|
The cash just wasn't enough for Sarah Palin..... (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
You’re such a ing confirmation-biased hypocrite Kevin. Climate scientists aren’t allowed to have any relationship to green business issues, yet you post some garbage from a conservative internet publication whose expertise is
Which is the point I was trying to convey (and you obviously seemed to miss). Many different studies NOT done by Mann et al, and using different methodologies, provide supporting evidence for the hockey stick hypthesis. That doesn’t mean its perfect (by a long shot), but
You let me know when the American thinker publishes some peer reviewed science on the subject, rather than spoon-feeding gullible partisan hacks. |
LOL... I love how you're getting all riled up, going after the Amer. Thinker rather than the actual substance. Did you even read it? If you did you wouldn't be in the depths of denial. You can attack "The American Thinker" as an entity itself, but you can't refute the computer source code and logic/facts laid out by the person who wrote that article; it's all legitimately sourced and the real deal.
But if that's not "nonpartisan" enough for you, read what the National Center for Policy Analysis concluded in their report. Scores of peer reviewed journal sources (at your request) pointing out the methodology flaws, ommissions, and significant statistical errors in the creation of the hockey stick. It even points out the things that Michael Mann was forced to retract and how he used incredibly small sample sizes to extrapolate his data. It's so damning, that I don't think you have the stomach to even click the link and read it.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba478
I know it stings man, because A) you're usually more informed than most people in your arguments, and B) people hate realizing they were hoodwinked all along by something that sounded so legit. But these are the facts man, partisan or not.
Unfortunately, we've gotten off track from the real issue that keeps being avoided: the hypocrites at the top who will profit immensely from the junk science being pushed through. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Me as well. |
Me three. Nearly scare me as much as people who don't believe in climate change.
Go to switzerland and look at the permafrost that has vanished on the mountains (and they've been there since the last ice age). Go to the Rio negro and see the rivers that are becoming bereft of life due to temperature change in the water (them too).
Cos I have, and it's real. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
LOL... I love how you're getting all riled up, going after the Amer. Thinker rather than the actual substance. Did you even read it? If you did you wouldn't be in the depths of denial. You can attack "The American Thinker" as an entity itself, but you can't refute the computer source code and logic/facts laid out by the person who wrote that article; it's all legitimately sourced and the real deal.
But if that's not "nonpartisan" enough for you, read what the National Center for Policy Analysis concluded in their report. Scores of peer reviewed journal sources (at your request) pointing out the methodology flaws, ommissions, and significant statistical errors in the creation of the hockey stick. It even points out the things that Michael Mann was forced to retract and how he used incredibly small sample sizes to extrapolate his data. It's so damning, that I don't think you have the stomach to even click the link and read it.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba478
I know it stings man, because A) you're usually more informed than most people in your arguments, and B) people hate realizing they were hoodwinked all along by something that sounded so legit. But these are the facts man, partisan or not.
Unfortunately, we've gotten off track from the real issue that keeps being avoided: the hypocrites at the top who will profit immensely from the junk science being pushed through. |
i only skimmed the rightwing ideologue bollocks, which seemed to say that any ol random data could be put into mann's methodology, and come out looking hockeystick-like. which is why i pointed out that a dozen or so studies using different methodologies than mann et al, all come out with a picture that looks more or less the same. not to mention that fact that his article was intended to be incomplete, hence the damn title of the paper.
the NCPA site doesn't mention anything other than mann & mcintyre, which i felt we'd moved beyond.
yes, mann's work has had some errors, and even retractions (go scientific method!). but you still have to explain the dozen other studies that (more or less) show similar shapes. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
the NCPA site doesn't mention anything other than mann & mcintyre, which i felt we'd moved beyond. |
:conf:
- More recently, David Chapman, Marshall Bartlett and Robert Harris (Geophysical Research Letters, 2004) identified methodological problems in a 2003 Geophysical Research Letters study by Mann and G. Schmidt. Specifically, Mann and Schmidt eliminated specific proxy records (data from bore holes) they thought were inaccurate. Chapman et al. showed that Mann and Schmidt had unjustifiably excluded the bore-hole data and concluded that their methods were "just bad science" and that they presented a "selective and inappropriate presentation" of results.
- Jan Esper, David Frank and Robert Wilson (EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 2004) further argued that the fatal flaw with Mann, Bradley and Hughes' temperature reconstruction is its incorrect representation of longer-term trends. They observed that the statistical methods used inappropriately remove trends over long time periods. Basically, to construct their climate trend data, Mann and his colleagues used proxies with very limited data sets based on only one or two trees for the early part of the record and a methodology that removed long-term cooling trends by erroneously correlating temperature trends with the age of the tree.
- This flaw in methodology was also highlighted by Henry Pollack and Jason Smerdon (Journal of Geophysical Research, 2004) and led to a retraction by Mann (and Scott Rutherford) in the Journal of Geophysical Research (June 2004). In this article they admit to underestimating the temperature variations indicated by the proxy data since 1400 by more than one-third, which explains why their previous work failed to track the Little Ice Age. While admitting this error, Mann and Rutherford fail to recognize the extent to which it undermines their historical reconstruction and its relation to present temperature trends.
| quote: | | yes, mann's work has had some errors, and even retractions (go scientific method!). but you still have to explain the dozen other studies that (more or less) show similar shapes. |
The key is to not ignore the newer findings by credibile statisticians and scientists whose graphs have been re-adjusted after accounting for the mistakes made in the original one. This is all we need to know about Mann and Jones' credibility, following the Freedom of Information Act request in November to prove their methodology:
| quote: | Scientists at the University of East Anglia have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals "stored on paper and magnetic tape" were 'dumped' to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible. |
No need to be afraid of peer reviews now that there's nothing for the peers to review. One would think that people claiming the science behind man made global warming is indisputable wouldn't have any problem with others examining their formulas and data. In fact, you'd think they'd go out of their way to guarantee its preservation. Imagine if Einstein said E=mc2 but "lost" the papers which proved it? Think anyone would have believed him? |
|
|
| Scottaculous |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
C) I'm not "defending" Palin... how she's making her money doesn't affect us at all, so a thread about it is just stupid Palin Derangement Syndrome. |
Wrong. Her distortion of truths and sometimes outright lying has fed misinformation to this nation in the name of money. It's so disingenuous because she's preaching about how great this country is when her style is actually dividing us and thus hurting us. When she propagates this rhetoric it affects me because her supporters are spreading her message and then going to the polls. All the while she's laughing all the way to the bank.
MTA: I'm all about truthful debate of the issues. We need conservatism to keep liberalism in check. I mean look at what liberalism has done to Europe. Let's talk about how the healthcare bill is driving prices up, how people are being forced into healthcare, and expansion of government but stop with the death panel scare tactics. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: |
In the endless - and senseless - assault on Michael Mann and his famous hockey stick graph, it is generally overlooked that the graph has withstood all of the criticism and, still today, stands as a perfectly accurate picture of climate over the past millennia.
Most convincingly, its results have been replicated by other methods, using other proxies on more than a dozen occasions.
As well, however, Mann's conclusions were vindicated in two independent reviews, the second of which, by Edward Wegman, was particularly hostile in it conception, but ultimately exculpatory. Arie Brand covered this so well in a comment to the next post that I felt compelled to reproduce his note here, for the convenience of those who are too offended by the trolls to pick through all of the excellent comments buried among the mindless criticisms.
Thank you Arie:
What are the facts:
In 2006 two reports were brought out on the politicized “hockey stick”. The earlier one, drawn up at the request of the US House Committee on Science, was drafted by a broadly based 12-member panel of the US National Academy of Science under the chairmanship of Professor Gerald North, and released on the 22nd of June of that year. The later and shorter one, for which the House Committee on Energy and Commerce took the initiative, was composed by a 3-member panel of the Academy’s Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics under the chairmanship of Professor Edward Wegman and was brought out in July.
For the whole debate on global warming the two vital questions were:
1. Is the research of Mann et all. leading to the hockey-stick graph essential for the hypothesis that the planet is currently undergoing a process of global warming that is at least in part caused by human activities?
2 Does the idea behind the hockey stick graph that the last few decades have been the hottest of the millennium have any validity?
Answer by the North Report to question 1:
The North-committee answered this question as follows:
“Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of the multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climate warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence”.
Answer by the Wegman report to question 1:
The answer in the Wegman-report does not contradict this:
“In a real sense the paleoclimatic results of MBH 98/99” (that is the original hockey stick article by Mann et al. – AB) “are essentially irrelevant to the consensus on climate change. The instrumented temperature record since 1850 clearly indicates an increase in temperature.”
Answer by the North report to question 2:
Though the North-committee was not very happy with Mann et al.’s statistical method it nevertheless held that a whole array of evidence had confirmed Mann et al.’s original result and that on the whole the idea that the last few decades had been the warmest of the last millennium (thus including the so-called ‘medieval warm period’) was ‘plausible’ (a term panel members further elucidated by saying in the press conference following the release of the report that the odds for this having been the case were 2: 1) though one can have more confidence about this for the last 400 years than for the earlier period.
Here are the relevant statements from the North report:
“As part of their statistical methods, Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions. A description of this effect is given in Chapter 9. In practice, this method, though not recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature; reconstructions performed without using principal component analysis are qualitatively similar to the original curves presented by Mann et al. (Crowley and Lowry 2000, Huybers 2005, D'Arrigo et al. 2006, Hegerl et al. 2006).”
And:
“The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005, Rutherford et al. 2005, D'Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press), and also the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators described in previous chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press). Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.”
Answer by the Wegman report to question 2:
Wegman et al. did not deny that the hockey stick graph could possibly give a valid indication of the change in temperature over the last millennium – they merely denied that this graph was adequately supported by Mann et al.’s original statistical analysis. In this context part of Professor Wegman’s oral testimony before the House committee on Energy and Commerce is revealing: “I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method wrong + Answer correct=Bad science.” (It has been argued that the Wegman committee merely showed that Mann et al.’s analysis could produce spurious results, not that it actually did).
At any case for the wider community the basic question was not about Mann et al.s competence as statisticians, it was whether the hockey stick graph gives a reasonably correct indication of the change in temperature over the last millennium. We saw that the answer of the North-committee was that this was ‘plausible’ and that the idea was at any case supported by a whole array of evidence from other authors, also those using other statistical methods than Mann et al. The answer of the Wegman-committee contained nothing that is at odds with this conclusion.
Press reactions:
After the release of the first report reputable newspapers such as the New York Times and the Boston Globe concluded that the hockey stick graph had been vindicated. The NYT of 22nd June said: “A controversial paper asserting that recent warming in the Northern hemisphere was probably unrivaled for 1,000 years was endorsed today, with a few reservations, by a panel convened by the nation’s pre-eminent scientific body”. The Boston Globe said a day later: “A signature piece of evidence for global warming – a compilation of data showing that a sharp rise in temperatures made the late 20th century the warmest period in 1,000years – is probably true, a national panel of scientific specialists concluded yesterday.”
As to the charge that Mann et al. had ‘cherry picked’ the data to fit a pre-conceived graph the NYT also reported that the statistical expert of the North-committee, Professor Peter Bloomfield of North Carolina State University, stated during the press conference following the release of the report; “I saw nothing that spoke to me of any manipulation” and that his impression was that the study was ‘an honest attempt to construct a data analysis procedure.”
Perhaps I should add here that Pielke Jr., a scientist the ClimateAudit crowd likes to quote when it suits it, said at the time that the NAS-report amounted to an almost complete vindication of Mann et al.
In view of all this one is baffled by assertions that these two reports have “discredited” or “broken” the hockey stick, that Mann et al. had not merely used the wrong method (in arriving at the right result) but had deliberately picked out certain data to fit a pre-conceived thesis – claims one can only ascribe to an elaborate and devious PR-campaign.
To provide this all with a shred of evidence the purveyors of this nonsense have seized on a particular statement in the North as well as the Wegman report, namely that one could not have confidence in Mann et al.’s suggestion that it was likely that the nineties were the hottest decade of the millennium and 1998 the hottest year. The argument of the North committee here was that the data didn’t allow such precise indications from year to year and the Wegman-committee stated in general that such an assertion was not supported by the statistical method used by Mann et al.
It is clear that we are dealing here with a subsidiary thesis and that this does not detract from the claim by the North committee, that, overall, the graph provides a plausible indication of the changes in the average global temperature during the last millennium (one may add that the North committee was super-cautious here because if it is ‘plausible’ that the last few decades were the hottest in the millennium why wouldn’t it be ‘likely’ (the word used by Mann et al.) that the decade and year that according to the thermometer were the hottest of these decades would also be the hottest in the millennium?). |
http://www.desmogblog.com/review-mi...nns-exoneration
| quote: |
Penn State inquiry finds no evidence for allegations against Michael Mann
"Hockey Stick" scientist vindicated once again
An academic inquiry into the so-called “climategate” email scandal has concluded that a well-known U.S. scientist did not directly or indirectly falsify data in his research.
The review, by a panel of senior administrators at Pennsylvania State University, found no evidence that climatologist Michael Mann had manipulated research that indicates humans are causing global warming.
This finding is a big setback for the anti-science crowd, who have been going after Mann full throttle, trying to find imaginary whistleblowers to accuse him and others at Penn State of fraud (see “Anti-science disinformers step up efforts to intimidate and harass climate scientists.” |
| quote: |
Penn State University has concluded that there is no evidence to substantiate the claims made against climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann surrounding the emails stolen from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University.
An inquiry panel was set up earlier this year to look at allegations made by right-wing bloggers and media outlets against Penn State University climate scientist, Dr. Michael Mann, relating to the contents of emails stolen from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in London.
On all 4 of the allegations made against Dr. Mann the panel has concluded that there is no evidence to substantiate the claims.
However, the panel has recommended that the allegation that Dr. Mann “engaged in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities,” be further investigated. |
http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/...-stick-science/ |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Scottaculous
her style is actually dividing us and thus hurting us. |
Our current administration is dividing and pitting people against each other like no president has ever done. Every week there's someone new to demonize through identity politics or class warfare. I remember many moons ago when he campaigned as "the great unifier". lol
| quote: | | MTA: I'm all about truthful debate of the issues. We need conservatism to keep liberalism in check. I mean look at what liberalism has done to Europe. Let's talk about how the healthcare bill is driving prices up, how people are being forced into healthcare, and expansion of government but stop with the death panel scare tactics. |
word. I'm with you man. |
|
|
| Moongoose |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Our current administration is dividing and pitting people against each other like no president has ever done. Every week there's someone new to demonize through identity politics or class warfare. I remember many moons ago when he campaigned as "the great unifier". lol |
Riiiiiiiight. The obama administration. They really do divide the country. Tell me again, whos out there on an almost weekly basis calling for a violent revolution, reaching for their guns, calling the other side marxist, stalinist, socialist, communist and faschist at the same time (oblivious to the fact that some of these cancel eachother out), and who is it thats trying to work with both sides of the isle, despite being labeled all that and having to fight obstructionist on everything he does. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moongoose
Riiiiiiiight. The obama administration. They really do divide the country. Tell me again, whos out there on an almost weekly basis calling for a violent revolution, reaching for their guns, calling the other side marxist, stalinist, socialist, communist and faschist at the same time (oblivious to the fact that some of these cancel eachother out), and who is it thats trying to work with both sides of the isle, despite being labeled all that and having to fight obstructionist on everything he does. |
Yes that's right... purposely dividing the country. Unions bussing in their workers to the homes of AIG execs to protest in front of their private homes, demagoguing bank CEO's, car company CEO's, Wall Street, Oil Companies, evil doctors who remove tonsils unnecessarily for extra money, insurance companies, Fox news, talk radio hosts, etc... there's always a new "enemy" that mus be stopped, that only the benevolent hand of the government can save/protect us from. Rule #13 in Saul Alinsky's "rules for radicals" details this very tactic. But the Republicans are calling for "violent revolution"? LOL! Nice try. The only voilence that has actually happened has been by the Left- you must have already forgotten about the Black Panthers toting automatic weapons at polling places in 2008, the SEIU union thugs that beat the out of the conservative guy at at town hall protest in St. Louis, the police getting pelted with bottles and rocks 3 days ago in Arizona by protestors of the new law, a swastika pained on the Arizona capital building's window using re-fried beans, and Eric Cantor having a bullet shot through his office window last month to name a few. Nothing to see here, move along! Oh, and you can ask all the Republicans who were physically locked out of the room during the health care legislation's crafting how welcoming the Dems are to working with "the other side of the aisle". My god you're uninformed... reaches across the aisle!? Demanding concessions from the GOP doesn't really mean reaching across the aisle. |
|
|
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
And yes, enough evidence has come to light this past year to obliterate the "global warming" lies and fake science. |
:stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
| The17sss, why aren't you attempting to refute the hard data pkcRAISTLIN has presented you with? |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
But the Republicans are calling for "violent revolution"? LOL! Nice try. The only voilence that has actually happened has been by the Left- |
What the are you talking about??
Are you forgetting the Tea Party??
People throwing bricks and through windows after the health bill passed?
The Tea Party spitting on people and calling them racial and sexual slurs?
Right wing morons murdering abortion doctors?
Seriously, how can you seriously be blaming the violence on the left, let alone on OBAMA?!?
This country is getting so ed up if someone who is as rational as you can possibly believe this . Holy .
I'm so sick of this split party/split country bull. Maybe we should have let the South secede. This is just ing ridiculous.
I really have no idea how you can possibly believe the left are the ones causing all the violence. |
|
|
|
|
