Scientists discover that climate-change skeptics are bozos

[mercury14]

__________

No it is not anti intellectualism it is just not taking someone's work at face values.

Sure it is. You don't trust people who have fancy degrees and think really hard. Just read the rest of your post.

I would trust a business sector scientist ethics over academia's in most cases.

The former has to prove results instead of just achieving tenure.

Someone has never been to college.

You have no clue what you're talking about. University researchers don't have to prove results? Are you really that ignorant or are you just lying?

And if you would trust BP's own corporate publication on their environmental impact in the Gulf of Mexico over a body of actual peer-reviewed science, well you're a wholly irrational person.

You honestly trust business sector scientist ethics? The ones that have their work restricted by the company's PR board and aren't allowed to publish the truth if it puts the company in an unattractive light? What?

Is this a joke post? Are you a joke user?

Republicans and Independents are far more open minded than Democrats

Okay, yes this was a joke post. Call me trolled.

 

[mercury14]

Why would the Berkeley team examine 1.6 billion temp reports to prove a point that they already believe....Global warming??

Why do astronomers research gravity even though they already believe in it?

Why do anthropologists and geneticists research evolution even though they already believe in it?

But of course what you really want to say is that science is just a bunch of liberal crap, right? Therefore you're able to pick and choose what science is real and what can be dismissed whenever you find that it contradicts your right wing politics. That's a pretty cool scheme you have cooked up there.

 

[garbage can]

Why do astronomers research gravity even though they already believe in it?

Why do anthropologists and geneticists research evolution even though they already believe in it?

Uhmm, in case you don't realize this, evolution is an ongoing research, as is the effects of gravity.

We no longer research the freezing point of water, or the ignition temp of paper.

Think of a better analogy.

 

[mercury14]

Uhmm, in case you don't realize this, evolution is an ongoing research, as is the effects of gravity.

We no longer research the freezing point of water, or the ignition temp of paper.

Think of a better analogy.

So is climate science. The analogy is perfect.

 

[garbage can]

But of course what you really want to say is that science is just a bunch of liberal crap, right? Therefore you're able to pick and choose what science is real and what can be dismissed whenever you find that it contradicts your right wing politics. That's a pretty cool scheme you have cooked up there.

Is your mind soo fucked up, that you know "What I really want to say"?

 

[cjh]

Uhmm, in case you don't realize this, evolution is an ongoing research, as is the effects of gravity.

We no longer research the freezing point of water, or the ignition temp of paper.

Think of a better analogy.

we still research the hows and whys of water freezing: http://www.lancs.ac.uk/ug/thompsom/

and research still takes place regarding paper and ignition: http://www.traumaf.org/featured/4-16-02cigarettefire.html

 

[mercury14]

Is your mind soo fucked up, that you know "What I really want to say"?

- Most scientific research comes from universities.

- You believe that universities are staffed by liberal hippies.

- Therefore you believe that most science is merely a liberal hippie crap.

- So then you're free to dismiss science whenever you like.



Am I off base? Isn't this how you feel regarding climate science? Isn't that what you were implying with this post:

Why would the Berkeley team examine 1.6 billion temp reports to prove a point that they already believe....Global warming??

If not then please correct me.

 

[garbage can]

- Most scientific research comes from universities.

- You believe that universities are staffed by liberal hippies.

- Therefore you believe that most science is merely a liberal hippie crap.

- So then you're free to dismiss science whenever you like.



Am I off base? Isn't this how you feel regarding climate science? If not then please correct me.

Let me repeat what I said....Is your mind soo fucked up, that you know "What I really want to say"?

Did I mention anything about climate science here, belief/disbelief??

 

[mercury14]

Let me repeat what I said....Is your mind soo fucked up, that you know "What I really want to say"?

Did I mention anything about climate science here, belief/disbelief??

Yes you did.

Why would the Berkeley team examine 1.6 billion temp reports to prove a point that they already believe....Global warming??

The implication here is that the scientists are closed-minded because Berkley has a liberal reputation. Therefore their research is dismissible.

 

[trysail]

This is demonstrably untrue.

Start demonstrating.


Q: Why in hell was MBH98 unchallenged?
A: Nobody was checking ( at least 'til Steve McIntyre started looking ).

 

[trysail]

Name an area of science that's under more intense scrutiny or has more people or harder working people trying to discredit it.

Well, from 1970 through around 2003 there was physics, chemistry, medicine, biology, microbiology, genetics— for starters.

 

[CandiCame]

OK, I just read this entire thread, and it disturbs the shit out of me.

These folk aren't like Amicus. He says crazy shit just to get a laugh and moves on. There are people on here who are SERIOUS. There are people on here who honestly believe that the human condition did nothing to contribute to the planet's degradation and that we don't need environmental protection like other civilized countries.

I have never- EVER- met one of you in real life.

Yes, I see people with "coal keeps the light on" bumper stickers- but those people aren't negating the environmental effects of coal burning on the planet, they're concerned that the phasing out of the coal industry will move to quickly and leave people jobless, especially in mining communities. They acknowledge the environmental impact, but say, "Fuck the future. I have to take care of me and mine before I can worry about that." For the poor, this is a real concern, not an asshole-one. You sometimes have to make sure that your family can eat before your worry about the planet. You can't think long-term in survival mode.

That isn't want I'm seeing here.

I simply... cannot fathom what I've read. It makes me want to leave the internet. It makes me...

Well, it makes me feel like this.

http://youtu.be/35TbGjt-weA

I have to wonder, once again, to the age of the posters who express such... strange and unbelievable convictions. The agism that I seem to be developing on this particular board has not, as of yet, spewed over into reality, but it does seem to me that there is a correlation between age and gullibility. The older one gets, the more apt they are to believe... strange things. I don't know if this is because they aren't as tech savvy and can't research from their phone while they order pizza or what, but...

Jesus Christ people. Didn't you have the equivalency of the little mermaid telling you not to pollute the sea? Or Spongebob explaining that wasting resources is bad? I mean, didn't you have a BASIC understanding of the influence of the biospear on the geospear? I mean, really, we all went to grade school, right? This isn't rocket science, it's basic ecology. Like... second grade ecology?

None of you have seen Captain Planet? NONE of you?

http://nathan-lee.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/I_AM_CAPTAIN_PLANET_by_lastscionz.png.jpg

 

[Peregrinator]

Start demonstrating.


Q: Why in hell was MBH98 unchallenged?
A: Nobody was checking ( at least 'til Steve McIntyre started looking ).

See CB's post above.

The paper was extensively reviewed. Now is when you tell me they're all communists and it's a gigantic mother of a conspiracy.

Well, from 1970 through around 2003 there was physics, chemistry, medicine, biology, microbiology, genetics— for starters.

Simply not true. The same level of review was occurring back then. And as you point out, in the last 8 years, thanks to frauds and liars like Inhofe and Singer and the rest of them, there's been a far more intense scrutiny of climate science. Your hero McIntyre is an example. Who is the equivalent in any of the fields you mention? Where's the retired industry flack/accountant who's poring over every single sentence and calculation with an SEM in the field of microbiology?

 

[trysail]

See CB's post above.

The paper was extensively reviewed. Now is when you tell me they're all communists and it's a gigantic mother of a conspiracy.

Communists ? Communists ? WTF ??

I said no such thing.

 

[Peregrinator]

Communists ? Communists ? WTF ??

I said no such thing.

No, of course you didn't. You're one of the rare sane ones. I was kidding; the usual reason given for falsifying data is that they--whoever they are--want to destroy America and create some sort of collectivist state.

Of course it's utter nonsense, but it's the party line.

If the hockey stick is so very flawed and wrong, why do you think it got published, and why do you think M, B and H have been repeatedly exonerated by others all over the world?

 

[where]

has anyone said why scientists continue in this insane hypothesis?

 

[neci]

bozo was a scary clown.

 

[trysail]

No, of course you didn't. You're one of the rare sane ones. I was kidding; the usual reason given for falsifying data is that they--whoever they are--want to destroy America and create some sort of collectivist state.

Of course it's utter nonsense, but it's the party line.

If the hockey stick is so very flawed and wrong, why do you think it got published, and why do you think M, B and H have been repeatedly exonerated by others all over the world?

They haven't been exonerated. Not one of the examinations dealt with the "science." The investigations of MBH have been farcical.

Have you read Andrew W. Montford's The Hockey Stick Illusion ? MBH's use of bristlecone pine tree rings, their use ( or, I should say, misuse ) of PCA and their splicing of instrumental data onto paleoclimatological data without proper methodology has been repeatedly condemned as unsound. The paper was never subject to peer review; it is a perfect example of "pal review."


Excerpt from:

Review of The Hockey Stick Illusion, by A.W. Montford (Stacey Intl., 2010)

by Jay Lehr, B.S. (Princeton), Ph.D. ( Arizona )

... As Montford explains, the Hockey Stick refers to an attempt by global warming alarmists to mislead people into believing the Medieval Warm Period of the 13th century, when coastal Greenland was actually green, trees in California grew above today’s tree line, and wine grapes grew in places too cold to grow them today, never occurred.

As Nigel Calder, author of The Chilling Stars, explains in the foreword to The Hockey Stick Illusion, this is a thriller about code-breaking—not Hitler’s codes or al Qaeda’s codes, but computer codes programmed in a manner to produce a false claim about the temperature record.

The Hockey Stick made its grand entrance in the scientific debate in a paper published in April 1998 in the journal Nature. The senior author was a then relatively obscure scientist named Michael Mann, who had just received his Ph.D. and was serving as an adjunct faculty member at the University of Massachusetts. The paper is commonly referred to as MBH98 for the three authors, including Ray Bradley and Malcom Hughes.

The MBH98 paper describes, but does not include, the 112 sets of data the authors claimed to have studied in forming a temperature analysis of the previous millennium. The authors referred to the data as “indicators”—commonly described as “proxies”—in which tree rings and other items are asserted to convey temperatures long before humans set up a global network of mercury thermometers.

Statistical experts Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick suspected something was funny about the unprecedented claims made in the MBH98 paper and the authors’ failure to disclose the raw data upon which they made their claims. The Hockey Stick Illusion details how McIntyre and McKitrick spent years navigating endless roadblocks and obstacle courses to obtain the raw data and unravel the statistical gymnastics performed by the MBH98 authors to make their maverick claim current-day temperatures are higher than those of the Medieval Warm Period.

Reading Montford’s book, it is impossible to miss the parallels between McIntyre and McKitrick unraveling the MBH hockey stick scheme and federal law enforcement officials exposing the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme. One must hope fervently that Mann’s deception will get equally extensive exposure.

Mann and his coauthors used a variety of tricks to make their analysis of their unpublished data appear plausible to those not expert in statistical analysis. Montford offers clear tutorials on every one of Mann’s statistical tricks, which could make this book an excellent selection for outside reading in a college statistics course. You do not need to understand statistics to enjoy this book, but if you do, you will especially enjoy Montford’s tutorials on such things as centring, regression analysis, and principal components.

After years of investigation and analysis, McIntyre and McKitrick showed a graph of the earth’s temperature during the past thousand years does not resemble a hockey stick...

The world is indebted to Steve McIntyre, Dr. Ross McKitrick and Andrew Montford for their dogged pursuit of truth. It is horrifying to discover that this branch of science succumbed to temptation and proved unwilling to properly police itself.

 

[trysail]

...The change in my written views since 2008 is most easily summarized by my rejection of argumentum ad populam ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum ). I along with many others trusted what the IPCC has done and generally supported the consensus. I no longer substitute the judgment of the IPCC for my own in my written or oral presentations. And if you think I was wrong to do so in the first place, well so do I, but most everyone else was doing it, and I fell for the argument “don’t trust what one scientist says, but trust what thousands of international scientists have to say in a formal assessment process.” The other change has been my serious investigation into the subject of scientific uncertainty, which I think has been woefully lacking in most of the field and certainly the IPCC...


http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/02/is-extreme-weather-linked-to-global-warming/#comment-73265

-Judith A. Curry, Ph.D.
Professor & Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
Ph.D., Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, 1982
NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee
Fellow, American Meteorological Society
Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Fellow, American Geophysical Union

​

 

[mercury14]

-Judith A. Curry, Ph.D.
Professor & Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
Ph.D., Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, 1982
NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee
Fellow, American Meteorological Society
Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Fellow, American Geophysical Union

​

Pretty sure you're way over your limit of Judith Curry references.

 

[trysail]

Pretty sure you're way over your limit of Judith Curry references.

In over your head— again ?

 

[mercury14]

In over your head— again ?

Pretty sure you just said a couple pages ago that pure and basic scientific research isn't science. You never recovered from that whopper as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Peregrinator]

They haven't been exonerated. Not one of the examinations dealt with the "science." The investigations of MBH have been farcical.

Have you read Andrew W. Montford's The Hockey Stick Illusion ? MBH's use of bristlecone pine tree rings, their use ( or, I should say, misuse ) of PCA and their splicing of instrumental data onto paleoclimatological data without proper methodology has been repeatedly condemned as unsound. The paper was never subject to peer review; it is a perfect example of "pal review."


Excerpt from:

Review of The Hockey Stick Illusion, by A.W. Montford (Stacey Intl., 2010)

by Jay Lehr, B.S. (Princeton), Ph.D. ( Arizona )




The world is indebted to Steve McIntyre, Dr. Ross McKitrick and Andrew Montford for their dogged pursuit of truth. It is horrifying to discover that this branch of science succumbed to temptation and proved unwilling to properly police itself.

Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

(...)

A critique of the hockey stick was published in 2004 (McIntyre 2004), claiming the hockey stick shape was the inevitable result of the statistical method used (principal components analysis). They also claimed temperatures over the 15th Century were derived from one bristlecone pine proxy record. They concluded that the hockey stick shape was not statistically significant.

An independent assessment of Mann's hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick - that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.

(...)

While many continue to fixate on Mann's early work on proxy records, the science of paleoclimatology has moved on. Since 1999, there have been many independent reconstructions of past temperatures, using a variety of proxy data and a number of different methodologies. All find the same result - that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes).

Lots of graphs, links to primary literature here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

Here's a summary of all the lines of evidence:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/NH_Temp_Reconstruction.gif

Figure 6: Composite Northern Hemisphere land and land plus ocean temperature reconstructions and estimated 95% confidence intervals. Shown for comparison are published Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (Mann 2008).

Notice how even if you remove MBH98 from the graph, all the other lines say the same thing? Strange that, unless all the other paleoclimatologists are part of the conspiracy. Despite the ongoing scrutiny by people like McIntyre the Miner and McKitrick the Money Guy. How did they do that?

 

[coastal-boy]

Judith Curry is a very gifted individual with an extensive CV...yet she isn't saying climate change isn't happening.

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/onlinepapers.html

 

[mercury14]

Judith Curry is a very gifted individual with an extensive CV...yet she isn't saying climate change isn't happening.

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/onlinepapers.html

Specifically she isn't saying AGW isn't happening.