(OT) What Global Warming has in common with Marxism
Andre Jute
misusing statistics. Those are his two main attractions for his
followers, that you can endlessly make Marx mean whatever you want to,
and as his follower you aren't bound by any scientific truth because
Marxist Truth has the prior dispensation that the master declared the
dialectic a higher order of morality than observable reality as
revealed by the statistics.
It is no accident that Marxism became the tool of every control freak
who thought he knew what was best for humanity.
But Marxism was disgraced in its earthly paradise of Soviet Russia and
Communist China as simply another totalitarianism, in practice much
more murderous than Hitler's.
The control freaks suffered only briefly between the fall of Communism
and the discovery of another tool to grab and hold the right to demand
that everyone dance to their tune for the Higher Good. This was Global
Warming, which was said to threaten the very Earth we all live on.
Within a decade, Global Warming had taken on the same religious
overtones of public hysteria as the Marxist Church of Communism,
complete with persecutions of non-believers, with explicit public
threats to hunt Global Warming Deniers through the streets. (It has
been done in the name of Christ and Allah and Marx before, so why not
in the name of Global Warming? Hallelujah! Bring out the instruments
the Dominicans put away when the Inquisition ended.)
The chief agency of this global control, the IPCC, by far the most
effective as well as the most needless of the UN bureaux, was operated
by a man who was explicitly an advocate of world government long, long
before global warming was invented.
Global Warming soon acquired a Higher Truth. Where Marxism had the
Proletariat on behalf of whom the Vanguard Elite acted, Global Warming
had the Precautionary Principle, which states that anything a Climate
Scientist reveals through his Model is possible should be acted on
regardless of unlikelihood or cost.
In fact, with the aid of UN patronage (a nice way of saying oodles of
taxpayers' money), Global Warmers in only a handful of years rose
above the most common worldwide religion of the day, Science, and
officially came to disregard the Good Practice of the lesser
scientists, because Climate Scientists regarded themselves as a higher
caste of priests than the Interdisciplinaries. Why, were they not
dictating world policy in almost every capital?
Climate Scientists peer-reviewed each other's papers without any
outside reference (and especially not, oh horrors, to the
Statisticians or Cynics as they were sometimes privately referred to),
and the IPCC worked on peer-reviewed papers, and the papers chosen by
the IPCC to show to governments were chosen by the peer-reviewers. I
nice little closed circle which, if it were found in private industry,
would immediate be prosecuted with all the force of the law as a
conspiracy in restraint of trade. (But, like the Marxists, the Global
Warmers want to consign Trade and Industry straight to the slaughter-
chamber. Their religion will provide, and they needn't concern
themselves with how the loaves and the fishes will appear...)
Unfortunately, History (an enemy of the Marxists too...) provided an
effective counter to the alarmist shouts of "Global Warming" when
(probably) a sunspot -- in a normal cycle of sunspots -- caused
temperature to rise for a decade or so.
History had the Medieval Warm Period, when for several centuries the
earth was warmer than it has been since. Therefore, said skeptics
(Global Warming Deniers, in insider-speak), the Earth could become
much warmer still than the peak year of this recent period, 1998, in
fact warmer even than the Global Warmers' forecast in their least
reliable Model, and suffer no harm. Ouch!
History also had the Little Ice Age from about the time of Good Queen
Lizzie forward. Skeptics (Global Warming Deniers) said openly -- the
barefaced cheek! -- that from such a trough of ice, of course the only
way for temperature to change was upwards. Therefore there was no
global warming, only recovery from a frozen period, quite ordinary
really and perfectly in line with the normal swings and roundabouts
of the earth's temperature as revealed by the Ice Core Evidence.
So now the Global Warming Faithful wrote each other e-mails about
"getting rid of the fucking MWP and LIA" -- the Medieval Warm Period
and Little Ice Age which terminally undermine any theory of Global
Warming, indeed dismisses it as a little local weather, and pretty
short-term at that.
Then a Climate Scientist called Michael Mann found a particularly
Marxist way to reach the promise of every Good Climate Scientist, the
Hockey Stick, a graph that totally dispenses with the hot Medieval
Warm Period and the Little Ice Age by flattening them, so leaving the
little local weather of the decade leading up to 1998 displaying as a
monstrous peak towering towering over all history: proof of *manmade*
Global Warming!
The IPCC, over the moon with this frightening graph, published it six
times in its report, and it was the only graph included in the
influential summary to world leaders. On the "proof" of the Hockey
Stick, trillions were misspent.
***
So, how did Marx help Michael Mann do it? Simple, by careful selection
of statistics, by weighting them to give the desired result, and by
showing them only to an inner circle from which all skeptics had
already been weeded.
These are the precise methods of the Leninist wing of the Marxists.
Threats such as we heard to hunt Global Warming Deniers through the
streets, and persecution such as we saw of even the mildest
questioners, aren't even necessary to make the analogy stand up;
they're icing on the cake.
What Mann did is to choose a very few samples of data taken from the
rings of trees known to be unsuitable for longterm climate
observation, taken by a known-controversial researcher, then to count
this known-unreliable data 160 times, and then joined this 160-fold
statistical lie to bunches of disparate data to give him the desired
flat line through the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, in
effect "disappearing" these historical phenomena like Old Bolsheviks
shot and excised from History itself when Stalin wanted to fatten his
part in the Bolshevik Revolution.
This statistical legerdemain left Mann with a massive upwards trend of
"global warming" at exactly the right time, our time, just what the
IPCC bureaucrats wanted!
Mann's paper was peer reviewed all right -- by people later condemned
by the official American scientific body as a coterie, people whom
Mann had given a free pass before, or who expected a free pass from
him for their own papers. In particular, it came out later, the so-
called peer "reviewers" never asked for the raw data, they never asked
to see the weighting algorithm (by which Mann cooked the data), they
in fact never did anything right at all.
But the IPCC told everyone this paper, on which trillions of public
money was committed, was peer reviewed, and part of the "consensus" of
global warming they were talking up to hide the fact that in *every
other science*, except in the one the IPCC had bought lock-stock-and-
barrel, climate science itself, there were rumblings of severe doubt
about these travesties of "science". The IPCC claimed it was wasn't
their duty to investigate the validity or even the credibility of the
conclusions Mann published: they were "peer reviewed"!
Instead of investigating, the IPCC made Mann the lead writer of their
report, thereby putting him in a position to offer jobs, credits and
money to his peer reviewers, or deny it to those who asked awkward
questions.
But no one could ask any questions because Mann, when asked, wouldn't
release his raw data, on the weird ground that all everyone else
wanted to was to disprove his paper. Apparently no one had told him
that is how peer review, and more generally science, actually works,
by disproving what went before.
Like Marxism, where you get to vote, once, apparently the "truth" of
Global Warming was determined in Mann's meretricious paper, once and
for all time. Global Warming Deniers would be hunted through the
streets.
***
Eventually Mann was made to release his data -- which he claimed to
have mislaid! -- by the US Senate, and the statistical mess, on which
the IPCC had persuaded world leaders to commit trillions, was
revealed.
(Another correspondence with Marxism and in particular it's latterday
apologists, of which the French and American breeds were particularly
intellectually dishonest and therefore despicable: A whole industry of
would-be passengers on Mann\s IPCC gravy-train soon developed, all of
them trying to prove Mann "right"...}
But long, long before that happened, scientists from over thirty other
disciplines had published papers restoring the Medieval Warm Period
and the Little Ice Age to their rightful place in History -- and as
happening around the world, despite limp rearguard actions by the
Global Warming fanatics to claim that the MWP and the LIA were merely
"eurocentric phenomena", in other words to lie that they took place
only in Europe.
Only the IPCC still stands by Michael Mann. They republish that hockey
stick graph in other forms over and over. They haven't retracted a
word. The IPCC is totally discredited, yet continues in precisely the
same way with the same lies, now proven to be lies. That too is a
Marxist method: never deny an error.
***
Here's an irony for you: A favourite condemnation of critics of Global
Warming, daily in the mouths of the Faithful, is that the critics
"mistake a little local weather for world climate". Actually, Mann's
Hockey Stick, on which the entire Global Warming Fallacy hangs, was
created by deliberately mistaking a few (unsuitable) trees in Oregon
for witnesses to the climate of the whole planet.
That too is Marxist methodology: to accuse your enemies loudly of the
crimes you commit yourself.
***
I can't resist one final delicious irony. As the IPCC starts to
realize that Global Warming is visibly a lost cause, a laughingstock,
suddenly we hear little about Global Warming, except from the more
stupid Faithful, and the money-grubbers like Al Gore who will earn
billions out of its concomitant, carbon credits exchange, who prey on
the more stupid Faithful.
Instead the new Great Fear by which they want to control our actions,
on which they want to spend our money, is Sudden Climate Change.
Sudden Climate Change is as shoddy, and as unscientific, as Global
Warming was, as the fear of an imminent Ice Age was when it was
touted, often by the same people, in the 1970s, as the fear of a Hole
in the Ozone Layer was in the 1960, and as the fear of cancer from DDT
was.
The banning of DDT led to the biggest manmade genocide that the world
has ever seen of the poor and defenseless by starvation and malaria.
The entirely manmade Global Warming Scare led to trillions of our
money being wasted. The Sudden Climate Change Scare will lead to
trillions being spent by these meddlers on what we cannot control,
indeed cannot even describe or forecast with any statistical honesty.
How is that different from Marxism, which was also a faith rather than
a science?
If the IPCC's paid advisers are scientists, they know it. All these
climate scares are merely an excuse for social engineering on a scale
Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao could never even dream of.
These self-styled "climate scientists" should be given the Lysenko
Award. The IPCC bureaucrats should be given the Stalin Award. Both
awards confer the privilege of kneeling on a rubber mat.
Andre Jute
The Earth has a lot of practice looking after itself. it still will
long after Man is gone.
mike
@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, fiul...@yahoo.com says...
> Actually, Mann's
> Hockey Stick, on which the entire Global Warming Fallacy hangs, was
> created by deliberately mistaking a few (unsuitable) trees in Oregon
> for witnesses to the climate of the whole planet.
>
If you really believe this statement - that a significant majority of
the world's scientists have become convinced of the reality of the
global warming threat by the duplicitous beguilement of a single
messianic straw-Mann, then it may explain why you hold your views.
But in practice, there has been a host of peer-reviewed papers in the
ten years since Mann's paper was published that strongly supports the
view that global warming is a reality. It is this evidence that has
converted the view of the scientific community.
The evidence to the contrary is far weaker and often bears a marked
similarity to the form of arguement that fundamentalists raise in their
adversion to the theory of relativity. It is the climate-change nay-
sayers who are guilty of a reliance on outdated evidence in their often
politically or economically based desire to 'disprove' an inconvenient
truth.
(And it is still off-topic)
--Mike
mike
m....@irl.cri.replacethiswithnz says...
> In article <38520a20-81e1-4493-ae63-26d7bc466227
> @x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, fiul...@yahoo.com says...
>
Oops - i meant theory of evolution (the relativity nay-sayers are an
even nuttier group).
--Mike
Andre Jute
> In article <38520a20-81e1-4493-ae63-26d7bc466227
>
> > Actually, Mann's
> > Hockey Stick, on which the entire Global Warming Fallacy hangs, was
> > created by deliberately mistaking a few (unsuitable) trees in Oregon
> > for witnesses to the climate of the whole planet.
>
> If you really believe this statement - that a significant majority of
> the world's scientists have become convinced of the reality of the
> global warming threat by the duplicitous beguilement of a single
> messianic straw-Mann, then it may explain why you hold your views.
Thank you for agreeing that Mann lied, and thereby also agreeing that
the MWP and LIA, which Mann and others tried to lie away, are
important in any discussion of the possibility of the meaning of
global warming.
However, you're trying to put words into my mouth. I didn't say that "
significant majority of the world's scientists have become convinced
of the reality of the global warming threat". I didn't say it, I don't
believe it, it isn't true. It is merely the IPCC's propaganda about
"consensus". The majority of the world's scientists consider global
warming the hokum of people who don't have enough real work to do. The
entire Indian establishment is officially against global warming, and
even in America you won't find a majority, unless you go to such
extremes as counting silence(often achieved by intimidation) as
agreement. Only the naive believe that consensus crap.
> But in practice, there has been a host of peer-reviewed papers in the
> ten years since Mann's paper was published that strongly supports the
> view that global warming is a reality. It is this evidence that has
> converted the view of the scientific community.
Of course there was global warming for ten years or so, and would that
it went on longer. It is a natural phenomenon. That is why the Global
Warming Faithful want to remove the MWP and the LIA, so that they can
present as frightening a natural trend of recovery from a little ice
age to the temperature levels in the medieval warm period (when there
was no industry or automobiles producing CO2).
> The evidence to the contrary is far weaker and often bears a marked
> similarity to the form of arguement that fundamentalists raise in their
> adversion to the theory of relativity.
This is precautionary principle crap. The onus isn't on those who say
that global warm, such as it was, is a harmless natural phenomenon,
the onus is on those who claim we are in danger from it and should
spend a lot of money and submit to their idea of how we should behave.
Let them prove there is Global Warming caused by CO2. They haven't.
Until they do, History in the form of the MWP and the LIA trumps all
scare stories.
>It is the climate-change nay-
> sayers who are guilty of a reliance on outdated evidence in their often
> politically or economically based desire to 'disprove' an inconvenient
> truth.
The archeological record stands. When Ben Wiener tried to tell on this
conference the convenient lie that the MWP and the LIA were merely
"eurocentric phenomena", I published references to more than thirty
peer-reviewed papers proving that the MWP and LIA happened
simultaneously around the world. Nothing was heard further from
Wiener, and none of those papers have ever been refuted by anyone. The
climatologists, on the contrary, has a long history of ignoring the
rest of science, and treating established scientific method with
contempt, and have been officially condemned for it by the US
statistical establishment.
> (And it is still off-topic)
Send you complaint in triplicate. I'll recycle it.
> --Mike
Andre Jute
Reformed petrol head
Car-free since 1992
Greener than thou!
PS You don't have a single word to say about my extended analogy
between the two egregiously destructive religions of Marxism and
Global Warming, so let me show it to you again:
****
***
***
***
"mistake a little local weather for world climate". Actually, Mann's
Hockey Stick, on which the entire Global Warming Fallacy hangs, was
created by deliberately mistaking a few (unsuitable) trees in Oregon
for witnesses to the climate of the whole planet.
That too is Marxist methodology: to accuse your enemies loudly of the
mike
@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, fiul...@yahoo.com says...
>
> PS You don't have a single word to say about my extended analogy
> between the two egregiously destructive religions of Marxism and
> Global Warming, so let me show it to you again:
>
Scientists learn early in their careers that analogy or metaphor can be
a useful tool as it can help the scientist to observe a phenomenon from
a different direction or to describe it in terms that a non-expert (in
the particular field in question) can understand.
However, they also learn that the weakness exhibited by analogy and
metaphor if the comparison is stretched too far. Your case was a text-
book example of this. Your arguement had the relevance and logical
consistency of a clam that because Marx and bin Laden both have beards
they must both be bad men.
I laugh at your analogy - it makes sense only in your head.
(and it is still off-topic)
--Mike
William Asher
228b8a...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
<snip>
Andre:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676
Read up, you might learn something.
--
Bill Asher
Andre Jute
> In article <5bb22272-81fe-4cc6-af66-228b8adfa4d7
>
> > PS You don't have a single word to say about my extended analogy
> > between the two egregiously destructive religions of Marxism and
> > Global Warming, so let me show it to you again:
>
> Snipped again :)
>
> Scientists learn early in their careers that analogy or metaphor can be
> a useful tool as it can help the scientist to observe a phenomenon from
> a different direction or to describe it in terms that a non-expert (in
> the particular field in question) can understand.
Goodie. Here we have Mike, who claims to be a scientist. So, Mike,
scientist who believes in Global Warming, please explain to us:
1. Why is it bad for the earth to get a little warmer when it is
nowhere near as warm as it was for 400 years during the Medieval Warm
Period (a worldwide historical, proven, peer reviewed, ineradicable
fact of History in every science except climatology)?
2. Why is it bad for the earth to recover from the extended freeze of
the Little Ice Age (a worldwide historical, proven, peer reviewed,
ineradicable fact of History in every science except climatology) when
it isn't even as warm as it was before the LIA?
3. Why do you claim manmade CO2 is responsible for "global warming"
when during the MWP, when there was no manmade CO2, it was so much
warmer for 400 years?
4. Why do you claim manmade CO2 is responsible for "global warming"
when the ice core record shows that temperature rise leads increased
CO2 emissions by substantial periods?
> However, they also learn that the weakness exhibited by analogy and
> metaphor if the comparison is stretched too far. Your case was a text-
> book example of this. Your arguement had the relevance and logical
> consistency of a clam that because Marx and bin Laden both have beards
> they must both be bad men.
And that is what you consider a scientific argument to my many factual
points? I notice you conceded, by going over to personal attack, that
all your counter-points were false because I had good answers to them.
> I laugh at your analogy - it makes sense only in your head.
The sort of "scientist" who thinks he wins any points by clumsily
trying to patronize and ridicule a skeptic is a fool, first of all,
but above all he is a very bad scientist. You'd better have convincing
answers to the specific, simple questions above, Mikey-boy, or people
will be asking where you get your pissy attitude from.
And by the way, patronizing skeptics by screeching that they are too
ridiculous to answer is another Marxist tactic the Global Warmies took
over wholesale, quite possibly because they are the same old, same
old.
> (and it is still off-topic)
Send your complaint in triplicate and I'll treasure it all the more.
> --Mike
Andre Jute
"Loonies like Asher will continue to shout 'Global Warming' until
they suddenly start shouting 'Global Cooling' as if they'd done that
from the beginning." -- Tom Kunich
Andre Jute
> Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:5bb22272-81fe-4cc6-af66-
> 228b8adfa...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
>
> <snip>
>
> Andre:
>
> http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676
>
> Read up, you might learn something.
>
> --
> Bill Asher
What about it, Asher? It doesn't disprove any of my points. In fact,
it makes another, that the Global Warming Loonies have taken over
Marxist methodology wholesale.
The last time you tried to discuss this matter with me, before you ran
away with your tail between your legs you tried in classic Marxist "we
are the majority already" style to pretend that it was old hat, no
longer fashionable to discuss the liar Michael Mann's misdoings. I'm
not a fashion victim, sonny. I care about what is true, not what is
fashionable. If you were a scientist, you would care about truth too,
far more than about belonging to some "in" group.
Now we have from you the classic Marxist manoeuvre of snowing (in your
case trying to snow) a critic with irrelevant material. No one was
arguing that proxies shouldn't be used. We know what the proxies show,
and they don't show any dangerous Global Warming. They show that the
IPCC's Hockey Stick is a lie. They show that the Medieval Warm Period
and the Little Ice Age announce loud and clear that the recent Global
Warming Scare is put-up job, no science at all.
The argument is that Michael Mann gave a single, known-bad proxy a
weighting of 160 and then refused to let people see his data or tell
them how he cooked the outcome. The argument is that Mann did it to
achieve a politically desired end. The argument is that the IPCC, and
the entire climatological community it has suborned with credits and
money, do not do science but social engineering.
The argument comes down to the IPCC being totally discredited. it
should be disbanded. Those climatologists should be sent back to
teaching freshman classes so they can relearn the values of earning an
honest living.
And then we have their mickey-mouse hangers on like you, William
Asher, striking up airs, just like a real scientist. Except I have
news for you, sonny: a real scientist would never in a million years
be as dumb as to try browbeating me.
Clive George
news:6dbff69a-0cdc-4187...@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>1. Why is it bad for the earth to get a little warmer when it is
>nowhere near as warm as it was for 400 years during the Medieval Warm
>Period (a worldwide historical, proven, peer reviewed, ineradicable
>fact of History in every science except climatology)?
MWP happened, yes, but it wasn't as you describe it. It's warmer than it was
then.
RonSonic
wrote:
England had a wine industry then. Let me know when that's possible.
Mom, he's still blogging: http://dumbbikeblog.blogspot.com
William Asher
f3d613...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
<snip>
All this Marxist crap is just paranoid ranting. Why precisely should
anyone believe the stuff you're saying over the conclusions of a panel
working under the auspices of the US National Academy of Sciences? (The
Royal Society of London independently arrives at the same conclusions.
Are you saying you know more than them as well? I find that proposition
absurd, since you've said nothing that isn't found on any number of
crackpot websites.)
You rant and foam but there isn't anything of substance in what you're
saying. Why precisely would a net radiative forcing of around 1.7 W/m^2
not have an effect on climate? Until you can answer that question
without invoking bizarre physics, you're just another boring libertarian
crank who can't accept basic physics. You have a couple of options, you
can argue that CO2 doesn't provide a radiative forcing, or you can argue
that there is some mechanism by which the forcing from CO2 is directly
compensated by a negative forcing (see note 1 below).
Really, you need to do better.
--
Bill Asher
note 1: Keep in mind that "climate" is the end result of how heat gets
redistributed from the equator to the poles. In order for the radiative
forcing from CO2 to have no effect on climate, the radiative forcing from
CO2 and other gases needs to be balanced by a cooling mechanism with the
same geographic distribution as the forcing. If that doesn't happen, the
ocean-atmosphere will still adjust their circulation (which will modify
climate) to compensdate for the shift in energy. This is a complicated
and subtle point (it might help to google around to find global maps of
the GHG forcing) but essential for you to master if you want to stop
talking nonsense. Otherwise, keep talking about Marx, it's easy to
ignore.
Clive George
news:icnv65dib0lui9j3g...@4ax.com...
England has a wine industry now.
Clive George
news:hik075h95rt9evfrd...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 01:27:36 -0400, RonSonic
> <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>England had a wine industry then. Let me know when that's possible.
>
> drinking their wine.
Dude, you're USian, right?
And you're complaining about _our_ food?
When your regular supermarkets start selling real cheese we can talk. (I've
no doubt you can get it if you try, but I'm talking about the mainstream.)
(Toad in the hole made with a good lincolnshire or cumberland sausage,
followed by treacle pudding and custard. Lubricated with a couple of pints
of Landlord. Not a light summer meal, but after a hard day, mmmmmmmmm)
Andre Jute
> You rant and foam but there isn't anything of substance in what you're
The specific substance stands, point by point, in my first message,
which you haven't contested a single fact of. In its totality it
serves totally to discredit Mann, the Hockey Stick, the IPCC and their
entire spurious "consensus". But I'll give you substance for you to
answer, also again, since I've already asked these simple,
straightforward questions in this thread and received nothing but
abusive ranting in reply:
1. Why is it bad for the earth to get a little warmer when it is
nowhere near as warm as it was for 400 years during the Medieval Warm
Period (a worldwide historical, proven, peer reviewed, ineradicable
fact of History in every science except climatology)?
2. Why is it bad for the earth to recover from the extended freeze of
the Little Ice Age (a worldwide historical, proven, peer reviewed,
ineradicable fact of History in every science except climatology)
when
it isn't even as warm as it was before the LIA?
3. Why do you claim manmade CO2 is responsible for "global warming"
when during the MWP, when there was no manmade CO2, it was so much
warmer for 400 years?
4. Why do you claim manmade CO2 is responsible for "global warming"
when the ice core record shows that temperature rise leads increased
CO2 emissions by substantial periods?
Now we come to another classic Marxist methodology: the attempt by
discussing the details to avoid the fact that the very principle is
undecided:
>Why precisely would a net radiative forcing of around 1.7 W/m^2
> not have an effect on climate? �Until you can answer that question
> without invoking bizarre physics, you're just another boring libertarian
> crank who can't accept basic physics. �You have a couple of options, you
> can argue that CO2 doesn't provide a radiative forcing, or you can argue
> that there is some mechanism by which the forcing from CO2 is directly
> compensated by a negative forcing (see note 1 below). �
You're arse about end, Asher. You still have to prove that CO2
emissions lead tempetature rise. It hasn't been so historically, it
isn't so now, you can't prove it, therefore there is no dangerous
manmade Global Warming, only natural, unforced global warming as
there has been through history.
> Really, you need to do better. �
I am, day by day, every day. I've been chipping away at this mindless
crap that you push since I was a precocious teenager with a column in
an important paper, in which I ridiculed your predecessors in
stupidity, who whined that the world would be destroyed by a hole in
the ozone layer letting in UV rays or something (they could never get
their story straight -- the IPCC organized the loons to speak with one
voice). They were followed in the 1970s by loons who thought we would
all freeze in a mini-age and they -- wait for it -- wanted to heat up
the oceans to prepare. Now we have the anti-industrial Marxists reborn
as Crusaders Against CO2 (CAC), who want to kill industry for an
unproven, unprovable link they claim exists between greenhouse gasses
and global temperature rise. (If this is true, CO2 is the tiniest
component of greenhouse gases, so the loons should instead kill all
the cows exhaling methane.) But guess what, cows don't feature in
Marxism and in general anti-corporate culture, to which the non-
scientific Global Warming Faithful belong, Cows Are Good.
Are you surprised that to those in the Third World, trying to get all
the good things we have, this looks like whitey finding a new way to
keep down the blacks and browns?
> --
> Bill Asher
And another Marxist favourite: You don't understand, this is too
esoteric for you, study the dialectic harder:
> note 1: �Keep in mind that "climate" is the end result of how heat gets
> redistributed from the equator to the poles. �In order for the radiative
> forcing from CO2 to have no effect on climate, the radiative forcing from
> CO2 and other gases needs to be balanced by a cooling mechanism with the
> same geographic distribution as the forcing. �If that doesn't happen, the
> ocean-atmosphere will still adjust their circulation (which will modify
> climate) to compensdate for the shift in energy. �This is a complicated
> and subtle point (it might help to google around to find global maps of
> the GHG forcing) but essential for you to master if you want to stop
> talking nonsense. �Otherwise, keep talking about Marx, it's easy to
> ignore. �
Poor Bill. If the principle is unsound -- and History, and
interdisciplinary science makes Global Warming by CO2 Forcing an
impossibility -- the details of the dialectic don't matter a damn.
Answer my simple questions, Asher, and we can talk. My mind is open.
I'm waiting for a single climatologist or fellow traveller to give me
a comprehensible, credible account of the mechanism of global warming
that doesn't attempt to stand History on its head, that doesn't go
against the proven data of dozens of other sciences.
I've been waiting for nearly half a century to hear one of these
publicity-seeking apocalyptics to talk sense. Now I, all of us on RBT,
are waiting for you to talk sense.
Waiting.
Andre Jute
Charisma is the art of infuriating the undeserving by merely
existing elegantly
William Asher
<snip>
So in other words, you can't answer the question as to what is wrong with
the physics. All you can do is regurgitate the same tired skeptic myths:
600 year lag, MWP, yadda yadda yadda. You're boring Andre. So fucking
insanely boring it is almost not worth the effort to tell you this.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-
the-perplexed.html
or
When you have something to say that isn't refuted on that page, let me
know. Otherwise, you're just another in a long line of tired and scared
old men with nothing of use to say on this topic.
--
Bill Asher
Andre Jute
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:48:21 +0100, "Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >news:6dbff69a-0cdc-4187...@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>1. Why is it bad for the earth to get a little warmer when it is
> >>nowhere near as warm as it was for 400 years during the Medieval Warm
> >>Period (a worldwide historical, proven, peer reviewed, ineradicable
> >>fact of History in every science except climatology)?
>
> >MWP happened, yes, but it wasn't as you describe it. It's warmer than it was
> >then.
Poor Clive has been taken in, even after I gave him all the clues,
even after Mike and Asher agreed that Michael Mann lied about
temperatures in our time being higher than during the MWP. But those
lying graphs are still out there and, unless you know the background,
it is easy for the innocent and the ignorant to be taken in, to
believe those false graphs. Poor Clive has to go find one of the
earlier graphs published by the IPCC before the Michael Mann episode,
or one of the graphs from dozens of peer-reviewed interdisciplinary
studies around the world, of which I give a list of starter references
below. Then he will see our temperatures are much, much lower than
during the MWP, and that we're nowhere near recovered from the Little
Ice Age. (I note that Asher, who should know better if he is actually
a scientist, even now claims that we live in a warmer time than during
the MWP. In short, Asher admits that Mann who first told the lie, lied
-- but adds that he finds it boring for people to mention it -- , then
goes on telling the same lie as if repetition will make it true. That
too is a Marxist method.)
> England had a wine industry then. Let me know when that's possible.
Wine is still grown in England on the southern fringes but it is poor
stuff due to the lack of warmth... The entire British viniculture
today comes to only a tiny fraction of the thriving industry it was
during the MWP, when British wines were exported to as far away as
Italy. In fact, the virtual death of British viniculture during the
Little Ice Age was one the things that made it easier for Henry the
Monogamist to destroy the monasteries.
But you can bet that the local wannabe polemicists will entirely
overlook the question of scale -- magnitudes of difference in wine
production then and now! -- and claim that because a few bottles of
sour stuff is still produced and called wine, you are wrong. Then they
will use this fiction to prove that our time is warmer than the MWP.
Those clowns are in my killfile for more than their uselessness on
bike tech, among other reasons also for their immorality, for their
total inability to honour truth.
> Mom, he's still blogging:http://dumbbikeblog.blogspot.com
Your mom was probably smarter than to argue with fools. We should be
too. But it is too much fun to pull these obvious long noses on the
local global warmies.
William Asher
> On 29 Jul 2009 12:06:31 GMT, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>You rant and foam but there isn't anything of substance in what you're
>>saying. Why precisely would a net radiative forcing of around 1.7
>>W/m^2 not have an effect on climate? Until you can answer that
>>question without invoking bizarre physics, you're just another boring
>>libertarian crank who can't accept basic physics. You have a couple
>>of options, you can argue that CO2 doesn't provide a radiative
>>forcing, or you can argue that there is some mechanism by which the
>>forcing from CO2 is directly compensated by a negative forcing (see
>>note 1 below).
>
> An important point that the anti-warming crowd seems to miss. The CO2
> is there and measurable. It has a known and proven effect. Even if the
> medieval warming period was warmer (which it was not), the current
> effect is clearly man-made.
>
> Every time the pollution issue is raised on any manner, the vested
> interests start up their propaganda machine. They spend large amounts
> attempting to brainwash the masses as to how the (whatever) pollution
> issue is invalid, and how it will cost them all money out of their
> pockets. In reality, the industries only care about their own pockets,
> as do most of the anti-GW posters here. The fact that corporations
> don't own the planet's resources and have a duty to leave it as clean
> as they found it is not even on their radar. For them, it's the
> pirate's motto "take all you can, give nothing back".
>
It is bizarre, but nearly every skeptic cites the paleo record as
"proof" that anthropogenic CO2 can't be forcing climate. But the paleo
record demonstrates that Earth's climate and global mean temperature are
exquisitely sensitive to very small changes in the surface forcing, with
changes of a few tenths of a watt per meter squared in the total solar
shortwave flux having huge effects on global temperature. Similarly,
subtle changes in the phase of seasonal interhemispheric insolation
without any change in the radiative forcing can trigger the initiation
or cessation of ice ages. And there is even evidence from the
Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum that injecting greenhouse gases into
the atmosphere (like we are doing this century with CO2) causes a huge
rise in global temperature. So the idea that a radiative forcing from
CO2 can't possibly have an effect on climate is at best naive and
suggests a willful ignorance about interpreting the science.
Skeptics have nothing in the way of credible scientific arguments left,
yet they raise the same thing again and again. Andre is just another in
a long line of easily led people with an inflated sense of their
intellectual abilities to decide "on assessment of the evidence" that
anthropogenic CO2 can't possibly be affecting climate. It's a signal of
denial and symptomatic of the conservative mind, which is biologically
unable to assimilate new information and form different opinions.
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-
politics10sep10,0,5982337.story
or
Jute is amusing though, in a crusty old fart kind of way.
--
Bill Asher
Andre Jute
> Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:9089e1e6-36e6-42f4...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
> <snip>
>
> So in other words, you can't answer the question as to what is wrong with
> the physics.
Once more the Marxist Method of insisting on discussing only the
dialectic, of restricting the terms of discussion to the esoteric.
Your physics (an I am no longer sure you understand them) are
irrelevant while you're working on wrong assumptions (in this instance
created by deliberate lies) of the system you're dealing with.
The physics you're trying to apply will only kick in when you can
answer these cause-and-effect questions:
1. Why is it bad for the earth to get a little warmer when it is
nowhere near as warm as it was for 400 years during the Medieval Warm
Period (a worldwide historical, proven, peer reviewed, ineradicable
fact of History in every science except climatology)?
2. Why is it bad for the earth to recover from the extended freeze of
the Little Ice Age (a worldwide historical, proven, peer reviewed,
ineradicable fact of History in every science except climatology)
when
it isn't even as warm as it was before the LIA?
3. Why do you claim manmade CO2 is responsible for "global warming"
when during the MWP, when there was no manmade CO2, it was so much
warmer for 400 years?
4. Why do you claim manmade CO2 is responsible for "global warming"
when the ice core record shows that temperature rise leads increased
CO2 emissions by substantial periods?
>All you can do is regurgitate the same tired skeptic myths:
> 600 year lag, MWP, yadda yadda yadda. You're boring Andre.
That you cannot answer these questions do not make them boring, it
simply makes them more relevant every time you try to cover up your
inability to answer them simply by trying to retreat into the
dialectic (just like a cornered Marxist).
>So fucking
> insanely boring it is almost not worth the effort to tell you this.
That's all right, Bill. Explaining things as well as I do takes a
lifetime of practice. I entirely understand your frustration that
you're not up to it. But the thing is, you're not even trying yet,
you're just passing time splashing out abuse, wriggling this way and
that. If you can't answer those simple questions, you should leave
this conversation now.
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-
> the-perplexed.html
Those guys have a policy commitment to Global Warming, as has the BBC,
as have Science and Nature whose shoddy review procedures landed us in
this mess. The makers of your reference lied, as you did, about the
reports from the official bodies of the US scientists to the Senate;
those reports severely criticised the peer review procedures of the
key magazines, and furthermore virtually accused the entire
climatological cabal of statistical incompetence and, in the case of
Mann, malfeasance.
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5rn2e8
Nah, I saw the trend already in your first reference. But thanks all
the same.
> When you have something to say that isn't refuted on that page, let me
> know.
Excuse me? You want me to take pop science from the politically
committed as the Gospel. But, sonny, that's exactly my argument, that
there are no scientific answers, that the gullible taxpayer is asked
to take this crap on faith, that Global warming is a religion, not
science.
>Otherwise, you're just another in a long line of tired and scared
> old men with nothing of use to say on this topic.
Oh, I'm neither tired nor scared. You're the one too frightened to
attempt to answer these simple, consequential basic questions:
1. Why is it bad for the earth to get a little warmer when it is
nowhere near as warm as it was for 400 years during the Medieval Warm
Period (a worldwide historical, proven, peer reviewed, ineradicable
fact of History in every science except climatology)?
2. Why is it bad for the earth to recover from the extended freeze of
the Little Ice Age (a worldwide historical, proven, peer reviewed,
ineradicable fact of History in every science except climatology)
when
it isn't even as warm as it was before the LIA?
3. Why do you claim manmade CO2 is responsible for "global warming"
when during the MWP, when there was no manmade CO2, it was so much
warmer for 400 years?
4. Why do you claim manmade CO2 is responsible for "global warming"
when the ice core record shows that temperature rise leads increased
CO2 emissions by substantial periods?
> --
> Bill Asher
More and more I'm convinced, Bill Asher, that you're a pimply teenager
infused with the religion of Global Warming, rather than a scientist.
You talk the talk of a lab assistant who sneers away questions because
he can't answer them, but you can't walk the walk, do the real
business.
Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html
Andre Jute
> Still Just Me - <stillnoEmail...@stillnodomain.com> wrote innews:drk075d4oligommm5...@4ax.com:
> > An important point that the anti-warming crowd seems to miss. The CO2
> > is there and measurable.
It's there and it might even be accurately measured. So what? We want
to know what it does, and we don't. Until we do, we can't make
expensive policy based on the girlish vapours of a bunch of
"scientists" who want to see their faces on television making
apocalyptic forecasts.
>It has a known and proven effect.
Really? There are a lot of claims that CO2 is responsible for this and
that and the other, but no proof whatsoever that it causes temperature
rise. In fact, the record is the other way round: temperature rise
leads CO2 emissions, temperature in the MWP was higher than it is now
without any appreciable manmade CO2, and so on.
>Even if the
> > medieval warming period was warmer (which it was not), the current
> > effect is clearly man-made.
The socalled current effect is statistical lie, as set out in my
original post which started this thread.
> > Every time the pollution issue is raised on any manner, the vested
> > interests start up their propaganda machine.
I have no vested interest and I'm not in the pay of any vested
interest. I just don't like being lied to and bullied by thugs even if
they call themselves scientists.
>They spend large amounts
> > attempting to brainwash the masses as to how the (whatever) pollution
> > issue is invalid, and how it will cost them all money out of their
> > pockets. In reality, the industries only care about their own pockets,
> > as do most of the anti-GW posters here. The fact that corporations
> > don't own the planet's resources and have a duty to leave it as clean
> > as they found it is not even on their radar. For them, it's the
> > pirate's motto "take all you can, give nothing back".
Like I said, it all sounds exceedingly Marxist and anti-corporate.
> It is bizarre, but nearly every skeptic cites the paleo record as
> "proof" that anthropogenic CO2 can't be forcing climate. But the paleo
> record demonstrates that Earth's climate and global mean temperature are
> exquisitely sensitive to very small changes in the surface forcing, with
> changes of a few tenths of a watt per meter squared in the total solar
> shortwave flux having huge effects on global temperature. Similarly,
> subtle changes in the phase of seasonal interhemispheric insolation
> without any change in the radiative forcing can trigger the initiation
> or cessation of ice ages. And there is even evidence from the
> Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum that injecting greenhouse gases into
> the atmosphere (like we are doing this century with CO2) causes a huge
> rise in global temperature. So the idea that a radiative forcing from
> CO2 can't possibly have an effect on climate is at best naive and
> suggests a willful ignorance about interpreting the science.
This is more dancing around on the head of a pin, trying to baffle
with details before the principle is decided. Answer the question,
Asher: Why do you claim CO2 is responsible for temperature rise when
clearly throughout history temperature rise has led CO2 increase?
> Skeptics have nothing in the way of credible scientific arguments left,
> yet they raise the same thing again and again.
And we'll keep raising the question of sequence in cause and effect
until these "scientists" who want so much to make policy provide an
answer or rush away to the next fashionable thing (as they rushed away
from the hole in the ozone layer, global freezing which was the in-
thing just before Global Warming, and even DDT).
>Andre is just another in
> a long line of easily led people
This is amusing. I'm so easily led that I've been making fun of these
foolish apocalyptics, of which the Global Warming Fanatics are just
the latest in depressingly long line, for half a century, since I was
a teenager.
> with an inflated sense of their
> intellectual abilities to decide "on assessment of the evidence" that
> anthropogenic CO2 can't possibly be affecting climate.
That's the whole problem, that there is *no* evidence that CO2
emission causes temperature change, that the historical record shows
CO2 emissions leading temperature change.
And even if CO2 emission were proved to cause temperature change, so
what? It is hubris to think a bunch of guys, who aren't even smart
enough to catch a liar in their own midst, can change the greatest
forces of nature. And even if they succeed (and we all know that's in
the realm of science fiction) , a single sunspot will undo all their
work, probably on a cycle of 11 years, far too short for puny manmade
efforts to take effect. What an enormous waste of time and money.
>It's a signal of
> denial and symptomatic of the conservative mind, which is biologically
> unable to assimilate new information
But there is no new information. The Global Warmers are just the same
old wannabe policy-makers who think that apocalyptic "science" will
make them famous and give them power. There is only one way in which
the present lot are different from those of the last half century, or
indeed the Old Testament prophets spouting doom and gloom, and that is
that they are better organized under the IPCC to intimidate skeptics.
>and form different opinions.
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-
> politics10sep10,0,5982337.story
Cod psychology, as Global Warming is cod science.
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2ctdz4
BDNS
> Jute is amusing though, in a crusty old fart kind of way.
This whole Global Warming hysteria, ten years after the Earth went
into another cooling cycle, would be vastly amusing if it were not so
expensive.
> --
> Bill Asher
Andre Jute
"Loonies like Asher will continue to shout 'Global Warming' until
they suddenly start shouting 'Global Cooling' as if they'd done that
from the beginning." -- Tom Kunich
"Oh, I've seen the loonies do that for half a century. Asher's problem
is that he has such a poor grasp of history, he thinks the New
Apocalypse of Global Warming is brand spanking new and exciting." --
Andre Jute
William Asher
<snip>
> Oh, I'm neither tired nor scared. You're the one too frightened to
> attempt to answer these simple, consequential basic questions:
>
> 1. Why is it bad for the earth to get a little warmer when it is
> nowhere near as warm as it was for 400 years during the Medieval Warm
> Period (a worldwide historical, proven, peer reviewed, ineradicable
> fact of History in every science except climatology)?
>
> 2. Why is it bad for the earth to recover from the extended freeze of
> the Little Ice Age (a worldwide historical, proven, peer reviewed,
> ineradicable fact of History in every science except climatology)
> when
> it isn't even as warm as it was before the LIA?
>
> 3. Why do you claim manmade CO2 is responsible for "global warming"
> when during the MWP, when there was no manmade CO2, it was so much
> warmer for 400 years?
>
> 4. Why do you claim manmade CO2 is responsible for "global warming"
> when the ice core record shows that temperature rise leads increased
> CO2 emissions by substantial periods?
>
Andre:
You're not investing enough effort in this to whet my whistle
intellectually. Your questions all have answers readily found on many
reputable websites (which you will no doubt discount as being part of a
grand conspiracy (oh the irony!)). I've told you before, I'm not
interested in the silly skeptic myths you keep reciting. I've heard them
before, they've been answered ad nauseum by others. For instance, I'm
sure others have tried to explaining to you that CO2 can act as a
feedback or a forcing and you rejected the explanation (or more likely
don't understand the meaning of the terms in the context of climate
physics) so why should I bother? Come up with something new. Please.
I'm just trying to teach an old dog some new tricks because the ones you
know are depressingly banal.
--
Bill Asher
Andre Jute
> Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:de3821ca-8c45-48aa...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > Oh, I'm neither tired nor scared. You're the one too frightened to
> > attempt to answer these simple, consequential basic questions:
>
> > 1. Why is it bad for the earth to get a little warmer when it is
> > nowhere near as warm as it was for 400 years during the Medieval Warm
> > Period (a worldwide historical, proven, peer reviewed, ineradicable
> > fact of History in every science except climatology)?
>
> > 2. Why is it bad for the earth to recover from the extended freeze of
> > the Little Ice Age (a worldwide historical, proven, peer reviewed,
> > ineradicable fact of History in every science except climatology)
> > when
> > it isn't even as warm as it was before the LIA?
>
> > 3. Why do you claim manmade CO2 is responsible for "global warming"
> > when during the MWP, when there was no manmade CO2, it was so much
> > warmer for 400 years?
>
> > 4. Why do you claim manmade CO2 is responsible for "global warming"
> > when the ice core record shows that temperature rise leads increased
> > CO2 emissions by substantial periods?
Bill Asher doesn't have answers to these simple cause-and-effect
questions, so he resorts to that old Marxist standby, claiming that
the skeptic isn't smart enough to understand the dialectic:
> Andre:
>
> You're not investing enough effort in this to whet my whistle
> intellectually. Your questions all have answers readily found on many
> reputable websites (which you will no doubt discount as being part of a
> grand conspiracy (oh the irony!)). I've told you before, I'm not
> interested in the silly skeptic myths you keep reciting. I've heard them
> before, they've been answered ad nauseum by others. For instance, I'm
> sure others have tried to explaining to you that CO2 can act as a
> feedback or a forcing and you rejected the explanation (or more likely
> don't understand the meaning of the terms in the context of climate
> physics) so why should I bother? Come up with something new. Please.
With Mann's algorithm, even red noise (random data to you, sonny) will
give a Hockey Stick. You're offering us random noise, Asher, and
claiming it is a mystical experience called Global Warming. And tnen,
to top that offense to our intelligence, you demand that we entertain
you! Science isn't about what is new and fashionable, sonny, it is
about what is true, and Global Warming is a Big Lie from start to
finish.
But if you can't answer my simple questions in plain English, fine,
you can't. Just don't ask me to believe you, Asher, and don't ask me
to vote for politicians who want to spend money on the advice of
clowns like you who do not even understand that the basis of science
(as opposed to mystical religions like Global Warming) is cause and
effect.
> I'm just trying to teach an old dog some new tricks because the ones you
> know are depressingly banal.
>
> --
> Bill Asher
Since even an inchoate fool like you feels fit to offer me advice, let
me offer you some: If you really believe in Global Warming faithfully,
don't fuck with people like me. They will only make you feel
inadequate and, worse for your religion, you will be offering them an
opportunity to ridicule the shortcomings of your religion of Global
Warming.
William Asher
<snip>
> Since even an inchoate fool like you feels fit to offer me advice, let
> me offer you some: If you really believe in Global Warming faithfully,
> don't fuck with people like me. They will only make you feel
> inadequate and, worse for your religion, you will be offering them an
> opportunity to ridicule the shortcomings of your religion of Global
> Warming.
Andre:
Good christ you're boring. Look, stop whinging about Mann, it's a red
herring. The US NAS and the Royal Society both agree that the essential
points from Mann et al. (1998) and later publications are correct.
I said it before and I will say it one more time in simple words: you're
questions are dull. They have all been answered before and those answers
are available elsewhere. There is no point in my reproducing those
answers here.
You still haven't addressed the issue of why you feel there isn't a net
1.7 W/m^2 forcing due to anthropogenic CO2 or why this forcing wouldn't
affect climate even though the paleo record indicate that changes in
forcing of a tenth this magnitude caused large shifts in climate.
--
Bill Asher
Andre Jute
> Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:f8b6dba7-7cb1-4416...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Since even an inchoate fool like you feels fit to offer me advice, let
> > me offer you some: If you really believe in Global Warming faithfully,
> > don't fuck with people like me. They will only make you feel
> > inadequate and, worse for your religion, you will be offering them an
> > opportunity to ridicule the shortcomings of your religion of Global
> > Warming.
>
> Andre:
>
> Good christ you're boring.
That's your opinion, Billy-boy. But, translated into plain English,
what everyone else can see is that you don't have answers to my
perfectly sensible questions, and therefore resort to personal
attacks. I repeat, science isn't about what is new and fashionable.
Science is about what you can prove. And you can't prove that CO2
causes temperature rise, you cannot prove that present temperatures
are higher than during the Medieval Warm Period, you cannot prove that
we still haven't recovered from the Little Ice Age. That's not boring:
those proofs are scientific prerequisites to making Global Warming a
science rather than a revealed religion.
>Look, stop whinging about Mann, it's a red
> herring.
Mann is a crook. An entire self-promoting industry of climatologists
failed to discover that he lied. Yet the same self-promoting industry
of climatologists are still asking us to believe in them and, worse,
pushing the same Mann lie in different forms.
Get it through your thick head, Asher, every qualified statistician in
the world knows that the Mann algorithm selects so strongly for a
Hockey Stick that it turns red noise into a Hockey Stick!
The Hockey Stick, still pushed by the IPCC years after it was exposed
as a lie, is still a lie, no matter how often it is shown.
The Hockey Stick lie discredits everything that follows it from the
same people.
But you want us to disregard all that because some mickey mouse
person, claiming to be a "scientist" called William Asher, tells us:
>Look, stop whinging about Mann, it's a red
> herring.
It's not a red herring, it is the key to the fact that there is no
Global Warming, only completely natural ups and downs in the the
temperature record during the recovery from the Little Ice Age to the
temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period, *an entirely beneficial
trend*.
>The US NAS .... agree[s] that the essential
> points from Mann et al. (1998) and later publications are correct.
This is an outright lie. The Wegman Panel condemned Michael Mann
outright for statistical incompetence and for cooking his results by
preselection and weighting. The chairman of the NAS panel, Gerald
North, was spefically asked before the United States Senate (on pain
of perjury) whether he and the NAS committee agreed with the Wegman
findings -- and Dr North repeatedly gave an unqualified yes to the
totality of the Wegman condemnation and every detail (statistical
incompetence, deliberate choice of unsuitable bristlecone proxies
because they favour the desired Hockey Stick, overweighting of the
bristlecone proxies, incestuous review procedures, etc, etc -- enough
to get a corporate executive not just dismissed but tried and jailed
for fraud).
You must be getting your knowledge of what the Wegman (Statistics
subcommittee) and North (NAS) Panels actually decided from the media,
sonny, or else you're just lying again. I went to the originals, and
to the Senate reports.
> I said it before and I will say it one more time in simple words: you're
> questions are dull. They have all been answered before and those answers
> are available elsewhere. There is no point in my reproducing those
> answers here.
I see. No, I don't want you to "reproduce answers" either. I've heard
the catechism. It doesn't persuade me of anything except that P T
Barnum was a genius. I want a convincing explanation from you to
reconcile the very large contradictory lucanua in the faith of Global
Warming to a simple (if over-educated) man like me.
> You still haven't addressed the issue of why you feel
You're the one with who "feels" for Global Warming, Asher. Me, I'll
stick to science and provable facts. I again list some below that you
should still prove before I'll join your church. (Note, even proof of
my question isn't sufficient cause yet to believe in Global Warming.
Those are just the most glaring discrepancies between known fact and
what the IPCC and its attendant "scientists" and hangers-on like you
want us to believe.)
> there isn't a net
> 1.7 W/m^2 forcing due to anthropogenic CO2 or why this forcing wouldn't
> affect climate even though the paleo record indicate that changes in
> forcing of a tenth this magnitude caused large shifts in climate.
Whyever should I want to discuss such details when the ice core
clearly shows that temperature leads CO2 emissions, not the other way
round. This is once more the Marxist self-referential trick of trying
to limit all discussion to the dialectic itself, as if the outcome is
already settled. I once described (probably in The Times) this piece
of flummery as the deperate debating trick of small, frightened men
and you, poor Bill Asher, simply confirm me in that opinion.
> --
> Bill Asher
You're throwing around a lot of scientism, Billy-boy. I wonder whether
you know that scientism is strongly condemned by the Ethics Committee
of the very NAS you're (dishonestly and totally wrongly) holding up to
me as a supporter of Michael Mann's lies.
Andre Jute
Never more brutal than he has to be -- Nelson Mandela
William Asher
<snip>
> This is an outright lie. The Wegman Panel condemned Michael Mann
> outright for statistical incompetence and for cooking his results by
> preselection and weighting. The chairman of the NAS panel, Gerald
> North, was spefically asked before the United States Senate (on pain
> of perjury) whether he and the NAS committee agreed with the Wegman
> findings -- and Dr North repeatedly gave an unqualified yes to the
> totality of the Wegman condemnation and every detail (statistical
> incompetence, deliberate choice of unsuitable bristlecone proxies
> because they favour the desired Hockey Stick, overweighting of the
> bristlecone proxies, incestuous review procedures, etc, etc -- enough
> to get a corporate executive not just dismissed but tried and jailed
> for fraud).
>
As for your reading of the Wegman committee report, Wegman pointedly did
not address the issue of whether the mistakes made in the principle
component compositing of data used by Mann et al. in 1998 made a
difference in the final analysis. As pointed out by someone (van Storch,
I think) during the Barton hearings, the errors make no difference.
Moreover, subsequent proxy temperature records done independently support
the Mann et al. results. Here is North's statement from the Barton
hearing:
http://archives.energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/0719200
6hearing1987/North.pdf
You can read North's statement and point out the parts of it where he
condemns Mann et al. I'm sure if I dug out the transcript I would find
that North agreed that the statistical analysis of Wegman was correct.
But I really doubt he condemned Mann et al. If he believed your
deluisonal rantings it would be in his statement don't you think?
Like I said, people way smarter than you without all of your weird
emotional idiosyncracies have been over all of this. If anything, the
results of Mann et al. are more certain now, not less. Your use of
emotionally charged language suggests you are not dealing with this
information rationally, that somehow you are taking my statements
personally. Remember, I'm not challenging you, just what you think you
believe.
> Whyever should I want to discuss such details when the ice core
> clearly shows that temperature leads CO2 emissions, not the other way
> round. This is once more the Marxist self-referential trick of trying
> to limit all discussion to the dialectic itself, as if the outcome is
> already settled. I once described (probably in The Times) this piece
> of flummery as the deperate debating trick of small, frightened men
> and you, poor Bill Asher, simply confirm me in that opinion.
Because that two-part question is central to a reasoned approach to being
a climate skeptic. So central that even skeptics such as Lindzen and
Christy don't dispute the forcing from CO2, or that it could have an
effect. I think those two understand the physics far better than you,
and their scientific evaluation has shifted of the past 25 years from
"CO2 cannot possibly have an effect" (i.e., your position) to "the effect
of CO2 will be small." Why exactly should anyone believe you when you
say it isn't possible for CO2 to have an effect over the opinions of a
professor of atmospheric science holding a chaired position at one of the
top two or three scientific institutions in the world? I mean, by your
own admission, you're not a climate scientist.
--
Bill Asher
Andre Jute
> Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:3f18de2b-2831-4fc9...@i4g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
>
> <snip>
> > This is an outright lie. The Wegman Panel condemned Michael Mann
> > outright for statistical incompetence and for cooking his results by
> > preselection and weighting. The chairman of the NAS panel, Gerald
> > North, was spefically asked before the United States Senate (on pain
> > of perjury) whether he and the NAS committee agreed with the Wegman
> > findings -- and Dr North repeatedly gave an unqualified yes to the
> > totality of the Wegman condemnation and every detail (statistical
> > incompetence, deliberate choice of unsuitable bristlecone proxies
> > because they favour the desired Hockey Stick, overweighting of the
> > bristlecone proxies, incestuous review procedures, etc, etc -- enough
> > to get a corporate executive not just dismissed but tried and jailed
> > for fraud).
> >
>
> As for your reading of the Wegman committee report, Wegman pointedly did
> not address the issue of whether the mistakes made in the principle
> component compositing of data used by Mann et al. in 1998 made a
> difference in the final analysis.
Either William Asher cannot read plain English, or he is deliberately
telling an outright lie. Wegman says plainly, twice in the executive
summary alone, that the Mann algorithm is cooked to produce the
desired outcome of a hockey stick. I'll let a single example stand for
the whole condemnation by the nation's top statisticians of the whole
of Mann's report:
'The controversy of Mann’s methods lies in that the proxies are
centered on the mean of the period 1902-1995, rather than on the whole
time period. This mean is, thus, actually decentered low, which will
cause it to exhibit a larger variance, giving it preference for being
selected as the first principal component. The net effect of this
decentering using the proxy data in MBH98 and MBH99 is to produce a
“hockey stick” shape.' Asher denies that Dr Wegman said Mann's method
made a difference to Mann's result. I show everyone Dr Wegman's own
words where he plainly says that Mann's method not only made a
difference to the result but created a spurious (but politically
desirable) result. Conclusion: Bill Asher is a liar.
In case you still think that Dr Wegman and his Panel didn't condemn
Mann's paper in toto, the last sentence of the executive summary
reads:
'Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the
decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that
1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his
analysis.'
>As pointed out by someone (van Storch,
> I think) during the Barton hearings, the errors make no difference.
Christ, this isn't science, this is blind faith! As Dr Wegman said on
the Senate record when he heard this complete crap:
'I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn't matter
because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer
Correct = Bad Science.'
Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.
You want to argue with that conclusion Asher? Or any other Global
Warmie on RBT who pretends to be a scientist? Mike?
> Moreover, subsequent proxy temperature records done independently support
> the Mann et al. results.
They used the same proxies and the same crooked algorithm. Same
problems (wrong proxies, wrong weighting, incompetent statistics
giving totally insignificant results). Same answer: that algorithm is
so incompetent (whether by design or accident is neither here nor
there) that it produces hockey sticks from perfectly random red
noise! In addition the answer does not match the obvious control of
the interdisciplinary historical record.
>Here is North's statement from the Barton
> hearing:
>
> http://archives.energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/0719200
> 6hearing1987/North.pdf
>
> http://tinyurl.com/nntjda
>
> You can read North's statement and point out the parts of it where he
> condemns Mann et al. I'm sure if I dug out the transcript I would find
> that North agreed that the statistical analysis of Wegman was correct.
> But I really doubt he condemned Mann et al.
Really? I have just shown you that Wegman condemned Mann and his
associates as the worst sort of fools who shouldn't be let into
science, who can get simple statistics grossly wrong. Now I'll show
you each member of the North Panel explicitly, on oath, agreeing with
Wegman:
***
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions [about the
Mann papers] or the methodology of Dr. Wegman's report?
DR. NORTH. No, we don't. We don't disagree with their
criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our
report.
DR. BLOOMFIELD. Our committee reviewed the
methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we
felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate.
We had much the same misgivings about his work that was
documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.
WALLACE: The two reports were complementary, and to
the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite
consistent.
***
Wegman totally condemned Mann, then the North Panel when asked
individually under oath totally agreed with Wegman. Conclusion: the
North Panel too found Mann incompetent.
>If he believed your
> deluisonal rantings it would be in his statement don't you think?
I've just shown you the statement Dr North made to this specific point
to a committtee of the United States Senate. Under oath. Do you want
to call Dr Gerald North a liar, Asher? (By now we expect every lunacy
from you, just as Tom Kunich predicts, so why not claim the entire NAS
is a conspiracy of Global Warming Deniers? You have nothing left to
lose.)
> Like I said, people way smarter than you without all of your weird
> emotional idiosyncracies have been over all of this.
Oh, I'm happy to permit Drs Wegman and North to be smarter than I am.
I'd like to point out though that I have the small honour of having
condemned Mann's paper on appearance and for all the correct reasons
(statistical crookery) years before they came on the scene. I don't
see how being in accord with the leader of the statisticians in the
free world, and the leader of the scientists in the US on top of that,
is an "emotional idiosyncracy" except perhaps in Marxist Russia.
>If anything, the
> results of Mann et al. are more certain now, not less.
Once more the spurious consensus of the Marxists. This is the point
(the Senate hearings of 2005 when Mann was effectively disowned by all
science outside climatology) where Global Warming turns from a fringe
science wasting a lot of our money to a blind faith among the greedy,
the converted and the stupid.
>Your use of
> emotionally charged language suggests you are not dealing with this
> information rationally,
Really? We've exchanged a dozen messages, Billy-boy, and you have yet
to score a single point. I've won not just every round, I've won every
point, the ones in this particular exchange devastingly. And that's
before we even start to consider that, if you're a scientist as you
claim, you must be lying about these facts. And without considering
your actual lies just in this exchange, which I've demonstrated above.
>that somehow you are taking my statements
> personally.
Eh? Your abuse is dull, sonny. In a week or so I'll be referring to
you as "that Global Warming clown, whatisname", and asking people to
remind me of your name.
>Remember, I'm not challenging you, just what you think you
> believe.
I don't believe anything until I see incontrovertible proof, sonny,
and you haven't offered me a shred of proof that Global Warming is
even possible, never mind that it is likely, and as it for it already
happening, that's a horselaugh.
> > Whyever should I want to discuss such details when the ice core
> > clearly shows that temperature leads CO2 emissions, not the other way
> > round. This is once more the Marxist self-referential trick of trying
> > to limit all discussion to the dialectic itself, as if the outcome is
> > already settled. I once described (probably in The Times) this piece
> > of flummery as the deperate debating trick of small, frightened men
> > and you, poor Bill Asher, simply confirm me in that opinion.
>
> Because that two-part question is central to a reasoned approach to being
> a climate skeptic. So central that even skeptics such as Lindzen and
> Christy don't dispute the forcing from CO2, or that it could have an
> effect.
Anything could have an effect. The problem with quarterwits like you,
Asher, is that you take Chaos Theory literally. That's your free
choice, of course, but when such idiots as Mann start influencing
expensive policy, people like me who have more brains and statistical
skill than that poor fool sit up and take notice -- and take out our
slide rules.
> and their scientific evaluation has shifted of the past 25 years from
> "CO2 cannot possibly have an effect" (i.e., your position)
That's a lie. I never said "CO2 cannot possibly have an effect".
>to "the effect
> of CO2 will be small." Why exactly should anyone believe you when you
> say it isn't possible for CO2 to have an effect over the opinions of a
> professor of atmospheric science holding a chaired position at one of the
> top two or three scientific institutions in the world?
Since I didn't say "CO2 cannot possibly have an effect", I don't need
to answer this silly question. When Lindzen and Christy start
believing Global Warming is *likely*, come back and offer me the same
evidence which changed their minds.
>I mean, by your
> own admission, you're not a climate scientist.
What I overlooked telling you while you dug a grave for yourself and
your unfounded faith in Global Warming, Billy-boy, is that I'm a
statistician. Since the crime against science committed by Mann and
his followers, and the IPCC, is statistical, that'll do me just fine.
I did warn you, Asher. You're a kindergarten polemicist and what's
more, you're too slack (or ignorant) to do your homework. Like the
fashion victims among the roadies here, you're a Global Warming
fashion victim, Gore-fodder, lower than which no one with a college
degree can possibly sink.
Andre Jute
"Loonies like Asher will continue to shout 'Global Warming' until
they suddenly start shouting 'Global Cooling' as if they'd done that
from the beginning." -- Tom Kunich
Pat
consensus "religion." I've heard that before from poorly educated people
when they talk about evolution. If they can't argue cogently, they just call
the other side "religious." That seems to do it for them.
Pat in TX
William Asher
<snip>
Ok, now I know you're just making stuff up. The transcript of those
hearing isn't available.
http://archives.energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/0719200
6hearing1987/hearing.htm
So how you get the detailed quotes, except through misquotation from
dubious sources, is a mystery. I have no doubt that if they are
accurate, when put in context, they are not so negative, and that North
didn't say any such thing (for if he had, it would be in the NAS report,
or there would be rebuttals of the NAS report from him all over the web).
Certainly the text of the Wegman et al. testimony is not nearly so
inflammatory. See here:
http://archives.energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/0719200
6hearing1987/Wegman.pdf
and von Storch's testimony points out that although there are errors in
the PC analysis, they don't make a difference to the conclusions:
http://archives.energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/0719200
6hearing1987/Storch.pdf
You're politically inclined, but I haven't seen anything from you that
would indicate a true statistical background. You don't get all into the
gobbldy-gook like McKittrick and McIntyre do, so I wonder about your
claims. The bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that you can
provide no solid evidence that the conclusions of the NAS report are
wrong. Further, I don't find you a credible source in this area,
especially after reading the published testimonies from the hearing in
2006 and how they are at odds with your claims.
But I'm trying to talk physics with you. I am glad you agree with
Lindzen and Christy that CO2 provides a radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m^2 at
the equator. That reduces the parameter space of the discussion. So if
changes in solar forcing of a few tenths of a watt per meter squared can
cause the planet to heat or cool, why would the anthropogenic CO2 forcing
have no effect? Is there something special about the CO2 forcing that
makes it less effective than the solar forcing? Skeptics like you need
to address those sorts of questions. You don't because you don't even
understand the relevance. Which is amusing.
It just seems weird to me that if you're so smart, you can't be bothered
to think about physical mechanisms.
--
Bill Asher
William Asher
news:7dc13nF...@mid.individual.net:
He's a hoot, don't spoil my fun.
--
Bill Asher
mike
@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, fiul...@yahoo.com says...
> On Jul 29, 2:47 am, mike <m....@irl.cri.replacethiswithnz> wrote:
> > In article <5bb22272-81fe-4cc6-af66-228b8adfa4d7
> > @a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, fiult...@yahoo.com says...
> >
>
> Goodie. Here we have Mike, who claims to be a scientist. So, Mike,
> scientist who believes in Global Warming, please explain to us:
Actually, I don't think I claimed to be a scientist - although it
shouldn't be too hard for a man of your resourcefulness to find out if I
am.
>
> 1. Why is it bad for the earth to get a little warmer when it is
> nowhere near as warm as it was for 400 years during the Medieval Warm
> Period (a worldwide historical, proven, peer reviewed, ineradicable
> fact of History in every science except climatology)?
>
> 2. Why is it bad for the earth to recover from the extended freeze of
> the Little Ice Age (a worldwide historical, proven, peer reviewed,
> ineradicable fact of History in every science except climatology) when
> it isn't even as warm as it was before the LIA?
>
> 3. Why do you claim manmade CO2 is responsible for "global warming"
> when during the MWP, when there was no manmade CO2, it was so much
> warmer for 400 years?
>
> 4. Why do you claim manmade CO2 is responsible for "global warming"
> when the ice core record shows that temperature rise leads increased
> CO2 emissions by substantial periods?
>
Your questions appear to rely on a number of unproven hypotheses:
1) that the earth was globally warmer than now during the period (~800-
1300).
2) that the earth was globally colder during the period (~1600-1900).
3) that any sensible authority claims that all global temperature
variation is due to man-made CO2.
4) that ice-core records disprove the hypothesis that CO2 is a green-
house gas.
Regarding your points 1) and 2). I will limit my refutation to your
assumptions regarding the MWP and LIA to the set of references shown at
the bottom of the post. With regards to your question as to why is it
bad for the earth to get a little warmer, you appear to want butter on
both sides of the bread. Is your argument on GW a) it doesnt exist b) we
aren't causing it, or c) if it is happening then that's OK 'cos then the
weather will be nicer. If a) or b) then see my comments and references
below, if c) you might want to consider the natural, economic, and
social effects of climate change including, sea-level rise, species
extinction, significant change (obviously not alway beneficial) in the
length of growing season etc.
For 3), it is obvious to any meteorologist or paleoclimatologist (or to
anyone who has a clue) that there are a number of influences on global
and local climate (both short and long-term). To name just a few: cyclic
ocean temperatures (eg. el Nino and la Nina, the North Atlantic
Oscillation); volcanism (e.g Pinatubo, Tambora, Taupo); Milancovitch
cycles and (probably) sun-spot cycles, positive feed-back features (e.g.
albedo, thermohaline circulation); plate tectonics (although obviously
only very long term) and green-house gases (eg. methane, CO2).
So it is silly to identify a single climate event and then claim (as you
appear to) that "as that was not due to CO2, then no other climate
change event could be due to CO2". What we do know however, is that:
a) atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising at ~0.5% per year.
b) atmospheric CO2 concentration is higher now than any time in the past
500,000 years.
c) the physics and chemistry of CO2 determines that it will act as a
green-house gas - i.e. it will decrease the flux of UV re-radiated out
of the atmosphere (in effect it reduces the earth's albedo over a
significant spectral range).
d) stete-of-the-art climate and atmosphere models invariably confirm
that existing levels of CO2 are sufficient to cause an appreciable rise
in global temperature.
e) beyond a certain point there will be a positive feed-back in Temp-CO2
relationship as environmentally stored CO2 will be released as
temperatures rise.
I won't provide specific references for these claims, but you can find
many hundreds of then pretty easily - for example at:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bib.htm#2224
For 4), once again you pull out a red-herring. Firstly, only some ice
records (and some climate events) show a lag in CO2 v. temperature,
others show near simultaneity, or even a short lead in CO2. It is
technically very difficult to produce reliable data for both temperature
and CO2. Secondly, of course most historic climate change events are not
due to increasing CO2 - after all there was no technical civilisation
around to burn stuff during the major ice ages. what there is evidence
of though, is that CO2 (like many other temperature-influenced
properties) can act as an amplifier to climate change due to other
events. Thirdly, if you limit ice analysis to the last thousand years,
then you do see a significant correlation between CO2 lewvels and
temperature, and _this_ time the CO2 is leading the temperature change.
> And that is what you consider a scientific argument to my many factual
> points? I notice you conceded, by going over to personal attack, that
> all your counter-points were false because I had good answers to them.
>
You didn't provide any factual points in the post to which I originally
replied (and still haven't) and my reply was only personal to the extent
that it pointed out the irrelevance of your argument to the global-
warming debate. What you did do was post a little undergraduate-level
essay that claimed global-warming was a fraud because, in your opinion
(un-referenced and unsupported by any actual evidence), Marx was a bad
writer who may (or may not) . At the very best it was an opinion-piece.
For your homework, you might want to find just 3 or 4 peer-reviewed
papers by climatologists (not retired Rear Admirals, economists, or
politicians) that refute the existance or effects of climate change.
--Mike
1,2) Evidence suggesting MWP was a local event and/or not as warm as now
and/or that the LIA was a local event.
Thompson, L.G., Mosley-Thompson, E., Davis, M.E., Lin, P.-N., Henderson,
K. and Mashiotta, T.A. 2003. Tropical glacier and ice core evidence of
climate change on annual to millennial time scales. Climatic Change 59:
137-155.
Briffa, K.R., P.D. Jones, F.H. Schweingruber and T.J. Osborn,
"Influence of volcanic eruptions on northern hemisphere summer
temperature over the past 600 years." Nature, Volume 393, pp. 450-455.
1998.
Huang, S.. "Merging Information from Different Resources for New
Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future." Geophys. Res,
Lett. 31, L13205, doi:10.1029/2004GL019781, 2004.
Mann, M.E., R.S. Bradley and M.K. Hughes, "Northern hemisphere
temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties and
limitations." Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 26, pp. 759-762. 1999.
Hemer, M.A. and Harris, P.T. 2003. Sediment core from beneath the Amery
Ice Shelf, East Antarctica, suggests mid-Holocene ice-shelf retreat.
Geology 31: 127-130.
Hall, B.L., Hoelzel, A.R., Baroni, C., Denton, G.H., Le Boeuf, B.J.,
Overturf, B. and Topf, A.L. 2006. Holocene elephant seal distribution
implies warmer-than-present climate in the Ross Sea. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences USA 103: 10,213-10,217.
Lorrey, A., Williams, P., Salinger, J., Martin, T., Palmer, J., Fowler,
A., Zhao, J.-X. and Neil, H. 2008. Speleothem stable isotope records
interpreted within a multi-proxy framework and implications for New
Zealand palaeoclimate reconstruction. Quaternary International 187: 52-
75.
3) Evidence showing short and long term trends in CO2 concentration, and
that CO2 is a green-house gas and that climate models predict warming.
Sun, S., and R. Bleck, 2001: Atlantic thermohaline circulation and
its response to increasing CO2 in a coupled atmosphere?ocean
model. Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 4223?4226.
Etheridge, D.M., Steele, L.P., Langenfelds, R.L., Francey, R.J.,
Barnola, J.-M. and Morgan, V.I. (1998). Historical CO2 records from the
Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores. In Trends: A Compendium of
Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge
Kirk W. Thoning, Pieter P. Tans, Walter D. Komhyr, Atmospheric carbon
dioxide at Mauna Loa Observatory: 2. Analysis of the NOAA GMCC data
1974-1985, Journal of Geophysical Research, vol.94, 8549-8565 (20 June
1989).
C. Zhao, P. Tans, and K. Thoning, A high precision manometric system for
absolute calibration of CO2 in dry air, Journal of Geophysical Research,
102, 5885-5894, 1997.
Severinghaus, Jeffrey P. (2009). "Southern See-Saw Seen." Nature 457:
1093-94.
McManus, Jerry F., et al. (1999). "A 0.5-Million-Year Record of
Millennial-Scale Climate Variability in the North Atlantic." Science
283: 971-75
Boyle, E.A. (1988). "Vertical Oceanic Nutrient Fractionation and
Glacial/Interglacial CO2 Cycles." Nature 331: 55-56.
Shackleton, Nicholas J., and N.G. Pisias (1985). "Atmospheric Carbon
Dioxide, Orbital Forcing and Climate." In The Carbon Cycle and
Atmospheric CO2: Natural Variations Archean to Present (Geophysical
Monograph 32), edited by E. T. Sundquist and Wallace S. Broecker, pp.
303-17. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union.
National Research Council, CO2/Climate Review Panel (1982). "Carbon
Dioxide and Climate: A Second Assessment." Washington, DC, National
Academy of Sciences
Shapley, Harlow, Ed. (1953). Climatic Change. Evidence, Causes, and
Effects. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Shaw, Glenn E. (1976). "Properties of the Background Global Aerosol and
Their Effects on Climate." Science 192: 1334-36.
Bader D.C., C. Covey, W.J. Gutowski Jr., I.M. Held, K.E. Kunkel, R.L.
Miller, R.T. Tokmakian and M.H. Zhang (Authors) Climate Models: An
Assessment of Strengths and Limitations A Report by the U.S. Climate
Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [.
Department of Energy, Office of Biological and Environmental Research,
Washington, D.C., USA,
...and many thousands more.
Andre Jute
> "Pat" <newint...@home.com> wrote innews:7dc13nF...@mid.individual.net:
>
> > I knew he was delusional and arguing from emotion when he called
> > scientific consensus "religion." I've heard that before from poorly
> > educated people when they talk about evolution. If they can't argue
> > cogently, they just call the other side "religious." �That seems to do
> > it for them.
By god, I did the right thing when I put this moron from Texas in my
killfile so as not to waste further time on his vapid witterings.
>
> He's a hoot, don't spoil my fun.
If you were a scientist, as you claim, Asher, you would love truth so
much that you would correct this idiot to point out that the educated
are particularly prone to skepticism and, conversely, the uneducated
make up most of the ranks of all religions, including the Church of
Global Warming whose Fat Boy is Al Gore.
> --
> Bill Asher
Unsigned out of contempt
William Asher
<snip>
Ok, I found the transcript from the Barton hearings. It's available
here:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109
_house_hearings&docid=f:31362.wais
If you read through the actual exchanges, North goes to great lengths to
explain to Barton that while Wegman is correct there are statistical
errors in the Mann et al. papers, North and the NAS panel support the
conclusions from those papers because the statistical errors don't make a
difference. This is pointed out more clearly by von Storch. Also,
reading the transcript shows you are quoting parts out of order to make
it look like North disagrees with the Mann results.
Get off Mann et al. It's a losing argument.
--
Bill Asher
William Asher
> If you were a scientist, as you claim, Asher, you would love truth so
> much that you would correct this idiot to point out that the educated
> are particularly prone to skepticism and, conversely, the uneducated
> make up most of the ranks of all religions, including the Church of
> Global Warming whose Fat Boy is Al Gore.
Andre:
You're the only one who has claimed to be anything (a statistician). If
you think I am a scientist that is on you, since I've never made that
claim. I've only said I want you to focus on physics, because that is
where I feel skeptics need to pay attention. They (you) are losing the
debate on the science, and I mean just getting pasted, so that the
skeptic experts are now water dowsers and geographers.
Anyway, why is it that skeptics would rather insult Al Gore than discuss
the physics? I've wondered about that too.
--
Bill Asher
mike
e76d74...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, fiul...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
> >Why precisely would a net radiative forcing of around 1.7 W/m^2
> > without invoking bizarre physics, you're just another boring libertarian
> > can argue that CO2 doesn't provide a radiative forcing, or you can argue
> > that there is some mechanism by which the forcing from CO2 is directly
>
> You're arse about end, Asher. You still have to prove that CO2
> emissions lead tempetature rise. It hasn't been so historically, it
> isn't so now, you can't prove it, therefore there is no dangerous
> manmade Global Warming, only natural, unforced global warming as
> there has been through history.
>
side-walk looking up at the anvil falling towards him.
Passer-by : Look out Andre, its going to hit you!
Andre : I've never been hit by an anvil before - how can you prove that
it will hurt me?
Passer-by : For god's sake - it weight 80 kilograms and it is falling
straight at you!
Andre : Last week a feather fell on my head - that didn't hurt me. And I
have also seen anvils before - they usually just sit in a staionary
manner in a black-smith's shop. Gan you prove that this one will
continue to fall?
Passer-by : Please - just listen to reason!
Andre : And if it does fall I will be protected by my ridiculous cloth
cycling cap. Just prove it won't - and I wouldn't believe a fairy
Marxist like you anyway.
Passer-by : Run, you fool!
Andre : ...Me - run?, It is you who is the foo...
Cut - fade to black.
--Mike
mike
2g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, fiul...@yahoo.com says...
> On Jul 29, 6:00 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:de3821ca-8c45-48aa...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > > 4. Why do you claim manmade CO2 is responsible for "global warming"
> > > when the ice core record shows that temperature rise leads increased
> > > CO2 emissions by substantial periods?
>
> > sure others have tried to explaining to you that CO2 can act as a
> > feedback or a forcing and you rejected the explanation (or more likely
> > don't understand the meaning of the terms in the context of climate
> > physics) so why should I bother? Come up with something new.
>
So Andre asks a question, Bill provides an answer ... and Andre doesn't
notice.
--Mike
Andre Jute
> Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:3311a1a6-3f20-46ca...@d36g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
>
> <snip>
When Asher doesn't like the truth about Global Warming and its
proponents, he snips it and calls the messenger a liar.
>
> Ok, now I know you're just making stuff up. The transcript of those
> hearing isn't available.
Asher, while at first accepting that Wegman condemned Mann and his
associates as the worst sort of fools who shouldn't be let into
science, who can get simple statistics grossly wrong, claimed that the
NAS Panel supported Mann. This is another lie from Asher as this
exchange proves, in which Senator Barton asks each member of the NAS
Panel specifically if, under oath, they disagree with the Wegman
Panel's indictment of Mann's incompetence. Each one in turn says the
NAS Report agrees with the Wegman Report:
***
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions [about the
Mann papers] or the methodology of Dr. Wegman's report?
DR. NORTH. No, we don't. We don't disagree with their
criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our
report.
DR. BLOOMFIELD. Our committee reviewed the
methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we
felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate.
We had much the same misgivings about his work that was
documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.
WALLACE: The two reports were complementary, and to
the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite
consistent.
***
Wegman totally condemned Mann, then the NAS Panel when asked
individually under oath totally agreed with Wegman. Conclusion: the
NAS Panel too found Mann incompetent.
****
There are no fewer than 1530 references to these exchanges on Google,
but Asher very conveniently cannot find them!
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=%22Dr.+North,+do+you+dispute+the+conclusions+or+the+methodology+of+Dr.+Wegman’s+report%3F%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
> So how you get the detailed quotes, except through misquotation from
> dubious sources, is a mystery.
From the US government, sonny.
And then, just in case I'm not as cach-thumbed as he is, Asher in
advance declares my source "dubious" -- did I say "Marxist methods"
yet? Yo, Asher, you poor tenth-rate polemicist, I wish you luck
proving 1530 different sources to be liars.
> I have no doubt that if they are
> accurate,
Oh, those are accurate quotes. You can check them in 1530 other
places.
>when put in context, they are not so negative,
Oh dear, this is a despicable waste of time. Anyone can read the two
reports and see for themselves that they agree on all major points.
You got your information from the media, Asher; you're clearly lying
about having read the reports, or you have a rotten memory.
>and that North
> didn't say any such thing (for if he had, it would be in the NAS report,
He did and it is. Read the bloody reports, idiot.
> or there would be rebuttals of the NAS report from him all over the web).
Bizarre and grotesque wrigglings to get out of an inconvenient truth
(heh-heh!).
> Certainly the text of the Wegman et al. testimony is not nearly so
> inflammatory. See here:
http://archives.energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/071...
> 6hearing1987/Wegman.pdf
Nothing there.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/kwbfsb
An empty PDF here. Never mind, I have my own copies of both the Wegman
Report and the NAS Report from Dr North. My quotes are from the
executive summary of Wegman and are as totally condemnatory of Mann as
they sound.
Wegman says plainly, twice in the executive
summary alone, that the Mann algorithm is cooked to produce the
desired outcome of a hockey stick. I'll let a single example stand
for
the whole condemnation by the nation's top statistician of the whole
of Mann's report:
'The controversy of Mann’s methods lies in that the proxies are
centered on the mean of the period 1902-1995, rather than on the
whole
time period. This mean is, thus, actually decentered low, which will
cause it to exhibit a larger variance, giving it preference for being
selected as the first principal component. The net effect of this
decentering using the proxy data in MBH98 and MBH99 is to produce a
“hockey stick” shape.'
In case you still think that Dr Wegman and his Panel didn't condemn
Mann's paper in toto, the last sentence of the executive summary
reads:
'Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the
decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that
1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by
his
analysis.'
I've already shown above that every member of the NAS Panel
individually, on oath, agreed with the Wegman Report.
> and von Storch's testimony points out that although there are errors in
> the PC analysis, they don't make a difference to the conclusions:
Is this your idea of a joke, Asher? If red noise gives the same result
as proxy data in Mann's algorithm, of course errors make no difference
to the outcome. The result is wrong because the method is wrong. It is
bad science. Nothing can put it right except starting from scratch
with less compromised personnel -- I doubt you'll find uncompromised
personnel who'll want to work with IPCC after the Mann Scandal.
Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science
-- Edward Wegman, statistician
>
> You're politically inclined, but I haven't seen anything from you that
> would indicate a true statistical background. You don't get all into the
> gobbldy-gook like McKittrick and McIntyre do, so I wonder about your
> claims.
More Marxist methodology: when you've lost the argument conclusively,
attack the critic personally, doubt his integrity, his credentials,
his sanity, his sobriety, his wife's bra size, the name of his dog,
his own name.
> The bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that you can
> provide no solid evidence that the conclusions of the NAS report are
> wrong.
I'll take this desparate weasel up in a separate post because this one
is too long and I want everyone to have a chance to see another myth
propounded by the Global Warmies thoroughly debunked.
>Further, I don't find you a credible source in this area,
> especially after reading the published testimonies from the hearing in
> 2006 and how they are at odds with your claims.
That's right, Asher, if you can't win the argument, stick your head in
the sand and deny reality. That is why I say you Global Warmies aren't
scientists, you're religious freaks of a Revealed "Truth". And I'm
pretty certain you didn't read the actual Wegman and North reports or
you would know how devastating they are for Mann; you read the
misreporting in the press or, worse, got your facts from television.
But that's about what we expect from you by now; you aren't a
scientist's arsehole, Asher.
> But I'm trying to talk physics with you.
You think that after this childish display of willful ignorance I'll
ever take your word for a single fact in physics? If you do, you're
seriously deluding yourself.
> I am glad you agree with
> Lindzen and Christy that CO2 provides a radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m^2 at
> the equator.
That's another deliberate lie. I agreed to no such thing. I see no
reason even to consider the possibility until the climatologists can
prove that global warming is relevant to anything except more food
grown on the same acreage, and new acreage coming into use.
> It just seems weird to me that if you're so smart, you can't be bothered
> to think about physical mechanisms.
You really are a boring, useless little man, Bill Asher. I've spent
hours on you and you've told me not a single fact I haven't heard
before.
> --
> Bill Asher
William Asher
> On 29 Jul 2009 22:46:46 GMT, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Is there something special about the CO2 forcing that
>>makes it less effective than the solar forcing? Skeptics like you need
>>to address those sorts of questions. You don't because you don't even
>>understand the relevance. Which is amusing.
>
> He's just re-posting nonsense that he's read at the anti-GW sites.
> Note his continual focus on the MWP. He doesn't "understand" anything.
Thank you, I know that, I even found the site he cut and pasted the bit
about the Barton hearings. He doesn't have an original thought in his
body on this subject.
--
Bill Asher
William Asher
> NAS Report agrees with the Wegman Report:
> ***
> CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions [about the
> Mann papers] or the methodology of Dr. Wegman's report?
> DR. NORTH. No, we don't. We don't disagree with their
> criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our
> report.
> DR. BLOOMFIELD. Our committee reviewed the
> methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we
> felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate.
> We had much the same misgivings about his work that was
> documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.
> WALLACE: The two reports were complementary, and to
> the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite
> consistent.
> ***
> Wegman totally condemned Mann, then the NAS Panel when asked
> individually under oath totally agreed with Wegman. Conclusion: the
> NAS Panel too found Mann incompetent.
> ****
This analysis, lifted from a right-wing newspaper, ignores the many
comments from North and others saying how the main conclusions of Mann et
al. have been verified, and were not erroneous. The warming in the last
half of the 20th century was anomolous by historical standards. That is
in the executive summary of the NAS report, in North's written testimony,
in Karl's written testimony. Furthermore, von Storch points out that the
analysis method doesn't matter, you get the "hockey stick" even if you
just average the datasets. Wegman only comment on the statistical
analysis, not the overall conclusions. But it seems like you are
incapable of really reading the testimonies objectively. Everyone agrees
Mann et al. got some of the statistical details wrong, but what skeptics
like you cannot understand or accept is that it makes no difference to
the conclusions. Here is a figure you will readily ignore, but maybe
others would like to see:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/WA_RC_Figure1.jpg
with the underlying data for that figure available here:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/CODES_MBH.html
This shows the Mann et al. data from the late 90's analyzed as per Wegman
(actually McKittrick and McIntyre) and as done by Mann et al. It makes
no difference, which is what North, Karl, von Storch all pointed out in
their testimony. So you are arguing nonsense and your objections are a
form of denial. You don't want Mann et al. to be true so no amount of
logic or data I present will convince you.
>> I am glad you agree with
>> Lindzen and Christy that CO2 provides a radiative forcing of 3.7
>> W/m^2 at the equator. �
>
> That's another deliberate lie. I agreed to no such thing. I see no
> reason even to consider the possibility until the climatologists can
> prove that global warming is relevant to anything except more food
> grown on the same acreage, and new acreage coming into use.
>
So now you are saying Lindzen is wrong. Got it. You *do* think you know
more than Lindzen. So, perhaps you could point out precisely where the
physics are wrong so that a guy like Lindzen would make such a cardinal
mistake?
I submit that you, like all skeptics, really don't know what you believe.
You claim it's all a lie, but you can't really show where it's a lie, so
you say it's all a conspiracy, except that is so ludicrous a proposition
that it makes you sound insane. You won't/can't discuss the physics,
because you can't point out what could possibly be wrong. I don't say
that as an insult, merely an explanation of your position.
--
Bill Asher
Andre Jute
> In article <f8b6dba7-7cb1-4416-9d47-b43ead7eae3a@
Oh, I've seen that. It isn't an answer, it is reference to a
particularly unreliable and tendentious computer model built by the
same people whose judgement and honesty I'm calling into question.
It's a Chinese Doll answer: CO2 breeds itself, see, but you're just to
ignorant to see the dollie within the dollie within the dollie. Show
me a provable example, not a computer model, not idle speculation. As
long as you boys think you can patronize me, you will get absolutely
nowhere. -- Andre Jute
Andre Jute
> Still Just Me - <stillnoEmail...@stillnodomain.com> wrote innews:8aq1755n6dea244ka...@4ax.com:
I don't need any original thoughts on this subject. You're the one
trying to persuade me that Global Warming is real. You're the one who
needs original thoughts and instead has merely references to
authorities that I already know are dishonest or incompetent or
condemned by disgraceful behaviour, like North knowing that Mann was
flawed and then giving him even the limp free pass of not saying
outright that his entire Hockey Stick is rotten.
mike
@d4g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, fiul...@yahoo.com says...
> On Jul 30, 1:18 am, mike <m....@irl.cri.replacethiswithnz> wrote:
> > In article <f8b6dba7-7cb1-4416-9d47-b43ead7eae3a@
> > 2g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, fiult...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> > > On Jul 29, 6:00 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:de3821ca-8c45-48aa...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > > > > 4. Why do you claim manmade CO2 is responsible for "global warming"
> > > > > when the ice core record shows that temperature rise leads increased
> > > > > CO2 emissions by substantial periods?
> >
> > > > [snip] I'm
> > > > sure others have tried to explaining to you that CO2 can act as a
> > > > feedback or a forcing and you rejected the explanation (or more likely
> > > > don't understand the meaning of the terms in the context of climate
> > > > physics) so why should I bother? Come up with something new.
> >
> > > But if you can't answer my simple questions in plain English, fine,
> > > you can't. [snip]
> >
> > So Andre asks a question, Bill provides an answer ... and Andre doesn't
> > notice.
> >
> particularly unreliable and tendentious computer model built by the
> same people whose judgement and honesty I'm calling into question.
I don't know where you get this from. Bill's comment was simply that CO2
can increase as a result of enironmental temperature rise (which is
called feedback), or can cause an environmental temperature rise (this
is called forcing). There was no mention of a computer model - it is
basic physics and not difficult to understand.
I really doubt that anybody is unable to grasp this arguement, whether
you agree or disagree with it. It is no more difficult to understand
than th efact that a mechanical defect can be either the cause or the
result of a vehicle accident.
I also note that you haven't commented on the references I posted at
your request earlier. I have reached the point where I believe I have
wasted enough of my time and everyone else's bandwidth on this subject
and, as it all appears to be a case of horses and water. This will be my
last post on the subject - I would far rather discuss cycling here.
--Mike
Andre Jute
> Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:6886a52a-87b8-4223...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > NAS Report agrees with the Wegman Report:
> > ***
> > CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions [about the
> > Mann papers] or the methodology of Dr. Wegman's report?
> > DR. NORTH. No, we don't. We don't disagree with their
> > criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our
> > report.
> > DR. BLOOMFIELD. Our committee reviewed the
> > methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we
> > felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate.
> > We had much the same misgivings about his work that was
> > documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.
> > WALLACE: The two reports were complementary, and to
> > the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite
> > consistent.
> > ***
> > Wegman totally condemned Mann, then the NAS Panel when asked
> > individually under oath totally agreed with Wegman. Conclusion: the
> > NAS Panel too found Mann incompetent.
> > ****
>
> This analysis, lifted from a right-wing newspaper,
This is a lie. Typical Marxist Method, once again, claiming a critic
is associated with one's enemies.
>ignores the many
> comments from North ...saying how the main conclusions of Mann et
> al. have been verified, and were not erroneous.
This is a lie. North merely said that other data he was aware of
tended to support Mann's claim that the 1990's were the hottest
decade. He said nothing as strong as "verified" or "not erroneous".
You're lying, Asher. Here is what North actually said:
Gerald North, National Academy of Scienca Panel on Mann:
"The committee finds it plausible that the northern hemisphere was
warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any
comparable period over the preceding millennium."
He goes on to define plausible:
"Our working definition of 'plausible' was that the assertion is
reasonable, or in other words there is not a convincing argument to
refute the assertion. We used this term to describe our assessment of
the statement that 'the last few decades of the 20th century were
warmer than any comparable period over the last millennium' because
none of the available evidence to date contradicts this assertion.
Holy shit! Even remembering that North was specifically appointed by
the NAS to vindicate Mann, to help him counter Wegman's devastating
condemnation of Mann, how can a scientist as distinguished as North
fail to understand that what isn't disproven is not in science the
same as proven? How could North have let this crap pass when trillions
of dollars was being spent on Global Warming policies?
North then goes even further and says the forecast that Mann attempted
was in his ocmmittee's view impossible to achieve:
"In our view it is not currently possible to perform a quantitative
evaluation of recent warmth relative to the past 1,000 years that
includes all of the inherent uncertainties associated with
reconstructing surface temperatures from proxy data."
And then comes the killer-punch. Not only has North already agreed
with Wegman that Mann's methods are incompetent and his result
meaningless, he now says it is impossible to invest any confidence in
Michael Mann:
"This precludes stronger statements of confidence, but it does not
mean that the assertion is false."
... but gives him the limp out -- because the NAS *did* send North to
save Mann's slack and disingenuous ass? -- of "but it does not mean
that the assertion is false."
That's a very long way from Asher's dishonest gloss on what actually
happened of "been verified, and were not erroneous."
How limp can "support" get without actually asking Mann to resign from
the NAS?
>The warming in the last
> half of the 20th century was anomolous by historical standards.
> That is
> in the executive summary of the NAS report, in North's written testimony,
This is a lie. I've already given the truth above, in North's own
words.
> in Karl's written testimony. Furthermore, von Storch points out that the
> analysis method doesn't matter, you get the "hockey stick" even if you
> just average the datasets.
Asher, you will never be a statistician. If any old calculation, no
matter how erroneous, gives you the same result, you have butkes, zero
significance.
In fact, it was later elegantly proven that if you fed red noise into
Mann's algorithm, it drew a hockey stick. A bit later it was proven
that you could feed Mann's algorithm any old random data -- and it
came out a Hockey Stick. Mann's method is designed to draw hockey
sticks from anything. That is not analysis, that is not science, that
is pure and simple cargo cultism, speak into the stick on the rope
long enough and one day plane will drop free goodies from the sky,
just when the last American soldiers left. And all the goodies will be
hockey sticks <g>.
If you believe in an algorithm which produces the same result whether
you feed it red noise, random data or tree ring proxies, you're not
connected to science in any way, Asher.
>Wegman only comment on the statistical
> analysis, not the overall conclusions. But it seems like you are
> incapable of really reading the testimonies objectively.
I've shown Wegman's words to you. But you are incapable of reading
them. I show them to you again, in shorter form this time to spare
your short attention span:
"'Mann’s methods ... in that the proxies are centered on the mean of
the period 1902-1995.. giving it preference ... to produce a “hockey
stick” shape.' That says that the data will produce a hockey stick
because Mann designed the algorithm that way. This was prophetic of
Wegman because, as we have seen above, any old crap fed into Mann's
crooked algorithm gives a hockey stick.
>Everyone agrees
> Mann et al. got some of the statistical details wrong, but what skeptics
> like you cannot understand or accept is that it makes no difference to
> the conclusions.
Method Bad + Right Answer = Bad Science
In this case very, very bad science as the algorithm distinguishes
nothing and the result is contradicted by peer-reviewed articles from
over thirty other sciences.
>Here is a figure you will readily ignore, but maybe
> others would like to see:
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/images/WA_RC_Figure1.jpg
Wegman condemned Amman and Wahl in the same terms as he condemned
Mann. Wegman, I remind you is a distinguished memher of the NAS, a
onetime chairman of the Statistic Committee, yet you claim the NAS
supports Mann!
>
> with the underlying data for that figure available here:
>
> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/CODES_MBH.html
Substitute red noise and you'll get the same hockey stick. Substitute
the speed of slugs in Seattle across a footpath and you'll get the
same hockey stick.
Hocum pocum hockey stick, not science.
> This shows the Mann et al. data from the late 90's analyzed as per Wegman
> (actually McKittrick and McIntyre) and as done by Mann et al. It makes
> no difference, which is what North, Karl, von Storch all pointed out in
> their testimony.
I told you about the red noise probably three times before you wrote
this repetitive post, Asher. Can it be that you really do not
understand the dire significance of the fact that Mann's algorithm is
so crooked, it produces only hockey sticks, whatever the reality of
the data?
>So you are arguing nonsense
Really? I'm the one quoting the very words of the authorities you
name. You are the one lying about what they said.
>and your objections are a
> form of denial.
Laughing out loud. I'm not the one who's defending a Mann (pun
intended) who tried to pass of an algorithm that produces hockey
sticks from random data as science. You're the one who thinks Michael
Mann is holy and above reproach.
>You don't want Mann et al. to be true so no amount of
> logic or data I present will convince you.
Asher, you're so dumb, you couldn't convince a cat to lick cream off a
saucer in front of its nose, never mind persuade me that a rotten
incompetent (or deliberate liar) like Mann is a scientist whose word
we should take for trillions of dollars in policy decision. For god's
sake, man, listen to yourself weaselling desperately as I stack up the
facts and the quotes.
[snipped some dumb smoke Asher tries to blow over the fact that he
long since lost this argument and has nothing left but pathetic lies]
> --
> Bill Asher
Unsigned out of contempt for a gullible fool
Andre Jute
> I also note that you haven't commented on the references I posted at
> your request earlier.
I'm so sorry you feel neglected, Mike. I was working my way down the
posts in the thread in chronological order, which is polite, but if
you insist on queue-jumping, here we go:
Thanks for the many links, Mike, and once I've tracked down all the
articles and digested them and taken advice on those I don't
understand, I'll let you know whether you've changed my mind in any
respect.
That hold you?
Now I'm off to take steam and then to sleep, if that's all right with
you. I've wasted enough time on Global Warming today.
Thanks again for being helpful.
Andre Jute
Grace and Courtesy cost nothing
Cheapest girls I ever knew!
William Asher
> On Jul 30, 3:24�am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:6886a52a-87b8-4223-8a3e-894f
> e598...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
I did tell you that you wouldn't accept any arguments I provided as
proof. I also said you would never provide an answer as to what could be
wrong in the physics. In those assessments, I was completely correct. I
got those predictions correct because you are in denial, and are not able
to assimilate any information outside the sphere of what you want to be
true.
--
Bill Asher
William Asher
410d47...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> I don't need any original thoughts on this subject. You're the one
> trying to persuade me that Global Warming is real. You're the one who
> needs original thoughts and instead has merely references to
> authorities that I already know are dishonest or incompetent or
> condemned by disgraceful behaviour, like North knowing that Mann was
> flawed and then giving him even the limp free pass of not saying
> outright that his entire Hockey Stick is rotten.
Well at least now you acknowledge that North didn't condemn Mann et al.
See? I did teach you something. My day was well spent, even if you did
outpost me about 20 lines to 1.
--
Bill Asher
Andre Jute
> In article <9089e1e6-36e6-42f4-b124-
> e76d74f1a...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, fiult...@yahoo.com says...
Okay, went to cycle instead of taking steam and going to sleep, so heh-
heh, Mike, nice little fable. We who toil in the vineyards of the more
imaginative sciences like economics and psychology (and it now appears
climatology) love a little fable, but we have long since learned that
relevance is absolutely essential if it is to be be useful. Let's test
your little funny, er, I mean fable.
Would I know an anvil? Of course I would. I like classical music, I'm
a notorious opera-goer (did the shareholders buy you a jet to go to
the fucking opera? an accountant once demanded more than a little
hysterically, probably feeling the revenuer's fingers on his collar),
so of course I know the musical instrument, used by for instance
Wagner.
Okay, as a fable it doesn't stand up long. Let's try it as an analogy.
Hmm. An anvil once noted as already airborne is a clear and present
danger even the current poncy Congress will let the President shoot
down. Global warming is a much, much more tenuous threat, full of hot
air. Balloons would be a better analogy.
Not an analogy then. A metaphor maybe.
Hey, that's good! Yup, now I have it. That black thing is the anvil
hobbling Asher to the statistical crook Michael Mann with a chain of
red noise while Mann beats Asher around the head with a hockey stuck.
Duck as they fly past like two witches out for an evening caterwaul.
Nice work, Mike, even if it took you a while to get there.
I haven't called any of the Marxists, sorry, I mean global warmies, on
RBT a fairy. I might want to go back to the theatre some day, so I
better watch my tongue about the shavelegs.
Andre Jute
Mr Versatility himself
Andre Jute
> In article <cff8186a-f6a8-4953-9356-ad42b32df6e2
> @d4g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, fiult...@yahoo.com says...
Sure. I understand it. The question is acceptance and connection to
Global Warming as a credible threat worth spending trillions on while
people starve.
> I really doubt that anybody is unable to grasp this arguement, whether
> you agree or disagree with it. It is no more difficult to understand
> than th efact that a mechanical defect can be either the cause or the
> result of a vehicle accident.
You really like having it both ways, don't you, Mike?
> I also note that you haven't commented on the references I posted at
> your request earlier. I have reached the point where I believe I have
> wasted enough of my time and everyone else's bandwidth on this subject
> and, as it all appears to be a case of horses and water. This will be my
> last post on the subject - I would far rather discuss cycling here.
I've dealt with this impatience already. You'd be really pissed off if
you went to such trouble to provide me with a dozen or more hefty
references and I came straight back, like the rest of the clowns on
RBT, and said "butbutbut" without even reading the material you
directed me to.
Thanks for the links, and I'll let you know when I've looked at the
material.
Andre Jute
Patience isn't one of my virtues either, but sheesh!
Ben C
> In article <38520a20-81e1-4493-ae63-26d7bc466227
> @x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, fiul...@yahoo.com says...
>
>> Actually, Mann's
>> Hockey Stick, on which the entire Global Warming Fallacy hangs, was
>> created by deliberately mistaking a few (unsuitable) trees in Oregon
>> for witnesses to the climate of the whole planet.
>>
> If you really believe this statement - that a significant majority of
> the world's scientists have become convinced of the reality of the
> global warming threat by the duplicitous beguilement of a single
> messianic straw-Mann, then it may explain why you hold your views.
>
> But in practice, there has been a host of peer-reviewed papers in the
> ten years since Mann's paper was published that strongly supports the
> view that global warming is a reality. It is this evidence that has
> converted the view of the scientific community.
>
> The evidence to the contrary is far weaker and often bears a marked
> similarity to the form of arguement that fundamentalists raise in their
> adversion to the theory of relativity. It is the climate-change nay-
> sayers who are guilty of a reliance on outdated evidence in their often
> politically or economically based desire to 'disprove' an inconvenient
> truth.
You meant evolution (as you said) and probably aversion. But it is
misleading to compare global warming or climate change to the theory of
evolution. Darwin put together a huge amount of evidence for the latter
and much has been added since, and it is the evidence that matters, not
the view of any "scientific community".
There is much more speculation involved in climate prediction, by its
very nature, and you should not trust communities of gurus any more now
than ever.
Communities, peer-reviews, numbers of papers published, mean nothing.
Really, nothing. These people may be scientists but they are still
people, and subject to fashion, politics, religiosity, etc., just like
people always have been.
The evidence itself and the arguments from it are the only things that
matter. Unfortunately, for climate change, much of that is buried in
complicated computer models, or highly politicized one way or another,
so really it is very difficult to draw a conclusion at all.
Andre Jute
> Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:6b0a7b35-298a-4d39...@u38g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 30, 3:24 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> innews:6886a52a-87b8-4223-8a3e-894f
You didn't provide a single item of proof. Instead you told lies about
what people said. When I quoted their exact words to prove that they
said the opposite of what you believe (or at least claim), you simply
ignored their words. This is another fine example of the Marxist art
of accusing your interlocutors of your own stubbornness.
>I also said you would never provide an answer as to what could be
> wrong in the physics.
This is an example of the Marxist trick of insisting all discussions
be conducted in the Marxist dialectic as if you other viewpoint has
validity. The science is irrelevant -- the more since I have
repeatedly proven that the significant part of it is false -- while
the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age stand in History,
where they will stand forever, despite the crooked efforts of Michael
Mann, the IPCC and the feeble efforts of Bill Asher.
>In those assessments, I was completely correct. I
> got those predictions correct because you are in denial, and are not able
> to assimilate any information outside the sphere of what you want to be
> true.
Billy-boy, you're off this planet. Any independent observer will see
that I quote only the people *you* cite as authorities, that you lie
about what they say, that I quote them accurately, and that they (Dr
North's entire Panel, etc) agree with me rather than with you. What
better argument can there be than that your own authorities are
against your version of events? I'm not in denial. You are, William
Asher.
Did I say Marxist yet? On another conference I used to go to there was
some little man, a lecturer at some jumped-up polytechnic or some
such, who was proud of being the last Marxist in Britain, of joining
the Communist Party of Britain just as its leader declared it
obsolete. He of course hated me for the parodies of Das Kapital I used
to write. In a year or two or three I'll be joining your name with his
when I want an example of someone in really stubborn denial.
Andre Jute
> Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:87219ea0-9edc-4e50-a963-
> 410d4761e...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> Well at least now you acknowledge that North didn't condemn Mann et al.
> See? I did teach you something. My day was well spent, even if you did
> outpost me about 20 lines to 1.
Your out of your mind, Billy-boy. North in his report condemned Mann's
statistical methods, his choice of proxies, his relationship with tied
peer-reviewers, his attitude to review of his work, etc, etc, etc, a
huge, depressingly long list. All that was positive that North could
find to say about Mann's work was that nobody had (yet) disproven his
conclusion that it was warm in 1998. And even there North was
stretching the truth, as Wegman in his report said plainly that his
committee found Mann's claim that the 1990s were the warmest decade
and 1998 the warmest year unsupported by the evidence.
And that was the best North could honestly do for Mann, despite the
fact that North was specifically tasked by the NAS with shoring up
Mann's reputation before the condemnation of a more relevant NAS
member, Ed Wegman, the distinguished statistician. Before a Senate
committee even that sham dissolved as under oath North and his entire
committee one by one condemned Mann with Wegman's words, no dispute
whatsoever.
***
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions [about the
Mann papers] or the methodology of Dr. Wegman's report?
DR. NORTH. No, we don't. We don't disagree with their
criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our
report.
DR. BLOOMFIELD. Our committee reviewed the
methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we
felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate.
We had much the same misgivings about his work that was
documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.
WALLACE: The two reports were complementary, and to
the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite
consistent.
***
Wegman totally condemned Mann, then the North Panel when asked
individually under oath totally agreed with Wegman. Conclusion: the
North Panel too found Mann incompetent. I repeat, the purpose of the
NAS Panel under North was to "save" Mann but instead they found him
incompetent.
****
Hey, Asher, maybe you read everything you know about the history of
Mann's Hockey Stick in a comic book, because you sure as hell don't
have any grasp of the facts, which I have now laid out for you seven
or eight times, without the slightest evidence that you have grasped
how seriously at odds with reality and the written record your
attempts at myth-making are. That's not how one does science, sonny.
Andre Jute
Patient even with stubborn fools
Andre Jute
> On 2009-07-29, mike <m....@irl.cri.replacethiswithnz> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <38520a20-81e1-4493-ae63-26d7bc466227
Steve McIntire (of McIntyre & McKitrick fame) who did all the hard
work of exposing the Mann Scam *never intended an exposure*. All that
Steve McIntire wanted was to amuse himself by seeing if he could
replicate the results, so he asked for the data... and got a shock
when he discovered the Mann group didn't even know where it was, and
had no hard copy, and didn't want to share it with anyone... Makes one
wonder how the so-called peer review was done if no-one even asked for
the raw data before McIntire did.
So, besides judging the conclusions for creditability, you'd better
investigate the methodology as well. It all gets too damned onerous.
Let's just forget about the whole thing and send the IPCC "scientists"
back to teaching freshers and return the IPCC bureaucrats to their
previous jobs as post office clerks.
McIntyre & McKitrick did the entire world a huge service. They should
have received the Nobel Prize that went to that greedy fraud Al Gore.
Andre Jute
Charisma is the art of infuriating the undeserving by merely
existing elegantly
William Asher
cfc378...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com:
>
> Your out of your mind, Billy-boy. North in his report condemned Mann's
> statistical methods, his choice of proxies, his relationship with tied
> peer-reviewers, his attitude to review of his work, etc, etc, etc, a
> huge, depressingly long list. All that was positive that North could
> find to say about Mann's work was that nobody had (yet) disproven his
> conclusion that it was warm in 1998. And even there North was
> stretching the truth, as Wegman in his report said plainly that his
> committee found Mann's claim that the 1990s were the warmest decade
> and 1998 the warmest year unsupported by the evidence.
>
> And that was the best North could honestly do for Mann, despite the
> fact that North was specifically tasked by the NAS with shoring up
> Mann's reputation before the condemnation of a more relevant NAS
> member, Ed Wegman, the distinguished statistician. Before a Senate
> committee even that sham dissolved as under oath North and his entire
> committee one by one condemned Mann with Wegman's words, no dispute
> whatsoever.
Andre:
Last post on this because you're providing nothing new, which I knew
going in would happen. Here are the five key findings copied ver batim
from North's written testimony to the Barton hearings in 2006:
"Let me summarize five key conclusions we reached after reviewing the
evidence:
1. The instrumentally measured warming of about 1�F during the 20th
century is also reflected in borehole temperature measurements, the
retreat of glaciers, and other observational evidence, and can be
simulated with climate models.
2. Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally
consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium,
including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000
(identified by some as the �Medieval Warm Period�) and a relatively cold
period (or �Little Ice Age�) centered around 1700.
3. It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean
surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th
century than during any comparable period during the preceding four
centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence
from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.
4. Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature
reconstructions for the period A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available
proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all,
individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any
period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties increase
substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully
quantified.
5. Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the
hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D.
900."
North then goes on to state:
"Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al.
(1998, 1999) and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it
plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few
decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the
preceding millennium. However, the substantial uncertainties currently
present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature
changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion
compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age
cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in
the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that �the 1990s are likely
the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium�
because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for
individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time
periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature
information on such short timescales. We also question some of the
statistical choices made in the original papers by Dr. Mann and his
colleagues. However, our reservations with some aspects of the original
papers by Mann et al. should not be construed as evidence that our
committee does not believe that the climate is warming, and will continue
to warm, as a result of human activities."
Full text at: http://tinyurl.com/lmfmpc
This does not sound like a stinging rebuke to me. Perhaps you are
reading between the lines a bit or more likely not being entirely
objective in your analysis.
Anyway, like I said going in, it isn't possible to discuss this in a
rational fashion with you. You're too angry, too bitter, and too
ossified mentally to be able to turn things around in your mind and
challenge yourself to look at them in new ways. Like most skeptics, you
are stuck in 1990, looking at the same temperature reconstruction Wegman
focused on, utterly unable to comprehend that science marches on, and
you're sitting there in the dust watching the rear echelons in the
distance.
Mann et al. were right, any good statistician will tell you the purpose
of statistics is to put a numerical value on concepts that are obvious.
--
Bill Asher
Ben C
>
><snip>
>
> So in other words, you can't answer the question as to what is wrong with
> the physics. All you can do is regurgitate the same tired skeptic myths:
> 600 year lag, MWP, yadda yadda yadda. You're boring Andre. So fucking
> insanely boring it is almost not worth the effort to tell you this.
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-
> the-perplexed.html
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5rn2e8
This quote is rather priceless (the article is dated May 2007):
"Finally, the claim is sometimes made that if computer models were
any good, people would be using them to predict the stock market.
Well, they are!
A lot of trading in the financial markets is already carried out by
computers. Many base their decisions on fairly simple algorithms
designed to exploit tiny profit margins, but others rely on more
sophisticated long-term models.
Major financial institutions are investing huge amounts in automated
trading systems, the proportion of trading carried out by computers
is growing rapidly and a few individuals have made a fortune from
them. The smart money is being bet on computer models."
Well if computer models are good enough for major financial
institutions, oh wait...
Andre Jute
> On 2009-07-29, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
Ho-ho-ho! And a bottle of rum in that handsome young man's Christmas
stocking!
Father Christmas
Waiting for Global Warming to unfreeze the reindeer
Don't tell me they got that wrong too...
Andre Jute
limp curl of vomit over his shoulder as he exited. I provide a running
translation into plain English:
> Andre:
>
> Last post on this because you're providing nothing new, which I knew
> going in would happen.
ENGLISH TRANSLATION: I'm Bill Asher and my mind is made up about
Global Warming. i know what I believe and the facts won't change my
mind.
>Here are the five key findings copied ver batim
> from North's written testimony to the Barton hearings in 2006:
ENGLISH: I'm Bill Asher and I'm a slow learner. This thread came to be
60 posts young before I learned that my lying paraphrases of what I
wished people had said would be instantly exposed by Andre posting
what their own words verbatim.
> "Let me summarize five key conclusions we reached after reviewing the
> evidence:
ENGLISH: [This is Dr Gerald North speaking. He is a distinguished
climatologist who had been commissioned by the US National Academy of
Science to try to restore Michael Mann's reputation after the US
Senate commissioned an even more distinguished, and relevant,
Academician, the statistician Edward Wegman, to look into Mann's
credibility, which Wegman found to nil, zero, zilch. Now North has
looked into the Mann papers, Mann's methodology and his incestuous
relations with so-called independent peer reviewers. Remember, these
are Bill Asher's choice of the most positive things he could find in
Dr North's report on Mann -- yeah, really, this limp collage is
supposedly a positive endorsement of two papers and the judgement of a
"scientist" on which trillions in Global Warming policy was spent. So
let's see the NAS "supporting" Mann, with my own English translation:)
> 1. The instrumentally measured warming of about 1°F during the 20th
> century is also reflected in borehole temperature measurements, the
> retreat of glaciers, and other observational evidence, and can be
> simulated with climate models.
ENGLISH: Standard climatological mantras (even some of that is
contentious, as inthe effect of heat islands in measurements but never
mind). Even Mann couldn't fuck up such a basic staple of the Global
Warmies.
> 2. Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally
> consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium,
> including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000
> (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold
> period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700.
ENGLISH: Historically accurate cross-disciplinary assessment. That is
the reality of the earth's temperature history. But in this case that
statement is a placebo and a smoke-screen because that is not what
Mann concluded. In fact, Mann was trying very hard to disappear the
Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age with his Hockey Stick
graph -- and *Mann's results do not include either the MWP or the
LIA*, which Dr North says are general knowledge. In short, Dr North
says Mann got the wrong result.
> 3. It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean
> surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th
> century than during any comparable period during the preceding four
> centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence
> from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.
ENGLISH: More general knowledge, but the defensive last sentence "This
statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide
variety of geographically diverse proxies" is added for two reasons.
One is that the evidence is more contentious (heat islands in the 20th
century, disparate measuring methods, all kinds of bedevilments by and
to well-meaning statisticians -- a nightmare for truth-seekers). The
second reason for the defensiveness is that Dr Wegman, the
statistician, had already condemned the two Mann papers in toto by
concluding that Mann's analysis didn't even prove that the last decade
of the 20th century was the warmest or that 1998 was the warmest year,
in scientific language an accusation of unbelievable incompetence.
> 4. Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature
> reconstructions for the period A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available
> proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all,
> individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any
> period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties increase
> substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully
> quantified.
ENGLISH: More smoke; all this pretty obvious when you're working with
proxies for temperature. It doesn't excuse the fact that Mann's
results (the Hockey Stick) don't show the MWP and the LIA which Dr
North says at the first point above are certainties.
> 5. Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the
> hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D.
> 900."
ENGLISH: More smoke, possibly intended to cover up the fact that
another contentious aspect of the Mann temperature timeline is one
that we haven't even touched on in these threads, that Mann grafted
together exceedingly disparate timelines higgledypiggedly.
North then goes on to state:
>
> "Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al.
> (1998, 1999) and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it
> plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few
> decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the
> preceding millennium.
ENGLISH: I, Gerald North, have been commissioned by the National
Academy of Science to shore up the reputation of that little bastard
Mann who is embarrassing us all with his stupidity (why won't the
bloody man take a hint and resign from the NAS!). At the very least
his results show what we at the NAS think is likely and wish were
true. So we can say it is "plausible" and let someone else spin that
into "proof". There's a fool born every minute; maybe we get lucky.
Just don't ask me to say that "plausible" is the same as scientific
proof!
>However, the substantial uncertainties currently
> present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature
> changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion
> compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age
> cooling and 20th century warming.
ENGLISH: Mann is lying when he says the Medieval Warm Period and the
Little Ice Age didn't happen, but we're not acting as honest
scientists here, our commission from the NAS is to protect Mann
against Wegman, so we can't say he's lying. Oh, God, give me a smoke-
machine!
>Even less confidence can be placed in
> the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely
> the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium”
ENGLISH: That dumb fuck Mann can't even prove what we all suspect. How
the hell did I ever let them talk me into this job?
> because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for
> individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time
> periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature
> information on such short timescales.
ENGLISH: Well, at least that's a solid scientific excuse. If the
Senate does catch Mann out -- and how can't they, with bloody Edward
Wegman blowing the whistle on Mann's crookeries? -- at least the media
will spin that bit into useful smoke.
>We also question some of the
> statistical choices made in the original papers by Dr. Mann and his
> colleagues.
ENGLISH: Mann is totally technically incompetent. He even got the
choice of proxies wrong, and then cheated openly in weighting them.
What were those so-called "peer reviewers" doing, playing with
themselves?
> However, our reservations with some aspects of the original
> papers by Mann et al. should not be construed as evidence that our
> committee does not believe that the climate is warming, and will continue
> to warm, as a result of human activities."
ENGLISH: Mann didn't prove shit. He's utterly useless. But we're the
NAS and if we dress up our wishful thinking a bit with "scientific"
sounding language, maybe nobody will see through the smokescreen.
> Full text at: http://tinyurl.com/lmfmpc
Bill Asher, not the sharpest knife in the drawer, concludes from all
this:
> This does not sound like a stinging rebuke to me.
Holy shit, Billy-boy. They say Mann's methods are incompetent. They
say Mann got the wrong result when he lost the MWP and the LIA, they
say Mann didn't prove anything about the 1990s or about 1998. So
what's left? Remember, North and his Panel were *specifically*
appointed to support Mann. Yet they could find not a single positive
in Mann's articles that he got right; they were forced as honest men
to condemn Mann as a bad scientist for his methods, and to deny his
findings one by one as unproven. If you can't see that, you are no
scientist, you are a Global Warming politician.
"Plausible" is a nothing word; anything is plausible under the right
circumstances. Even the NAS Panel, charged with supporting Mann, shied
away from the more scientific language of "possible" because *nothing*
Mann says is possible because he got the science and the statistics
wrong.
A business executive who received such a chill response for an
important paper from his peers would be out of the door before lunch
and would never work in the industry again.
>Perhaps you are
> reading between the lines a bit or more likely not being entirely
> objective in your analysis.
They're your lines, Asher, you chose them. You cannot point to a
single positive or enthusiastic comment from North -- once more,
appointed speficically to boost Mann -- about Mann's work. You cannot
point to a single place where North says, "Mann got something right,
hooray!". At every single point, North says Mann got it desperately,
incompetently wrong.
> Anyway, like I said going in, it isn't possible to discuss this in a
> rational fashion with you.
I'm rationally analyzing the text you chose. You're the one who
insists that I make an emotional commitment to Global Warming, as you
have, before I even start talking.
>You're too angry, too bitter, and too
> ossified mentally to be able to turn things around in your mind and
> challenge yourself to look at them in new ways.
You're the one personalizing this, Asher, while I'm discussing the
science calmly, proving that Mann got it wrong on every point, that
the NAS, which you claim supports Mann, twice in the form of the
Wegman and North Reports condemned Mann's attitudes, methods and
findings as unscientific and unfounded and untrue, point by point.
> Like most skeptics, you
> are stuck in 1990, looking at the same temperature reconstruction Wegman
> focused on, utterly unable to comprehend that science marches on,
Science isn't the latest fashion or the wishful thinking even of large
groups of scientists, or the belief even of large groups of
scientists. Science is what can be proven. Wegman and North both said
Mann didn't prove anything at all except his own incompetence.
> and
> you're sitting there in the dust watching the rear echelons in the
> distance.
The surest sign you know you've lost this argument, Asher, is your
desperate attempts to blow smoke over your loss by personalizing it.
> Mann et al. were right,
Even the NAS committee appointed to shore up Mann could find nothing
to claim that he did right. Read the quotes from North above --
selected by you, remember, not by me -- with an open mind and show us
where North says Mann did the slightest thing right or made a single
correct determination.
>any good statistician will tell you the purpose
> of statistics is to put a numerical value on concepts that are obvious.
This thread is called "What Global Warming has in common with Marxism"
for a good reason. Global warming is the new Marxism, the new mystical
faith of people who need something larger than themselves in their
lives and find religion too proletarian and untrendy, so they believe
passionate in Global Warming and their own part in it as Saving the
Earth. So let's see your definition again:
> the purpose
> of statistics is to put a numerical value on concepts that are obvious.
That is an utterly Marxist formulation. Here, let me translate it for
you:
ENGLISH: The purpose of statistics is to provide proof for wishful
thinking by climatologists who want to be policy makers.
That is exactly what Mann did with statistics, that is what he was
caught out doing, that is why his results were condemned by the
leading statisticians clustered around Wegman (and the honest
climatologist, North), because the Mann articles are politically-
inspired lies, nothing to do with science, climatology or statistics.
I hope that eventually you'll put your mind in gear, Asher, but on
this evidence I don't have high hopes that you will ever join the path
of reason.
Good luck.
Ben C
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:23:16 -0500, Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>
>>Well if computer models are good enough for major financial
>>institutions, oh wait...
>
No of course not. A computer model is as good as what goes into it.
The computer models of financial institutions suffered not only from
being wrong but also from being opaque and trusted too much. Only a few
"gurus" really knew what the models were actually doing.
The sociological problem is that the non-techies just say, "our boffins
and computers say this, they must be right, just look at the size of
their foreheads". It's not much different than trusting priests and
entrails.
There's also a very interesting subtlety in computer modelling.
Suppose you make a climate model based on your theory of how climate
works. Then you run the model, and hey presto, it hindcasts the last
1000 years (which were _not_ input to the model) fairly successfully.
Then you can say it looks like we captured the main features of reality
in this model, let's run it forwards and see what happens.
But suppose it doesn't hindcast successfully. Then you think about how
it might be wrong. You can change it based on theoretical
reconsiderations of your original design, and maybe it works better. Or,
you can cheat and just frob it till its hindcasting "works". If the
latter, its forecasts are most likely going to be junk.
Really the guys making the model shouldn't get to see the ice core data
they're hindcasting (if the ice core data is what you're using to test
the model's hindcasting). Another team should just tell them they passed
or failed.
The interesting thing is that there is a continuum between these two
approaches. You can say, my original theory must be wrong because it
hindcasted wrong. I have a tweak in mind, and I think it's probably
right for various reasons. Perhaps those reasons are a bit handwaving
and bogus. But it improves the hindcast! It's gotta be right, let's go
to work on bolstering those handwaving arguments.
Very easy to get misled, and very hard to disentangle afterwards which
bits of the model have a real justification and which are just tweaks.
> It's amazing that we've made it to the moon and back then.
We didn't use a computer "model" in the modern sense to get the moon,
but essentially a pocket calculator.
William Asher
news:slrnh757bu....@bowser.marioworld:
Your analysis is flawed since there are a finite number of things that
can affect a climate model: ocean circulation, radiative forcing etc.
This means that are a limited number of things that can be adjusted. By
comparing the details of the model output to the empirical data, you can
get some idea of where problems in the model lie so the
parameterizations of the physics in the model can be improved (flux
corrections are a great example, where early on AOGCMs had to be smacked
back into reality in terms of salinity but now the flux
parameterizations have developed to the point where those rubber-band
forcings aren't required).
Most skeptics assume that climate physics is a vast black box, and have
been fed a steady diet by "skeptic professionals" like Lindzen and
Spencer and Christy that there are all these unknown things running
around. That isn't so. There are things where the uncertainties are
large, but the processes themselved are defined and even if the
uncertainties are large, the range of values these processes can take on
is well bounded so that the system is constrained in terms of boundary
conditions. So while there are lots of metaphorical knobs in a climate
model, there are limited ranges that each knob can be set at, and in a
lot of cases those settings are very constrained by what is known about
the details of radiative transfer, air-sea interaction, ocean
circulation etc.
You are free to believe that models are crap, but the objective truth is
that they aren't and your analysis is classic skeptic mythism.
--
Bill Asher
Ben C
That's part of the problem. There are a finite number of things in real
life that affect the real climate, but they're not necessarily the same
set of things as in the model.
> This means that are a limited number of things that can be adjusted.
> By comparing the details of the model output to the empirical data,
> you can get some idea of where problems in the model lie so the
> parameterizations of the physics in the model can be improved (flux
> corrections are a great example, where early on AOGCMs had to be
> smacked back into reality in terms of salinity but now the flux
> parameterizations have developed to the point where those rubber-band
> forcings aren't required).
The question is, when are you modelling and when are you just
extrapolating? It isn't always a cut and dried distinction.
> Most skeptics assume that climate physics is a vast black box, and
> have been fed a steady diet by "skeptic professionals" like Lindzen
> and Spencer and Christy that there are all these unknown things
> running around. That isn't so.
How do you know?
> There are things where the uncertainties are large, but the processes
> themselved are defined and even if the uncertainties are large, the
> range of values these processes can take on is well bounded so that
> the system is constrained in terms of boundary conditions. So while
> there are lots of metaphorical knobs in a climate model, there are
> limited ranges that each knob can be set at, and in a lot of cases
> those settings are very constrained by what is known about the details
> of radiative transfer, air-sea interaction, ocean circulation etc.
>
> You are free to believe that models are crap, but the objective truth is
> that they aren't and your analysis is classic skeptic mythism.
My point is not that the models are necessarily crap, just that it's
deceptively easy to make a crap model.
Can you give me another example from history of a system as complex and
unknown as global climate that has been modelled succesfully enough to
predict the future?
I would not normally be inclined to accept the predictions of a
complicated model as evidence, in the sense that there is evidence for
the theory of evolution.
William Asher
> On 2009-07-31, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Your analysis is flawed since there are a finite number of things
>> that can affect a climate model: ocean circulation, radiative forcing
>> etc.
>
> That's part of the problem. There are a finite number of things in
> real life that affect the real climate, but they're not necessarily
> the same set of things as in the model.
Can you give an example of a process that is known to affect climate
that is not in current state-of-the-art climate models? I don't think
you can, but you are suggesting there are lots of them. Again, this is
a common skeptic myth, that climate models are somehow incomplete.
>> This means that are a limited number of things that can be adjusted.
>> By comparing the details of the model output to the empirical data,
>> you can get some idea of where problems in the model lie so the
>> parameterizations of the physics in the model can be improved (flux
>> corrections are a great example, where early on AOGCMs had to be
>> smacked back into reality in terms of salinity but now the flux
>> parameterizations have developed to the point where those rubber-band
>> forcings aren't required).
>
> The question is, when are you modelling and when are you just
> extrapolating? It isn't always a cut and dried distinction.
This question demonstrates you don't really understand how these models
work.
>> Most skeptics assume that climate physics is a vast black box, and
>> have been fed a steady diet by "skeptic professionals" like Lindzen
>> and Spencer and Christy that there are all these unknown things
>> running around. That isn't so.
>
> How do you know?
Because of your question above. You are under the false impression
there are all these processes not incorporated in climate models that
have first-order impact. This skeptic myth comes from somewhere, and
that source is professional skeptics like Lindzen and Christy. Lindzen
is particularly pernicious in this regard. That you object to this
idea, yet use it several times in the post I am responding to, suggests
you don't even understand what I mean.
>> There are things where the uncertainties are large, but the processes
>> themselved are defined and even if the uncertainties are large, the
>> range of values these processes can take on is well bounded so that
>> the system is constrained in terms of boundary conditions. So while
>> there are lots of metaphorical knobs in a climate model, there are
>> limited ranges that each knob can be set at, and in a lot of cases
>> those settings are very constrained by what is known about the
>> details of radiative transfer, air-sea interaction, ocean circulation
>> etc.
>>
>> You are free to believe that models are crap, but the objective truth
>> is that they aren't and your analysis is classic skeptic mythism.
>
> My point is not that the models are necessarily crap, just that it's
> deceptively easy to make a crap model.
>
> Can you give me another example from history of a system as complex
> and unknown as global climate that has been modelled succesfully
> enough to predict the future?
There you go again with the meme that climate is somehow a black box
with all this "unknown" physics inside. This is simply not true, and
your continued fall-back to this idea is silly. Please point out where
there could be something unknown that is affecting things to a first
order. Is it radiative transfer? Is it ocean circulation? Is there
some effect of clouds you think remains to be discovered? If there is
something major that is not in models already, they would not be able to
do as good a job as they do hindcasting climate, nor would Hansen, using
1988-era models even, have been able to project global mean temperatures
as well as he did. The system is not that ill-posed and undefined.
> I would not normally be inclined to accept the predictions of a
> complicated model as evidence, in the sense that there is evidence for
> the theory of evolution.
Climate models are state-of-the-art. But just because something is
being done for the first time, or being developed as it is required,
doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong.
I suggest you are like most skeptics, scared of the policy and social
implications of mitigating climate change. This fear makes you very
susceptible to common skeptic myths that somehow we don't really
understand how climate works. This is nonsense, and objection to
lifestyle changes should not be used as an excuse to continually
mis-state the science.
Like with Jute, you're not bringing anything of interest to the table,
and I've wasted enough bandwidth here.
--
Bill Asher
Simon Lewis
> Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote in
> news:slrnh75t5e....@bowser.marioworld:
>
>> On 2009-07-31, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Your analysis is flawed since there are a finite number of things
>>> that can affect a climate model: ocean circulation, radiative forcing
>>> etc.
>>
>> That's part of the problem. There are a finite number of things in
>> real life that affect the real climate, but they're not necessarily
>> the same set of things as in the model.
>
> Can you give an example of a process that is known to affect climate
> that is not in current state-of-the-art climate models? I don't think
> you can, but you are suggesting there are lots of them. Again, this is
> a common skeptic myth, that climate models are somehow incomplete.
Of course climate models are incomplete as anyone even remotely familiar
with the complexities of thermal and fluid dynamics can tell you. The
complexities of interactions, known as chaos, make it virtually
impossible to predict anything with any degree of confidence bar
extremely short term scope.
They are incomplete in terms of them not modelling things correctly.
mower man
> Karl Marx wrote spectacularly badly and had a spectacular talent for
> misusing statistics. Those are his two main attractions for his
> followers, that you can endlessly make Marx mean whatever you want to,
> and as his follower you aren't bound by any scientific truth because
> Marxist Truth has the prior dispensation that the master declared the
> dialectic a higher order of morality than observable reality as
> revealed by the statistics.
>
> It is no accident that Marxism became the tool of every control freak
> who thought he knew what was best for humanity.
>
> But Marxism was disgraced in its earthly paradise of Soviet Russia and
> Communist China as simply another totalitarianism, in practice much
> more murderous than Hitler's.
>
> The control freaks suffered only briefly between the fall of Communism
> and the discovery of another tool to grab and hold the right to demand
> that everyone dance to their tune for the Higher Good. This was Global
> Warming, which was said to threaten the very Earth we all live on.
>
> Within a decade, Global Warming had taken on the same religious
> overtones of public hysteria as the Marxist Church of Communism,
> complete with persecutions of non-believers, with explicit public
> threats to hunt Global Warming Deniers through the streets. (It has
> been done in the name of Christ and Allah and Marx before, so why not
> in the name of Global Warming? Hallelujah! Bring out the instruments
> the Dominicans put away when the Inquisition ended.)
>
> The chief agency of this global control, the IPCC, by far the most
> effective as well as the most needless of the UN bureaux, was operated
> by a man who was explicitly an advocate of world government long, long
> before global warming was invented.
>
> Global Warming soon acquired a Higher Truth. Where Marxism had the
> Proletariat on behalf of whom the Vanguard Elite acted, Global Warming
> had the Precautionary Principle, which states that anything a Climate
> Scientist reveals through his Model is possible should be acted on
> regardless of unlikelihood or cost.
>
> In fact, with the aid of UN patronage (a nice way of saying oodles of
> taxpayers' money), Global Warmers in only a handful of years rose
> above the most common worldwide religion of the day, Science, and
> officially came to disregard the Good Practice of the lesser
> scientists, because Climate Scientists regarded themselves as a higher
> caste of priests than the Interdisciplinaries. Why, were they not
> dictating world policy in almost every capital?
>
> Climate Scientists peer-reviewed each other's papers without any
> outside reference (and especially not, oh horrors, to the
> Statisticians or Cynics as they were sometimes privately referred to),
> and the IPCC worked on peer-reviewed papers, and the papers chosen by
> the IPCC to show to governments were chosen by the peer-reviewers. I
> nice little closed circle which, if it were found in private industry,
> would immediate be prosecuted with all the force of the law as a
> conspiracy in restraint of trade. (But, like the Marxists, the Global
> Warmers want to consign Trade and Industry straight to the slaughter-
> chamber. Their religion will provide, and they needn't concern
> themselves with how the loaves and the fishes will appear...)
>
> Unfortunately, History (an enemy of the Marxists too...) provided an
> effective counter to the alarmist shouts of "Global Warming" when
> (probably) a sunspot -- in a normal cycle of sunspots -- caused
> temperature to rise for a decade or so.
>
> History had the Medieval Warm Period, when for several centuries the
> earth was warmer than it has been since. Therefore, said skeptics
> (Global Warming Deniers, in insider-speak), the Earth could become
> much warmer still than the peak year of this recent period, 1998, in
> fact warmer even than the Global Warmers' forecast in their least
> reliable Model, and suffer no harm. Ouch!
>
> History also had the Little Ice Age from about the time of Good Queen
> Lizzie forward. Skeptics (Global Warming Deniers) said openly -- the
> barefaced cheek! -- that from such a trough of ice, of course the only
> way for temperature to change was upwards. Therefore there was no
> global warming, only recovery from a frozen period, quite ordinary
> really and perfectly in line with the normal swings and roundabouts
> of the earth's temperature as revealed by the Ice Core Evidence.
>
> So now the Global Warming Faithful wrote each other e-mails about
> "getting rid of the fucking MWP and LIA" -- the Medieval Warm Period
> and Little Ice Age which terminally undermine any theory of Global
> Warming, indeed dismisses it as a little local weather, and pretty
> short-term at that.
>
> Then a Climate Scientist called Michael Mann found a particularly
> Marxist way to reach the promise of every Good Climate Scientist, the
> Hockey Stick, a graph that totally dispenses with the hot Medieval
> Warm Period and the Little Ice Age by flattening them, so leaving the
> little local weather of the decade leading up to 1998 displaying as a
> monstrous peak towering towering over all history: proof of *manmade*
> Global Warming!
>
> The IPCC, over the moon with this frightening graph, published it six
> times in its report, and it was the only graph included in the
> influential summary to world leaders. On the "proof" of the Hockey
> Stick, trillions were misspent.
>
> ***
>
> So, how did Marx help Michael Mann do it? Simple, by careful selection
> of statistics, by weighting them to give the desired result, and by
> showing them only to an inner circle from which all skeptics had
> already been weeded.
>
> These are the precise methods of the Leninist wing of the Marxists.
> Threats such as we heard to hunt Global Warming Deniers through the
> streets, and persecution such as we saw of even the mildest
> questioners, aren't even necessary to make the analogy stand up;
> they're icing on the cake.
>
> What Mann did is to choose a very few samples of data taken from the
> rings of trees known to be unsuitable for longterm climate
> observation, taken by a known-controversial researcher, then to count
> this known-unreliable data 160 times, and then joined this 160-fold
> statistical lie to bunches of disparate data to give him the desired
> flat line through the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, in
> effect "disappearing" these historical phenomena like Old Bolsheviks
> shot and excised from History itself when Stalin wanted to fatten his
> part in the Bolshevik Revolution.
>
> This statistical legerdemain left Mann with a massive upwards trend of
> "global warming" at exactly the right time, our time, just what the
> IPCC bureaucrats wanted!
>
> Mann's paper was peer reviewed all right -- by people later condemned
> by the official American scientific body as a coterie, people whom
> Mann had given a free pass before, or who expected a free pass from
> him for their own papers. In particular, it came out later, the so-
> called peer "reviewers" never asked for the raw data, they never asked
> to see the weighting algorithm (by which Mann cooked the data), they
> in fact never did anything right at all.
>
> But the IPCC told everyone this paper, on which trillions of public
> money was committed, was peer reviewed, and part of the "consensus" of
> global warming they were talking up to hide the fact that in *every
> other science*, except in the one the IPCC had bought lock-stock-and-
> barrel, climate science itself, there were rumblings of severe doubt
> about these travesties of "science". The IPCC claimed it was wasn't
> their duty to investigate the validity or even the credibility of the
> conclusions Mann published: they were "peer reviewed"!
>
> Instead of investigating, the IPCC made Mann the lead writer of their
> report, thereby putting him in a position to offer jobs, credits and
> money to his peer reviewers, or deny it to those who asked awkward
> questions.
>
> But no one could ask any questions because Mann, when asked, wouldn't
> release his raw data, on the weird ground that all everyone else
> wanted to was to disprove his paper. Apparently no one had told him
> that is how peer review, and more generally science, actually works,
> by disproving what went before.
>
> Like Marxism, where you get to vote, once, apparently the "truth" of
> Global Warming was determined in Mann's meretricious paper, once and
> for all time. Global Warming Deniers would be hunted through the
> streets.
>
> ***
>
> Eventually Mann was made to release his data -- which he claimed to
> have mislaid! -- by the US Senate, and the statistical mess, on which
> the IPCC had persuaded world leaders to commit trillions, was
> revealed.
>
> (Another correspondence with Marxism and in particular it's latterday
> apologists, of which the French and American breeds were particularly
> intellectually dishonest and therefore despicable: A whole industry of
> would-be passengers on Mann\s IPCC gravy-train soon developed, all of
> them trying to prove Mann "right"...}
>
> But long, long before that happened, scientists from over thirty other
> disciplines had published papers restoring the Medieval Warm Period
> and the Little Ice Age to their rightful place in History -- and as
> happening around the world, despite limp rearguard actions by the
> Global Warming fanatics to claim that the MWP and the LIA were merely
> "eurocentric phenomena", in other words to lie that they took place
> only in Europe.
>
> Only the IPCC still stands by Michael Mann. They republish that hockey
> stick graph in other forms over and over. They haven't retracted a
> word. The IPCC is totally discredited, yet continues in precisely the
> same way with the same lies, now proven to be lies. That too is a
> Marxist method: never deny an error.
>
> ***
>
> Here's an irony for you: A favourite condemnation of critics of Global
> Warming, daily in the mouths of the Faithful, is that the critics
> "mistake a little local weather for world climate". Actually, Mann's
> Hockey Stick, on which the entire Global Warming Fallacy hangs, was
> created by deliberately mistaking a few (unsuitable) trees in Oregon
> for witnesses to the climate of the whole planet.
>
> crimes you commit yourself.
>
> ***
>
> I can't resist one final delicious irony. As the IPCC starts to
> realize that Global Warming is visibly a lost cause, a laughingstock,
> suddenly we hear little about Global Warming, except from the more
> stupid Faithful, and the money-grubbers like Al Gore who will earn
> billions out of its concomitant, carbon credits exchange, who prey on
> the more stupid Faithful.
>
> Instead the new Great Fear by which they want to control our actions,
> on which they want to spend our money, is Sudden Climate Change.
>
> Sudden Climate Change is as shoddy, and as unscientific, as Global
> Warming was, as the fear of an imminent Ice Age was when it was
> touted, often by the same people, in the 1970s, as the fear of a Hole
> in the Ozone Layer was in the 1960, and as the fear of cancer from DDT
> was.
>
> The banning of DDT led to the biggest manmade genocide that the world
> has ever seen of the poor and defenseless by starvation and malaria.
> The entirely manmade Global Warming Scare led to trillions of our
> money being wasted. The Sudden Climate Change Scare will lead to
> trillions being spent by these meddlers on what we cannot control,
> indeed cannot even describe or forecast with any statistical honesty.
>
> How is that different from Marxism, which was also a faith rather than
> a science?
>
> If the IPCC's paid advisers are scientists, they know it. All these
> climate scares are merely an excuse for social engineering on a scale
> Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao could never even dream of.
>
> These self-styled "climate scientists" should be given the Lysenko
> Award. The IPCC bureaucrats should be given the Stalin Award. Both
> awards confer the privilege of kneeling on a rubber mat.
>
> Andre Jute
> The Earth has a lot of practice looking after itself. it still will
> long after Man is gone.
>
Marxism is still the way the world will end up after capitalism has
failed. Hang on, it has :-)
--
Chris
I am not young enough to know everything.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
AMuzi
A whole generation grew up believing it's all caused by that
one goddamned butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil ...
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Simon Lewis
Very true, they did. Gleich has a lot to answer for. But the main point
about the unpredictability of turbulence and system intersection holds.
Andre Jute
> We didn't use a computer "model" in the modern sense to get the moon,
> but essentially a pocket calculator.
And what's more, the slide rule was wielded by engineers who
understood the math, not by politicized climatologists who believe
they have a divine dispensation from the laws of statistics (1).
Andre Jute
Reformed petrol head
Car-free since 1992
Greener than thou!
(1) If you think I'm overstating this case, consider the sequence of
events at:
http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/9852d09cb7a0e4e7?hl=en#
Andre Jute
> You are free to believe that models are crap, but the objective truth is
> that they aren't and your analysis is classic skeptic mythism.
>
> --
> Bill Asher
So tell us, Billy-boy, how come those models, if they work, didn't
forecast that global temperature would fall for a decade and more even
as the Global Warmies screeched that the world would get increasingly
warmer. How can you presume and pretend to be right about the far
distant future, decades and centuries ahead, if you cannot predict
what will happen before the next sunspot cycle upsets all you
calculations anyway. Spin me that, sonny; I'm looking forward to you
wriggling on that hook like a fat grub.
Andre Jute
A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes
Tom Sherman °_°
Never throw the letter "Q" in a privet bush.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
Celebrity culture is an opposite of community, informing us
that these few nonsense-heads matter but that the rest of
us do not. - Jay Griffiths
Andre Jute
> Like with Jute, you're not bringing anything of interest to the table,
> and I've wasted enough bandwidth here.
>
> --
> Bill Asher
We keep seeing this formulation from Bill Asher. Translated into
English it says:
"I'm Bill Asher and my mind is made up about Global Warming; you
cannot change it. I'm willing only to talk as long as there is a
chance of changing your mind. If I cannot change your mind, I don't
want to listen to you. Goodbye."
That is precisely the attitude of the Marxists. The title of this
thread is "What Global Warming has in common with Marxism". Of course,
Marxism is a revealed religion, like any other revealed religion; it
depends on unquestioning faith in the central tenets. The distinction
is that Marxism pretends and claims to be a science.
The two other revealed religions which claim to be a science are Ron L
Hubbard's Scientology and Global Warming.
Thanks, William Asher, for making all my points for me.
Andre Jute
The easy marks we already put down, the stubborn might take until
lunchtime
Andre Jute
> On 2009-07-31, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >news:slrnh757bu....@bowser.marioworld:
>
> >> On 2009-07-31, Still Just Me - <stillnoEmail...@stillnodomain.com>
> >> wrote:
That Asher clearly doesn't understand this crucial distinction, and
its severe dangers is symptomatic of the way the climatologists claim
to be immune to the rules of statistics that apply to the rest of us.
I wouldn't trust a model which includes the latest Hockey Stick data
as far as I can throw the computer on which it sits. The Medieval Warm
Period and the Little Ice Age, presumably included in previous models,
at least gives the prediction the same variability as the historical
record. But with Mann's crookery, we are left with a flat history and
a temperature for the 1990s taking off like a rocket ship. There is
nothing left for statistical forecasting except extrapolation, per ad
astra (I give it in Latin so as not to panic the innocent with the
Earth imminent demise). I suspect it is because the totally untrue
Hockey Stick has found its way into the model that the demographers
failed to forecast the cool period in which we now live.
Those models built on the Hockey Stick will clearly have the bias that
they can forecast only increasing temperature, whereas history teaches
that ice ages are more frequent and last longer. I know who I'd rather
believe if offered a choice between history, confirmed by thirty-odd
other scientists, and a demographer with a model that can miss a
decade-long, and continuing, event.
It's a giggle that any competent model, tested backwards will be found
inadequate because it will not conform to the current wisdom that the
MWP and the LIA never existed...
Andre Jute
Where's the global warming you clowns promised me? I want to ride my
bike!
Andre Jute
[Ouch! Of course I meant climatologists. I wrote an analogy with a
well-known problem in demographics but then scratched it, so
demographers were on my mind. Sorreee!]
Andre Jute
Of course it has. How could you have missed the reincarnation of
Marxism as the new apocalyptic, anti-corporate, anti-globalization
religion of Global Warming?
> --
>
> Chris
>
> I am not young enough to know everything.
> Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
Heh-heh! Good old Oscar.
Andre Jute
Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science
Ben C
> Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote in
> news:slrnh75t5e....@bowser.marioworld:
>
>> On 2009-07-31, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Your analysis is flawed since there are a finite number of things
>>> that can affect a climate model: ocean circulation, radiative forcing
>>> etc.
>>
>> That's part of the problem. There are a finite number of things in
>> real life that affect the real climate, but they're not necessarily
>> the same set of things as in the model.
>
> Can you give an example of a process that is known to affect climate
> that is not in current state-of-the-art climate models?
No. The point is that we're missing the processes that _aren't known_ to
affect climate, but that still affect it.
"I know of no other process" != "I know there is no other process".
> I don't think you can, but you are suggesting there are lots of them.
> Again, this is a common skeptic myth, that climate models are somehow
> incomplete.
Of course they're incomplete, I take that pretty much as a given. The
question is just, how incomplete.
>>> This means that are a limited number of things that can be adjusted.
>>> By comparing the details of the model output to the empirical data,
>>> you can get some idea of where problems in the model lie so the
>>> parameterizations of the physics in the model can be improved (flux
>>> corrections are a great example, where early on AOGCMs had to be
>>> smacked back into reality in terms of salinity but now the flux
>>> parameterizations have developed to the point where those rubber-band
>>> forcings aren't required).
>>
>> The question is, when are you modelling and when are you just
>> extrapolating? It isn't always a cut and dried distinction.
>
> This question demonstrates you don't really understand how these models
> work.
So how do they work then?
[...]
>> How do you know?
>
> Because of your question above. You are under the false impression
> there are all these processes not incorporated in climate models that
> have first-order impact. This skeptic myth comes from somewhere, and
> that source is professional skeptics like Lindzen and Christy. Lindzen
> is particularly pernicious in this regard. That you object to this
> idea, yet use it several times in the post I am responding to, suggests
> you don't even understand what I mean.
What do you mean? I've never heard of Lindzen and Christy.
[...]
>> My point is not that the models are necessarily crap, just that it's
>> deceptively easy to make a crap model.
>>
>> Can you give me another example from history of a system as complex
>> and unknown as global climate that has been modelled succesfully
>> enough to predict the future?
>
> There you go again with the meme that climate is somehow a black box
> with all this "unknown" physics inside.
I doubt there's any unknown physics. Simulations aim to approximate
reality, but the physics involved in climate is straightforward enough
to be modelled very accurately. Other parts of the model however are
likely to be much cruder.
> This is simply not true, and your continued fall-back to this idea is
> silly. Please point out where there could be something unknown that
> is affecting things to a first order. Is it radiative transfer? Is
> it ocean circulation?
If by "to a first order" you mean I'm expecting to find a giant
underground heater put there by aliens or something, no, that's not the
point.
The things that seem to me the hardest to model are all the factors
affecting natural CO2 sources and sinks. The exact effect of CO2 and
other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may also be something
that's hard to get right.
Some of these factors may depend on each other, and in chaotic ways, so
overlooking something small can affect forecasting in a big way.
If your argument were valid, why can't we predict the weather (not the
climate) accurately a week ahead? We know all the first order factors,
we've got supercomputers, so what's the problem?
> Is there some effect of clouds you think remains to be discovered? If
> there is something major that is not in models already, they would not
> be able to do as good a job as they do hindcasting climate, nor would
> Hansen, using 1988-era models even, have been able to project global
> mean temperatures as well as he did.
Sounds interesting. Do you have a link?
> The system is not that ill-posed and undefined.
>
>> I would not normally be inclined to accept the predictions of a
>> complicated model as evidence, in the sense that there is evidence for
>> the theory of evolution.
>
> Climate models are state-of-the-art.
Ooooh, wow.
> But just because something is being done for the first time, or being
> developed as it is required, doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong.
Nor that it's right.
> I suggest you are like most skeptics, scared of the policy and social
> implications of mitigating climate change.
Not really, I actually quite like some of the implications.
> This fear makes you very susceptible to common skeptic myths that
> somehow we don't really understand how climate works.
You can spare the psychoanalysis. Most of my skepticism comes from
reading _pro_ global warming articles and thinking, "is that all you've
got"?
> This is nonsense, and objection to lifestyle changes should not be
> used as an excuse to continually mis-state the science.
Actually I would be interested to know what lifestyle changes would be
enough to avert disaster. Often I see in the media that the
tipping-point of no return is imminent etc.
Realistically, are we talking, _all_ fossil power stations turned off in
the next 5 years, 10 years, 20 years?
Or if everyone just turns their TVs off instead of leaving them on
standby, will that be enough?
William Asher
I didn't bother to respond to the rest of your stuff, it wasn't worth the
effort. Sorry.
>> Is there some effect of clouds you think remains to be discovered? If
>> there is something major that is not in models already, they would not
>> be able to do as good a job as they do hindcasting climate, nor would
>> Hansen, using 1988-era models even, have been able to project global
>> mean temperatures as well as he did.
>
> Sounds interesting. Do you have a link?
Look up Spencer Weart's articles on climate on the APS website. They're
a very good introduction. But I suspect if you are thinking "this is all
you've got" already, you're not going to like what you read there either.
However, Weart does lay out the science starting with the early work of
Arrhenius, showing why exactly most climate scientists are fairy well
convinced anthropogenic CO2 is a problem.
Andre Jute
> Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote innews:slrnh77roi....@bowser.marioworld:
>
> I didn't bother to respond to the rest of your stuff, it wasn't worth the
> effort. Sorry.
You remind me a of Christian missionary, Asher, going to convert the
natives, arrogantly certain of his own belief that he delivers his
message but refuses to listen to why the natives' gods serve their
purposes better.
In this case Global Warming is your faith, and our gods are reason and
scientific method, both of which I have demonstrated over and over in
these threads the Global Warmies have betrayed.
> >> Hansen, using 1988-era models even, have been able to project global
> >> mean temperatures as well as he did.
>
> > Sounds interesting. Do you have a link?
>
> Look up Spencer Weart's articles on climate on the APS website. They're
> a very good introduction. But I suspect if you are thinking "this is all
> you've got" already, you're not going to like what you read there either.
> However, Weart does lay out the science starting with the early work of
> Arrhenius, showing why exactly most climate scientists are fairy well
> convinced anthropogenic CO2 is a problem.
But, Asher, that "most climate scientists are fairy well convinced
anthropogenic CO2 is a problem" is not science but belief, faith,
wishful thinking. Science requires verifiable, repeatable proof, with
the scientific method rigorously observed and independently verified,
with honest algorithms and statistics. I've already shown you again
and again that the socalled "proof", the Hockey Stick, is an elaborate
lie and that the two key NAS North and Wegman Panels agreed on that in
every detail. So what possible grounds remain for scientists being
"fairy well convinced anthropogenic CO2 is a problem"?
Science is not what people think, not even what many scientists wish
for. It is what they can prove. And we know that scientists know they
cannot prove that manmade CO2 is a problem, because the entire NAS
spent so much effort and all its credibility on despicably trying to
disappear the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, huge, long
climate changes which happened without any manmade CO2, and are so the
main arguments against Global Warming. (See "Do politicized
'scientists' practicing scientism deserve respect?"
http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/e801b9aa2716cc11?hl=en
or the text below my signature.)
Instead they convinced us that manmade CO2 is an irrelevance and that
Global Warming is an expensive practical joke.
Time, Billy-boy, to give up the pretense that you believe in Global
Warming as science. Once you admit it is your religion, we're barred
by good manners and political correctness from laughing publicly at
your silliness.
Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar
Evidence to support my contention that a large part of the scientific
community in the US is deeply implicated in attempts to deceive us
about Global Warming consists of a sequence of events in which the
official institute of American science, the National Academy of
Science, disgraced itself both by scientism -- the pretense that the
scientist stands unchallengeably above society and its laws -- and an
arrogant disregard for the scientific method, indeed for truth itself,
and sold itself to the highest bidder, in this case the IPCC:
a) The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age bear historical
witness against any possibility of Global Warming by Manmade CO2. It
is therefore considered politically desirable by the IPCC and its
attendant climatologists that the MWP and LIA be somehow removed from
history (a Stalinist feat, half a century after the monster died!).
b) One Michael Mann writes two papers that analyze proxy data in such
a manner that the MWP and the LIA are flattened and the 1990s show a
sharp peak and rising! Holy shit, suddenly Global Warming by Manmade
CO2 is not only possible, but an imminent threat!
c) The papers are "independently" peer-reviewed by people closely
associated with Mann.The peer review proceeds without ever looking at
the data. How, no one knows. Shortly it will become apparent that this
arrogant neglect by incestuously related "independent"
peer-"reviewers" is standard procedure in the climate sciences. Holy
shit, how the guano piles up!
d) The Mann papers are published, and used by the IPCC to throw a
Global Warming scare into world leaders, and every gullible leftwinger
in the world jumps on the bandwagon of Global Warming. Mass hysteria
and vast expenditures follow.
e) Mann refuses to share his data because he believes those who want
the data are out to prove him wrong. Here is the first indication that
Mann sees himself as above the checks and controls and verifications
that attend the work of other scientists. He is forced by the United
States Senate to release his data. So grossly antipathetic to proper
scientific method is Mann's offense that a Subcommitte of the Senate
appoints the most distinguished statistician in the United States,
Edward Wegman to investigate Mann's methods.
f) The National Academy of Sciences immediately appoints another
distinguished academician, Gerald North, to write a report to counter
the Wegman Report. Eh? The NAS by this action in fact tells us that
they (the scientists, more particularly the climatologists) believe
they are so much above the laws of statistics (which represent the
very laws of physics) and above their own rules governing the ethical
conduct of science, that they intend to find Mann correct regardless
of what other scientists, statisticians, and Senators might say. In
short, climatologists, even the wretched Mann (whom any accountable
professional body would have asked to resign long before this)
pronounce from Mount Olympus and are not to be questioned.
g) Wegman (remember, himself a most distinguished member of the NAS)
condemns Mann as a statistical incompetent, who furthermore behaves
unscientifically, and condemns Mann's conclusions point by point as
unfounded. Under oath North and each of his panelists in turn say that
they do not dispute a single one of the Wegman Report's devastating
condemnations of Mann. The North Report in fact condemns Mann's
statistical procedures, Mann's unscientific behaviour, and Mann's
conclusions point by point as unfounded, just like the Wegman Report
does.
h) The best North (remember, he was appointed to shore up Mann!) can
say about Mann's two papers (on which, remember, trillions of dollars
had already been committed by governments at the urging of the IPCC),
is that they are "plausible", a weasel-word carefully chosen because
it doesn't have any scientific or statistical meaning, such as for
instance "possible" has. North explicitly defines "plausible" as
conclusions which have not yet been disproven. (But he has already
pointed out that each of those conclusions is countered by facts
proven so often they are common currency among those who know their
climatology! In short, North knows Mann's conclusions are impossible
and therefore clearly implausible as well. Dr North was in an
impossible position, appointed by the NAS to shore up Mann, who on
investigation turned out to be a total incompetent, probably a crook,
against what was seen as an attack by outsiders.)
i) North and the National Academy of Science then let the media report
without correction that the North Panel had "vindicated" Mann's Hockey
Stick which disappeared the politically inconvenient truth of the
Mediaval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, in short they knowingly
fronted for a politically convenient lie.
j) The NAS, with the honourable exception of Dr Wegman, are still
fronting for that lie. Two committees led by distinguished members of
the NAS, Drs Wegman and North, found Mann incompetent and said
pointedly that Mann's flattening of the Medieval Warm Period and the
Little Ice Age is not supported by the data -- scientific language for
"he lies through his teeth" -- yet the IPCC continues to show Mann's
Hockey Stick graph in various new guises, without a single word of
complaint from the NAS. The NAS, in chasing a political chimera, has
thus made itself an accomplice to by far the most expensive lie ever
told.
So, is the NAS a scientific community whose unproven opinions we
should respect?
Are climatologists on the whole a scientific community we should
respect? I agree in advance, there are certain outstanding men, like
Lindzen, who have raised their voices, but the rest are either
implicated, complaisant whores of any passing fashion, or careerists
intimidated into silence by the thuggish behaviour of the Global
Warming Faithful, all equally despicable in my opinion.
There are, fortunately, many, many other scientists to respect for
their diligent honesty and sound method and dedication to the highest
standards.
Ben C
> Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote in
> news:slrnh77roi....@bowser.marioworld:
>
> I didn't bother to respond to the rest of your stuff, it wasn't worth the
> effort. Sorry.
Guess I must have made some good points then.
>>> Is there some effect of clouds you think remains to be discovered? If
>>> there is something major that is not in models already, they would not
>>> be able to do as good a job as they do hindcasting climate, nor would
>>> Hansen, using 1988-era models even, have been able to project global
>>> mean temperatures as well as he did.
>>
>> Sounds interesting. Do you have a link?
>
> Look up Spencer Weart's articles on climate on the APS website. They're
> a very good introduction. But I suspect if you are thinking "this is all
> you've got" already, you're not going to like what you read there either.
> However, Weart does lay out the science starting with the early work of
> Arrhenius, showing why exactly most climate scientists are fairy well
> convinced anthropogenic CO2 is a problem.
No, I am interested to read a reliable source for this stuff, and so
thank you for the reference. I will take a look at it.
William Asher
> On 2009-08-01, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote in
>> news:slrnh77roi....@bowser.marioworld:
>>
>> I didn't bother to respond to the rest of your stuff, it wasn't worth
>> the effort. Sorry.
>
> Guess I must have made some good points then.
>
No, what you wrote were a series of common skeptic myths. Whether you
wrote them as trolls to bait me or out of ignorance not realizing they
were myths is irrelevant. I am not interesting in revisiting and
discussing things that have been gone over endlessly. I find the memes
that there are huge unknowns left in climate and that climate models are
wildly inaccurate uninteresting in the extreme. No person with any
understanding of climate physics or modeling of climate would make those
assertions.
It's fine if you want to discuss climate, but you need to learn some of
the science and the real issues. Another great reference for climate
science on the web is:
They have very nice discussions of all of the issues you've raised,
although at a somewhat higher technical level, in their summaries for
here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/
The average h-index of the people writing for RealClimate.org is around
3. The average h-index of the people writing for the most scholarly of
the skeptics sites (co2science.org) is around 1. If you know anything
about science, this will mean something to you. If not, there is one
more thing you need to read up on. RealClimate is roundly hated by
skeptics (which I think you will become with a little effort) so I
hesitate a little to point it out to you. But then if I do I know Jute
will read it and go absolutely batshit crazy. That thought makes me
laugh so there is the link for you.
If you like your climate information with a more official signature, the
US Climate Change Research Program (which changes its name often but the
core information is the same) is a good reference:
Here is one report you might find of particular interest:
http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-
assessments/saps/298
Enjoy!
--
Bill Asher
Ben C
> Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote in
> news:slrnh7agk9....@bowser.marioworld:
>
>> On 2009-08-01, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote in
>>> news:slrnh77roi....@bowser.marioworld:
>>>
>>> I didn't bother to respond to the rest of your stuff, it wasn't worth
>>> the effort. Sorry.
>>
>> Guess I must have made some good points then.
>>
>
> No, what you wrote were a series of common skeptic myths. Whether you
> wrote them as trolls to bait me or out of ignorance not realizing they
> were myths is irrelevant.
The latter. Actually I thought of most of them for myself, so I am
interested to hear that they are also well-known skeptic myths.
But thanks for the links, I'll take a look and see what I can find that
might address some of the issues^H^H^H^H^H^H myths I have.
I read the essay at www.api.org/history/climate about computer modelling
and have to say I did find it extremely biased and not at all
convincing.
Ben C
> The average h-index of the people writing for RealClimate.org is around
> 3. The average h-index of the people writing for the most scholarly of
> the skeptics sites (co2science.org) is around 1. If you know anything
> about science, this will mean something to you.
I know enough about science to know that you don't judge it on the
"h-index" of the author!
Andre Jute
> if you want to discuss climate, but you need to learn some of
> the science and the real issues.
Anyone hear an echo of a Marxist saying earnestly, "If you want to
talk to us, you must first learn the dialectic." In Asher's mouth,
"real issues" means: "Get some faith, man."
> Another great reference for climate
> science on the web is:
>
> www.realclimate.org
>
> They have very nice discussions of all of the issues you've raised,
"Nice." Another scientific term coined to describe climate "science".
> although at a somewhat higher technical level, in their summaries for
> here:
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/
For statistical analyses of the papers the above site was set up to
defend and promote, see:
http://www.climateaudit.org/
This is the site of Steve McIntyre, whose findings the Wegman Panel so
wholeheartedly endorsed, and with whom the members of the NAS Panel
under Dr North individually under oath agreed point by point ("no
dispute"). An introduction to the roots of the condemnation of Mann's
Hockey Stick by Wegman and North and the US Senate is in a
presentation McIntyre made at Ohio State University in 2008:
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/ohio.pdf
> The average h-index of the people writing for RealClimate.org is around
> 3. The average h-index of the people writing for the most scholarly of
> the skeptics sites (co2science.org) is around 1.
I have a very high h-index, being very widely published and
influential to the extent where governments sent assassins after me to
shut me up, and I helped to change the government in more than one
country. So I guess that if I say the moon, just under the level of
the dust the astronauts disturbed, is made of cheese, then that is
science because, by the test Dr North applied to Michael Mann's
statistical crookery, it is not yet disproven, and stands supported by
my very high h-index. *Nice* going, Asher!
>If you know anything
> about science, this will mean something to you. If not, there is one
> more thing you need to read up on.
One thing you need to read up on, Asher, is the conduct for scientists
recommended by the Ethics Committee of the NAS. All this h-index stuff
is outright scientism, roundly condemned by the Ethics Committee of
the NAS, and forbidden by the code.
> RealClimate is roundly hated by
> skeptics (which I think you will become with a little effort) so I
> hesitate a little to point it out to you.
Since when is "skeptic" a swearword in the mouth of scientist? Science
is the formalization of skepticism. That is why I say that the
climatologists have now become a religious sect, because they have not
only forsaken the skepticism proper to real scientists but demand that
we forego our natural skepticism and believe in their results even as
we prove that they are statistical nonsense.
> But then if I do I know Jute
> will read it and go absolutely batshit crazy.
I've long since read all of Michael Mann's self-promotion site. I
cannot understand why you think I will go batshit crazy. It is just
information, in this instance seriously corrupt information. The point
of being a skeptic -- about everything, not just Global Warming -- is
that one doesn't make emotional decisions, as the Global Warmies
clearly have, and then commit to them right or wrong, through thick
and thin, but that the skeptic believes only what is proved, and then
only until a greater truth is proved.
>That thought makes me
> laugh ...
What all this malice proves, Asher, is that you aren't a scientist but
a wannabe politician -- and not a very good one, because you ran away
like a scared rabbit when I provided the correct information to
counter the thirty-odd outright lies you told.
Andre "The Mythbuster" Jute
William Asher
I realize now I mis-stated the h-index information. A scientist's
h-index will increase with time, or at least it should, since
publications and citations lead to an increase. Scientists of average
productivity should see their h-index rise by a value of 1 per year
after first degree. I remembered that the difference between the two
groups was a factor of three, but I forgot the scaling. Anyway, the
average rate of increase at RealClimate.org is 1.5 and at
WorldClimateReport.com it is around 0.5. As a second example, Don
Easterbrook who is a professor of geogology at West. Wash. Univ. is
often cited as a climate expert. His career average h-index rate of
increase is 0.27.
More competent scientists tend to have higher h-indeces, especially when
turned into the rate of increase. Most of the professional skeptics
have non-existent h-indeces, and increase rates that are well below 1.
This is because they do not publish, the only real metric of a research
scientist. Regardless of whether you think the rules suck, you have to
abide by them if you want to play the game.
Find a hotshot scientist, in any field, and their h-index increase rate
will be well above one (although yadda yadda yadda there are
exceptions). So, while you may think you know about science, the
h-index is a decent metric of professional competence.
--
Bill Asher
William Asher
were myths is irrelevant.
>
> The latter. Actually I thought of most of them for myself, so I am
> interested to hear that they are also well-known skeptic myths.
>
> But thanks for the links, I'll take a look and see what I can find
> that might address some of the issues^H^H^H^H^H^H myths I have.
>
> I read the essay at www.api.org/history/climate about computer
> modelling and have to say I did find it extremely biased and not at
> all convincing.
I wouldn't go to the API for a good discussion of climate change. Just
saying ...
If you really want to be a skeptic, in my opinion it does no good to
challenge a couple of core facts. These are:
1. Radiatively active trace gases affect the longwave energy flux
through planetary atmospheres.
2. Climates for planets where liquid water is present are extremely
sensitive to small changes in the radiative energy balance. Perturbing
either the shortwave energy flux in or the longwave flux out by small
amounts (i.e., less than 0.1 % of the total flux) can have large effects
on global climate.
Most skeptic arguments devolve into myths because they contradict one or
both of these facts. If you understand them, and think about the
science in that context, you will be far ahead of other skeptics.
--
Bill Asher
Ben C
I think you have to get into quite a bit of detail to dispute one or
another positive or negative feedback system.
I don't doubt that the climate is the sum total of lots of systems, many
with positive and many with negative feedback. What I doubt is that it's
possible to predict that system at all reliably from a model.
OK, this just came up reading some of the other links:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
Common "myth": CO2 lags temperature changes in the ice core, so can't
have caused them.
They don't deny that, but say:
"It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate.
Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth’s
orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been
known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean
circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.
From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable
sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some
(currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean
to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years
later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its
heat-trapping properties"
So why can't the same or similar "(currently unknown) process" be
causing the current warming _and_ increase in CO2?
Of course the world at the start of a termination is a very different
place than the world now. So the whole system is different anyway... So
it's back to the computer models.
But I was hoping for some evidence that did not depend on computer
models.
William Asher
Because they know what phase of the Milankovitch cycle we are on, and
they also know that the trend should be for cooling, not rapid warming.
Also, there aren't any natural mechanisms that cause such a large rise in
either CO2 or global temperature in so short a time. It took 800 years
for CO2 to come out of the ocean. Humans have increased CO2 by an
equivalent amount in about a tenth of the time. (Orders of magnitude
differences are big, drop a 1-lb softball from a 10-story building and
you can catch it. Try the same thing with a 10-lb sack of flour.)
The isotopic composition of the atmosphere is changing in the same way as
predicted by injecting CO2 with the isotopic composition of that formed
from burning of fossil fuels. If CO2 were coming out of the deep oceans
like Severinghaus talks about, it would have a different isotopic
composition.
These are all "Climate Science 101" questions and if you read through the
index section on RealClimate (or the USGCRP website) you can find answers
to all these yourself. Skeptics *hate* RealClimate because Mann is
involved with it, but the people who run it are really top rate. For
example, there is a sweet article by Cecilia Bitz on arctic amplification
that points out the arctic is warming from the CO2 forcing, but other
mechanisms are also first-order important since it's warming much faster
than any climate model predicts. (If you want to dig deeper on that,
there is an article in the open-access online journal Atmospheric
Chemistry and Physics by P.K. Quinn et al. from a couple years back
discussing how one possible explanation is that short-lived radiatively
important species like ozone and soot transported from Europe are
responsible.)
I've made this analogy before, but climate science at this point is like
a huge lego model of a submarine containing thousand of interlocking
bricks and all these little facts are the bricks. Skeptics like Jute
(who is in fact a particularly lame skeptic) think that by removing a
brick or two here or there all of a sudden the submarine will look like
the Taj Mahal, or a space station. You would have to take away a huge
amoung to bricks before it didn't look like a submarine, and climate
science just isn't that ill-posed.
Anyway, I don't know if you will come to these conclusions yourself by
reading the analyses from the USGCRP (or the U.S. National Academy of
Sciences or RealClimate.org for that matter), but you owe it to yourself
to read the real science.
--
Bill Asher
Ben C
Well, yes, but why then do they mention "some (currently unknown)
process"? Maybe the warming/CO2 started a little bit early for
its initiation to be attributed to the Milankovitch cycle.
Whatever, they don't seem to be using that argument. And either way, it
still means the ice cores are not a "smoking gun". They're just more
data points that can be used to evaluate models.
> , and they also know that the trend should be for cooling, not rapid
> warming. Also, there aren't any natural mechanisms that cause such a
> large rise in either CO2 or global temperature in so short a time.
Except meteorite impacts. Chixlub caused about 6000 Gt of CO2 very
quickly which caused 7 or 8 degrees of GW.
Natural CO2 sources/sinks around 300 Gt per year, anthropogenic about
24Gt per year.
Not that I'm suggesting any Chixlub-sized impacts have happened in the
20th century that we didn't notice :)
> It took 800 years for CO2 to come out of the ocean. Humans have
> increased CO2 by an equivalent amount in about a tenth of the time.
> (Orders of magnitude differences are big, drop a 1-lb softball from a
> 10-story building and you can catch it. Try the same thing with a
> 10-lb sack of flour.)
Same argument applies to our extra 24Gt vs 300Gt vs 6000Gt.
Really you have to rely on a model to tell you whether 24Gt per year
coming on the scene suddenly over 50 years is too much. It's not just
obvious that it is.
> The isotopic composition of the atmosphere is changing in the same way
> as predicted by injecting CO2 with the isotopic composition of that
> formed from burning of fossil fuels. If CO2 were coming out of the
> deep oceans like Severinghaus talks about, it would have a different
> isotopic composition.
That might be regarded as good news-- it means the anthropogenic CO2
hasn't yet started up some positive feedback mechanism that's kicking
out a whole lot more natural CO2.
William Asher
>
> That might be regarded as good news-- it means the anthropogenic CO2
> hasn't yet started up some positive feedback mechanism that's kicking
> out a whole lot more natural CO2.
>
It took 800 years for the deglaciation feedbacks to kick in. Just
because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't. Google "methane
hydrates arctic global warming" for one example of a feedback that might
be important in the near future.
--
Bill Asher
Ben C
> news:slrnh7dq66....@bowser.marioworld:
>
>>
>> That might be regarded as good news-- it means the anthropogenic CO2
>> hasn't yet started up some positive feedback mechanism that's kicking
>> out a whole lot more natural CO2.
>>
>
> It took 800 years for the deglaciation feedbacks to kick in. Just
> because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't.
Sure, I realize that. But suppose we'd found all the extra CO2 _not_ to
have been itself anthropogenic? I wonder what the conclusion would have
been: we didn't cause this, or, we caused this but it's worse than we
thought because for every molecule of CO2 we put up there, Mother Nature
has evidently contributed another 10.
With so many factors, variations of the outcome, and so much polemic
anyway, it's difficult to see how anything can be conclusively
falsified.
Suppose it actually got quite seriously cold in the next ten years, what
would happen? Well people might say OK we got it wrong, or they might
just frob the models a bit, and say, we got it a _bit_ wrong, but now
our models are even better and the doom we're forecasting this time is
real.
They'd probably get away with it too, basically because people would be
scared of the cold so there would be an answer-vacuum.
If the warmists are wrong, how long will it take for them to shut up? It
might be as long as it takes for the rest of the world to stop listening
to them (which could be hundreds or even thousands of years).
You have to put a bit of a cynic's hat on, but it's worth standing back
and looking at it like that because the whole thing resembles such a
well-known pattern of human behaviour: bad weather is your fault, it's
going to get worse, we will tell you what sacrifices you have to make
for it to go away.
Maybe it's all true this time. But there was always a high prior
probability the pattern would repeat anyway.
> Google "methane hydrates arctic global warming" for one example of a
> feedback that might be important in the near future.
Yes, I think I've heard of that one.
Bill Sornson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf-fzVH6v_U