prop up global warming is >> >> >> ridiculous, and that's our point all along here. >> >> >> >> >> >> Crap science is crap science. If because something is a piece of >> >> >> junk, it thus does not prove or disprove a particular position in >> >> >> this whole debate. >> >> >> >> >> >> The problem is this piece of junk has been put forward as a >> >> >> poster child and was used as a means to sell global warming to >> >> >> the public. >> >> >> >> >> >> This all comes down to integrity, if the science community cannot >> >> >> come clean on this hockey stick, then how can we trust them? >> >> >> >> >> >> In fact, as long as the science community continues to support >> >> >> and prop up this piece of junk science they WILL NEVER EVER get >> >> >> my trust and support. >> >> >> >> >> >> It is amazing that the actual argument and idea being put forth >> >> >> here is that it DOES NOT matter if the hockey stick is a piece of >> >> >> junk, as long as the position it supports a supposedly true, then >> >> >> there's nothing wrong with using something that is a deception >> >> >> and something that is without merit. >> >> >> >> >> >> Sorry, that's not gonna fly, and no it's not acceptable to use >> >> >> something that is completely full of holes like Swiss cheese. >> >> >> >> >> >> This is exactly the same reasoning that Blech was using in the >> >> >> recent fake gate affair, in which it OK to huge forged documents, >> >> >> impersonate people, and commit fraud because as long as the >> >> >> position in the end can be justified, it doesn't matter if this >> >> >> lies and deceptions along the way. >> >> >> >> >> >> This is very simple: >> >> >> >> >> >> Until the science community comes along and completely throws >> >> >> this hunk of garbage hockey stick thing under the bus, then that >> >> >> science community is not worthy of our trust, they're not to be >> >> >> trusted, and in fact they will NEVER get our trust. >> >> >> >> >> >> The idea that as a group of intelligent and thinking people as a >> >> >> society we are to turn a blind eye, put our fingers and art >> >> >> years, and start screaming "la la la la" to ignore errors on >> >> >> truth, and a horrifying breach of proper science that the hockey >> >> >> stick represents is a ridiculous and position that borders on >> >> >> insanity. >> >> >> >> >> >> It is exactly issues like this that of broken the trust with the >> >> >> public, and Intel that trust is restored, and until the science >> >> >> community comes out and states that that hockey stick is a big >> >> >> hunk of garbage, then there in big trouble. Some people, long and >> >> >> state well here's another graph that shows another hockey stick, >> >> >> I'm sorry that will not fly, we're talking specifically about >> >> >> this data, and using a few stupid trees and tree rings from a >> >> >> limited area, and that of also that of "hiding the decline" is >> >> >> simply ridiculous. >> >> >> >> >> >> Why would I want to stand here and attempt a legitimate >> >> >> conversation with a group of people that steadfastly refuse to >> >> >> correct poor and rotten science? The hockey stick has been >> >> >> thoroughly been torn apart and it is full of holes like Swiss >> >> >> cheese. Corrections and faults have been pointed out repeatedly >> >> >> and with such information and knowledge wide available it becomes >> >> >> an act of WILLFUL MALICE to continue to support this hunk of junk >> >> >> and willful malice in refusing to correct this hunk of junk. >> >> >> >> >> >> Again: >> >> >> These people are not be trusted, and they will NOT get our trust >> >> >> and NEVER WILL get our trust until crap like this hockey stick is >> >> >> corrected. >> >> >> >> >> >> Super Turtle. >> >> > >> >> > Super Turtle? You know that Science isn't all one unified field >> >> > of inquiry, that there are several distinct provinces with not all >> >> > of them being equal in stature or maturity? Climate Science, like >> >> > Psychology, is relatively new having also gone through some recent >> >> > changes as technology has advanced. Distrusting all science >> >> > merely because there is still a debate over AGW seems foolish. >> >> >> >> His point was that these guys were lying. >> >> >> >> Your rebuttal is that it's okay to do what they're doing (lying) >> >> since climate science (which actually is a very old "science") is a >> >> new science, like psychology. I suppose if Freud can make shit up >> >> and pass it off as "truth", so can these "climate scientists", huh? >> > >> > I said no such thing. Fraud is fraud, and it doesn't matter which >> > scientific dicipline is undermined by it. Sociologists who fudge >> > their numbers are as reprehensible as physicists who fake theirs. >> > >> >> Seems you're not believable. >> > >> > I don't aspire to be believable. I prefer to be entertaining. >> >> So far, you're neither. Try again? > > Hell no, you're probably too stupid to get my jokes. For that you'd > require culture and good breeding, and I've seen no sign of either from > you. Zero for three now. Don't quit your day job.
Re: The Mann and the Hockey Stick
Author: Leonard
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 20:22
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 20:22
953 lines
38414 bytes
38414 bytes
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3416142133_5456915 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit On 3/31/12 7:18 PM, in article CB9D0904.268F7%leonard78sp@primus.ca, "Leonard" <leonard78sp@primus.ca> wrote: > Abracadabra, No More Medi�val Warm Period! > The lies behind the failed Hockey Stick > > October 5 2009 > > QUOTE: when Briffa's hand-selected figures were replaced by a broader > dataset for the same Polar Ural region (much of which he had deliberately > dropped), the Hockey-Stick suddenly disappeared, revealing no significant > trend in the 20th century whatsoever! > > QUOTE: Let's get real - even experts on the subject can't seem to agree on > what caused modern warming. > > � They can not agree because the Industrial Age > (now ended) was the 4th cycle en route to > reglaciation. > > QUOTE: alarmists know all too well that as long as citizens are convinced > that warming is both enduring and unprecedented, such inconveniences as the > missing hot spot, laughably mistaken climate models, 800 year CO2 > /Temperature latency and perhaps even current cooling can be cleverly > obfuscated with Goebbels-like double-talk and outright lies. > > � Too much propaganda has been semenated in > schools and colleges by Algores propaganda flik. > > For years, claims that UN climate reports represent the consensus of the > majority of international scientists have been mindlessly accepted and > regurgitated by left-leaning policy makers and the media at large. > > But in the past week or so, it's become more apparent than ever that those > who've accused the international organization of politicizing science and > manipulating data have been right all along. > > This latest disclosure again concerns what has become the favorite > propaganda propagation tool of climate activists -- the infamous "Hockey > Stick Graph." > > The familiar reconstruction, which deceitfully depicts last millennium's > global temperatures as flat prior to a dramatic upturn last century, has > been displayed and touted ad nauseum as irrefutable proof of unprecedented > and, therefore, anthropogenic, global warming (AGW). > > Despite its previous debunking, the embattled AGW poster-child continues to > languish in UN climate reports, which are unduly revered and quoted as > gospel by all manner of proselytizers. > > In fact, just last week it had the bad timing to show up in a desperate UN > compendium, released just days before Climate Audit published facts that > promise to be the Hockey Stick's (HS) long overdue epitaph. > > And those facts not only assuage any doubt of the chart's fraudulence, but > also of the deliberate and devious complicity of its creators, defenders and > leading UN sponsors. > > But before delving into the sordid details, perhaps a little background is > in order. > > The Real Inconvenient Truth > > Prior to the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), the accepted depiction > of the prior millennium's warmth was that published in the panel's 1990 > maiden assessment. Specifically -- global temperatures had fluctuated > drastically over the period. This schematic, taken from IPCC 1990 Figure 7c, > clearly demonstrates the IPCC "consensus" of the time: > > > And data derived from sources including tree-rings, lake sediments, ice > cores and historic documents bear that position out. > > > Indeed, it's abundantly evident that since the last glacial period ended, > over 14,000 years ago, the Earth's climate has undergone multi-century > swings from warming to cooling that occur often and with remarkable > rapidity. > > And not one but three such radical shifts occurred within the past > millennium. > > > The years 900-1300 AD have been labeled the Medieval Warming Period (MWP), > as global temperatures rose precipitously from the bitter cold of the > previous epoch -- the Dark Ages -- to levels several degrees warmer than > today. > > A sudden period of cooling then followed and lasted until the year 1850. > This Little Ice Age (LIA) brought on extremely cold temperatures, > corresponding with three periods of protracted solar inactivity, the lowest > temperatures coinciding with the quietest of the three, The Maunder Minimum > 1645-1710. > > And then began the modern warming period, which, by the way, many scientists > believe ended with the millennium itself. > > Given these natural shifts over the past 1000 years, it's certainly not > surprising that after a period of cooling, which followed a period of > warming, we'd again enter a period of warming. > > And that, of course, presented quite the quandary to opportunists hell-bent > on blaming warming on industrial revolution-triggered atmospheric CO2 > increases. > > Something had to be done to convince the world that modern warming was > unprecedented and could therefore only be explained by something unnatural, > specifically -- the "Greenhouse Effect." > > And something was. > > > The End of a Warming Era > > During testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works > Hearing on Climate Change and the Media in 2006, University of Oklahoma > geophysicist Dr. David Deming recalled "an astonishing email from a major > researcher in the area of climate change" who told him that "we have to get > rid of the Medieval Warm Period." > > In June of this year, piece, Deming identified the year of that email as > 1995 and the source only as a lead author of that month's Global Climate > Change Impacts in the United States report. > > Many believe that man to be Jonathan Overpeck - which Prof. Deming didn't > deny in an email response -- who would later also serve as an IPCC lead > author. > > So it comes as no surprise that this reconstruction, which did indeed "get > rid of the Medieval Warm Period," was featured prominently in the subsequent > 2001 TAR, particularly in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM), the > highly-politicized synopsis which commands the bulk of media and political > attention. > > This, the original and by far most ubiquitous version of the HS graph, was > derived from a 1998 paper by Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm > K. Hughes (MBH98). > > It was promptly met with challenges to both its proxy data and statistical > analysis methodology. > > Of these, various papers by two Canadians -- Stephen McIntyre > and Ross McKitrick -- stood out in dispelling the AGW-supporting > hockey-stick shape arrived at by MBH, claiming it the result of severe data > defects and flawed calculations, particularly an invalid principal component > analysis. > > > > In a coordinated effort to defend the refuted thesis, alarmed alarmists > tendered a handful of supporting studies. > > > > Mann himself cheered those either attacking McIntyre and McKitrick or > supporting his own reconstruction and dubbed them the "Hockey Team." > > > > And the position of team forward and co-captain was bestowed upon Keith > Briffa of Britain's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), whose temperature graphs, > derived from Yamal, Russia tree ring data were heavily cited by the IPCC as > supporting evidence of MBH's assertion of unprecedented 20th century > warming. > > While studies reaffirming both the MWP and LIA continued to be published, > congressional hearings and expert panels found MBH to be largely unsupported > by studies relying on legitimate proxy data other than Briffa's. > > Still, most alarmists continued (and continue) to defend the HS on > principle. > > Which in no way dilutes this plain truth: > > By the time most Americans received their first lesson in climate hysteria > in the Albert Gore lecture hall that was the 2006 film An Inconvenient > Truth, the MBH chart the nutty professor stood before and offered as proof > of impending doom was already held in disrepute by most serious persons of > science. > > Lest there be any doubt, why else would the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report > (AR4) -- notwithstanding the appointments of both Briffa and Overpeck as > lead authors - give the graph short mention and exclude it entirely from the > SPM? > > It appeared the Hockey Team was being sent back to the minors. > > That is -- for the moment. > > Desperate Times Call For Disparate Actions > > Given the current economic and political climate, it's not surprising that > the globe's climate ranks dead last when Americans are asked to name the > "most important issue facing the country right now." > > Needless to say, that's an uncomfortable position for the Greenhouse Gas > Team, what with a Senate Climate Bill promising even more government control > than its House counterpart at the plate and the December Copenhagen Climate > Summit on deck. > > Accordingly, on September 24th, in a transparently desperate effort to stoke > the coals, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) released its > Climate Change Science Compendium 2009. > > > The eco-plea opens with these words from UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon: > > > "The science has become more irrevocable than ever: Climate change is > happening. The evidence is all around us. And unless we act, we will see > catastrophic consequences including rising sea-levels, droughts and famine, > and the loss of up to a third of the world's plant and animal species." > > Amazing. > > But the frantic hype of this call-to-pointless-action quickly segues to > blatant lies just three sentences later when Ban states "that climate change > is accelerating at a much faster pace than was previously thought by > scientists." > > It would appear the Sec-Gen believes that the cooling temperatures the new > millennium issued in have somehow escaped everyone's notice. > > Imagine the uphill battle he'll face should predictions of the U.S. > Northeast suffering its coldest winter in a decade due to a weak El Nino > come true. > > So it wasn't all that shocking to spot this undeniably dramatic graph on > only the fifth of this end-is-near report's 75 pages. > > > The striking chart is marked as Figure 1.3: Correlation between temperature > and CO2. As its title suggests, it attempts to plot atmospheric CO2 > concentrations and mean global temperature during the past millennium. > > Notice anything vaguely familiar about the temperature plot in red? > Why, it's our old friend, Mr. Hockey Stick - apparently having sat for a bit > of a makeover. > > Interestingly enough, this reconstruction wasn't lifted from prior IPCC > assessments, or, for that matter, any UN entity at all. > > No, the source was actually a graphic posted to Wikimedia in 2005 by Hanno > Sandvik, a Norwegian research biologist. Sandvik cited two data sources for > his temperature plot - a 2004 paper by Jones and Mann (abracadabra - no more > MWP) for 1000-1880, and, for the remainder, "instrumental records published > on the web" by Jones, Parker, Osborn and - wait for it .. Briffa. > > So the chart the UN climate experts used to sell the CO2 -�C connection to > an increasingly skeptical public was pulled from Wiki, crafted by an unknown > biologist, conveniently ends about the same year warming ended, and based on > a debunked temperature reconstruction. > > It would therefore appear they consider Sanvik quite the unsung authority. > > Yet I wonder whether these geniuses are aware of this 2006 graphic, also > from Sandvik, and plotting northern hemisphere temperatures over the past > 2000 years. > > This one cites 2005 data published by Moberg, Sonechkin, Holmgren, Datsenko, > Karl�n, and Lauritzen as its source and paints a somewhat different picture. > Hello MWP and LIA, where've you been? > > Any guesses whether or not UNEP would have used Sandvik's chart had his > temperature dataset been from Moberg et al. rather than Mann et al.? > > I contacted Hanno Sandvik a week ago last Saturday and asked him essentially > that same question. > > He responded that he was unaware of the UNEP Compendium and therefore had > "no idea which graphics they may have chosen." He also pointed out that > while Mann's was global data, Mobergs was northern hemisphere only -- a > point well taken, however MHB98 was also derived from NH data yet > remarkably resembles the Mann "global" data Sandvik used. > > Also -- Take a look at the period between 1000 and 1800 in both > reconstructions. Is it even the least bit feasible that averaging southern > hemisphere data into the latter would produce the former? > > Or that UNEP strived to present the facts honestly? > > > Not Man Made -- Mann Made > > One of McIntyre's chief complaints when auditing MHB98 was > Mann's refusal to provide his data, methods and source code. > > The Hockey Team's most dreaded opposing goaltender has been reporting the > same deceptiveness from Briffa, who for years refused to release his Yamal > measurement data. This, despite the fact that HS-defending papers relying > solely on Yamal continued to be published in major science journals. > > But last year, Briffa used the data in a paper he published in the > Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Journal. > > As the journal adheres to its strict data archiving rules, McIntyre > convinced one of its editors to help get Briffa's data released. And late > last month, the data was indeed published at CRU. > > Last week, McIntyre analyzed the CRU archive Yamal data and proved that > Briffa et al. had cherry-picked and manipulated data, intentionally omitting > records not friendly to their position. > > In fact, when Briffa's hand-selected figures were replaced by a broader > dataset for the same Polar Ural region (much of which he had deliberately > dropped), the Hockey-Stick suddenly disappeared, revealing no significant > trend in the 20th century whatsoever! > > In Steve's new graph, below, the Red represents the original 12 cherry > picked Yamal trees, while the Black incorporates the broader Polar Ural > dataset. > > Any questions whether or not global warming is Mann made? > > > Inhofe was right > > > The public's belief in manmade climate change doesn't hang on its grasp of > geophysics or thermodynamics. > > Technical explanations of positive feedbacks and radiative forcings, read by > few and understand by fewer still, aren't likely to foster acceptance of a > new energy tax that will dramatically raise the price of literally every > facet of human life. > > Let's get real -- even experts on the subject can't seem to agree on what > caused modern warming. > > � Try natural process in the progress toward the next glaciation > > But alarmists know all too well that as long as citizens are convinced that > warming is both enduring and unprecedented, such inconveniences as the > missing hot spot, laughably mistaken climate models, 800 year CO2 > /Temperature latency and perhaps even current cooling can be cleverly > obfuscated with Goebbels-like double-talk and outright lies. > > And without the Hockey Stick's counterfeit portrait of runaway 20th century > warming, climate crisis peddlers' credibility levels are reduced to those of > used car salesmen. > > Not where you want to be when hoping to sell the instinctively absurd > premise that the actions of mankind can influence temperatures in either > direction. > > So they cheat. > > And they lie. > > And they have from the very beginning. > > > In 1989, climate scientist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine: > > "To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary > scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any > doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between > being effective, and being honest." > > Twelve years later, Schneider was a lead author of the IPCC's TAR, the same > UN report that formally introduced the delusory Hockey Stick Graph. > > In his masterpiece work, Heaven and Earth, Ian Plimer assessed the cadre > whose own assessments form the foundation of virtually every climate-related > scheme, law, tax, regulation and treaty throughout the globe thusly: > > > "The IPCC is clearly an ascientific political organization in which > environmental activists and government representatives are setting the > agenda for a variety of reasons including boosting trade, encouraging > protectionism, adding costs to competitors and pushing their own sovereign > barrow." > > > > Add lying perpetrators of fraud, and I'd say that about sums it up. > > > > Speaking on the Senate floor in July of 2003, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla) > rightly called the threat of catastrophic global warming the "greatest hoax > ever perpetrated on the American people." > > > > Let's make damned sure it doesn't become the most expensive. > > > > http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html > > > --B_3416142133_5456915 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable <HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: The Mann and the Hockey Stick</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <FONT FACE=3D"Baskerville Old Face"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:14.0px'>On 3/31/12= 7:18 PM, in article CB9D0904.268F7%leonard78sp@primus.ca, "Leonard&quo= t; <leonard78sp@primus.ca> wrote:<BR> <BR> </SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Baskerville Old Face"><SPAN STYLE=3D'fo= nt-size:14.0px'>Abracadabra, No More Mediæval Warm Period!<BR> The lies behind the failed Hockey Stick<BR> <BR> October 5 2009<BR> <BR> QUOTE: when Briffa's hand-selected figures were replaced by a broader <BR> dataset for the same Polar Ural region (much of which he had deliberately <= BR> dropped), the Hockey-Stick suddenly disappeared, revealing no significant <= BR> trend in the 20th century whatsoever!<BR> <BR> QUOTE: Let's get real - even experts on the subject can't seem to agree on = <BR> what caused modern warming.<BR> <BR> ø They can not agree because the Industrial Age<BR> (now ended) was the 4th cycle en route to<BR> reglaciation.<BR> <BR> QUOTE: alarmists know all too well that as long as citizens are convinced <= BR> that warming is both enduring and unprecedented, such inconveniences as the= <BR> missing hot spot, laughably mistaken climate models, 800 year C= O2 <BR> /Temperature latency and perhaps even current cooling can be cleverly <BR> obfuscated with Goebbels-like double-talk and outright lies.<BR> <BR> ø Too much propaganda has been semenated in<BR> schools and colleges by Algores propaganda flik.<BR> <BR> For years, claims that UN climate reports represent the consensus of the <B= R> majority of international scientists have been mindlessly accepted and <BR> regurgitated by left-leaning policy makers and the media at large.<BR> <BR> But in the past week or so, it's become more apparent than ever that those = <BR> who've accused the international organization of politicizing science and <= BR> manipulating data have been right all along.<BR> <BR> This latest disclosure again concerns what has become the favorite <BR> propaganda propagation tool of climate activists -- the infamous "Hock= ey <BR> Stick Graph."<BR> <BR> The familiar reconstruction, which deceitfully depicts last millennium's <B= R> global temperatures as flat prior to a dramatic upturn last century, has <B= R> been displayed and touted ad nauseum as irrefutable proof of unprecedented = <BR> and, therefore, anthropogenic, global warming (AGW).<BR> <BR> Despite its previous debunking, the embattled AGW poster-child continues to= <BR> languish in UN climate reports, which are unduly revered and quoted as <BR> gospel by all manner of proselytizers.<BR> <BR> In fact, just last week it had the bad timing to show up in a desperate UN = <BR> compendium, released just days before Climate Audit published facts that <B= R> promise to be the Hockey Stick's (HS) long overdue epitaph.<BR> <BR> And those facts not only assuage any doubt of the chart's fraudulence, but = <BR> also of the deliberate and devious complicity of its creators, defenders an= d <BR> leading UN sponsors.<BR> <BR> But before delving into the sordid details, perhaps a little background is = <BR> in order.<BR> <BR> The Real Inconvenient Truth<BR> <BR> Prior to the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), the accepted depictio= n <BR> of the prior millennium's warmth was that published in the panel's 1990 <BR= > maiden assessment. Specifically -- global temperatures had fluctuated <BR> drastically over the period. This schematic, taken from IPCC 1990 Figure 7c= , <BR> clearly demonstrates the IPCC "consensus" of the time:<BR> <BR> <BR> And data derived from sources including tree-rings, lake sediments, ice <BR= > cores and historic documents bear that position out.<BR> <BR> <BR> Indeed, it's abundantly evident that since the last glacial period ended, <= BR> over 14,000 years ago, the Earth's climate has undergone multi-century <BR> swings from warming to cooling that occur often and with remarkable <BR> rapidity.<BR> <BR> And not one but three such radical shifts occurred within the past <BR> millennium.<BR> <BR> <BR> The years 900-1300 AD have been labeled the Medieval Warming Period (MWP), = <BR> as global temperatures rose precipitously from the bitter cold of the <BR> previous epoch -- the Dark Ages -- to levels several degrees warmer than <B= R> today.<BR> <BR> A sudden period of cooling then followed and lasted until the year 1850. <B= R> This Little Ice Age (LIA) brought on extremely cold temperatures, <BR> corresponding with three periods of protracted solar inactivity, the lowest= <BR> temperatures coinciding with the quietest of the three, The Maunder Minimum= <BR> 1645-1710.<BR> <BR> And then began the modern warming period, which, by the way, many scientist= s <BR> believe ended with the millennium itself.<BR> <BR> Given these natural shifts over the past 1000 years, it's certainly not <BR= > surprising that after a period of cooling, which followed a period of <BR> warming, we'd again enter a period of warming.<BR> <BR> And that, of course, presented quite the quandary to opportunists hell-bent= <BR> on blaming warming on industrial revolution-triggered atmospheric CO2 <BR> increases.<BR> <BR> Something had to be done to convince the world that modern warming was <BR> unprecedented and could therefore only be explained by something unnatural,= <BR> specifically -- the "Greenhouse Effect."<BR> <BR> And something was.<BR> <BR> <BR> The End of a Warming Era<BR> <BR> During testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Wo= rks <BR> Hearing on Climate Change and the Media in 2006, University of Oklahoma <BR= > geophysicist Dr. David Deming recalled "an astonishing email from a ma= jor <BR> researcher in the area of climate change" who told him that "we h= ave to get <BR> rid of the Medieval Warm Period."<BR> <BR> In June of this year, piece, Deming identified the year of that email as <B= R> 1995 and the source only as a lead author of that month's Global Climate <B= R> Change Impacts in the United States report.<BR> <BR> Many believe that man to be Jonathan Overpeck - which Prof. Deming didn't <= BR> deny in an email response -- who would later also serve as an IPCC lead <BR= > author.<BR> <BR> So it comes as no surprise that this reconstruction, which did indeed "= ;get <BR> rid of the Medieval Warm Period," was featured prominently in the subs= equent <BR> 2001 TAR, particularly in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM), the <BR> highly-politicized synopsis which commands the bulk of media and political = <BR> attention.<BR> <BR> This, the original and by far most ubiquitous version of the HS graph, was = <BR> derived from a 1998 paper by Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcol= m <BR> K. Hughes (MBH98).<BR> <BR> It was promptly met with challenges to both its proxy data and statistical = <BR> analysis methodology.<BR> <BR> Of these, various papers by two Canadians -- Stephen McIntyre <BR> and Ross McKitrick -- stood out in dispelling the AGW-supporting <BR> hockey-stick shape arrived at by MBH, claiming it the result of severe data= <BR> defects and flawed calculations, particularly an invalid principal componen= t <BR> analysis.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> In a coordinated effort to defend the refuted thesis, alarmed alarmists <BR= > tendered a handful of supporting studies.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Mann himself cheered those either attacking McIntyre and McKitrick or <BR> supporting his own reconstruction and dubbed them the "Hockey Team.&qu= ot;<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> And the position of team forward and co-captain was bestowed upon Keith <BR= > Briffa of Britain's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), whose temperature graphs,= <BR> derived from Yamal, Russia tree ring data were heavily cited by the IPCC as= <BR> supporting evidence of MBH's assertion of unprecedented 20th century <BR> warming.<BR> <BR> While studies reaffirming both the MWP and LIA continued to be published, <= BR> congressional hearings and expert panels found MBH to be largely unsupporte= d <BR> by studies relying on legitimate proxy data other than Briffa's.<BR> <BR> Still, most alarmists continued (and continue) to defend the HS on <BR> principle.<BR> <BR> Which in no way dilutes this plain truth:<BR> <BR> By the time most Americans received their first lesson in climate hysteria = <BR> in the Albert Gore lecture hall that was the 2006 film An Inconvenient <BR> Truth, the MBH chart the nutty professor stood before and offered as proof = <BR> of impending doom was already held in disrepute by most serious persons of = <BR> science.<BR> <BR> Lest there be any doubt, why else would the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report <= BR> (AR4) -- notwithstanding the appointments of both Briffa and Overpeck as <B= R> lead authors - give the graph short mention and exclude it entirely from th= e <BR> SPM?<BR> <BR> It appeared the Hockey Team was being sent back to the minors.<BR> <BR> That is -- for the moment.<BR> <BR> Desperate Times Call For Disparate Actions<BR> <BR> Given the current economic and political climate, it's not surprising that = <BR> the globe's climate ranks dead last when Americans are asked to name the <B= R> "most important issue facing the country right now."<BR> <BR> Needless to say, that's an uncomfortable position for the Greenhouse Gas <B= R> Team, what with a Senate Climate Bill promising even more government contro= l <BR> than its House counterpart at the plate and the December Copenhagen Climate= <BR> Summit on deck.<BR> <BR> Accordingly, on September 24th, in a transparently desperate effort to stok= e <BR> the coals, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) released its <BR= > Climate Change Science Compendium 2009.<BR> <BR> <BR> The eco-plea opens with these words from UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon:<= BR> <BR> <BR> "The science has become more irrevocable than ever: Climate change is = <BR> happening. The evidence is all around us. And unless we act, we will see <B= R> catastrophic consequences including rising sea-levels, droughts and famine,= <BR> and the loss of up to a third of the world's plant and animal species."= ;<BR> <BR> Amazing.<BR> <BR> But the frantic hype of this call-to-pointless-action quickly segues to <BR= > blatant lies just three sentences later when Ban states "that climate = change <BR> is accelerating at a much faster pace than was previously thought by <BR> scientists."<BR> <BR> It would appear the Sec-Gen believes that the cooling temperatures the new = <BR> millennium issued in have somehow escaped everyone's notice.<BR> <BR> Imagine the uphill battle he'll face should predictions of the U.S. <BR> Northeast suffering its coldest winter in a decade due to a weak El Nino <B= R> come true.<BR> <BR> So it wasn't all that shocking to spot this undeniably dramatic graph on <B= R> only the fifth of this end-is-near report's 75 pages.<BR> <BR> <BR> The striking chart is marked as Figure 1.3: Correlation between temperature= <BR> and CO2. As its title suggests, it attempts to plot atmospheric CO2 <= BR> concentrations and mean global temperature during the past millennium.<BR> <BR> Notice anything vaguely familiar about the temperature plot in red?<BR> Why, it's our old friend, Mr. Hockey Stick - apparently having sat for a bi= t <BR> of a makeover.<BR> <BR> Interestingly enough, this reconstruction wasn't lifted from prior IPCC <BR= > assessments, or, for that matter, any UN entity at all.<BR> <BR> No, the source was actually a graphic posted to Wikimedia in 2005 by Hanno = <BR> Sandvik, a Norwegian research biologist. Sandvik cited two data sourc= es for <BR> his temperature plot - a 2004 paper by Jones and Mann (abracadabra - no mor= e <BR> MWP) for 1000-1880, and, for the remainder, "instrumental records publ= ished <BR> on the web" by Jones, Parker, Osborn and - wait for it .. Briffa.<BR> <BR> So the chart the UN climate experts used to sell the CO2 -°C connection= to <BR> an increasingly skeptical public was pulled from Wiki, crafted by an unknow= n <BR> biologist, conveniently ends about the same year warming ended, and based o= n <BR> a debunked temperature reconstruction.<BR> <BR> It would therefore appear they consider Sanvik quite the unsung authority.<= BR> <BR> Yet I wonder whether these geniuses are aware of this 2006 graphic, also <B= R> from Sandvik, and plotting northern hemisphere temperatures over the past <= BR> 2000 years.<BR> <BR> This one cites 2005 data published by Moberg, Sonechkin, Holmgren, Datsenko= , <BR> Karlén, and Lauritzen as its source and paints a somewhat different = picture. <BR> Hello MWP and LIA, where've you been?<BR> <BR> Any guesses whether or not UNEP would have used Sandvik's chart had his <BR= > temperature dataset been from Moberg et al. rather than Mann et al.?<BR> <BR> I contacted Hanno Sandvik a week ago last Saturday and asked him essentiall= y <BR> that same question.<BR> <BR> He responded that he was unaware of the UNEP Compendium and therefore had <= BR> "no idea which graphics they may have chosen." He also poin= ted out that <BR> while Mann's was global data, Mobergs was northern hemisphere only -- a <BR= > point well taken, however MHB98 was also derived from NH data yet <BR= > remarkably resembles the Mann "global" data Sandvik used.<BR> <BR> Also -- Take a look at the period between 1000 and 1800 in both <BR> reconstructions. Is it even the least bit feasible that averaging southern = <BR> hemisphere data into the latter would produce the former?<BR> <BR> Or that UNEP strived to present the facts honestly?<BR> <BR> <BR> Not Man Made -- Mann Made<BR> <BR> One of McIntyre's chief complaints when auditing MHB98 was <BR> Mann's refusal to provide his data, methods and source code.<BR> <BR> The Hockey Team's most dreaded opposing goaltender has been reporting the <= BR> same deceptiveness from Briffa, who for years refused to release his Yamal = <BR> measurement data. This, despite the fact that HS-defendin= g papers relying <BR> solely on Yamal continued to be published in major science journals.<BR> <BR> But last year, Briffa used the data in a paper he published in the <BR> Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Journal.<BR> <BR> As the journal adheres to its strict data archiving rules, McIntyre <BR> convinced one of its editors to help get Briffa's data released. And = late <BR> last month, the data was indeed published at CRU.<BR> <BR> Last week, McIntyre analyzed the CRU archive Yamal data and proved that <BR= > Briffa et al. had cherry-picked and manipulated data, intentionally omittin= g <BR> records not friendly to their position.<BR> <BR> In fact, when Briffa's hand-selected figures were replaced by a broader <BR= > dataset for the same Polar Ural region (much of which he had deliberately <= BR> dropped), the Hockey-Stick suddenly disappeared, revealing no significant <= BR> trend in the 20th century whatsoever!<BR> <BR> In Steve's new graph, below, the Red represents the original 12 cherry <BR> picked Yamal trees, while the Black incorporates the broader Polar Ural <BR= > dataset.<BR> <BR> Any questions whether or not global warming is Mann made?<BR> <BR> <BR> Inhofe was right<BR> <BR> <BR> The public's belief in manmade climate change doesn't hang on its grasp of = <BR> geophysics or thermodynamics.<BR> <BR> Technical explanations of positive feedbacks and radiative forcings, read b= y <BR> few and understand by fewer still, aren't likely to foster acceptance of a = <BR> new energy tax that will dramatically raise the price of literally every <B= R> facet of human life.<BR> <BR> Let's get real -- even experts on the subject can't seem to agree on what <= BR> caused modern warming.<BR> <BR> ø Try natural process in the progress toward the next glaciation<BR> <BR> But alarmists know all too well that as long as citizens are convinced that= <BR> warming is both enduring and unprecedented, such inconveniences as the <BR> missing hot spot, laughably mistaken climate models, 800 year C= O2 <BR> /Temperature latency and perhaps even current cooling can be cleverly <BR> obfuscated with Goebbels-like double-talk and outright lies.<BR> <BR> And without the Hockey Stick's counterfeit portrait of runaway 20th century= <BR> warming, climate crisis peddlers' credibility levels are reduced to those o= f <BR> used car salesmen.<BR> <BR> Not where you want to be when hoping to sell the instinctively absurd <BR> premise that the actions of mankind can influence temperatures in either <B= R> direction.<BR> <BR> So they cheat.<BR> <BR> And they lie.<BR> <BR> And they have from the very beginning.<BR> <BR> <BR> In 1989, climate scientist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine:<BR> <BR> "To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary <BR= > scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any <B= R> doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between <= BR> being effective, and being honest."<BR> <BR> Twelve years later, Schneider was a lead author of the IPCC's TAR, the same= <BR> UN report that formally introduced the delusory Hockey Stick Graph.<BR> <BR> In his masterpiece work, Heaven and Earth, Ian Plimer assessed the cadre <B= R> whose own assessments form the foundation of virtually every climate-relate= d <BR> scheme, law, tax, regulation and treaty throughout the globe thusly:<BR> <BR> <BR> "The IPCC is clearly an ascientific political organization in which <B= R> environmental activists and government representatives are setting the <BR> agenda for a variety of reasons including boosting trade, encouraging <BR> protectionism, adding costs to competitors and pushing their own sovereign = <BR> barrow."<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Add lying perpetrators of fraud, and I'd say that about sums it up.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Speaking on the Senate floor in July of 2003, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla)= <BR> rightly called the threat of catastrophic global warming the "greatest= hoax <BR> ever perpetrated on the American people."<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> Let's make damned sure it doesn't become the most expensive.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><U><a href=3D"http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un= _climate_reports_they_lie.html">http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_cl= imate_reports_they_lie.html</a><BR> </U></FONT><BR> <BR> <BR> </SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Baskerville Old Face"><SPAN STYLE=3D'f= ont-size:14.0px'><BR> <BR> </SPAN></FONT> </BODY> </HTML> --B_3416142133_5456915--
Re: The Mann and the Hockey Stick
Author: Chom Noamsky
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 21:25
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 21:25
122 lines
7935 bytes
7935 bytes
On 4/1/2012 7:02 AM, Uncle Steve wrote: > On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 08:50:34AM -0500, Bill Ward wrote: >> On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:19:02 -0400, Uncle Steve wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 08:11:42AM -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote: >>>> On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 08:30:33 -0400, Uncle Steve wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:10:31AM -0600, Super Turtle wrote: >>>>>> "RLW" wrote in message >>>>>> news:QIadnZ5kA-hjIerSnZ2dnUVZ_goAAAAA@giganews.com... >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm starting to get the impression that few posting here actually >>>>>>> know what the "hockey stick" graph was intended to represent: >>>>>>> runaway, nearly limitless increase in surface temperature. >>>>>> >>>>>>> A) We know that's wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> B) We know that the troposphere is getting warmer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (A) does nothing to disprove (B). Indeed, (B) is something >>>>>>> *observed*, not a matter open to debate. >>>>>> >>>>>> The idea that if you train ratings from a given era is to be used as >>>>>> the poster child to support and prop up global warming is >>>>>> ridiculous, and that's our point all along here. >>>>>> >>>>>> Crap science is crap science. If because something is a piece of >>>>>> junk, it thus does not prove or disprove a particular position in >>>>>> this whole debate. >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem is this piece of junk has been put forward as a poster >>>>>> child and was used as a means to sell global warming to the public. >>>>>> >>>>>> This all comes down to integrity, if the science community cannot >>>>>> come clean on this hockey stick, then how can we trust them? >>>>>> >>>>>> In fact, as long as the science community continues to support and >>>>>> prop up this piece of junk science they WILL NEVER EVER get my trust >>>>>> and support. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is amazing that the actual argument and idea being put forth here >>>>>> is that it DOES NOT matter if the hockey stick is a piece of junk, >>>>>> as long as the position it supports a supposedly true, then there's >>>>>> nothing wrong with using something that is a deception and something >>>>>> that is without merit. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, that's not gonna fly, and no it's not acceptable to use >>>>>> something that is completely full of holes like Swiss cheese. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is exactly the same reasoning that Blech was using in the >>>>>> recent fake gate affair, in which it OK to huge forged documents, >>>>>> impersonate people, and commit fraud because as long as the position >>>>>> in the end can be justified, it doesn't matter if this lies and >>>>>> deceptions along the way. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is very simple: >>>>>> >>>>>> Until the science community comes along and completely throws this >>>>>> hunk of garbage hockey stick thing under the bus, then that science >>>>>> community is not worthy of our trust, they're not to be trusted, and >>>>>> in fact they will NEVER get our trust. >>>>>> >>>>>> The idea that as a group of intelligent and thinking people as a >>>>>> society we are to turn a blind eye, put our fingers and art years, >>>>>> and start screaming "la la la la" to ignore errors on truth, and a >>>>>> horrifying breach of proper science that the hockey stick represents >>>>>> is a ridiculous and position that borders on insanity. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is exactly issues like this that of broken the trust with the >>>>>> public, and Intel that trust is restored, and until the science >>>>>> community comes out and states that that hockey stick is a big hunk >>>>>> of garbage, then there in big trouble. Some people, long and state >>>>>> well here's another graph that shows another hockey stick, I'm sorry >>>>>> that will not fly, we're talking specifically about this data, and >>>>>> using a few stupid trees and tree rings from a limited area, and >>>>>> that of also that of "hiding the decline" is simply ridiculous. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why would I want to stand here and attempt a legitimate conversation >>>>>> with a group of people that steadfastly refuse to correct poor and >>>>>> rotten science? The hockey stick has been thoroughly been torn apart >>>>>> and it is full of holes like Swiss cheese. Corrections and faults >>>>>> have been pointed out repeatedly and with such information and >>>>>> knowledge wide available it becomes an act of WILLFUL MALICE to >>>>>> continue to support this hunk of junk and willful malice in refusing >>>>>> to correct this hunk of junk. >>>>>> >>>>>> Again: >>>>>> These people are not be trusted, and they will NOT get our trust and >>>>>> NEVER WILL get our trust until crap like this hockey stick is >>>>>> corrected. >>>>>> >>>>>> Super Turtle. >>>>> >>>>> Super Turtle? You know that Science isn't all one unified field of >>>>> inquiry, that there are several distinct provinces with not all of >>>>> them being equal in stature or maturity? Climate Science, like >>>>> Psychology, is relatively new having also gone through some recent >>>>> changes as technology has advanced. Distrusting all science merely >>>>> because there is still a debate over AGW seems foolish. >>>> >>>> His point was that these guys were lying. >>>> >>>> Your rebuttal is that it's okay to do what they're doing (lying) since >>>> climate science (which actually is a very old "science") is a new >>>> science, like psychology. I suppose if Freud can make shit up and pass >>>> it off as "truth", so can these "climate scientists", huh? >>> >>> I said no such thing. Fraud is fraud, and it doesn't matter which >>> scientific dicipline is undermined by it. Sociologists who fudge their >>> numbers are as reprehensible as physicists who fake theirs. >>> >>>> Seems you're not believable. >>> >>> I don't aspire to be believable. I prefer to be entertaining. >> >> So far, you're neither. Try again? > > Hell no, you're probably too stupid to get my jokes. For that you'd > require culture and good breeding, and I've seen no sign of either > from you. Snob.
Re: The Mann and the Hockey Stick
Author: Leonard
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 22:04
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 22:04
229 lines
9404 bytes
9404 bytes
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--B_3416148247_5865071
Content-type: text/plain;
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
On 3/31/12 10:27 PM, in article
QIadnZ5kA-hjIerSnZ2dnUVZ_goAAAAA@giganews.com, "RLW" <rlwatkins@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:18:28 -0400, Leonard wrote:
>
>> > Abracadabra, No More Medi�val Warm Period!
>> >
>> > The lies behind the failed Hockey Stick
>
> <yada, yada, yada>
>
> I'm starting to get the impression that few posting here actually know
> what the "hockey stick" graph was intended to represent: runaway, nearly
> limitless increase in surface temperature.
>
> � Sssssuuurrrre
> � However it was a fabrication that can not
> bear the sight of light.
>
> A) We know that's wrong.
>
> B) We know that the troposphere is getting warmer.
>
> � FALSE
>
> (A) does nothing to disprove (B). Indeed, (B) is something *observed*,
> not a matter open to debate.
>
> � FALSE
>
> (B) means that a lot of weather patterns will change and a lot of ice will
> melt. This doesn't mean Humanity will die off, but it will be very damn'
> expensive and inconvenient for a good many folks.
>
> � FALSE � The next 100 years or more a
> lot of ice will form and less will melt
>
> I'll hate having to explain to my grandkids that everyone stood around
> debating whether it was happening instead of figuring out what impact it
> will have and how to solve some of the attendant problems.
� Well Watkins, you have a lot to learn.
Prepare your car for winter weather.
Prepare your house for power outages. Get
gas furnace, fridge, stove, and standby power
generator (for thermostats, small appliances,
and car heater).
� �
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the
logic of what you say. You have to tell them
what is right in very simple terms. If they do
not agree, you will never be able to change
their mind.
2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes
against their religious belief, they will cling
to that belief even if it means their death.
3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a
million years. There is no way to convince
anthropogenic_global_warming_alarmists,
terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and
predators to change their evil ways, They
knew what they were doing was wrong, but
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil deeds.
� �
--B_3416148247_5865071
Content-type: text/html;
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: The Mann and the Hockey Stick</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE=3D"Baskerville Old Face"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:14.0px'>On 3/31/12=
10:27 PM, in article QIadnZ5kA-hjIerSnZ2dnUVZ_goAAAAA@giganews.com, "R=
LW" <rlwatkins@gmail.com> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Baskerville Old Face"><SPAN STYLE=3D'fo=
nt-size:14.0px'>On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:18:28 -0400, Leonard wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> Abracadabra, No More Mediæval Warm Period!<BR>
> <BR>
> The lies behind the failed Hockey Stick<BR>
<BR>
<yada, yada, yada><BR>
<BR>
I'm starting to get the impression that few posting here actually know <BR>
what the "hockey stick" graph was intended to represent: runaway,=
nearly <BR>
limitless increase in surface temperature.<BR>
<BR>
ø Sssssuuurrrre<BR>
ø However it was a fabrication that can not <BR>
bear the sight of light.<BR>
<BR>
A) We know that's wrong.<BR>
<BR>
B) We know that the troposphere is getting warmer.<BR>
<BR>
ø FALSE<BR>
<BR>
(A) does nothing to disprove (B). Indeed, (B) is something *observed*=
, <BR>
not a matter open to debate.<BR>
<BR>
ø FALSE<BR>
<BR>
(B) means that a lot of weather patterns will change and a lot of ice will =
<BR>
melt. This doesn't mean Humanity will die off, but it will be very da=
mn' <BR>
expensive and inconvenient for a good many folks.<BR>
<BR>
ø FALSE — The next 100 years or more a<BR>
lot of ice will form and less will melt<BR>
<BR>
I'll hate having to explain to my grandkids that everyone stood around <BR>
debating whether it was happening instead of figuring out what impact it <B=
R>
will have and how to solve some of the attendant problems.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Baskerville Old Face"><SPAN STYLE=3D'f=
ont-size:14.0px'><BR>
ø Well Watkins=
, you have a lot to learn.<BR>
Pre=
pare your car for winter weather.<BR>
Pre=
pare your house for power outages. Get <BR>
gas=
furnace, fridge, stove, and standby power<BR>
gen=
erator (for thermostats, small appliances,<BR>
and=
car heater).<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3D"2"><FONT FACE=3D"Times, Times New Roman"><SPAN STYL=
E=3D'font-size:12.0px'>— — <BR>
<BR>
There are three types of people that you <BR>
can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The <BR>
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil. <BR>
<BR>
1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the <BR>
<BR>
logic of what you say. You have to tell them<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'><FONT FACE=3D"Lucida Grande, Ver=
dana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Times, Times New Roman"> what is right=
in very simple terms. If they do <BR>
<BR>
not agree, you will never be able to change <BR>
<BR>
their mind. <BR>
<BR>
2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes<BR>
<BR>
against their religious belief, they will cling <BR=
>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Lucida Grande, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Times, Times New Roman"> to that belie=
f even if it means their death. <BR>
<BR>
3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a <BR>
<BR>
million years. There is no way to convince <BR>
<BR>
anthropogenic_global_warming_alarmists, <BR>
<BR>
terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and <BR>
<BR>
predators to change their evil ways, They<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Lucida Grande, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Times, Times New Roman"> knew what the=
y were doing was wrong, but<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Lucida Grande, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Times, Times New Roman"> knowledge did=
n't stop them. It only made <BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Lucida Grande, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Times, Times New Roman"> them more car=
eful in how they went about<BR>
<BR>
performing their evil deeds.<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Courier, Courier New">=A0 =A0 <BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Times, Times New Roman"><BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Lucida Grande, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR>
<BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>
--B_3416148247_5865071--
Re: The Mann and the Hockey Stick
Author: Chom Noamsky
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 22:05
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 22:05
47 lines
3810 bytes
3810 bytes
On 3/31/2012 7:27 PM, RLW wrote: > On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:18:28 -0400, Leonard wrote: > >> Abracadabra, No More Mediæval Warm Period! >> >> The lies behind the failed Hockey Stick > > <yada, yada, yada> > > I'm starting to get the impression that few posting here actually know > what the "hockey stick" graph was intended to represent: runaway, nearly > limitless increase in surface temperature. > > A) We know that's wrong. > > B) We know that the troposphere is getting warmer. > > (A) does nothing to disprove (B). Indeed, (B) is something *observed*, > not a matter open to debate. > > (B) means that a lot of weather patterns will change and a lot of ice will > melt. This doesn't mean Humanity will die off, but it will be very damn' > expensive and inconvenient for a good many folks. > > I'll hate having to explain to my grandkids that everyone stood around > debating whether it was happening instead of figuring out what impact it > will have and how to solve some of the attendant problems. The assumption is it that warming will be all bad. How many studies have been done on the potential benefits of global warming? What it comes down to is the cost of adaption versus the cost of correction. That's assuming it can be corrected, and in the view of a substantial portion of the scientific community the results would be modest or negligible at best. The big problem is elements of the political sphere have been trying their best to hook irrelevant agendas to climate change, and to exploit it as a tool to push things that wouldn't get backing otherwise. Get people alarmed, induce feelings of insecurity, then they'll be less resistant when it comes to unpopular causes that have little or nothing to do with climate change. It's interesting that the Darrell Kaufman study showed climate has been experiencing a long term cooling trend, starting about 2,000 years ago, and was projected to go on another 4,000 years. Is it possible we're actually better off with a little warming? Quite possibly we've averted a future LIA...
Re: The Mann and the Hockey Stick
Author: Leonard
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 22:59
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 22:59
93 lines
4453 bytes
4453 bytes
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3416151598_109990 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit On 4/1/12 1:06 AM, in article FZydnfn4fZmjf-rSnZ2dnUVZ5qSdnZ2d@giganews.com, "Marvin the Martian" <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote: > On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 21:27:10 -0500, RLW wrote: > >> > On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:18:28 -0400, Leonard wrote: >> > >>> >> Abracadabra, No More Medi�val Warm Period! >>> >> >>> >> The lies behind the failed Hockey Stick > >> > >> > I'm starting to get the impression that few posting here actually know >> > what the "hockey stick" graph was intended to represent: runaway, nearly >> > limitless increase in surface temperature. >> > >> > A) We know that's wrong. >> > >> > B) We know that the troposphere is getting warmer. > > � Sorry Marvin, I did think you were smarter > than that. In the Industrial Era temperatures > didn�t even match those of the Mediaeval > Warm Period and that ended 15 years ago. > > � No Marvin the Troposphere is not warming > and CO2 has no thermal effect > > --B_3416151598_109990 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable <HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: The Mann and the Hockey Stick</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <FONT FACE=3D"Baskerville Old Face"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:14.0px'>On 4/1/12 = 1:06 AM, in article FZydnfn4fZmjf-rSnZ2dnUVZ5qSdnZ2d@giganews.com, "Mar= vin the Martian" <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote:<BR> <BR> </SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Baskerville Old Face"><SPAN STYLE=3D'fo= nt-size:14.0px'>On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 21:27:10 -0500, RLW wrote:<BR> <BR> > On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:18:28 -0400, Leonard wrote:<BR> > <BR> >> Abracadabra, No More Mediæval Warm Period!<BR> >> <BR> >> The lies behind the failed Hockey Stick<BR> <BR> > <BR> > I'm starting to get the impression that few posting here actually know= <BR> > what the "hockey stick" graph was intended to represent: run= away, nearly<BR> > limitless increase in surface temperature.<BR> > <BR> > A) We know that's wrong.<BR> > <BR> > B) We know that the troposphere is getting warmer.<BR> <BR> ø Sorry Marvin, I did think you were smarter<BR> than that. In the Industrial Era temperatures<BR> didn’t even match those of the Mediaeval <BR> Warm Period and that ended 15 years ago.<BR> <BR> ø No Marvin the Troposphere is not warming<BR> and CO2 has no thermal effect<BR> <BR> <BR> </SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Baskerville Old Face"><SPAN STYLE=3D'f= ont-size:14.0px'><BR> <BR> </SPAN></FONT> </BODY> </HTML> --B_3416151598_109990--
Re: The Mann and the Hockey Stick
Author: �pam�uster
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 23:01
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 23:01
5 lines
1620 bytes
1620 bytes
-- SPAMMED INTO CANADIAN GROUPS - AND CUT ================================================= "RLW" <rlwatkins@gmail.com> wrote in message news:QIadnZ5kA-hjIerSnZ2dnUVZ_goAAAAA@giganews.com...
Re: The Mann and the Hockey Stick
Author: �pam�uster
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 23:01
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 23:01
5 lines
1660 bytes
1660 bytes
-- SPAMMED INTO CANADIAN GROUPS - AND CUT ================================================= "Super Turtle" <superturtle@greenpiece.com> wrote in message news:qjSdr.13208$dq4.11324@newsfe23.iad...
Re: The Mann and the Hockey Stick
Author: �pam�uster
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 23:02
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 23:02
4 lines
1872 bytes
1872 bytes
-- SPAMMED INTO CANADIAN GROUPS - AND CUT ================================================= "Chom Noamsky" <beaver@stew.tasty> wrote in message news:jlah3c$b8d$1@dont-email.me...
Re: The Mann and the Hockey Stick
Author: �pam�uster
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 23:02
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 23:02
3 lines
1628 bytes
1628 bytes
SPAMMED INTO CANADIAN GROUPS - AND CUT ================================================= "Chom Noamsky" <beaver@stew.tasty> wrote in message news:jlajfb$ori$1@dont-email.me...
Re: The Mann and the Hockey Stick
Author: Marvin the Martian
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 01:08
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 01:08
13 lines
2271 bytes
2271 bytes
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 16:22:12 -0400, Leonard wrote: > On 3/31/12 7:18 PM, in article CB9D0904.268F7%leonard78sp@primus.ca, > "Leonard" <leonard78sp@primus.ca> wrote: Pretty please don't use a Microsoft product (in this case, Entourage) for usenet. Microsoft hopes to pollute the usenet with HTML and gain control of the usenet by bastardizing it. Microsoft is to usenet what a whore is to one's high school sweet heart. The parts are similar, but the whore is totally in it for money, not because they love you and the whore picks up all kinds of diseases you don't want.
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads