Nature, Wikipedia and “The High Summer of Junk Science”

[sunsettommy]

From Climate Audit,

23 March 2006

Nature, Wikipedia and “The High Summer of Junk Science” (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=599)


Excerpt:



Nature recently carried out an experiment on its own initiative supposedly comparing the accuracy of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica, reported here in the Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/). The study concluded that the Encyclopedia Britannica had quite a few errors, nearly as many as Wikipedia. Here’s what’s reported:Nature magazine has some tough questions to answer after it let its Wikipedia fetish get the better of its responsibilities to reporting science. The Encyclopedia Britannica has published a devastating response to Nature’s December comparison of Wikipedia and Britannica, and accuses the journal of misrepresenting its own evidence.

Where the evidence didn’t fit, says Britannica, Nature’s news team just made it up. Britannica has called on the journal to repudiate the report, which was put together by its news team.

Independent experts were sent 50 unattributed articles from both Wikipedia and Britannica, and the journal claimed that Britannica turned up 123 "errors" to Wikipedia’s 162.

But Nature sent only misleading fragments of some Britannica articles to the reviewers, sent extracts of the children’s version and Britannica’s "book of the year" to others, and in one case, simply stitched together bits from different articles and inserted its own material, passing it off as a single Britannica entry.

Read the rest here.It is worth your time.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=599
Nature once again being shown as a sloppy irresponsable science publication outlet.

They blew it on the Hockey Stick paper so badly that it is comical.

Meanwhile I will post Nature and Britannica: Round 2 (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=603) later if this thread has any life in it.

[DesertFox]

This is great. I can't afford Nature, but have long suspected it's as mired in political correctness as almost every other science rag anymore. Sad.

[Naturalized-Texan]

No surprise here. Nature is just another purveyor of junk science.

[Telit laikitiz]

There was a time when credibility and truth meant something, but I don't know when it was or what they are. Ahh forget it, I don't know what I'm talking about. lol Global warming, yeah! While we are at it, we should create new land masses to increase the size of the U.S., make the middle east into an ocean etc. We have the power and know how don't we? Oh, we better just let God run things his way. lol

[Bob_Arctor]

Nature is probably the top science journal on the planet. Assaulting it as "anothing purveyor of junk science" is idiotic. It's a science journal, not a political magazine. Sure Nature accepts global warming and evolution, just like the world of science as a whole. No junk science involved. It's amusing to see these weird political phrases used as an attempt to cast a shadow over top journals. Luckily, that tactic is seen as a transparent joke by pretty much everyone.

Here is Nature's reply to the encyclopedia's complaints- aklso well worth reading.

http://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf

Also DF, I have no idea what publishing an article comparing wikipedia to the Encyclopedia Brittanica has to do with political correctness.

[Rhino]

Nature is probably the top science journal on the planet.Top of what, the BS meter? C'mon, Bob. Nature is indeed respected by many, probably even most, but you seriously underestimate the number of those who question its objectivity. They are far from universally respected. And the world of science as a whole doesn't accept global warming and evolution. You've seen plenty of contrary evidence of that here. Although you disagree with it, as is your right, you have indeed seen it. Stop being so absolute. There is disagreement on that stuff even in the world of science, and you very well know it. The amount of disagreement is certainly debatable, as you and others here have so well proven, but the disagreemnet is most assuredly there.

[sunsettommy]

Nature is probably the top science journal on the planet. Assaulting it as "anothing purveyor of junk science" is idiotic. It's a science journal, not a political magazine. Sure Nature accepts global warming and evolution, just like the world of science as a whole. No junk science involved. It's amusing to see these weird political phrases used as an attempt to cast a shadow over top journals. Luckily, that tactic is seen as a transparent joke by pretty much everyone.

Here is Nature's reply to the encyclopedia's complaints- aklso well worth reading.

http://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf

Also DF, I have no idea what publishing an article comparing wikipedia to the Encyclopedia Brittanica has to do with political correctness.

You forget their acceptance of the Hockey Stick paper.

They do post some junk science.

[Bob_Arctor]

You forget their acceptance of the Hockey Stick paper.
They do post some junk science.
And it was altered after review. The "hockey stick" graph is still valid - Mann just had to shorten the end a bit. Fixating on one questionable graph is of limited use considering how many other data support it.

[Bob_Arctor]

Top of what, the BS meter? C'mon, Bob. Nature is indeed respected by many, probably even most, but you seriously underestimate the number of those who question its objectivity. They are far from universally respected. And the world of science as a whole doesn't accept global warming and evolution. You've seen plenty of contrary evidence of that here. Although you disagree with it, as is your right, you have indeed seen it.
Sure there are contrary experts and contrary data. But they are in the clear minority.

Journals aren't perfect. It's a common perception that if a paper is published then everything in it should be 100% accurate. In reality publishing is only the start of peer review - after all, no scientists other than the handful of reviewers can even read a paper until after it's published. There have been various fraudulent papers published over the years, and it's the duty of other scientists to catch it. This is how Hwang was found out, as well as many others - Schoen at Lucent or Bell Labs comes to mind.
Stop being so absolute. There is disagreement on that stuff even in the world of science, and you very well know it. The amount of disagreement is certainly debatable, as you and others here have so well proven, but the disagreemnet is most assuredly there.
There's surprisingly little of it - the idea that GW is highly controversial is almost entirely the product of the media and small pressure groups. In the world of professional scientists there's not much disagreement, though there's some.

I will grant that there's more disagreement about GW than there is about evolution. There is essentially no disagreement over evolution - and I state that in an absolute way on purpose. That evolution is controversial among scientists is basically a myth.

[ThomasMore]

This is great. I can't afford Nature, but have long suspected it's as mired in political correctness as almost every other science rag anymore. Sad.

I used to read Scientific American on a semi-regular basis, and thought it was well-written and rigorous (far above my own layman standards).

I recently picked up a copy and was stunned by the blatant infusion of political and anti-religious bias.

[Bob_Arctor]

I used to read Scientific American on a semi-regular basis, and thought it was well-written and rigorous (far above my own layman standards).

I recently picked up a copy and was stunned by the blatant infusion of political and anti-religious bias.
I haven't looked at a Scientific American in a few years. It seemed like they have been heading in more of a Popular Science sort of direction - more focus on outlandish future technology and speculation of that sort. I remember older copies were nothing like that.

[sunsettommy]

And it was altered after review. The "hockey stick" graph is still valid - Mann just had to shorten the end a bit. Fixating on one questionable graph is of limited use considering how many other data support it.

You have got to be kidding!

It contradicts decades of research on the reality of a Medeival warming and the little ice age.

Plus it has been demonstrably proven that Mann has not used data properly and also never made his ORIGIONAL data archived for his paper and subsequently never made fully available.

The error bars on his chart is HUGE!

You have also forgotten what Nature said about the paper later after M and M exposed it for what it is.

Here is the website that shows pinpoint refutations and the weak replies given to them by Dr.Mann and his boys.

http://www.climateaudit.org/

Then we have this:

18 November 2005

Op Eds at Pielke (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=433)

Roger Pielke requested op ed’s from Mann and myself as to why anyone should care about the hockey stick. Mann refused to participate. I wrote one, Ross drafted a version. Because I’ve been travelling, I didn’t have time to try to reconcile our views, so we each send in versions which can be read Ross here (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000631why_does_the_hockey_.html) and me here (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000630does_the_hockey_stic.html). Kevin Vranes has written his own commentary (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000638ipcc_hockey_stick_ma.html).

There have been a few comments from realclimate coauthors (William Connolley and Rasmus) in the comments, which are worth reading through and both Ross and I have posted up supplementary comments as well.

Filed under: News and Commentary (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?cat=4) — Steve McIntyre @ 12:04 pm

In the link you will find the OP's and the replies from realclimate authors in the comments.

It is revealing that Dr.Mann refused to participate.:rolleyes:

You appear quite ignorant on how discredited the Hockey Stick really is.

In the Climate Audit website is a cataloged evidence of scientific misconduct surrounding the Hockey Stick paper.It is amazing that a paper that was never properly reviewed by Nature had attained status when it is riddled with problems.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=433

[sunsettommy]

I used to read Scientific American on a semi-regular basis, and thought it was well-written and rigorous (far above my own layman standards).

I recently picked up a copy and was stunned by the blatant infusion of political and anti-religious bias.

I used to be a subscriber at one time and I was seeing some troubling developments in their attitudes too.

Later they so unfairly attacked Bjorn Lomborg on his research on Global Warming and other Earth resources he had written a book about.

Later Bjorn Lomborg was vindicated and Scientific American who had so nastily attacked him said nary a word in apology.

I now ignore the magazine as much as possible.

[sunsettommy]

From CLIMATE AUDIT,

17 June 2005

National Post: Re-visiting the Stick (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=224)

Excerpt:

I have a lengthy op ed in today’s National Post go here (http://ee.canada.com/Default/Layout/Includes/NationalPost/ArtWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=NationalPost&BaseHref=NTNP%2F2005%2F06%2F17&ViewMode=GIF&GZ=T&EntityId=Ar05700&AppName=1) summarizing some of the debate since publication of our 2005 articles. The article is on page FP19. Update: The link is now offline. Here is the text as I submitted it to National Post; it may differ a little, but not much.

Snip:

One claim has been pretty well universally accepted: we showed that an unreported step in the Mann calculations mines datasets for hockey-stick shaped series. We showed that we could produce hockey sticks even from random data. This observation has been verified by others and we would say that this claim is not argued by anyone other than perhaps the original authors.

What of our other main claims?

We showed that this obviously unsatisfactory statistical method had really bad results on actual data as well: we showed that the bad method mined for bad data creating a “perfect storm”. It turned out that their results depended on the inclusion of a controversial set of US bristlecone pine tree ring series, which had a hockey stick shape. However, the specialists who studied bristlecones had explicitly stated that the hockey stick shape was not due to temperature, but to fertilization. We showed that the original authors had known their results fell apart with the removal of these series and that they had not only failed to disclose these adverse results, but claimed the opposite in a later commentary on their own work.
We also showed that the original authors withheld vital data (certain verification statistics), which showed their conclusions were statistically insignificant, and that the procedure for benchmarking the one verification statistic that they did report was incorrect.

To date, none of these claims has been challenged.(bolding mine) This is not to say that these claims have been accepted or that our work has not been challenged. There has been a concerted effort by climate scientists to show that the errors in the hockey stick calculations “do not matter”. In fact, there has been much more effort by climate scientists to try and disprove our results than ever went into checking the original hockey stick. We made the process easy by publishing all our computer code, unlike the hockey stick authors who still refuse to release theirs even seven years after the original publication. They told the Wall Street Journal that to show the code they used to produce their results would be “giving in to intimidation.”

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=224

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

I could post the hard stuff from the website of M&M to show why the Hockey Stick is a bad paper.The reactions by other scientists have been largely positive outside of Dr.Manns associates.

The website Climate Audit is now huge and filled with comments to each of their postings on the site.A number of them are climate researchers who have posted comment about a posting M&M have made.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Nature is probably the top science journal on the planet. Assaulting it as "anothing purveyor of junk science" is idiotic. It's a science journal, not a political magazine.
The fact that those who pretend that global warming is being caused by human activities cite Nature as a major source is proof positive that Nature is a purveyor of junk science.

[Naturalized-Texan]

And it was altered after review. The "hockey stick" graph is still valid - Mann just had to shorten the end a bit. Fixating on one questionable graph is of limited use considering how many other data support it.
Mann's "hockey stick" fraud is one of the most egregious frauds ever perpetrated in the world of science. It ranks right down there with that S. Korean researcher's fraudulent claims of human cloning.

[sunsettommy]

What is the "Hockey Stick" debate about?

http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf

[DeclinetoState]

If there's global warming, we won't have enough ice to play hockey on and all our hockey sticks will be useless. :grin:

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey2.gif

Actually, I believe the portion of the graph highlighted in red is supposed to resemble a hockey stick and represent global warming caused by man (especially George W. Bush and evil conservative Republicans and capitalists in general) during the 20th century. :(

More at http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

[Bob_Arctor]

You have got to be kidding!

It contradicts decades of research on the reality of a Medeival warming and the little ice age.

Plus it has been demonstrably proven that Mann has not used data properly and also never made his ORIGIONAL data archived for his paper and subsequently never made fully available.
Yet many other climate histories yield a curve of essentially the same shape. How can this be if Mann is so wrong? Where are the refereed papers demolishing Mann?

[Bob_Arctor]

The fact that those who pretend that global warming is being caused by human activities cite Nature as a major source is proof positive that Nature is a purveyor of junk science.
I love your circular "reasoning."

By your system of thought, all science journals which accept GW - which is basically all of them that deal with climate in any way - are junk science. Seems unlikely. Have you ever considered that it you who is mistaken?

[markus3622]

The fact that those who pretend that global warming is being caused by human activities cite Nature as a major source is proof positive that Nature is a purveyor of junk science.

:hahaha:
According to NT, there's only one science journal that counts and it's the National Review!

[Naturalized-Texan]

Bob & Markus: Why don't you two just admit the truth? You are both junk scientists and proud of it. Your demagogic claim that global warming is being caused by human activities is just not credible.

[markus3622]

NT, I've been discussing this topic with you for a while now, and I've think I'm getting a handle on your worldview. Throughout this debate, you've thrown around the label "junk-science" like a highschool teen chucks around the label "fascist".

I've listed those who you have directly or indirectly called junk-scientists and those you deem to be truly scientific organizations

Junk Scientists

American Meterological Society, American Geophysical Union, NASA, IPCC, Assocation for the Advancement of American Science, Science (journal), Nature (journal), Geophysical Review Letters (journal), International Journal of Climatology, National Science Foundation, Royal Society (UK), NOAA, National Weather Service. Scientists who publish.

True Scientists

Michael Crichton, Wall Street Journal, National Review, Opinion Journal, anyone doing research funded by the oil industry, websites such as www.iceagenow.com (http://www.iceagenow.com), Fox News, Senator James Inhofe, anyone who disagrees with the scientific consensus. Scientists who don't publish.



By maintaining this bizarre worldview, you only confirm that you know you've lost the debate. It would be interesting to see you try and publish something in the scientific literature with your list of "true scientists" as references and see how long it lasts in the review process.

[DoctorDoom]

Stop the strident, alarmist poppycock about all your "proof" that global climate change is happening. That has already been established, Science Guy. I have repeatedly asked you GW Chicken Littles to:

• Tell us what we shall do about it (if anything can be done about it);
• Provide for us a scientifically testable process that will achieve the desired results;
• Outline what it would cost to do it;
• Describe the technologies involved;
• Correlate a specific reduction in human-generated CO<sub2</sub> to a specific reduction in the rate of global warming;
• Convince us that we should even try to do it.

Like typical liberal ideologues, you continue your "OH, WOE IS US!" BS and utterly ignore anything that you haven't pulled out of your butts. You hem and awe and cavil and spew piffle. You freely admit that you don't know any of those things, but you still demand that it be done anyway, without the merest evidence that it will work.

And you call that science.

<center><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/ChickenGlobal.jpg" /></center>

[Naturalized-Texan]

Bob & markus:

Since I have defined exactly what would constitute proof that global warming is being caused by human activities and since neither of you nor your sources have ever provided more than hypothetical speculation and supposition, where is your proof?

If you refuse to provide the proof, then it's clear that you and your sources are nothing more than politically-motivated junk scientists.

I have posted the following elsewhere, but since you apparently missed it, I'll repeat it here. Prof. Lindzen is far more credible than either of you and far more credible than your politically-motivated, junk-scientist sources:

Climate of Fear: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220)

There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

{More at the link above.}

[Naturalized-Texan]

markus:

You are absolutely correct. When is comes to a political issue like human-caused global warming, the following throw objectivity out the window and become advocates of junk science:

American Geophysical Union, IPCC, Assocation for the Advancement of American Science, Science (journal), Nature (journal), Geophysical Review Letters (journal), International Journal of Climatology, National Science Foundation, Royal Society (UK).

However, the following organizations have taken no position on whether global warming is caused by human activities. There are at least as many skeptics in these organizations as there are advocates:

NASA, NOAA, National Weather Service, American Meteorological Society.

[DesertFox]

I discontinued my Sci-Am subscription after their shameless 11-page attack on Lomborg. They didn't even have the decency to give him a chance to respond, not even in a letter to the editor.

Ever since that queer took over as editor, Scientific American should properly be called PropaScandal American.

[markus3622]

Stop the strident, alarmist poppycock about all your "proof" that global climate change is happening. That has already been established, Science Guy. I have repeatedly asked you GW Chicken Littles to:

• Tell us what we shall do about it (if anything can be done about it);
• Provide for us a scientifically testable process that will achieve the desired results;
• Outline what it would cost to do it;
• Describe the technologies involved;
• Correlate a specific reduction in human-generated CO<SUB2< sub> to a specific reduction in the rate of global warming;
• Convince us that we should even try to do it.

Like typical liberal ideologues, you continue your "OH, WOE IS US!" BS and utterly ignore anything that you haven't pulled out of your butts. You hem and awe and cavil and spew piffle. You freely admit that you don't know any of those things, but you still demand that it be done anyway, without the merest evidence that it will work.

And you call that science.



<CENTER></CENTER>

Science is telling you what the problem is, making predictions, testing theories.

Science tells us that the earth is warming and that mankind is causing a significant part of it. Science tells us the earth will continue to warm.

I've already pointed out that I don't know how in detail we could stop it (but that's not the science part). If you don't accept the science in the first place, there's litte point anywhere discussing how to solve it. It would be putting the cart in front of the horse.

[Native American]

Originally Posted by sunsettommy
You forget their acceptance of the Hockey Stick paper.
They do post some junk science.


And it was altered after review.

Why doesn't Nature review stuff before publishing it?? Wouldn't that make more sense and perhaps even lend an air of credibility to their magazine?

[markus3622]

NT, you've stated quite clearly you would like mathematical proof for an empirical scientific theory.

It has been explained to you time and time again that this is not possible. I think you need to do some reading about how science works.

If you insist on strict proof (or strict disproof) in the empirical sciences, you will never benefit from experience, and never learn from it how wrong you are

Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, p 50.

[Native American]

Science is telling you what the problem is, making predictions, testing theories.

Science tells us that the earth is warming and that mankind is causing a significant part of it.

Actually, science is telling us that the Earth isn't warming, and in fact is even cooling slightly. And even that isn't Man's fault.

[markus3622]

markus:

You are absolutely correct. When is comes to a political issue like human-caused global warming, the following throw objectivity out the window and become advocates of junk science:

American Geophysical Union, IPCC, Assocation for the Advancement of American Science, Science (journal), Nature (journal), Geophysical Review Letters (journal), International Journal of Climatology, National Science Foundation, Royal Society (UK).

However, the following organizations have taken no position on whether global warming is caused by human activities. There are at least as many skeptics in these organizations as there are advocates:

NASA, NOAA, National Weather Service, American Meteorological Society.

I recall you deriding NASA and NOAA for funding junk science. The AMS have come out on their position on global warming and it's the consensus position. Jim Hansen leads the global warming research at NASA. If you google "NOAA global warming", you're taken to a page that gives answers to FAQ, taken directly from the IPCC report (seeming to support the IPCC).

That pretty much leaves you with the National Review, Fox News, and other bastions of scientific integrity.

[markus3622]

Actually, science is telling us that the Earth isn't warming, and in fact is even cooling slightly. And even that isn't Man's fault.

I'm ever so sorry NA, but you're clearly wrong. Please present some evidence that doesn't come from a conspiracy website and is 16 years out of date.

[Native American]

Open Kyoto to debate

Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming

Special to the Financial Post

Published: Thursday, April 06, 2006


An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:
Dear Prime Minister:

As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol.

Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.

Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future.


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

[Native American]

I'm ever so sorry NA, but you're clearly wrong.

If I'm clearly wrong, how come you're unable to post any evidence which supports your claim??

[markus3622]

As for Lindzen, I'll offer a point by point rebuttal by Daniel Kirk-Davidoff

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-by-point/

I would say that the central flaw in the op-ed is a logical one: if you're trying to stifle dissent, then you want less funding for climate research, not more. If you're trying to stop global warming, then you want more money for carbon sequestration research, and you don't care how much is spent on climate research. On the other hand if you just love climate research as a really interesting intellectual persuit, that's when you've got an interest in shedding doubt on the reigning view that CO2-induced climate change is a serious policy program, requiring action. Twenty-five years ago, when global warming wasn't a big public worry, one might expect climate change researchers to hype the problem. In 2006, when public opinion mostly accepts that there's a problem, scientists who want research money should be emphasizing uncertainty.

[markus3622]

If I'm clearly wrong, how come you're unable to post any evidence which supports your claim??

NA, even skeptics like NT accept the earth is warming. There's no doubt about that at all.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

[Native American]

NA, even skeptics like NT accept the earth is warming. There's no doubt about that at all.


While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measurements, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years. Even if the earth's temperature has increased slightly, the increase is well within the natural range of known temperature variation over the last 15,000 years. Indeed, the earth experienced greater warming between the 10th and 15th centuries - a time when vineyards thrived in England and Vikings colonized Greenland and built settlements in Canada.

That was written 9 years ago. So I take it your assertion is, "Well, OK, as recently as 9 years ago science was observing that the Earth was actually not warming at all, but more recent data seems to indicate that now the Earth is warming!" ??

Notice how you continue to be unable to post your proof that "the Earth is warming"? That's why we refer to folk such as you as "junk scientists" or as "purveyors of junk science".

Or perhaps that quote above of mine was an unacceptable (to you) choice of skeptics on my part?

[markus3622]

Could you give a source for that?

[Native American]

Could you give a source for that?

Yep, I sure can.

And notice how you continue to be unable to provide any proof for your claim?

[markus3622]

NA, I've just given you the evidence in a post above. Click on the link.

Now that you've said you could provide a source for your claim, will you do so?

[sunsettommy]

Originally Posted by sunsettommy
You forget their acceptance of the Hockey Stick paper.
They do post some junk science.


Originally Posted by Bob_Arctor
And it was altered after review
.

Why doesn't Nature review stuff before publishing it?? Wouldn't that make more sense and perhaps even lend an air of credibility to their magazine?

It was altered AFTER M and M told them about it! This is about 5 years after it was published in Nature.

If Nature really bothered with a real review back in 1998.They would have noticed the problems really fast.

I posted this stuff just recently and still Bob does not get it that Nature blew it.

:rolleyes:

[Naturalized-Texan]

Markus:

You are amazing. Within just a few hours of my posting of Prof. Lindzen's article (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220), you proved one of his major points by libelously smearing scientists who dare to question the politically correct position on global warming - that it is being caused by human activities - as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

We conservatives are used to being smeared for not knuckling under to political correctness, so we aren't intimidated. But, those scientists, being apolitical, aren't used to being smeared like that, so they ARE intimidated.

In your post you listed Michael Crichton as one who stands on principle and doesn't knuckle under to the pressures of political correctness. It turns out that most of the temperature data that he used in State of Fear to debunk the politically correct position on global warming came from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University (James Hansen's employer).

[Naturalized-Texan]

I recall you deriding NASA and NOAA for funding junk science.
You recall incorrectly. I have often used information and data from scientists at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/ghcc_home.html) to support the position that there are far too many uncertainties to conclude that global warming is being caused by human activities.

And as you well know, Dr. Max Mayfield, Director of the NOAA National Hurricane Center, has repeatedly stated the position of the Center that global warming is not being caused by human activities.

[Bob_Arctor]

Bob & Markus: Why don't you two just admit the truth? You are both junk scientists and proud of it. Your demagogic claim that global warming is being caused by human activities is just not credible.
And here we are back at the beginning again...:rolleyes:

Since I have defined exactly what would constitute proof that global warming is being caused by human activities and since neither of you nor your sources have ever provided more than hypothetical speculation and supposition, where is your proof?
Apparently you've forgotten that you requested a "proof" that's impossible to obtain by definition. Science is not mathematics, and as a man who claims to understand both you should know this, particularly after being reminded of this just a few weeks ago. Please list what evidence you would accept as legitimate - and make the evidence something that can actually exist!

[Native American]

NA, I've just given you the evidence in a post above. Click on the link.


Really? What's your evidence? List it, quote it, comment on it.

All you posted was a URL, and effectively claimed "Oh, the evidence is there, somewhere."

LOL at you!

[Native American]

Apparently you've forgotten that you requested a "proof" that's impossible to obtain by definition.


Cute. We've got Bob Arctor insisting he can't prove his alleged "global warming" is occurring, and we've got Markus unable to post his evidence (all he does is plop a URL, and claims "Oh, the evidence is in there, somewhere, I just can't tell you what it is.") yet both of those junk science clowns feel we're all supposed to believe them when they claim "global warming" is occurring.

(snicker)

[Bob_Arctor]

Originally Posted by sunsettommy
You forget their acceptance of the Hockey Stick paper.
They do post some junk science.

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by Bob_Arctor
And it was altered after review.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Why doesn't Nature review stuff before publishing it?? Wouldn't that make more sense and perhaps even lend an air of credibility to their magazine?
They do, of course, which is why the majority of papers submitted are rejected. However, this editorial review is only done by a few people per paper, so it's easier for errors to get by. Publishing is the beginning of peer review. Only after the paper is published can the entire community see the work. More people will catch more mistakes. Some false material does get published - both errors innocent errors and deceptive lies - but they are noticed when their findings cannot be replicated and so on.

[Bob_Arctor]

It was altered AFTER M and M told them about it! This is about 5 years after it was published in Nature.
Wait - so it took some climate skeptics five years to find the error in the paper? That long? And then you blame the reviewers for letting it slip by?

Look false stuff does get published. The reviewer cannot replicate the experiments - they can only check for plausibility. When it's published all the researchers can see it and if there are errors they will be found. You have people falsifying stuff in physics, medicine, in every area. It sucks but they tend to be found out.

[Bob_Arctor]

Originally Posted by markus3622
Could you give a source for that?

Yep, I sure can.

And notice how you continue to be unable to provide any proof for your claim?
NA I would like a reference for that as well. As you know the board requires that you post links to sources.

[Bob_Arctor]

We've got Bob Arctor insisting he can't prove his alleged "global warming" is occurring,
Not with a math proof, as you should know.

[Native American]

Already posted it, Bob.

Now we're waiting for you to post your link to your proof that "global warming" is occurring, and your evidence that "global warming" is occurring, and we're still waiting for Markus to post his evidence that "global warming" is occurring.

Other than that, you two proponents of "global warming" haven't provided anything that would make any of us think your "global warming" is anything other than pure Junk Science pouring forth from your two minds.

[Native American]

Wait - so it took some climate skeptics five years to find the error in the paper? That long? And then you blame the reviewers for letting it slip by?

Perhaps more and more readers have simply stopped reading Nature, having recognized what an intellectually inadequate mag it is?

[Native American]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset"> Originally Posted by Native American
We've got Bob Arctor insisting he can't prove his alleged "global warming" is occurring,

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Not with a math proof, as you should know.


Not with any proof, it has turned out....

[Bob_Arctor]

Already posted it, Bob.
No. Your post #38, quoted paragraph beginning "While ground-level temperature measurements suggest..." is not referenced anywhere. Please provide the link, because you're breaking the board rules. :grin: Markus has asked for it and I am as well.

[Bob_Arctor]

Perhaps more and more readers have simply stopped reading Nature, having recognized what an intellectually inadequate mag it is?
No. What a stupid comment. It has the highest or second highest circulation of any journal. Obviously you've never read it.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I'm glad that both Bob & markus are admitting that they can't prove their claim that global warming is being caused by human activities. Those admissions should render moot any further discussions about whether global warming is being caused by human activities, but it won't - proving that that claim is actually political, not scientific.

[Bob_Arctor]

:uhh: What's wrong with you, NT? Are you just doing this to wiggle out of having to provide examples of evidence that can actually exist?

You know exactly what is wrong with your request. There are no math proofs for any science theory. They cannot exist for science theories. So why are you asking for one?

I'm glad that both Bob & markus are admitting that they can't prove their claim that global warming is being caused by human activities. Those admissions should render moot any further discussions about whether global warming is being caused by human activities, but it won't - proving that that claim is actually political, not scientific.

[Native American]

Originally Posted by Native American
Perhaps more and more readers have simply stopped reading Nature, having recognized what an intellectually inadequate mag it is?


No. What a stupid comment. It has the highest or second highest circulation of any journal. Obviously you've never read it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't both Time, Newsweek, and Rolling Stone have higher circulation than Nature?

[Native American]

I'm glad that both Bob & markus are admitting that they can't prove their claim that global warming is being caused by human activities. Those admissions should render moot any further discussions about whether global warming is being caused by human activities, but it won't - proving that that claim is actually political, not scientific.

Yes, and I'm surprised how quickly Arctor recognized he couldn't prove his assertion that "global warming exists". And Markus never even tried.

[Rhino]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't both Time, Newsweek, and Rolling Stone have higher circulation than Nature?Nature: 65,955
Time: 4.05 million
Newsweek: 3.2 million
Rolling Stone: 1.25 million

I think he was referring to just scientific journals though.

[Bob_Arctor]

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by Bob_Arctor
(Nature) has the highest or second highest circulation of any journal. Obviously you've never read it.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't both Time, Newsweek, and Rolling Stone have higher circulation than Nature?
:grin:
I'm sure they do, but they aren't journals.

[Native American]

Nature: 65,955
Time: 4.05 million
Newsweek: 3.2 million
Rolling Stone: 1.25 million

I think he was referring to just scientific journals though.

Yet both Time and Newsweek (and maybe even Rolling Stone, for all I know) have claimed "global warming" is a "fact". Complete with pretty pictures and graphs, just like Bob likes to post for us. So I guess that makes them "scientific journals" too, huh?

Bob has already admitted Nature posts scientific errors and falsehoods, which kinda shoots down his beloved "peer review" b*llsh*t.

Plus, even with Nature, poor Bob hasn't been able to prove his claim of "global warming" and "greenhouse gases" and "it's caused by Man!" Maybe Bob needs to start reading Rolling Stone instead?

[Native American]

I'm sure they do, but they aren't journals.

And Nature The Journal posts scientifically-erroneous material, which means Nature The Journal is untrustworthy.

But I'm sure Bob Arctor will be glad to tell us which articles in Nature are (in his humble yet at the same time unrealible opinion) worthy of our trust, so all is well in Bob's little world of Junk Science.....

[Naturalized-Texan]

Yet both Time and Newsweek (and maybe even Rolling Stone, for all I know) have claimed "global warming" is a "fact". Complete with pretty pictures and graphs, just like Bob likes to post for us. So I guess that makes them "scientific journals" too, huh?
But! But! But! Global warming IS a fact. There HAS been a slight warming trend of about 1 deg F (about 0.6 deg C) in the past 100+ years. However, it is nothing more than hypothetical speculation and supposition with no basis in fact that global warming is being caused by human activities.

[Bob_Arctor]

Yet both Time and Newsweek (and maybe even Rolling Stone, for all I know) have claimed "global warming" is a "fact". Complete with pretty pictures and graphs, just like Bob likes to post for us. So I guess that makes them "scientific journals" too, huh?
That's one of the most idiotic things I've ever read, NA. Congratulations.
Bob has already admitted Nature posts scientific errors and falsehoods, which kinda shoots down his beloved "peer review" b*llsh*t.
Everything that publishes has published errors at one time or another. You do it yourself all the time. Remember your idea for an accurate poll? :hahaha:

Plus, even with Nature, poor Bob hasn't been able to prove his claim of "global warming" and "greenhouse gases" and "it's caused by Man!" Maybe Bob needs to start reading Rolling Stone instead?
Oh, is that the global warming where hot exhausts can't heat up the Earth as much as the sun does? :grin::grin::grin: That was a good one, NA.

[Bob_Arctor]

And Nature The Journal posts scientifically-erroneous material, which means Nature The Journal is untrustworthy.
If that's your logic, then everything and everyone is untrustworthy. You, for example, are untrustworthy for making stupid claims like those you've made about polls and Galileo.
But I'm sure Bob Arctor will be glad to tell us which articles in Nature are (in his humble yet at the same time unrealible opinion) worthy of our trust, so all is well in Bob's little world of Junk Science.....
It should make no difference to you, as you've never cracked one open.

[Native American]

But! But! But! Global warming IS a fact. There HAS been a slight warming trend of about 1 deg F (about 0.6 deg C) in the past 100+ years.

Actually, no. To measure a "0.6 degree C" temperature change accurately and meaningfully, one would need a thermometer with a precision of around 0.1 degree C accuracy or so. Even our most accurate current global thermometers (satellites) only have a precision of around +- 0.3 degrees C. That's Problem Number One.

Problem Number Two for the "global warming" theorists is that we didn't even have +-0.3 degree C satellite thermometers 20 years ago, much less 100 years ago.

Scientists lack the accurate historical data (Problem Number Two) and they lack the necessary measurement accuracy (Problem Number One) which is why Bob Arctor's claims are Junk Science.

[Naturalized-Texan]

NA: If you want to keep your head in the sand and ignore the facts, be my guest. However, by insisting that there has been no warming trend in the past 100+ years, you are making yourself look like a fool. BTW, ever since the invention of the mercury thermometer by Gabriel Fahrenheit in 1714 (Note: even before 1714, Gabriel Fahrenheit was using an alcohol thermometer), it has been possible through interpolation to measure fractions of degrees.

[Native American]

NA: If you want to keep your head in the sand and ignore the facts, be my guest. However, by insisting that there has been no warming trend in the past 100+ years, you are making yourself look like a fool.

Do you deny that our most accurate global temperature measurement equipment is our satellites?

Do you deny that their precision is (approximately) +- 0.3 degrees C?

BTW, ever since the invention of the mercury thermometer by Gabriel Fahrenheit in 1714 (Note: even before 1714, Gabriel Fahrenheit was using an alcohol thermometer), it has been possible through interpolation to measure fractions of degrees.

How? Also, then how come our temperature records (at best) from 100 years ago (and even from only 20 years ago) only list an accuracy of +- 1.0 degree?

[Native American]

It should make no difference to you, as you've never cracked one open.

Wrong again, Bobby.

Now, when are you going to get around to posting your proof that "global warming" is occurring?

[Bob_Arctor]

Wrong again, Bobby.
This from a guy who though Nature is a regular magazine like Rolling Stone or Time. :hahaha:


Also you never provided a link to the paragraph you plagarized, in violation of board policy. Markus would like the link and so would I.

[Timberwolf]

Thirty years ago, we were hearing the clarion call of these self-proclaimed "experts" asserting ABSOLUTELY that we were headed for a SECOND ice-age...on nothing more than speculation and wild-assed guesses that were based upon the cooling trend they had observed over the previous 20-30 years.

Fast-forward 30 years...it is now 2006 and these very same, self-proclaimed "experts" are asserting ABSOLUTELY that we are gonna cook the planet if we don't DO something about the "greenhouse effect"/global warming.

Sounds like the granddaddy of conspiracy theories to me...especially when you know that a spike in CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere LAG/FOLLOW a spike in global temperature. I can only wonder WHY there is such an hysteria about it.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Do you deny that our most accurate global temperature measurement equipment is our satellites?
Yes. (After thinking it over, I edited a change in my answer from no to yes.)

Do you deny that their precision is (approximately) +- 0.3 degrees C?
Yes.

How? Also, then how come our temperature records (at best) from 100 years ago (and even from only 20 years ago) only list an accuracy of +- 1.0 degree?
Nonsense!

If you never learned how to interpolate in school, there is no way I can teach you now. I learned to interpolate when I studied trigonometry in high school and chemistry in high school and college.

[Native American]

If you never learned how to interpolate in school, there is no way I can teach you now. I learned to interpolate when I studied trigonometry in high school and chemistry in high school and college.

Time to give you a remedial lessen in interpolation and precision, I see.

You seem to be of the opinion that, via the magic of "interpolation", one can obtain a reading accuracy above and beyond the precision of the metering instrument, correct?

OK, then let us consider the following:

NT has in his possession a measuring stick, with a stated precision of +- 1 inch. In fact, NT's measuring stick has marks on it every 1 inch. But NT decides he wants to take a more accurate measurement than +- 1 inch (he's building a dining room hutch, and his wife will get on his case if the cabinet doors on the damn thing don't shut properly when the project is completed).

So NT, thinking back to his "trigonometry" studies in high school, says to himself, "I know! I will interpolate between those marks every 1 inch on my measuring stick, and will thereby be able to obtain an accuracy of measurement of +- 0.0001 inch!"

NT feels realllll good about himself. Except for one thing: his wife gets on his case, because the cabinet doors and their frames mismatch by an entire 2 inches! The door itself is +1 inch too wide, and the door frame is -1 inch too narrow!

Disaster! Despite NT's best efforts at "interpolation"! Turns out his measuring stick has an accuracy of +- 1 inch, no matter how finely NT "interpolates" between those 1 inch marks on his trusty measuring stick!

And NT's wife can't shut the damn doors on the damn cabinet which NT (he imagines) measured and cut "to an accuracy of +- 0.0001 inch", even though he was stuck with a measuring stick which only had a precision of +-1 inch!

Obviously you don't understand the difference between interpolation and precision, NT. Not at all.

[Native American]

NT has asserted that we "know" that the global temperature has "risen about 0.6 degrees C over the last hundred years".

I pointed out to him that for that claim of his to be meaningful, we would have to have instruments capable of temperature precision on the order of around at least +- 0.1 degrees C. I further pointed out to him that we had no such instruments 100 years ago.

NT then responded, "Oh, we can use interpolation!"

Unfortunately, for NT, even today our mercury thermometers don't have that kind of precision. So NT's 100 year's worth of temperature readings is meaningless, and don't substantiate his claim of a "0.6 degree C rise".


Accuracy limits for non-mercury thermometers below 150° C are also compatible with mercury thermometers; accuracy is typically ± 1° - 2° C.


http://ehs.uky.edu/hmm/thermo_facts.html

Nice try, NT.

So now we're going to have to demand of you that you tell us what magical instruments Man was using, 100 years ago, to obtain global temperature readings to an accuracy of, say, +-0.1 degrees C, so as to justify your claim that we "know" the temperature has risen "0.6 degrees C" since then.

[Naturalized-Texan]

NA:

Let's assume for the sake of argument that your belief that satellite temperature measurements are the most accurate is correct.

If your belief is true then you MUST believe that there has been a definite warming trend since 1979 in the lower troposphere (Earth's atmosphere from the surface to 8 km, or 5 miles up) with a much more significant increase since 1997. The average increase in temperatures since 1979 has been 0.08 deg. C/decade (through 2004) compared to the increase in surface temperatures of 0.20 deg. C/decade. It appears from the graph below that temperatures in the lower troposphere have increased by between 0.1 deg. C and 0.2 deg. C per YEAR since 1997. Of course, the spike in 1997-99 was due to the "El Niño" and "La Niña" phenomena.

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/images/tropo_temp.gif

Source: NASA Satellite Data (http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html)

Granted, satellite measurements in the lower stratosphere (Earth's atmosphere from 14 to 22 km (9 to 14 miles)) show a cooling trend since 1993, but we all should be more concerned with tempearture measurements at or near the surface of the Earth where we live. No one lives 9 to 14 miles above the Earth.

[Naturalized-Texan]

NA:
How does it feel to be the only person in the world who believes that global temperatures have not increased in the past 100+ years?

[sunsettommy]

NA:
How does it feel to be the only person in the world who believes that global temperatures have not increased in the past 100+ years?

He does make a point about accuracy.But he really must ignore other evidence of real warming.To make the absurd claim of no warming in last 100 years.

If there was no warming in all that time how would we know there was a few decades of cooling?

He he he.........

[Native American]

If your belief is true then you MUST believe that there has been a definite warming trend since 1979 in the lower

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/images/tropo_temp.gif




Amusingly, even your own graph shows no warming trend, all the way until 1998, not "1979" as you falsely claimed.

And if you're going to attempt to claim, with a straight face, that you've decided there is a "global warming" trend, based on data which doesn't even cover a puny ten years (1998-2008) of measurements, you're an even bigger fool than I thought.

[Native American]

NA:
How does it feel to be the only person in the world who believes that global temperatures have not increased in the past 100+ years?


It feels fine, as a matter of fact. But thanks for asking.

Plus there's the following:

(A) I'm not the only person who feels that way

(B) My feelings aren't what matters here

(C) Science (as opposed to Junk Science) is about measurements and data and accuracy and precision and facts, not feelings.


Now go review the lessen I gave you earlier about the difference between interpolation and precision.

[sunsettommy]

Wait - so it took some climate skeptics five years to find the error in the paper? That long? And then you blame the reviewers for letting it slip by?

Well you have to admit NONE of those climate experts found those apparently easy to find errors of the "Hockey Stick" paper.It took a NONE climate researcher and skeptic to find them and the two men found them really fast when they started looking into the paper.They did not even research the global climate at the time they discovered the many errors of the paper.

The real question should be how come NONE of the climate experts from the IPCC and surrounding groups spotted the errors,legion they are in the paper?

Meanwhile the reviewers should have had a clue on the huge error bars of the famous hockey stick chart.When the uncertainty is that large a range it is not a paper that deserve such a huge fanfare and a prominent place in the 2001 IPCC report.

Look false stuff does get published. The reviewer cannot replicate the experiments - they can only check for plausibility. When it's published all the researchers can see it and if there are errors they will be found. You have people falsifying stuff in physics, medicine, in every area. It sucks but they tend to be found out.

Sure they do Bob but too often a good rebutting paper is not allowed to be published in the Nature publication.So there is some effort to protect flawed climate papers because they seem to support the idea that we are in a serious manmade global warming.

John Daly wrote a paper in rebuttal in response to the sea level rising cliams at Tuvalu and other locations.It was rejected because it did not conform to the publications bias.It was a good paper worthy of a second look on the subject.

I posted the link to that paper and the ensuing exchanges he had with Nature in this forum.

Benny Peiser wrote a rebutting paper on the Consensus paper presented for Naomi Oreskes.It showed the obvious problems of her paper that merited a second look.It was rejected despite that Natures own reviewers could not have read her paper well since her title was incorrect making it mostly a face value only paper.The incorrect title was exposed....... by a skeptic.

I posted the link to that paper and the ensuing exchanges he had with Nature in this forum.

Then we had M and M write a paper exposing the many errors of the "Hockey Stick" paper.Nature rejected the paper to their sorrow since it was later published elsewhere and the subsequent website M and M created to get around the bias of Nature and other publications.


In their website they show the errors in detail and also make everything they write available right there on the website for ANYONE to check.They allow all dissenting replies to be posted in the comments section of a headlines post M and M makes.They even list links to groups such as Dr. Manns website Realclimate on the website for anyone to read Dr. Manns and his associates own stuff.

I have several times posted their papers here and the ensuing exchanges he had with Nature in this forum.

Contrast that with Realclimate website who has not listed Climate Audit as a link to see on their website and that they disparage anyone who do not accept their view.They are hostile as well to requests of the computer code be made available so this way a FULL REPLICATION TEST OF THE PAPER CAN BE MADE POSSIBLE.

To this date there has never been a true test of his seminal paper he published in 1998 since he never allows for ALL the data he used to create the chart be made available.It is telling when the mann does not believe in allowing a full test of his paper.

Phil Jones has openly and publically refused to allow Warwick Hughes the data to allow Hughes and his associates to try and replicate the paper with all the known urban heating effect factored in.

Nice boy who NEVER has posted all his data he used for that 1996 paper he published.Is a child who apparently can not allow a challenge to his conclusions.

Nice to have the internet around to expose this crap huh?



I have posted stuff in the past showing real bias on the part of Nature publication to protect weak papers.

[sunsettommy]

Amusingly, even your own graph shows no warming trend, all the way until 1998, not "1979" as you falsely claimed.

And if you're going to attempt to claim, with a straight face, that you've decided there is a "global warming" trend, based on data which doesn't even cover a puny ten years (1998-2008) of measurements, you're an even bigger fool than I thought.

No you are the stubborn on since I posted the MONTH BY MONTH satellite data that shows an overall warming since 1979! It was not addressed by you and I can see why.It shows a clear warming from 1998.

I blew away your crap in another thread on it.I gave you the link to the RAW data for every month from 1979 to march 2006.It shows a warming trend.

What was your reply there to it?:whistle:

[DoctorDoom]

We're still waiting for the ecowackos to enlighten us on WTF they think we can do to stop it, what technologies and costs are involved in stopping it, whether we CAN stop it, and whether it is worth TRYING to stop it. Thusfar the enviroloonies have not demonstrated that they have a f**king clue about the subject. They are blindly, rotely reciting the leftist bullshit for its own sake because they are loyal, unthinking liberals.

<center><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/ChickenGlobal.jpg" /></center>

[Bob_Arctor]

Originally Posted by Bob_Arctor
Wait - so it took some climate skeptics five years to find the error in the paper? That long? And then you blame the reviewers for letting it slip by?

Well you have to admit NONE of those climate experts found those apparently easy to find errors of the "Hockey Stick" paper.It took a NONE climate researcher and skeptic to find them and the two men found them really fast when they started looking into the paper.They did not even research the global climate at the time they discovered the many errors of the paper.
That's because the idea that the "hockey stick" is flawed is basically a myth held to only by a few GW-denying conspiracy theorists.

MYTH #4: Errors in the "Hockey Stick" undermine the conclusion that late 20th century hemispheric warmth is anomalous.


This statement embraces at least two distinct falsehoods. The first falsehood holds that the "Hockey Stick" is the result of one analysis or the analysis of one group of researchers (i.e., that of Mann et al, 1998 and Mann et al, 1999). However, as discussed in the response to Myth #1 (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11#myth1) above, the basic conclusi of Mann et al (1998,1999) are affirmed in multiple independent studies. Thus, even if there were errors in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction, numerous other studies independently support the conclusion of anomalous late 20th century hemispheric-scale warmth.
The second falsehood holds that there are errors in the Mann et al (1998, 1999) analyses, and that these putative errors compromise the "hockey stick" shape of hemispheric surface temperature reconstructions. Such claims seem to be based in part on the misunderstanding or misrepresentation by some individuals of a corrigendum (http://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/shared/articles/MBH98-corrigendum04.pdf) that was published by Mann and colleagues in Nature. This corrigendum simply corrected the descriptions of supplementary information that accompanied the Mann et al article detailing precisely what data were used. As clearly stated in the corrigendum, these corrections have no influence at all on the actual analysis or any of the results shown in Mann et al (1998). Claims that the corrigendum reflects any errors at all in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction are entirely false.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

I have long been confused as to the claims that the graph is "wrong." Now I understand why those claims are made - some people are simply mistaken.
The real question should be how come NONE of the climate experts from the IPCC and surrounding groups spotted the errors,legion they are in the paper?
Because there really aren't any of significance, which is why the paper and the graph stand today.
Meanwhile the reviewers should have had a clue on the huge error bars of the famous hockey stick chart.When the uncertainty is that large a range it is not a paper that deserve such a huge fanfare and a prominent place in the 2001 IPCC report.
Regardless that graph matches many other temperature reconstructions perfectly. Many graph in Nature have error bars.

Look false stuff does get published. The reviewer cannot replicate the experiments - they can only check for plausibility. When it's published all the researchers can see it and if there are errors they will be found. You have people falsifying stuff in physics, medicine, in every area. It sucks but they tend to be found out.

Sure they do Bob but too often a good rebutting paper is not allowed to be published in the Nature publication.So there is some effort to protect flawed climate papers because they seem to support the idea that we are in a serious manmade global warming.
Or the "rebutting" paper is itself flawed, as seems to be the case with the attacks on the "hockey stick."

Then we had M and M write a paper exposing the many errors of the "Hockey Stick" paper.Nature rejected the paper to their sorrow since it was later published elsewhere and the subsequent website M and M created to get around the bias of Nature and other publications.
Heh.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

False claims of the existence of errors in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction can also be traced to spurious allegations made by two individuals, McIntyre and McKitrick (McIntyre works in the mining industry (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1007), while McKitrick is an economist (http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=3804&CFID=21084385&CFTOKEN=29888831)). The false claims were first made in an article (McIntyre and McKitrick, 2003) published in a non-scientific (social science) journal "Energy and Environment" and later, in a separate "Communications Arising" comment that was rejected by Nature based on negative appraisals by reviewers and editor [as a side note, we find it peculiar that the authors have argued elsewhere that their submission was rejected due to 'lack of space'. Nature makes their policy on such submissions (http://www.nature.com/nature/submit/gta/index.html#7) quite clear: "The Brief Communications editor will decide how to proceed on the basis of whether the central conclusion of the earlier paper is brought into question; of the length of time since the original publication; and of whether a comment or exchange of views is likely to seem of interest to nonspecialist readers. Because Nature receives so many comments, those that do not meet these criteria are referred to the specialist literature." Since Nature chose to send the comment out for review in the first place, the "time since the original publication" was clearly not deemed a problematic factor. One is logically left to conclude that the grounds for rejection were the deficiencies in the authors' arguments explicitly noted by the reviewers]. The rejected criticism has nonetheless been posted on the internet by the authors, and promoted in certain other non-peer-reviewed venues (see this nice discussion (http://davidappell.com/archives/00000427.htm) by science journalist David Appell (http://davidappell.com/) of a scurrilous parroting of their claims by Richard Muller in an on-line opinion piece). The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick, which hold that the "Hockey-Stick" shape of the MBH98 reconstruction is an artifact of the use of series with infilled data and the convention by which certain networks of proxy data were represented in a Principal Components Analysis ("PCA") (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=26), are readily seen to be false (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8) , as detailed in a response by Mann and colleagues to their rejected Nature criticism (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8) demonstrating that (1) the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction is robust with respect to the elimination of any data that were infilled in the original analysis, (2) the main features of the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction are entirely insensitive to whether or not proxy data networks are represented by PCA, (3) the putative ‘correction’ by McIntyre and McKitrick, which argues for anomalous 15th century warmth (in contradiction to all other known reconstructions), is an artifact of the censoring by the authors of key proxy data in the original Mann et al (1998) dataset, and finally, (4) Unlike the original Mann et al (1998) reconstruction, the so-called ‘correction’ by McIntyre and McKitrick fails statistical verification exercises, rendering it statistically meaningless and unworthy of discussion in the legitimate scientific literature.
The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick have now been further discredited (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=10) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, in a paper (http://www.realclimate.org/RuthetalJClim2004.pdf) to appear in the American Meteorological Society (http://www.ametsoc.org/) journal, "Journal of Climate (http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-archive&issn=1520-0442)" by Rutherford and colleagues (2004) [and by yet another paper by an independent set of authors that is currently "under review" and thus cannot yet be cited--more on this soon!]. Rutherford et al (2004) demonstrate nearly identical results to those of MBH98, using the same proxy dataset as Mann et al (1998) but addressing the issues of infilled/missing data raised by Mcintyre and McKitrick, and using an alternative climate field reconstruction (CFR) (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=29)methodology that does not represent any proxy data networks by PCA at all.

Ouch!
To this date there has never been a true test of his seminal paper he published in 1998 since he never allows for ALL the data he used to create the chart be made available.It is telling when the mann does not believe in allowing a full test of his paper.
I disagree. Further explain why other reconstructions yield the same results as Mann et al got.
Nice to have the internet around to expose this crap huh?
The only problem with it is that it allows crackpots who don't do their homework to get attention! :grin:
I have posted stuff in the past showing real bias on the part of Nature publication to protect weak papers.
You mean what you perceive as the bias of the journal to protect papers you disagree with. Not the same as "weak."

[Bob_Arctor]

Here's two graphs showing Mann's famous "hockey stick" with other reconstructions. Notice the extreme similarity among all of them.



http://www.realclimate.org/HockeyStickOverview_html_6623cbd6.png

FIGURE 1 [reprinted from Mann et al, 2003, Eos, (C) American Geophysical Union]. Comparison of proxy-based Northern Hemisphere (NH) temperature reconstructions (Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1999; Crowley and Lowery, 2000) with model simulations of NH mean temperature changes over the past millennium based on estimated radiative forcing histories (Crowley, 2000; Gerber et al., 2002–results shown for both a 1.5^oC/2xCO₂ and 2.5^oC/2xCO₂ sensitivity; Bauer et al., 2003). Also shown are two independent reconstructions of warm-season extratropical continental NH temperatures (Briffa et al., 2001; Esper et al., 2002) and an extension back through the past two thousand years based on eight long proxy temperature series chosen for their ability to retain long-term trends (Mann and Jones, 2003). All reconstructions have been scaled to the annual, full Northern Hemisphere mean, over an overlapping period (1856-1980), using the NH instrumental record (Jones et al., 1999) for comparison, and have been smoothed on time scales of >40 years to highlight the long-term variations. The smoothed instrumental record (1856-2003) is also shown. The gray/pink shading indicates estimated two-standard error uncertainties in the Mann et al. (1999) and Mann and Jones (2003) reconstructions. Also shown are reconstructions of ground surface temperatures (GST) based on appropriately areally-averaged (Briffa and Osborn, 2002; Mann et al., 2003) continental borehole data (Huang et al., 2000), and hemispheric surface air temperature trends, determined by optimal regression (Mann et al., 2003) from the GST estimates. All series are shown with respect to the 1961-90 base period.




http://www.realclimate.org/JonesMannROGFig8Cropped1.png

FIGURE 2 [reprinted from Jones and Mann, 2004, Reviews of Geophysics, (C) American Geophysical Union]. Model-based estimates of northern hemisphere temperature variations over the past two millennia. Shown are 40 year smoothed series. The simulations are based on varying radiative forcing histories employing a hierarchy of models including one-dimensional energy based models (Crowley, 2000), two-dimensional reduced complexity models (Bauer et al, 2003; Bertrand et al, 2002; Gerber et al, 2003), and full three-dimensional coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation (’GKSS’-Gonzalez-Rouco et al, 2003; ‘CSM’–Ammann et al., submitted). Shown for comparison is the instrumental northern hemisphere record 1856-2003 (Jones et al, 1999), and the proxy-based estimate of Mann and Jones (2003) extended through 1995, with its 95% confidence interval. Models have been aligned vertically to have the same mean over the common 1856-1980 period as the instrumental series (which is assigned zero mean during the 1961-1990 reference period).

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=7#figures


So why again do you obsess over Mann given that his results are in line with all the others?

[Timberwolf]

The only thing that graph shows, Bob, is that the Earth was far too cold for far too long. It shows what most would perceive to be a very normal warm up following an ice age.

There is no evidence, whatsoever, that comes close to supporting the fallacious notion that the warm up is due to human causes. Temperature increases PRECEED CO<SUB>2</SUB> increases...so what is to be done about the temperatures? Shut off the Sun??

[Naturalized-Texan]

So, NA is the only person in the world who doesn't know that global temperatures have risen in the past 100+ years since the end of the Little Ice Age. Oops! I'll bet that he doesn't even know that there WAS a 500-year Little Ice Age that ended in the late 19th Century or that the warming since then is merely the natural recovery from that unusually cold period.

BTW, since there are thousands and thousands of temperature measurements around the world using thousands and thousands of thermometers in thousands and thousands of standardized weather stations, when those measurements are all combined and averaged, any inaccuracies become statistically immeasurable. The only way that the alleged inaccuracies in a thermometer become a problem is if that happens to be the ONLY thermometer being used to measure global temperatures.

[Naturalized-Texan]

There is no evidence, whatsoever, that comes close to supporting the fallacious notion that the warm up is due to human causes. Temperature increases PRECEED CO<SUB>2</SUB> increases...so what is to be done about the temperatures? Shut off the Sun??
Yep! Shutting off the Sun is the ONLY way to stop global warming.

[Bob_Arctor]

So, NA is the only person in the world who doesn't know that global temperatures have risen in the past 100+ years since the end of the Little Ice Age...

:grin: Hehehe, he's a real global warming denier! You and sunsettommy could take a lesson from him!

[Bob_Arctor]

The only thing that graph shows, Bob, is that the Earth was far too cold for far too long. It shows what most would perceive to be a very normal warm up following an ice age.
We haven't had an ice age to warm up from in the last 1800 years - the period the graph covers. People who know the science realize that our current situation is an abberation.
There is no evidence, whatsoever, that comes close to supporting the fallacious notion that the warm up is due to human causes.
Sure there is. Your ignorance or denial of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's pretty much a settled question and science has moved on.
Temperature increases PRECEED CO₂ increases.
No, they don't. Temp changes are caused in large part by greenhouse gas concentration changes. There is no evidence at all that temp changes lead to changes in CO2 percentage.

[Timberwolf]

Bob, quit ignoring the facts. Temperature spikes are FOLLOWED by CO₂ spikes.

The most abundant greenhouse gas...WATER VAPOR...is conveniently left out of ALL your data. When water vapor is included in the data, the "human activity is the cause of global warming" comes apart at the seams.

If you are going to be this willfully ignorant on matters which are put right before your eyes, how do you expect people to take you seriously on other claims you have made?

[Bob_Arctor]

Bob, quit ignoring the facts. Temperature spikes are FOLLOWED by CO₂ spikes.
Not on that graph they aren't. Further the resolution on it is far too low for one to be able to make the claim you do.

The data within that paper show gas changes coming before temperature changes.
The most abundant greenhouse gas...WATER VAPOR...is conveniently left out of ALL your data. When water vapor is included in the data, the "human activity is the cause of global warming" comes apart at the seams.
Water vapor isn't an anthropogenic greenhouse gas. How does that affect your analysis?
If you are going to be this willfully ignorant on matters which are put right before your eyes, how do you expect people to take you seriously on other claims you have made?
Yes, of course. Were you ever going to get back to me about the flood/heat stuff?

[Naturalized-Texan]

Not on that graph they aren't. Further the resolution on it is far too low for one to be able to make the claim you do.
You're spinning so fast that you're boring a hole deep enough to reach China. :hahaha:

The data within that paper show gas changes coming before temperature changes.
You're still proving that you don't know how to read graphs.

Water vapor isn't an anthropogenic greenhouse gas. How does that affect your analysis?
Exactly the point. Since water vapor is by far the most prevalent greenhouse gas, it has by far the greatest effect on climate change. CO2 only has a negligible effect.

[Timberwolf]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Timberwolf
Bob, quit ignoring the facts. Temperature spikes are FOLLOWED by CO<SUB>2</SUB> spikes.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Not on that graph they aren't. Further the resolution on it is far too low for one to be able to make the claim you do.

The data within that paper show gas changes coming before temperature changes.
Quit playin' da fool, fool. Anyone with a functioning brain cell can see that just the opposite of what you say is the truth. The resolution is just fine.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">The most abundant greenhouse gas...WATER VAPOR...is conveniently left out of ALL your data. When water vapor is included in the data, the "human activity is the cause of global warming" comes apart at the seams. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Water vapor isn't an anthropogenic greenhouse gas. How does that affect your analysis?
You're catching on....go to the next LOGICAL conclusion on this train of thought.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">If you are going to be this willfully ignorant on matters which are put right before your eyes, how do you expect people to take you seriously on other claims you have made? </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Yes, of course. Were you ever going to get back to me about the flood/heat stuff?
You had best read up on supercritical liquids if you ever want to have a prayer of understanding that particular issue. That you are adamantly opposed to learning anything of an alternative theory speaks volumes of your zealous defence of your religious beliefs.

I gave you my answers, you just don't like it that they don't jive with your fantasy of evolutionary "science".

[Native American]

No you are the stubborn on since I posted the MONTH BY MONTH satellite data that shows an overall warming since 1979! It was not addressed by you and I can see why.It shows a clear warming from 1998.


Wow, a "clear warming trend" all the way back to 1998! Golly, that's 8 years of "trend"!

We'd better sign the Kyoto Treaty tomorrow, lest that "global warming trend" becomes as lengthy as 9 years!!



Junk Science, on display.....

[Timberwolf]

NA, don't be such a clueless twit...the Earth IS warming...that humans have anything to do with it is the question.

Most of us say "no"...a few are screaming "the sky is falling...the sky is falling" because they think humanity IS the reason for it.

Pick which side you believe and can the crap.

[Native American]

NA, don't be such a clueless twit...the Earth IS warming...

Timberwolf, don't be such a dumb ass...the Earth "is warming" IF one cherry picks a certain time span. Pick another time span, and the Earth shows no evidence of "warming" whatsoever.

That's why it's classic Junk Science when Sunsettommy quotes "warming" figures which only date back to 1998.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Timberwolf, don't be such a dumb ass...the Earth "is warming" IF one cherry picks a certain time span. Pick another time span, and the Earth shows no evidence of "warming" whatsoever.
Well, let's "cherry pick" the long-term trend since the end of the Little Ice Age in the late 19th Century to the present during which time average global temperatures have increased by 0.6 deg C. Everyone in the world agrees that that is the case, so no sane person could possibly deny it.

So, it appears that, if you claim differently, YOU are the one who is a certified dumbass.

[Native American]

Why should we cherry pick that time span, NT? Also, what percentage of the Earth's total time of existence would you calculate 1890 or so to the present to be? What is your reasoning behind picking that tiny percentage as the basis for your conclusion that "the Earth is warming"? Even if your calculated age of the Earth is only 10,000 years (let's assume you are a strict Biblical literalist on that question), that would mean that you are cherry picking a time span which is only 1.2% of the total time that the Earth has been in existence upon which to base your "scientific" conclusion that the Earth is "warming".

And, of course, if you calculate that the Earth is a bit older than a mere 10,000 years, that makes your cherry-picked time span even smaller.

Why not pick some other 120-year time span (say, 990 AD to 1110 AD, just to pick one) rather than 1890 AD to 2010 AD, upon which to conclude (as you apparently do) that "the Earth is warming"?? What's magic about the latest 120-year time span? Or are you merely saying "OK, the Earth isn't really warming on a long-term basis, but we just happen to be going through a warming trend over just the most recent 120 years"?

[Naturalized-Texan]

Every time I turn around you are acting more and more like an ignorant twit. The ONLY issue under discussion in this thread is whether or not the warming in the past 100+ years since the end of the Little Ice Age is being caused by human activities. Liberal demagogues claim that the warming is being caused by human activities. We conservatives know that the warming is completely natural. Discussion of any other time period is off topic. If you want to discuss a different time period, open up another thread to do so.

[Native American]

Every time I turn around you are acting more and more like an ignorant twit.

Gee, what an amazing coincidence, since I've noticed the same thing about you!

The ONLY issue under discussion in this thread is whether or not the warming in the past 100+ years since the end of the Little Ice Age is being caused by human activities.

Incorrect! I've actually seen posters claim, in this very thread, that "the Earth is warming", whereas all you are apparently claiming is that it is (supposedly) only warming for now but may in fact start cooling tomorrow or the next day or a decade from now, since all you are doing is examining a very tiny percentage of the Earth's time of existence, and thus you are refusing to look at a more broad (and therefore more realistic) timeframe.

I prefer to look at a bigger picture than you do, obviously. The fact that the scientific evidence shows that what are now the polar regions of the Earth formerly used to be subtropical tells me that the Earth is cooling, not "warming"! But sure, if you pick a narrow enough time frame (like you are trying to do, wanting to only look at the last ten or twenty years) then you can make it seem like "the Earth is warming", I'll grant you that.

[Native American]

The ONLY issue under discussion in this thread is whether or not the warming in the past 100+ years since the end of the Little Ice Age is being caused by human activities. Liberal demagogues claim that the warming is being caused by human activities. We conservatives know that the warming is completely natural. Discussion of any other time period is off topic.

So you claim, yet several other posters in this thread have been discussing much longer time frames than that, which you would have known if you had been following the thread, as I have. For example, the following graph, posted quite some time ago, shows that a much longer time period than merely "the past 100+ years" (as you falsely alleged) has been under discussion by several of us in this thread:

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey2.gif

Or maybe you misread that chart as spanning "100+ years" when in reality (as the rest of us can see) it is actually spanning 1000+ years?

Plus, as you can probably see, now that you've looked at this graph, the overall longterm trendline over the past 1000+ years shows that the Earth is cooling, not "warming".

[Timberwolf]

So you claim, yet several other posters in this thread have been discussing much longer time frames than that, which you would have known if you had been following the thread, as I have. For example, the following graph, posted quite some time ago, shows that a much longer time period than merely "the past 100+ years" (as you falsely alleged) has been under discussion by several of us in this thread:

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey2.gif

Or maybe you misread that chart as spanning "100+ years" when in reality (as the rest of us can see) it is actually spanning 1000+ years?

Plus, as you can probably see, now that you've looked at this graph, the overall longterm trendline over the past 1000+ years shows that the Earth is cooling, not "warming".
So, NA...you're showing us that you're a hypocrite?? I'm absolutely certain it was you who didn't think that the "technology" existed - before 20 - 30 years ago anyway - to actually MEASURE fractions of a degree. But now, because you've been correctly identified as "intellectually challenged", you use a graph that contradicts your position?

You rode the short bus to school, didn't you? Either that or you're a pompous, arrogant ass who wouldn't know his anal sphincter from day three. In fact, I'll wager that you've had your head up your nether regions so long that I could drive my suburban for a month on the gas that presently escapes from your acoustic meatus...and at 10 mpg, that's a LOT of gas....

You, sir, are a clueless twit.

My apologies to all the clueless twits I've offended by lumping this booger-eating moron in with you. I beg your forgiveness....that goes double for booger-eating morons.

[markus3622]

The ONLY issue under discussion in this thread is whether or not the warming in the past 100+ years since the end of the Little Ice Age is being caused by human activities. ...

We conservatives know that the warming is completely natural. .

Could you prove that mathematically? If not, would that make it just supposition and speculation? Is a mathematical proof for that even possible?

If you refuse to provide the proof, then it's clear that you and your sources are nothing more than politically-motivated junk scientists.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Could you prove that mathematically? If not, would that make it just supposition and speculation? Is a mathematical proof for that even possible?
Since you're the one claiming that the hypothesis that global warming is being caused by human activities is a fact, you are obligated to provide the proof. Where is it? Since I provided you with the requirements that such proof entails, as you demanded, you have no excuse for not providing it. If you refuse to provide such proof, anything you post on this subject is irrelevant.

[markus3622]

Since you're the one claiming that the hypothesis that global warming is being caused by human activities is a fact, you are obligated to provide the proof. Where is it? Since I provided you with the requirements that such proof entails, as you demanded, you have no excuse for not providing it. If you refuse to provide such proof, anything you post on this subject is irrelevant.

Actually NT, now that you've positively claimed that you know the warming is due to natural factors, then you are obligated to provide proof. You've stated that mathematical proof is the standard for empirical science.
As you demanded that level of proof yourself, you have no excuse for not providing it. If you refuse to provide such proof, anything you post on this subject is irrelevant.

So come on, Where's the proof? (Unless of course there's a problem with the level of proof you stipulated).

[Naturalized-Texan]

markus: Where's your proof? You have been stating that the science is settled that global warming is being caused by human activities. Until and unless you can provide proof of your claim, the only logical conclusion one can reach is that global warming is natural.

Oops! I almost forgot. To you lefties, logic is a foreign language.

EDIT:
I know that global warming is natural and so do you, but you can't admit it because it's not politically correct to do so. I don't care about political correctness, so I have no problem with admitting it.

[markus3622]

unless you can provide proof of your claim, the only logical conclusion one can reach is that global warming is natural.

Not in mathematics! If I can't provide proof that the Riemann conjecture is true (possibly the biggest challenge in mathematics), that doesn't mean it's false. In mathematics, the onus is still to either prove or disprove it.

NT, I defer to you on this one. You've stated that mathematical proof is the standard for empirical science. Now if you can mathematically prove that the warming is entirely natural, then you would immediately disprove the claim that global warming is partly caused by human activities. As you obviously know a little about mathematically proving empirical scientific theories, I'll let you prove your theory first.

Where's your proof?

[Naturalized-Texan]

When solving crimes, great detectives like Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot, Miss Marple, and Nero Wolfe consider all the suspects and eliminate them one-by-one until only one suspect is left – the guilty party. They often have several suspects, maybe as many as a dozen.

When one considers the cause of global warming, it is much simpler – there are only 2 “suspects” – human activities and nature. Since, in all these discussions, no one has ever presented evidence, much less proof, that global warming is being caused by human activities, so that “suspect” can easily be eliminated. That leaves only nature as the “guilty” party – i.e., global warming is a natural phenomenon. QED!

[Naturalized-Texan]

BTW: markus, I never asked for mathematical proof. I only asked for the same type of rigor that is inherent in mathematical proofs. I haven't seen anything from you or anyone else that even approaches evidence or proof, much less rigorous proof, of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming. I'm still waiting for your proof, but since there will never be such proof, the only alternative is that global warming is natural.

[markus3622]

BTW: markus, I never asked for mathematical proof. I only asked for the same type of rigor that is inherent in mathematical proofs.

So the bottom line is that any proof that you would produce would have to have the mathematical rigor of the geometry proofs that my students produced.

That's what you said. You asked for a proof that was as rigorous as a mathematical proof. In mathematics, for example, Andrew Wiles proved that there is no a and b such that a^n + b^n = c^n for n > 2. That was the famous Fermat's Last Theorem. Now, we know that as long as we go on looking, we're not going to find values of a and b that work. The probability of finding values of a and b for n>2 is zero.

In empirical science (and let's take your crime example), if we find some DNA at the murder scene and we take the DNA of our suspect, and we find they match, we might be able to say that the probability of that match happening by chance alone is 0.00000001%. That probability is not zero, even though it's very small.

So, no empirical evidence is going to have the same rigor as a mathematical proof, because science isn't math.

When one considers the cause of global warming, it is much simpler – there are only 2 “suspects” – human activities and nature. Since, in all these discussions, no one has ever presented evidence, much less proof, that global warming is being caused by human activities, so that “suspect” can easily be eliminated. That leaves only nature as the “guilty” party – i.e., global warming is a natural phenomenon. QED!

1.) Ever consider that the two suspects might be colluding?
2.) I can easily say (and with a great deal of justification because it's actually been done) that scientists have done what you suggest. They've gone through the evidence and ruled out one by one that possible causes of climate change (the sun, the earth's orbit, etc) until they get to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. They've done this, and it's the only one that makes sense.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/figts-9.gif

i.e global warming is partly caused by human activities. QED!

I hope that proof was rigorous enough for you!

Now that we've teased out that you made a mistake about the proof required, perhaps you would like to think about it again, and consider what evidence would be sufficient to convince a reasonable person (I avoided saying you) that global warming was in part a manmade phenomenon. What empirical observations would be sufficient? (This time, try to think of observations that are actually possible)

[Jesse_Lackman]

The only way one can say that without a doubt global warming is caused by human activities is ignore the long term ice core graphs we are discussing on the last few pages of "The Coming Meltdown" thread. Those graphs cover a time period where Man wasn't involved at all and clearly show temperature increase leading CO2 increase the majority of the time - including after the last ice age.

One must look outside one's blinders at the big picture, or fall into the trap the blind men did when trying to describe an elephant.

[Jesse_Lackman]

I just looked over the last few pages of "The Coming Meltdown" thread again, nearly every one of the graphs used to make the case man is responsible for global warming is a very short geological time span (<1000 yrs).

Why is this??

Looking at the long term ice core graphs presents a much different picture.

It is simply not honest to not look at both, to not look at the big picture.

So is the dishonesty deliberate or accidental?

The last warming period started 15000 yrs ago with the temperature increase preceding the CO2 increase. If those long term graphs had the resolution the short term ones do there might be more CO2 spikes like the current one. The long term data/graphs exhibit a natural "smoothing" because it is impossible to use the primary data measurements and have the data resoluton and accuracy we have now over a 400,000 year period using ice bubbles.

[sunsettommy]

From Dr. Manns website,

The second falsehood holds that there are errors in the Mann et al (1998, 1999) analyses, and that these putative errors compromise the "hockey stick" shape of hemispheric surface temperature reconstructions. Such claims seem to be based in part on the misunderstanding or misrepresentation by some individuals of a corrigendum (http://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/shared/articles/MBH98-corrigendum04.pdf) that was published by Mann and colleagues in Nature. This corrigendum simply corrected the descriptions of supplementary information that accompanied the Mann et al article detailing precisely what data were used. As clearly stated in the corrigendum, these corrections have no influence at all on the actual analysis or any of the results shown in Mann et al (1998). Claims that the corrigendum reflects any errors at all in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction are entirely false.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11#myth1

The half truths and disinformation he post is pathetic because M and M actually made a DIFFERENT argument to that paper than what Mann is stating here.

Here is a link to M and M website about the warped viewpoint of Dr. Mann.

CLIMATE AUDIT

8 April 2005

More Mann Deletions (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=167)

ORIGINAL: A little while ago I mentioned that the original SI at Nature for MBH98 had been deleted. It contained some information which is not in the Corrigendum SI, such as RE statistics for the various steps and the original (incorrect) data listing. Now Mann has either deleted the UMass SI for MBH98 and MBH99 previously located at ftp://eclogite.geo.umass.edu/pub/mann/ONLINE-PREPRINTS/MultiProxy and at ftp://eclogite.geo.umass.edu/pub/mann/ONLINE-PREPRINTS/Millennium, or he has put a block on my access (I’m blocked from the UVirginia server). Some, but not all, of this information formerly at UMass is at the WDCP archive. Mann had previously attempted to delete the UMass dataset in the aftermath of MM03, but the late John Daly protested to UMass and it was restored.

UPDATE: To add a little context to the deletion comment for recent followers of this debate, the original Mann deletion, which got a little publicity in 2003, was the deletion of a dataset showing MBH98 data from Mann’s website, the URL to which had been provided in response to my original request for MBH98. MM03 discussed many problems in this dataset. Mann’s response to MM03 was that this was the "wrong" dataset and was not the dataset used in MBH98, even though it was on his website, was the one to which I had been directed and on which I had sought specific re-confirmation prior to publication of MM03 that it was the dataset actually used in MBH98. Although Mann has sought to argue that we used the "wrong" dataset and failed to notice the errors in it (as recently as Rutherford et al [2005]) , we had obviously noticed errors and re-collated over 300 tree ring series to avoid the problems in the principal component series. See MM03 Scorecard (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=22).

As an excuse for errors in this dataset, Mann falsely said that this data collation at his FTP site had been prepared especially for me, but it had actually been posted up in August 2002, about one week after the ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu website was started, and long before my original request. The deletion removed this evidence, but I’d looked up the date (which I had not originally paid attention to) about 1 day before the deletion. (He also falsely said that I’d asked for an Excel spreadsheet, which was manifestly untrue, since I’d asked for an FTP location.) Nothing ultimately turns on this bizarre turn of events, but it was a huge surprise to me at the time and an interesting introduction into the world of academic politics. In business, you would never be able to delete a dataset in controversy (particularly when the date is an issue), but climate scientists didn’t seem to care. They mostly thought that Mann had taught me a lesson.

That’s why "Mann deletions" is something that concerns me.
UPDATE: 7 pm EDT April 8. I can access the UMass FTP site now. I’m still blocked from the UVA site and the original Nature SI is still deleted.

UPDATE: April 10 10 am EDT. There are some advantages to the amount of traffic on this website. After putting up the post below on Friday, my access to the UVA website has suddenly changed and today (Sunday) I can access the ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub site for the first time in over a year.

UPDATE: My access to ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub is blocked again.

http://www.climateaud