Nations walk out on Canada

[Riverwind]

The debate over Mann 2008 is a good illustration of why the peer review process is broken. SteveMc submitted a comment to a peer reviewed journal (PNAS) on Mann 2008 that tried to highlight why Mann 2008 was junk. His comment was accepted but he was limited by a 250 word limit. It is really impossible to understand what the problem is from the comment itself. One has to go to his blog to find out what the issue is.

PNAS also failed to review Mann's response. If they had they would have forced him to actually respond to SteveMc's criticisms instead of simply pretending that they are irrelevant. Here is part of SteveMc response to Mann's comment:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7411

Even though there is no doubt whatever that Mann used the Tiljander proxies upside down, in their reply to our comment, Mann et al flat out denied that they had used them upside down. Mann:

The claim that ‘‘upside down’’ data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use.

These comments are either unresponsive to the observation that the Tiljander sediments were used upside down or untrue. Multivariate methods are indeed insensitive to the sign of the predictors. However, if there is a spurious correlation between temperature and sediment from bridge building and cultivation, then Mannomatic methods will seize on this spurious relationship and interpret the Tiljander sediments upside down, as we observed. The fact that they can "get" a Stick using Graybill bristlecones is well known, but even the NAS panel said that bristlecones should be "avoided" in temperature reconstructions - and that was before Ababneh's bombshell about Sheep Mt bristlecones. The claim that upside down data was used may indeed be "bizarre", but it is true.

I realize that for people like waldo who don't understand the statistics it becomes a question of which expert are your going to trust. It seems to me that it makes much more sense to trust the expert who was proven right in the past instead of betting on the one with a long history of disinformation and obfuscation.

Here is a layman's summary of the issue with Mann 2008:

Mann took a set of measurements that the original author said was corrupted by bridge building and other human activity during the 20th century so it is not possible to relate these measurements to temperature during this period. Mann ignored this caveat and dumped these measurements into a statistical blender that processed the measurements blindly. When the measurements popped out the other side their sign was reversed - i.e. if the measurements went up the temperatures were assumed to have gone down. These inverted measurements were then used to create the temperature reconstruction. You don't have to have PhD to understand that a reconstruction made with upside down data might not be meaningful.

It is clear to me that Mann is an incompentent buffoon when it comes to statistical analyses. The fact that "climate scientists" choose not to see this does not give me any reason to trust their judgement in other areas.

Edited October 20, 2009 by Riverwind

[wyly]

What planet are you posting from? If the basic science weren't debatable then there wouldn't be so many people debating it.

We're talking here, of computer modelling. That is the entirity of the evidence which supports the global warming crowd. And as anyone who ever took a computer class well-remembers GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).

the worlds most complex technological machines airplanes are built and flown by computer models before a single rivet is manufactured, then they are assembled and surprise! they work as projected...space ships are designed and courses calculated across the solar system to a precise destination many years and millions of Km's away all by computer before they are even built and surprise again they work...dams, buildings, bridges, cars, are all designed with computers models because it works...

... computer climate models have successfully matched previous climate patterns as a control, reversing the procedure projects future climate...if there is a critisim of models is that they are to conservative, the projections have been short of observed increases...the ice free arctic was initially projected a hundred years off then mid century is now projected to be only 10 years away...

[Riverwind]

the worlds most complex technological machines airplanes are built and flown by computer models before a single rivet is manufactured, then they are assembled and surprise! they work as projected...

The computer models in these cases are exhaustively tested in the lab with small and full scale models. There is NO comparison to the climate models. It would take millions of years to gather the data that could be used to validated the climate models in the same way that the aircraft models are validated.

... computer climate models have successfully matched previous climate patterns as a control, reversing the procedure projects future climate

The climate models don't really do a good job of "predicting" past climate. They do an ok job when it comes to global temps because they were adjusted and tweeked until they did but as soon as you look at other parameters such as rainfall or humidity they fail miserably. In some cases the models hide some absurdities in the averages such as average temperature of 0 degC calculated from a day with a max of +100 degC and a min of -100 degC.

But more importantly, their ability to predict the past tell us absolutely nothing about their ability to predict the future. The only way to evaluate their performance is to make predictions and see how they do. So far the latest batch of models is failing miserably and there is no justification for setting policy based on such models.

Edited October 20, 2009 by Riverwind

[wyly]

But more importantly, their ability to predict the past tell us absolutely nothing about their ability to predict the future. The only way to evaluate their performance is to make predictions and see how they do. So far the latest batch of models is failing miserably and there is no justification for setting policy based on such models.

ya you're right they failed, observed data is greater than projected by models...CO2 increase projections were lower than the observed data...global average temperatures again rose higher than model projections....sea level rise, once again those darned models failed as levels are higher than the models projected......

[Shady]

global average temperatures again rose higher than model projections

Now you're just lying. Globeal average temperatures haven't risen in over 10 years.

[Riverwind]

ya you're right they failed, observed data is greater than projected by models...CO2 increase projections were lower than the observed data...global average temperatures again rose higher than model projections....sea level rise, once again those darned models failed as levels are higher than the models projected

All of those statements are falsehoods. When it comes to the key metrics: surface temperatures, ocean heat content and tropospheric temperatures you will find that the models predicted much more warming than is actually occurring.

Ocean heat content is one of the more interesting ones since the oceans are less affected by weather and the huge divergance between the real data and the computer models is huge:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009...by-bob-tisdale/

[waldo]

It it clear you are unable or unwilling to comphrend points that go against your religious creed. I will highlinght two key findings from Wegman that I linked before:

This makes it clear that SteveMc and RossMc were completely vindicated by Wegman and anyone who suggests that something about their analysis is wrong is basically making stuff up. This also establishes SteveMc and RossMc's credentials as a statistical analysts because when independent experts looked into they turned out to be right and Mann, Bradley and Hughs ended up looking like incompetent undergrads.

The last point is important because the claims and counter claims did not stop with Wegman. You have basically repeated the counter claims by Mann and others which SteveMc has debunked repeatedly on his blog. After Wegman no rational person could place any weight on the opinion of Mann and others when it comes to statistics if that opinion contradicts the opinion of proven experts like SteveMc and RossMc. Unfortunately many people are irrational because they cannot admit that their priests by be wrong.

Oh really? You’re saying that, they (Wegman), were able to reproduce the results of McIntyre and McKitrick… McIntyre and McKitrick, who claimed to be unable to reproduce the results of MBH… able to reproduce something that couldn't be reproduced (claimed)

You keep holding this Wegman report up as some kind of “smoking gun” revelation. I’ve already mentioned – a few times previously – that the Wegman Report holds no real credence. Yet – here you are – here you continue. I’ve already linked you to the 2007 Wahl & Ammann study that reproduced the MBH reconstruction, factoring in the statistical concern raised by Wegman… yet – here you are – here you continue. You keep mentioning IPCC AR4 referencing MBH, and questioning IPCC’s trustworthiness in so doing. You fail to mention that IPCC AR4 did not avoid the raised questions concerning MBH – rather, they addressed them head-on advising the McIntyre and McKitrick results/concerns, as shown by Wahl & Ammann, were due to implementation differences used by McIntyre and McKitrick.

We’re well beyond the MBH that Wegman targeted… I’ve already linked you to updated MBH results, one that factored the statistical concern raised by Wegman… MBH results that significantly expanded on the proxy data – another concern raised by Wegman. And yet – here you are – here you continue… in referencing a much now dated and irrelevant Wegman report. Notwithstanding there are literally dozens of other studies done separately, done independently of MBH... all coming forward with the same reconstruction resutls as MBH. And yet - here you are - here you continue. I suggested you attempt to become topical… apparently, you seek your own level of mediocrity… or perhaps you need to update on your favourite go-to deniers blogs… look for more topical blogs.

I’ll throw you a bone… another reason why Wegman has no real credibility – either then, or now, in today’s updated climate change debate arena. You’re either purposely ignoring it or blindingly unaware of it; however, at the time of the Wegman Report, the National Academy of Sciences struck a committee to also look at (the original) MBH.

In response to a request from Congress, this committee was assembled by the National Research Council to describe and assess the state of scientific efforts to reconstruct surface temperature records for the Earth over approximately the last 2,000 years and the implications of these efforts for our understanding of global climate change.

.

.

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 both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically diverse sites experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward.

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.

Hey Riverwind, what was it you said earlier about, as you stated, “no rational person who place any weight on the opinion of Mann and others when it comes to statistics if that opinion contradicts the opinion of proven experts like SteveMc and RossMc”. Apparently, there are many very rational people out there… they just don’t hold to the "facts" presented by your so-called experts, McIntyre and McKitrick… or the blog regurgitation of the likes of so-called experts, like yourself – self-proclaimed experts!

[wyly]

All of those statements are falsehoods. When it comes to the key metrics: surface temperatures, ocean heat content and tropospheric temperatures you will find that the models predicted much more warming than is actually occurring.

Ocean heat content is one of the more interesting ones since the oceans are less affected by weather and the huge divergance between the real data and the computer models is huge:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009...by-bob-tisdale/

dotted lines are IPCC projections for temp, solid lines are observed data(higher), grey range is uncertainty

sea levels

"Sea-level data based primarily on tide gauges (annual, red) and from satellite altimeter (3-month data spacing, blue, up to mid-2006) and their trends. Dotted lines are IPCC projections. Grey range encompasses model uncertainty."

[wyly]

Now you're just lying. Globeal average temperatures haven't risen in over 10 years.

hmmmm...do you even know how to read a graph., do you know what is significant about 1998?...

do you have anything else to offer than "you're lying" that seems to be your standard answer when you don't understand the topic at hand...

[Riverwind]

We’re well beyond the MBH that Wegman targeted… I’ve already linked you to updated MBH results, one that factored the statistical concern raised by Wegman… MBH results that significantly expanded on the proxy data – another concern raised by Wegman.

Your claims are simply false. The papers you quoted are also bogus. All they did is invent a new bogus algorithm that created the illusion that the reconstruction was meaningful and then refused to provide that data/methods that would allow someone else to determine what they did. Once this information was made publically available it was easy to show that the reconstructions are meaningless: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3406

And yet – here you are – here you continue… in referencing a much now dated and irrelevant Wegman report.

No subsequent analysis has shown that Wegman conclusions were wrong. There is nothing out of date about it and the fact that the report was necessary in the first place demonstrates why the climate science field is too politicized to provide trustworthy science.

the National Academy of Sciences struck a committee to also look at (the original) MBH.

You will nothing in the NAS report that contradicts Wegman (in fact, the NAS panel members stated under oath that they agreed completely with Wegman). The only thing the NAS report did was suggest that even if MBH is junk it still could be right because "other studies" say so.

However, since you like to quote the NAS report you should note that the NAS report said bristlecones proxies should not be used yet Mann and the PNAS reviewers completely ignored that recommendation in Mann 2008. Yet more evidence that climate scientists don't care about science and are only interested in promoting AGW.

Apparently, there are many very rational people out there… they just don’t hold to the "facts" presented by your so-called experts, McIntyre and McKitrick

So where does the NAS report say they are wrong in their claims on MBH? Where did the NAS report say they were wrong about bristlecones? The problem here is the alarmists you like to quote completely ignore all of the stuff in the NAS report which vindicantes M&M and made clear in a diplomatic way that MBH was junk and but offer Mann some face saving potential by referring to "other studies" that report "similar results".

Here is some more background that does a better job of reporting what was actually in the report:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2322

Edited October 20, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

dotted lines are IPCC projections for temp, solid lines are observed data(higher), grey range is uncertainty

The Rahmstorf study you quoted is BS.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/sourc...ange-smoothing/

http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-7-finale/

Edited October 20, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

hmmmm...do you even know how to read a graph., do you know what is significant about 1998?

Who said anything about 1998? Review the thread and you will see it was you that introduced the strawman. It has been cooling from 2001 too and 2001 was a La Nina year.

[wyly]

Who said anything about 1998? Review the thread and you will see it was you that introduced the strawman. It has been cooling from 2001 too and 2001 was a La Nina year.

and 08 was a la Nina year...anomolies happen, they're statistical blips that get smoothed in long term data...any legit graph from the 70's on show a upward trend...on any graph of data there are dips, peaks, and plateau's by cherry picking the peaks and dips for starting points you can make the graph say anything you want...which is why there is an average of all points taken to find a trend...

[waldo]

No subsequent analysis has shown that Wegman conclusions were wrong. There is nothing out of date about it and the fact that the report was necessary in the first place demonstrates why the climate science field is too politicized to provide trustworthy science.

let's be clear here... are you stating the Wegman Report critiques MBH and in so doing denounces AGW... are you stating that the Wegman Report is a denunciation of AGW - that directly within the report, Wegman denounces AGW?

You will nothing in the NAS report that contradicts Wegman (in fact, the NAS panel members stated under oath that they agreed completely with Wegman). The only thing the NAS report did was suggest that even if MBH is junk it still could be right because "other studies" say so.

I previously provided you an extract/quote from the NAS report (again, partially, as below)... perhaps you could advise how that quote contradicts, categorically, the complete MBH reconstruction... waiting. As is your habit you state something without offering qualifying support... please link to the NAS panel members stating agreement with Wegman and advise where in the NAS report, as you state, it "suggests that even if MBH is junk it still could be right because "other studies" say so".

Based on the analysis 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

noted: now after several requests, since you've failed to provide a linked reference to your previous stated claim that a "panel of statistics experts vindicated McIntyre and McKitrick", said claim is deemed "spurious noise"... "bunk".

[Riverwind]

let's be clear here... are you stating the Wegman Report critiques MBH and in so doing denounces AGW... are you stating that the Wegman Report is a denunciation of AGW - that directly within the report, Wegman denounces AGW?

None of the above. The Wegman and NAS panels simply demonstrate that climate scientist and the peer review process have significant issues and we cannot depend on the climate science community to provide us with unbiased assessments of the scientific evidence. AGW may or may not be true no matter how unreliable the messengers are but if the messengers are known to be unreliable it is necessary to look at what the dissenters have to say too.

Here is what the NAS panel author's had to say under oath:

There's obviously been a lot of spinning here, as Wegman's language was much more forthright. The realclimate crowd have tried to marginalize the clear statements in Wegman.

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

CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that. It looks like my time is expired, so I want to ask one more question. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman's report?

DR. NORTH. No, we don't. We don't disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report. But again, just because the claims are made, doesn't mean they are false.

CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that you can have the right conclusion and that it not be–

DR. NORTH. It happens all the time in science.

CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, and not be substantiated by what you purport to be the facts but have we established–we know that Dr. Wegman has said that Dr. Mann's methodology is incorrect. Do you agree with that? I mean, it doesn't mean Dr. Mann's conclusions are wrong, but we can stipulate now that we have–and if you want to ask your statistician expert from North Carolina that Dr. Mann's methodology cannot be documented and cannot be verified by independent review.

DR. NORTH. Do you mind if he speaks?

CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, if he would like to come to the microphone.

MR. BLOOMFIELD. Thank you. Yes, Peter Bloomfield. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his coworkers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

Given these explicit statements by NAS panel officials, let's take a look at what Wegman said about Mann et al and exactly what North, Bloomfield, Wallace and the others were agreeing with.

In Mike's view, the two reports were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.

The vague passage you quoted referred to the "other studies" and does not say MBH was valid. MBH was junk. It should have been consigned to the waste bin of science yet it was quoted in the IPCC AR4. That says a lot about the IPCC process and none of it is good. Edited October 20, 2009 by Riverwind

[waldo]

let's be clear here... are you stating the Wegman Report critiques MBH and in so doing denounces AGW... are you stating that the Wegman Report is a denunciation of AGW - that directly within the report, Wegman denounces AGW?

None of the above. The Wegman and NAS panels simply demonstrate that climate scientist and the peer review process have significant issues and we cannot depend on the climate science community to provide us with unbiased assessments of the scientific evidence. AGW may or may not be true no matter how unreliable the messengers are but if the messengers are known to be unreliable it is necessary to look at what the dissenters have to say too.

WTF – now you state, “AGW may or may not be true”… everything and anything McIntyre and McKitrick say/do is intended to criticize and denounce AGW. Clearly, your repeated references to Wegman “vindicating” McIntyre and McKitrick, was/is intended to reinforce your belief that AGW is contrived science done by dishonest and untrustworthy climate scientists… essentially, your repeated claims throughout this thread. Now – when pressed about the AGW related findings/statements from the Wegman Report, you pull a 180… interesting back-peddle.

I repeatedly suggested you move on – get more topical… that Wegman is “old 2006 news”… that MBH has been independently validated by literally dozens of other studies, that other studies have reconstructed MBH factoring the Wegman statistical concern and that MBH has been updated to reflect Wegman concerns, although the updated MBH reconstruction corroborates the original. You’ve put a lot of thread mileage around the Wegman Report… accordingly; you’ll need to accept this Wegman statement – perhaps you can advise if it, similarly, stands the test of your repeated “vindicating McIntyre and McKitrick” statements.

As we said in our report, In a real sense the paleoclimate results of MBH98/99 are essentially irrelevant to the consensus on climate change. The instrumented temperature record since 1850 clearly indicates an increase in temperature.

We certainly agree that modern global warming is real. We have never disputed this point. We think it is time to put the ‘hockey stick’ controversy behind us and move on

.

The vague passage you quoted referred to the "other studies" and does not say MBH was valid. MBH was junk. It should have been consigned to the waste bin of science yet it was quoted in the IPCC AR4. That says a lot about the IPCC process and none of it is good.

Vague passage? I note you chose your words very carefully above… stating the NAS didn’t say MBH was valid, yet only offering your own assessment that MBH was junk. I already dispatched your IPCC AR4 commentary (re: MBH)… why trot it out again? I quoted directly from the NAS report and linked to it… again, as follows. You can call it “vague”… others will see it for what it is – the NAS backing the MBH.

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 both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically diverse sites experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward.

Based on the analysis 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.

Did the New York Times write that the NAS found the MBH was, as you state, “junk”? No – completely, opposite. The New York Times stated:

Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate

A controversial paper asserting that recent warming in the Northern Hemisphere was probably unrivalled for 1,000 years was endorsed today, with a few reservations, by a panel convened by the nation's pre-eminent scientific body.

The panel said that a statistical method used in the 1999 study was not the best and that some uncertainties in the work "have been underestimated," and it particularly challenged the authors' conclusion that the decade of the 1990's was probably the warmest in a millennium.

But in a 155-page report, the 12-member panel convened by the National Academies said "an array of evidence" supported the main thrust of the paper. Disputes over details, it said, reflected the normal intellectual clash that takes place as science tests new approaches to old questions.

.

.

In an interview, Dr. Mann expressed muted satisfaction with the panel's findings. He said it clearly showed that the 1999 analysis has held up over time.

But he complained that the committee seemed to forget about the many caveats that were in the original paper. "Even the title of the paper on which all this has been based is as much about the caveats and uncertainties as it is about the findings," he said.

That last paragraph from the NYT article, as quoted, is significant and has been lost from all/most discussions centered on MBH… as Mann states himself, the MBH study was filled with acknowledged caveats and uncertainties… stated uncertainties. Caveats and uncertainties that were dropped over time – dropped by climate change sceptics who were quite happy to run with the results only – sans caveats and stated uncertainties. Given your earlier criticism of the peer-review process you might ask yourself how that process factors acknowledged caveats and stated uncertainties into reviews… and equally, you might look inwards to question why rampant climate change deniers fail to reference the acknowledged MBH caveats and stated uncertainties.

and really... c'mon... the "hockey stick" controversy is so old news... even Wegman tells you to "move on"

[Riverwind]

WTF – now you state, “AGW may or may not be true”… everything and anything McIntyre and McKitrick say/do is intended to criticize and denounce AGW.

Typical of the AGW alarmist "if you are not for me you must be against me" zealotry. SteveMc and RossMc have said repeatly that they do not believe their analyses denouce AGW. Their opinion is that if governments are going to make major policy decisions based on science then there must be some mechanism to ensure that the science meets the quality standards that we require in medicine and engineering. Mann would be in jail today if he had used his analyses to promote a stock. The fact that his incompetence is ignored - even lauded demonstrates how broken the IPCC process is.

Clearly, your repeated references to Wegman “vindicating” McIntyre and McKitrick, was/is intended to reinforce your belief that AGW is contrived science done by dishonest and untrustworthy climate scientists.

Dishonest and untrustworthy scientists can still be right. No where did I say I believe that the problems with the hockey stick mean that AGW must be false. All I have said that the problems mean the AGW scientists cannot be trusted and we cannot take their word.

I repeatedly suggested you move on – get more topical… that Wegman is “old 2006 news”… that MBH has been independently validated by literally dozens of other studies.

Go ahead. Repeat the lie. Try listing those so-called dozens of studies. If you did you would find that:

1) They don't go back 1000 years (i.e. they only cover the little ice age which we know was colder than today).

2) They use proxies which are known to be bad (e.g. bristlecones, fox tails, gaspe cedars).

3) The use statistical methods which have been shown to be just a bogus as MBH.

Wegman, SteveMc and RossMc all agree that the hockey stick problems do not invalidate AGW theory so I do not see your point. I am saying that the reaction of the climate science community to the hockey stick issues demonstrates, in my opinion, that the climate science community is filled with people who are either incompentent or blind zealots and that we can have no confidence in their ability to assess science objectively. The Wegman report part of the evidence I offer to demonstrate that point.

Edited October 21, 2009 by Riverwind

[Wild Bill]

Typical of the AGW alarmist "if you are not for me you must be against me" zealotry. SteveMc and RossMc have said repeatly that they do not believe their analyses denouce AGW. Their opinion is that if governments are going to make major policy decisions based on science then there must be some mechanism to ensure that the science meets the quality standards that we require in medicine and engineering. Mann would be in jail today if he had used his analyses to promote a stock. The fact that his incompetence is ignored - even lauded demonstrates how broken the IPCC process is.

Dishonest and untrustworthy scientists can still be right. No where did I say I believe that the problems with the hockey stick mean that AGW must be false. All I have said that the problems mean the AGW scientists cannot be trusted and we cannot take their word.

Interesting debate you've got going, RW. It seems to me that it's a perfect example to two very different approaches to a scientific premise.

One approach is to consider the evidence itself and if consistently invalid lose confidence in the source. The original premise of course is understood to be still unanswered.

The other is to first consider the impressiveness of the premise and then consider the character of those presenting the evidence. If the initial impression is favourable and the character inspires trust then all evidence from that source is considered to be gospel.

It seems we humans are born hard-wired to use the second approach and must be educated to the scientific method. The second approach is obviously the more popular in our society today.

Still, we did get to the Moon! Hopefully we will get enough people living and thriving off this ball of rock that Man will survive despite his irrational nature.

[Riverwind]

One approach is to consider the evidence itself and if consistently invalid lose confidence in the source. The original premise of course is understood to be still unanswered.

One of the problems is the evidence itself is often manipulated by scientists in order to correct "errors". Now there are many good scientific reasons for adjusting data after the fact but such adjustments are extremely subject to the bias of the adjustors and you can't trust the data if you can't trust the adjustors.

The AGW scientists would like us to believe that their motives are completely pure and all of their adjustments are justified scientifically. Unfortunately, the reaction of the climate science community to the legitimate criticisms offered by SteveMc and RossMc does not give me a lot of confidence in the objectivity of these scientists.

To illustrate this point, here is a graph of ocean temps that was recently "corrected" after a sensor failure:

http://i36.tinypic.com/2coomlw.gif

The difference is quite large and the most plausible explaination is that was a data collection problem that needed correction. However if you look around 2003 you will see a jump of a similar magnitude that was not corrected. If you investigate the reason for that jump you will find that data from two different types of sensors was spliced together after being heavily adjusted to correct for biases. I am 99% certain that such a jump would have been assumed to be wrong and "adjusted away" if it resulted in lower temps. However, the jump delivered higher temps so the AGW scientists are happy to accept it as accurate and it could be accurate. The trouble is how can we know for sure?

In this example, if the jump did not exist it would be fairly conclusive evidence that climate models are grossly over estimating the amount of warming caused by the CO2 so these kinds of adjustments do make a lot of difference and we should all be concerned if there is evidence of bias.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Riverwind

[myata]

Not being an expert doesn't make someone 'clueless' about a subject.

The level of an average layman in the matters scientific would be pretty close to that. And for those not entirely clueless, there's always professional media, to present their findings, ideas, research, where they would be judged by other not entirely clueless people. There's no way to distinguish obvious bs. from a meaningful statement in a general web forum, because anybody can say anything.

You don't need to have a PhD or an MBA to question the methods, conclusions and motives of someone who does.

Of course you don't need anything like that to "question" in a general forum like this one. Whether the "question" has any relation to meaning or reality is a very different story.

Look how well following the 'experts' worked out in the US financial crisis. You didn't need a heavy education in finance or banking to figure out that fully financing a 40-year variable rate mortgage on a tight income was a bad idea. You similarly didn't have to be a finance guru to understand that investing in commercial paper backed by previously mentioned mortgages was also not so wise. The 'experts' however, convinced everyone it was all very safe.

No need to further confuse matters by mixing up professional misconduct, or bad policy with lack of qualifications.

The research being done on the subject is in its infancy yet the 'experts' are presenting it to us as if it's an exact science when anyone with a brain can see it is not. These two reasons alone are enough to question their motives, methods and conclusions.

Of course they can "see" and say anything, here, in this general forum. What you are posting these ideas here, should tell us quite a bit about what happened last time you tried to present them to qualified peers (if ever). Only a logical conclusion, that's all.

Unfortunately, we have people like you mocking and ridiculing those of us with a healthy dose of skepticism. Blindly believing what the 'experts' are telling you and declaring that those of us without their 'scientific' background have neither the intelligence or legitimacy to question their conclusions is nothing short of dogmatic.

If your choice is not of acquiring knowledge and making informed arguments on the matter, then "skepticism" is just as good as blind belief. Pick one, whatever suits you better.

You can directly compare this with the blind faith of a religious fundamentalist.

No, unlike the matters of faith, science can be learned and mastered. It can also be proven right or wrong. It does take a lot of time, hard work and determination. Short of that, there are always web forums.

Mock us if you want, but we're not the ones sounding stupid right now.

They aren't really known to easily admit that quality about them. Could it be an early symptom?

[Moonbox]

The level of an average layman in the matters scientific would be pretty close to that. And for those not entirely clueless, there's always professional media, to present their findings, ideas, research, where they would be judged by other not entirely clueless people. There's no way to distinguish obvious bs. from a meaningful statement in a general web forum, because anybody can say anything.

The professional media? They're the ones we should be turning to for objective criticism? My god man. That's dense.

Of course you don't need anything like that to "question" in a general forum like this one. Whether the "question" has any relation to meaning or reality is a very different story.

The questions we ask are simple ones that the climate scientists are refusing to answer or account for. The Earth has always warmed and cooled over time. We've seen this even over the last century. Is it not then possible that natural factors are causing the Earth to warm up all by itself, or at least mostly by itself? Do air currents, ocean currents and a million other terrestrial and solar factors not cause massive climate change all by themselves? How are they being accounted for? Nobody is answering these questions.

No need to further confuse matters by mixing up professional misconduct, or bad policy with lack of qualifications.

Don't be stupid. Climate scientists are just as human, have just as much of an agenda and are equally susceptible to bad conclusions and professional misconduct.

Of course they can "see" and say anything, here, in this general forum. What you are posting these ideas here, should tell us quite a bit about what happened last time you tried to present them to qualified peers (if ever). Only a logical conclusion, that's all.

Use proper English and intelligent sentences and maybe then we can talk about logic okay?

If your choice is not of acquiring knowledge and making informed arguments on the matter, then "skepticism" is just as good as blind belief. Pick one, whatever suits you better.

Another brainless comment. Skepticism is not automatically believing what you're told. I'm not denying man-made global warming. I'm questioning the unthinking and panicky bandwagon that's automatically believing everything the climate 'scientists' say. Maybe you should do a little research yourself and find out what sort of people actually call themselves climatologists.

No, unlike the matters of faith, science can be learned and mastered. It can also be proven right or wrong. It does take a lot of time, hard work and determination. Short of that, there are always web forums.

You're absolutely wrong and I'm dumbfounded at how naive you're sounding. Chemistry can be proven. Math and physics can be proven. Even medicine can be proven. On the other hand, how do you 'prove' what the weather and climate is going to be like in 25 years? Right now they can't. Like economics, you can guess and hope you're right, but there are millions of inter-related variables that nobody can control and without accounting for them NONE of the computer models or predictions can be accurate.

Global warming may indeed be happening, but only an idiot/liar would tell us that it's been proven. Take your pick.

[Wild Bill]

Here is a quick quote that seems pertinent:

"We have accepted as true the belief that we are responsible for global warming and a growing hole in the ozone layer - without scientific evidence. We have faith in disaster. Scientists have a considerable financial stake in our continuing to believe that these problems threaten our lives and must be solved. They get paid for it."

The quote is from a book from Kary Mullis, the biochemist who first invented the polymerase chain reaction, or PCR. This was what enabled us to decode and chart the DNA molecule. He was awarded the Nobel and Japan Prizes.

His book is titled "Dancing Naked in the Mind Field" and is a fabulous read! He is the antithesis of the traditional "stuffed lab coat", being a self-confessed hippy who took LSD and loves surfing!

He is also absolutely brilliant yet strikingly down to earth and focused with his powers of analysis when viewing any scientific problem. He tears many of the sacred cows of modern "trendy" science to shreds.

Despite his being a "black sheep" to the orthodoxy, his intellectual and scientific prowess cannot be disputed. Yet he writes in a clear style limning out the science in a manner easily grasped by the layman.

Some posters are claiming that we laymen must accept the view of "their" professionals and stay out of any debate or decision making, since laymen are by definition just too dumb to be allowed to have an opinion. Well, Mullis is just one of many "deniers" with eminent professional credentials.

Why shouldn't we accept HIM?

Edited October 22, 2009 by Wild Bill

[myata]

. That's dense.

Don't be stupid.

Use proper English and intelligent sentences

Another brainless comment.

You're absolutely wrong

Looks like you measure knowledge and qualifications by the number of negative epithets you're able to stuff in a sense. And not much else. Why am I not surprised that your findings are published here, and not e.g. in "The Nature"?

The questions we ask are simple ones that the climate scientists are refusing to answer or account for.

Perhaps, you're asking them in the wrong place? Or don't care to see the answer? Or unable to understand it?

Who knows? There's a miriad ways to ask a dumb question, and only a few - meaningful one. That is purely statistical, btw. When a bunch of clueless people start talking high scince, the result is guaranteed to be random noise.

I'm not denying man-made global warming.

I'm not trying to make you believe one way or another - it's the job of preachers.

I'm questioning the unthinking and panicky bandwagon that's automatically believing everything the climate 'scientists' say. Maybe you should do a little research yourself and find out what sort of people actually call themselves climatologists.

That is a general statement, and as general statements go, it's either trivial, or obviously wrong. If all climate changd science is "unthinking and panicky", then it's obviously wrong. If some specific cases are (which you, btw forgot to mention), it's trivial. In either case, there isn't much else to discuss.

Chemistry can be proven. Math and physics can be proven. Even medicine can be proven. On the other hand, how do you 'prove' what the weather and climate is going to be like in 25 years? Right now they can't. Like economics, you can guess and hope you're right, but there are millions of inter-related variables that nobody can control and without accounting for them NONE of the computer models or predictions can be accurate.

I think we addressed that earlier. One needs to understand the question (idea, theory, research, etc) to be able to make meaningful comments about it. Have you developed expertise in climate modeling, and have something fresh and novel to contribute? I'm sure your fellow scientists will be happy to hear it. No? Then what would be the worth of ranting about something one doesn't care to understand?

Global warming may indeed be happening, but only an idiot/liar would tell us that it's been proven. Take your pick.

I think that I'll go with the opinion of leading experts in the subject field, who, in my understanding, indeed consider the matter proven. BTW and FYI, "proven" in science always means "to the best of our knowledge today", rather than an eternal, fixed in stone postulate.

Obviously, what terminology you use to adress them, reflects much more upon the speaker, than the science. As already mentioned, here, in general forums, everybody can say anything with no consequence, whatsoever.

[Moonbox]

Looks like you measure knowledge and qualifications by the number of negative epithets you're able to stuff in a sense. And not much else. Why am I not surprised that your findings are published here, and not e.g. in "The Nature"?

My epithets (you feel smart using that word don't you?) are directed at your comments and your broken excuse for logic.

Perhaps, you're asking them in the wrong place? Or don't care to see the answer? Or unable to understand it?

Who knows? There's a miriad ways to ask a dumb question, and only a few - meaningful one. That is purely statistical, btw. When a bunch of clueless people start talking high scince, the result is guaranteed to be random noise.

So why are you here talking about climate change with us? We're talking and disagreeing. That's what you do on a political forum.

I'm not trying to make you believe one way or another - it's the job of preachers climate scientists.

Fixed that for ya.

That is a general statement, and as general statements go, it's either trivial, or obviously wrong. If all climate changd science is "unthinking and panicky", then it's obviously wrong. If some specific cases are (which you, btw forgot to mention), it's trivial. In either case, there isn't much else to discuss.

What's unthinking and panicky is the reaction of the 'mob' towards the statements made by climate scientists. The science itself I'm sure is very planned and deliberate. Even with my limited background in science, however, I can see the GIGANTIC assumptions being made by the climatoligists and the enormous variables being ignored by their models. You still haven't addressed that and I've made that point about 100 times.

Simply saying, "We're not experts and therefore we should just believe them and not bother talking/thinking about it" doesn't cut it either. If you're not prepared to use your brain and partake in the discussion, then why are you posting on this thread?

I think that I'll go with the opinion of leading experts in the subject field, who, in my understanding, indeed consider the matter proven. BTW and FYI, "proven" in science always means "to the best of our knowledge today", rather than an eternal, fixed in stone postulate.

The language being used today by the media and by the layman and climate-scientist alike is that man-made Global Warming is a proven fact. I could support the legitimacy of climate scientists if they were saying, "Our studies suggest..." or "We believe this shows," etc... I would even support further research and investment and incentives in climate-friendly technology.

The opposite is happening, however. We've got a bunch of fools running around screaming that the oceans are going to boil unless we throw billions and billions at third world countries and shut down the oil sands. It's a joke.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Moonbox

[myata]

My epithets (you feel smart using that word don't you?)

It never hurts to know something (and indeed, I do consider being smart a good thing, and the opposite of it - less so, but I know there could be different opinions on that, it's really a matter of personal choice.

So why are you here talking about climate change with us? We're talking and disagreeing. That's what you do on a political forum.

I'm not "questioning" validity of something I have little clue about. That's the difference.

Fixed that for ya.

Feel free. As I already mentioned, for a clueless there would be no recognizable differnce between (scientifically) correct statement, and obvious gibberish, so it has to be again, a matter of personal choice.

Even with my limited background in science, however, I can see the GIGANTIC assumptions being made by the climatoligists and the enormous variables being ignored by their models. You still haven't addressed that and I've made that point about 100 times.

I can't address something I'm not familiar with. I have not studied climate models, including that particular one you have in mind but again, forgot to explain what you mean. If you see glaring faults with that particular model, you must be smarter than its creators and so, welcome to publish it where somebody with a clue would be able to see and examine it.

Simply saying, "We're not experts and therefore we should just believe them and not bother talking/thinking about it" doesn't cut it either. If you're not prepared to use your brain and partake in the discussion, then why are you posting on this thread?

That isn't exactly, and/or completely what I have said, but occasional issues with basic English comprehension indeed often associate with an urge to discuss scientific matters in general forums. A nice topic for a PhD in psychology, my complements.

The language being used today by the media and by the layman and climate-scientist alike is that man-made Global Warming is a proven fact. I could support the legitimacy of climate scientists if they were saying, "Our studies suggest..." or "We believe this shows," etc... I would even support further research and investment and incentives in climate-friendly technology.

However, it's a general concept, obvious to anybody who works in science, that any conclusion can be proven valid (or not) in the framework of knowledge of today. It is not an eternal truth that could never change. Therefore your issues should be adressed to media's interpretation of science, rather than science itself. But wait, haven't you recently commented on validity on some models also?