FOSSIL FOOLS TELL LESS THAN 2/3s OF THE TRUTH!
Roger Coppock
In the thread below titled,
"AGT bogus: USHCN Temperature Record of the Week: Fort Bragg,
CA," "d....@hotmail.com," a fossil fool sockpuppet who first
appeared in November last year, posted one of the Idso's infamous
lies. Are you going to believe someone who cherry picks only 59
years of data from a 93 year record, so that they can show a place
cooled when it actually warmed? That's using only 63% of the data!
Fossil fools are known for NOT telling "the truth, the WHOLE truth,
and nothing but the truth." The whole truth about the history of
these
1221 weather stations, and URLs to the data about them are available
at the post below entitled, "DON'T BELIEVE FOSSIL FOOL LIES ABOUT
USHCN! -- This high quality record shows clear warming."
James
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1174182011.8...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Seems I remember some little stuff left out of the Hockey Stick too.
Paul E. Lehmann
What are you doing about it Roger.
It is very unlikely that there will be any
converts - to either side via this news group.
If you are dedicated to your beliefs, what
positive thing(s) are you doing?
It seems as if you spend a LOT of your time on
this news group. Do you have a full time job?
What is it? Who pays your salary?
Joe Fischer
>FOSSIL FOOLS TELL LESS THAN 2/3s OF THE TRUTH!
What is going on here, a kiddie name calling contest?
>In the thread below titled,
>"AGT bogus: USHCN Temperature Record of the Week: Fort Bragg,
>CA," "d....@hotmail.com," a fossil fool sockpuppet
You just dropped about 2/3rds of your credibility.
>who first
>appeared in November last year,
Would it be possible to discuss global warming
or the environment instead of worthless information?
>posted one of the Idso's infamous
>lies. Are you going to believe someone who cherry picks only 59
>years of data from a 93 year record, so that they can show a place
>cooled when it actually warmed? That's using only 63% of the data!
>Fossil fools are known for NOT telling "the truth, the WHOLE truth,
>and nothing but the truth." The whole truth about the history of
>these
>1221 weather stations, and URLs to the data about them are available
>at the post below entitled, "DON'T BELIEVE FOSSIL FOOL LIES ABOUT
>USHCN! -- This high quality record shows clear warming."
I looked at that messed up format because you
didn't set your news program for non-proportional font.
I don't see any temperatures listed, what does it
show, how can one or two values allow anybody to see
the temperature year by year?
Please settle down and discuss the subject, there
is no reason to get upset and act irrational, you won't
lose any money, and I am sure you can contribute.
But I need to tell you I just had a big surprise, I
took a book I have had laying on the shelf for 20 years,
published in 1986, called "The Planet Earth", with
material from a TV station in PA., (author Weiner)
http://www.amazon.com/Planet-Earth-Jonathan-Weiner/dp/0553050966
It is written at about the 10th or 11th grade level,
and is an omnibus of facts and random speculation
about the Earth, geology and the environment, and
there is nothing in the IPCC SPM or in this newsgroup
that is not in that book written 20 years ago.
It could be called "the bible of global warming".
At least the book has some pretty pictures to
go with the speculation and horror stories like the
8.5 earthquake in Alaska in 1964 and the tsunami
it caused.
Joe Fischer
Roger Coppock
> I looked at that messed up format because you
> didn't set your news program for non-proportional font.
My directions to do that are clearly there.
> I don't see any temperatures listed, what does it
> show, how can one or two valuee . . .
The first column is a temperature rate.
The second column is the probability of non-zero correlation.
One doesn't need to look at noise.
Vendicar Decarian
From: "James" <king...@iglou.com>
> Seems I remember some little stuff left out of the Hockey Stick too.
Academy affirms hockey-stick graph - But it criticizes the way the
controversial climate result was used.nature.com
News
Nature
Published online: 28 June 2006
Academy affirms hockey-stick graph
But it criticizes the way the controversial climate result was used.
Geoff Brumfiel
Washington DC - It's probably the most politicized graph in science
- an icon of the case for climate change to some, and of flawed
science in the service of that case to others - and it has coloured
the climate-change debate for nearly a decade. Now the US National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) has weighed in with a report on the
'hockey-stick' plot, which it hopes will finally lay the controversy
to rest.
The graph purports to chart global temperatures over the past
millennium; a sharp rise at the current end is the 'blade' that
makes the otherwise flattish line look like a hockey stick. Climate
groups have claimed it as evidence of dangerous global warming;
sceptics, especially in the United States and Canada, have
questioned the study's merit and statistical methodology.
In its report, released on 22 June, the NAS committee more-or-less
endorses the work behind the graph. But it criticizes the way that
the plot was used to publicize climate-change concerns. And it
leaves open big questions about whether researchers should be
obliged to make their data available (see Plotting a course).
"We roughly agree with the substance of their findings," says Gerald
North, the committee's chair and a climate scientist at Texas A&M
University in College Station. In particular, he says, the committee
has a "high level of confidence" that the second half of the
twentieth century was warmer than any other period in the past four
centuries. But, he adds, claims for the earlier period covered by
the study, from AD 900 to 1600, are less certain. This earlier
period is particularly important because global-warming sceptics
claim that the current warming trend is a rebound from a 'little ice
age' around 1600. Overall, the committee thought the temperature
reconstructions from that era had only a two-to-one chance of being
right.
The graph arose from the work of Michael Mann, a climatologist now
at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, and two
colleagues. In two papers published in 1998 and 1999, Mann's team
examined tree rings, ice cores and other 'proxies' of past climate,
and used them to reconstruct the Northern Hemisphere's temperature
over the past millennium (M. E. Mann et al. Nature 392, 779-787;
1998 and M. E. Mann et al. Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 759-762; 1999).
The analysis was complex because the proxies were geographically
dispersed and contained uncertainties that are often difficult to
gauge. For example, the growth of bristle-cone pine trees, which
played an important role in the Mann study, depends on temperature,
but also rainfall. The researchers concluded in their 1999 paper
that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest
year, in at least a millennium", and included a graph showing a
sharp upturn in temperature from about 1900 onwards. The plot soon
became known as the hockey stick, and was featured prominently in
the executive summary for policy-makers in the 2001 report on global
warming from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Shortly after it appeared in the report, two Canadians, economist
Ross McKitrick and mineral-exploration consultant Stephen McIntyre,
attacked the methodology behind the graph, claiming that it was
based on insufficient data and flawed statistical analysis. US
politicians amplified their complaints, most prominently
Representative Joe Barton (Republican, Texas), who in 2005 wrote to
Mann demanding he share his data with critics and congressional
overseers. In an effort to quell the controversy, the chairman of
the House Committee on Science, Representative Sherwood Boehlert
(Republican, New York), commissioned the academy to examine the
earlier work.
The academy essentially upholds Mann's findings, although the panel
concluded that systematic uncertainties in climate records from
before 1600 were not communicated as clearly as they could have
been. The NAS also confirmed some problems with the statistics. But
the mistakes had a relatively minor impact on the overall finding,
says Peter Bloomfield, a statistician at North Carolina State
University in Raleigh, who was involved in the latest report. "This
study was the first of its kind, and they had to make choices at
various stages about how the data were processed," he says, adding
that he "would not be embarrassed" to have been involved in the
work.
Panel members were less sanguine, however, about whether the
original work should have loomed so large in the executive summary
of the IPCC's 2001 report. "The IPCC used it as a visual prominently
in the report," says Kurt Cuffey, a panel member and geographer at
the University of California, Berkeley. "I think that sent a very
misleading message about how resolved this part of the scientific
research was."
"No individual paper tells the whole story," agrees North. "It's
very dangerous to pull one fresh paper out from the literature."
Mann says that he is "very happy" with the committee's findings, and
agrees with the core assertion that more must be done to reduce
uncertainties in earlier periods. "We have very little long-term
information on the Southern Hemisphere and large parts of the
ocean," he says. As for the report's effect on the policy debate,
Mann says: "Hopefully this is the beginning of us, as a community,
putting that silliness behind us."