inconvienent facts

a reply to: ketsuko

That data set was called proprietary and no one was allowed to see it.

Source?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: amazing

Why wasn't the original data on Mann's Hockey stick made available to other scientists so they could see the methodology and go out to attempt to reproduce the study on their own?

That data set was called proprietary and no one was allowed to see it.

But see that's a problem. You're talking about 1 incident, 1 scientist and 1 hockey stick. Do you realize there are thousands of scientists, not named Mann working on Climate studies? Do you realize that there are thousands of scientific papers and research documents not even referencing Mann's hockey stick?

Mann is just a really small player in all of this. If it was one guy, I'd agree with you.

But it's not.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude

I tried to not make the mistake of denying climate change, or even suggesting that it's not a real thing.

Where'd you get the idea for the thread title?

at least now I know what made you so triggered.

I'm in the mosquito killing business, and when it's cold, there just aren't many mosquitoes, so I don't get to kill like I want to. When climate change makes it's way to the patch of cold your previous post showed existed, and things warm up, I'll be happier knowing that I can kill indiscriminately.

Again, I am super sorry I mentioned the "c" word.

Some are going to hang on to the AGW scam to the bitter(ly cold) end.

But only because scientists are telling us it's real. I mean I have discussions and arguments and questions. But just like with evolution, vaccines, Gravity, the moon landing...I can't prove any of those, but I believe scientists.

Serious question, what do you say to that? Like counter my arguement...am I totally wrong to believe scientists? And am I wrong to through gravity, evolution and the moon landing in with global warming?

Re-read your first sentence and I mean really read it. Study it.
You'll understand then, hopefully, that your entire point fell over right there.

Then the same with Evolution? Serious question. Scientists are telling me that evolution is real.

So 'scientists' are always right because they tell you evolution is real?
Don't you think it is better to actually evaluate what you are being told by 'scientists' and then decide if you believe it or not?
Are you one of these people that would have blindly believe that the earth was flat and at the centre of the solar system if you'd lived just a few short years (in Earths history) ago? Would you have been dismissing the views of Copernicus because 'scientists' said Ptolemy was right?
Or maybe you'd be one of those stoically holding the view that the continents were stable and never moved if you'd been around just a few decades ago.
'Scientists' are not always correct, in fact, they are often wrong.

a reply to: UKTruth

Are you one of these people that would have blindly believe that the earth was flat and at the centre of the solar system if you'd lived just a few short years (in Earths history) ago? Would you have been dismissing the views of Copernicus because 'scientists' said Ptolemy was right?

That would have been the Catholic Church. Not scientists. Not many scientists around back then.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude

I tried to not make the mistake of denying climate change, or even suggesting that it's not a real thing.

Where'd you get the idea for the thread title?

at least now I know what made you so triggered.

I'm in the mosquito killing business, and when it's cold, there just aren't many mosquitoes, so I don't get to kill like I want to. When climate change makes it's way to the patch of cold your previous post showed existed, and things warm up, I'll be happier knowing that I can kill indiscriminately.

Again, I am super sorry I mentioned the "c" word.

Some are going to hang on to the AGW scam to the bitter(ly cold) end.

But only because scientists are telling us it's real. I mean I have discussions and arguments and questions. But just like with evolution, vaccines, Gravity, the moon landing...I can't prove any of those, but I believe scientists.

Serious question, what do you say to that? Like counter my arguement...am I totally wrong to believe scientists? And am I wrong to through gravity, evolution and the moon landing in with global warming?

Re-read your first sentence and I mean really read it. Study it.
You'll understand then, hopefully, that your entire point fell over right there.

Then the same with Evolution? Serious question. Scientists are telling me that evolution is real.

So 'scientists' are always right because they tell you evolution is real?
Don't you think it is better to actually evaluate what you are being told by 'scientists' and then decide if you believe it or not?
Are you one of these people that would have blindly believe that the earth was flat and at the centre of the solar system if you'd lived just a few short years (in Earths history) ago? Would you have been dismissing the views of Copernicus because 'scientists' said Ptolemy was right?
Or maybe you'd be one of those stoically holding the view that the continents were stable and never moved if you'd been around just a few decades ago.
'Scientists' are not always correct, in fact, they are often wrong.

And I agree with you and I do read articles and sources when I can. The still appear to be correct, but my point is...I have no way of proving the earth is not hallow or that the earth is not flat. Scientists tell me it's round, I believe them. I believe evolution is real, but again, I'll read some articles on that as well. I believe we went to the moon because scientists tell me we have...I do look at the threads here and see what the questions are though.

See, I do question things. But then I look at who's telling me global warming is not real...usually blogs and a few scientists...usually republican blogs...and every once in a while we find out the scientist saying global warming isn't real is being funded by an oil company.

Sometimes I see something shady or a scandal on those scientists that say global warming is real...so I'll look at other correlating research to see if things add up...I have several climate science feeds on my news feed.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CynConcepts

If humans are accelerating anything it seems to have been keeping another little ice age at bay but only temporarily.

Yeah, only about 5 to 10 thousand years.


Sorry, missed the "little" part about that. I though you were talking about the next glacial period.

Thing is, there seems to be a lot of hype about low solar activity bringing about something like the "little ice age." Thing is the correlation is questionable. There were other factors involved and the cooling began well before the Maunder minimum. Right not those factors are not present. But maybe we'll get lucky and there will be a large increase in volcanic activity.

While the MM occurred within the much longer LIA period, the timing of the features are not suggestive of causation and should not, in isolation, be used as evidence of significant solar forcing of climate. Climate model simulations suggest multiple factors, particularly volcanic activity, were crucial for causing the cooler temperatures in the northern hemisphere during the LIA. A reduction in total solar irradiance likely contributed to the LIA at a level comparable to changing land use.

www.research.ed.ac.uk...

The last Little ice age was only a few underdog years ago. I wasnt talking about the re-glaciering effect experienced 1000s of years ago. As far as assumed multiple contributing effects that scientists theorize occurred to create a LIA...was actually my point.

Even with all of the scientific 'theorizing' they admit they don't know for sure why the LIA occurred! Same as today. Scientist are creating theories but have yet to find scientific proof to state without a doubt that the climate change is absolutely due to humans. They are simply best case theories, the same as any scientist worth his salt would state that evolution is the best theory. It is not science FACT until real evidence is finally produced. Which even with that theory...has not provided evidence to make it an absolute fact.

Scientists come up with many awesome theories that make obvious sense, but without some repeatable observable evidence, it will simply be the current best theory...not science fact!

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude

I tried to not make the mistake of denying climate change, or even suggesting that it's not a real thing.

Where'd you get the idea for the thread title?

at least now I know what made you so triggered.

I'm in the mosquito killing business, and when it's cold, there just aren't many mosquitoes, so I don't get to kill like I want to. When climate change makes it's way to the patch of cold your previous post showed existed, and things warm up, I'll be happier knowing that I can kill indiscriminately.

Again, I am super sorry I mentioned the "c" word.

Some are going to hang on to the AGW scam to the bitter(ly cold) end.

But only because scientists are telling us it's real. I mean I have discussions and arguments and questions. But just like with evolution, vaccines, Gravity, the moon landing...I can't prove any of those, but I believe scientists.

Serious question, what do you say to that? Like counter my arguement...am I totally wrong to believe scientists? And am I wrong to through gravity, evolution and the moon landing in with global warming?

Point of order:

Climate is real.

Climate change happens.

What is up for debate and analysis is how much man is affecting the climate.

When that debate is whether it's 95% human-caused vs. 100% human-caused, it's disingenuous to frame it as if the debate is human-caused or not.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

Are you one of these people that would have blindly believe that the earth was flat and at the centre of the solar system if you'd lived just a few short years (in Earths history) ago? Would you have been dismissing the views of Copernicus because 'scientists' said Ptolemy was right?

That would have been the Catholic Church. Not scientists. Not many scientists around back then.

Ah, so Ptolemy and Aristotle weren't scientists then... and the Geocentric model was just something the church came up with ? Damn Christians!

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude

I tried to not make the mistake of denying climate change, or even suggesting that it's not a real thing.

Where'd you get the idea for the thread title?

at least now I know what made you so triggered.

I'm in the mosquito killing business, and when it's cold, there just aren't many mosquitoes, so I don't get to kill like I want to. When climate change makes it's way to the patch of cold your previous post showed existed, and things warm up, I'll be happier knowing that I can kill indiscriminately.

Again, I am super sorry I mentioned the "c" word.

Some are going to hang on to the AGW scam to the bitter(ly cold) end.

Challenge for you:

If you think you are right, and that AGW is a scam, please explain why, through physics, we are not causing warming.

Or run away and don't answer.

Your choice.

a reply to: CynConcepts

Yes.

But there are many (not many climatologists) who are on the bandwagon about the proposed deep solar minimum which we may (or may not) be moving into. The claim is that it will bring about another little ice age. I was pointing that there isn't a lot of reason to think that's the case.

Solar activity has been on the decline for 50 years or so. Meanwhile temperatures have been rising.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude

I tried to not make the mistake of denying climate change, or even suggesting that it's not a real thing.

Where'd you get the idea for the thread title?

at least now I know what made you so triggered.

I'm in the mosquito killing business, and when it's cold, there just aren't many mosquitoes, so I don't get to kill like I want to. When climate change makes it's way to the patch of cold your previous post showed existed, and things warm up, I'll be happier knowing that I can kill indiscriminately.

Again, I am super sorry I mentioned the "c" word.

Some are going to hang on to the AGW scam to the bitter(ly cold) end.

Challenge for you:

If you think you are right, and that AGW is a scam, please explain why, through physics, we are not causing warming.

Or run away and don't answer.

Your choice.

..or given it's a theory YOU believe, please explain why and show evidence.
Whilst you're at it, please show your workings and how you have disproven the null hypothesis.

Note : 'Science says' is not a valid argument.

My explanation of why I believe AGW is a scam is simple, valid and reasonable - no one has proven AGW is going to cause the kind of catastrophe we are told it will ...AND the predictions from the models have turned out incorrect.

Remember - show your workings...

a reply to: UKTruth

Ah, so Ptolemy and Aristotle weren't scientists then

Correct.

and the Geocentric model was just something the church came up with?

No. But they sure liked it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

Ah, so Ptolemy and Aristotle weren't scientists then

Correct.

Hilarious.

Aristotle, Greek Aristoteles, (born 384 BCE, Stagira, Chalcidice, Greece—died 322, Chalcis, Euboea), ancient Greek philosopher and scientist, one of the greatest intellectual figures of Western history. He was the author of a philosophical and scientific system that became the framework and vehicle for both Christian Scholasticism and medieval Islamic philosophy. Even after the intellectual revolutions of the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment, Aristotelian concepts remained embedded in Western thinking. Aristotle’s intellectual range was vast, covering most of the sciences and many of the arts, including biology, botany, chemistry, ethics, history, logic, metaphysics, rhetoric, philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, physics, poetics, political theory, psychology, and zoology. He was the founder of formal logic, devising for it a finished system that for centuries was regarded as the sum of the discipline; and he pioneered the study of zoology, both observational and theoretical, in which some of his work remained unsurpassed until the 19th century. But he is, of course, most outstanding as a philosopher. His writings in ethics and political theory as well as in metaphysics and the philosophy of science continue to be studied, and his work remains a powerful current in contemporary philosophical debate.

a reply to: UKTruth

Please describe the hypotheses and experimental evidence which either one used.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

Please describe the hypotheses and experimental evidence which either one used.

Experimental science is the only form of science?
Do you think Aristotle hypothesised much?

The oft-called Father of Science was not a scientist, LOL.

I guess he was wrong about the Geocentric model, so musn't have been a scientist because, hey, they can't be wrong.
I can see why you fell for the AGW scam.

a reply to: UKTruth

The oft-called Father of Science was not a scientist, LOL.

Father? Maybe. But he didn't do science.

I think Galileo was the first scientist, actually. He's the first we know of who actually tested things that had been just accepted as obvious.

A geocentric universe takes no leap of intuition. The sky makes it look like that is reality. Look, the Sun rises and sets, obviously it's moving around the Earth. Look, the stars rise and set, obviously they are moving around the Earth. Obviously the Earth doesn't move. Deep scientific thought. Right?

a reply to: Phage

Blimey, you wiped out so many.
Not unusual for scientists to bury the dead.
After all, we can't have people knowing that scientists are often incorrect and sell themselves to the highest bidder.
That wouldn't be good for the priesthood.

a reply to: network dude

I'm with you N. D... I never know how to dress for work. And this is Michigan... Every day... don't blink. It's gotten to the point I turn he heat on in the EMS and mid-shift I'm cranking the air conditioning.

a reply to: Phage

Right here.

Eventually, he was forced to release it, and he's not the only one with problems in the scientific community at large.

THis is why he didn't want it out.

But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.

But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

The hockey stick graph was based on a flawed mathematical model that tended to make any data fed into it appear to take on a hockey stick shape.

As the article goes on to cite, this is not the only problem with the Mann hockey stick, only the most obvious.

a reply to: ketsuko

Eventually, he was forced to release it,

How was he forced to release it?

The hockey stick graph was based on a flawed mathematical model that tended to make any data fed into it appear to take on a hockey stick shape.

No. The analysis of McIntyre and McKitrick was deeply flawed and their "analysis" used some very specific cherry picking, if not being deliberately misleading.

Even worse, though, is the astonishing fact that this special collection of “hockey sticks” is not even a random sample of the 10,000 pseudo-proxy PC1s originally produced in the GRL study. Rather it expressly contains the very top 100 – one percent – having the most pronounced upward blade. Thus, McIntyre and McKitrick’s original Fig 1-1, mechanically reproduced by Wegman et al, shows a carefully selected “sample” from the top 1% of simulated “hockey sticks”. And Wegman’s Fig 4-4, which falsely claimed to show “hockey sticks” mined from low-order, low-autocorrelation “red noise”, contains another 12 from that same 1%!

deepclimate.org...

The work of Mann has been reviewed intensively since 2003 (you should try to stay current with your information set), and found to be valid.

Our examination does suggest that a slight modification to the original Mann et al. reconstruction is justifiable for the first half of the 15th century (∼+0.05∘), which leaves entirely unaltered the primary conclusion of Mann et al. (as well as many other reconstructions) that both the 20th century upward trend and high late-20th century hemispheric surface temperatures are anomalous over at least the last 600 years

link.springer.com...