Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday 49,370
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#42697 Jan 16, 2014
What observable evidence would lead an alarmist here to believe climate change theory is incorrect?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#42698 Jan 16, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
What's obvious is that you refuse to address any guidelines for a debate.... oh.. those inconvenient truths.
Zealots are so predictable.
I gave you complete freedom. You can't debate because you have no argument.

The guidelines are simple. Show any evidence that AGW is not happening.

But you can't. You have nothing.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#42699 Jan 16, 2014
>>But what did the NAS report and the authors actually say about the Mann hockey stick? In fact, the NAS report validated all of the significant criticisms of McIntyre & McKitrick (M&M):

1. The NAS indicated that the hockey stick method systematically underestimated the uncertainties in the data (p. 107).

2. In subtle wording, the NAS agreed with the M&M assertion that the hockey stick had no statistical significance, and was no more informative about the distant past than a table of random numbers. The NAS found that Mann's methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless. Mann’s data set does not have enough information to verify its ‘skill’ at resolving the past, and has such wide uncertainty bounds as to be no better than the simple mean of the data (p. 91). M&M said that the appearance of significance was created by ignoring all but one type of test score, thereby failing to quantify all the relevant uncertainties. The NAS agreed (p. 110), but, again, did so in subtle wording.

3. M&M argued that the hockey stick relied for its shape on the inclusion of a small set of invalid proxy data (called bristlecone, or “strip-bark” records). If they are removed, the conclusion that the 20th century is unusually warm compared to the pre-1450 interval is reversed. Hence the conclusion of unique late 20th century warmth is not robust—in other word it does not hold up under minor variations in data or methods. The NAS panel agreed, saying Mann’s results are “strongly dependent” on the strip-bark data (pp. 106-107), and they went further, warning that strip-bark data should not be used in this type of research (p. 50).

4. The NAS said " Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions", i.e. produce hockey sticks from baseball statistics, telephone book numbers, and monte carlo random numbers.

5. The NAS said Mann downplayed the "uncertainties of the published reconstructions...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.’

Mann never mentions that a subsequent House Energy and Commerce Committee report chaired by Edward Wegman totally destroyed the credibility of the ‘hockey stick’ and devastatingly ripped apart Mann’s methodology as ‘bad mathematics’. Furthermore, when Gerald North, the chairman of the NAS panel -- which Mann claims ‘vindicated him’– and panel member Peter Bloomfield who Mann says above came to the opposite conclusions as Prof Hand, were asked at the House Committee hearings whether or not they agreed with Wegman’s harsh criticisms, they said they did:

CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

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.’(Am Stat Assoc.)

Thus, despite Mann's incredible spin, Dr. Bloomfield did not "come to the opposite conclusion as Dr. Hand", nor those of Dr. Wegman, Steve McIntyre, and Dr. McKitrick.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/04/the...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#42700 Jan 16, 2014
These deniers can't keep up with science progress.

Why are they whining again?

P.S. However, they are dropping off like flies!
heavy tune

Seattle, WA

#42701 Jan 16, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
What observable evidence would lead an alarmist here to believe climate change theory is incorrect?
oh my 'middle', an unproven and unprovable theory can easily be made believable. the fairytale of global warming caused by man combined with the proper use of smoke and mirrors, and endless amounts of taxpayers funded government grant money has become a business that rivals even Hollywood. their 'ship of fools' event should not be thought of in any way as observable evidence that would lead any of the alarmists to believe that their climate theory is incorrect.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#42702 Jan 16, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
These deniers can't keep up with science progress.
Why are they whining again?
P.S. However, they are dropping off like flies!
From NATURE a recent confirmation of the Hockey Stick

"Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years."
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full...

So even with the disregarding of the Bristlecone Pine data, the data still confirms that the recent warming is unequaled in the past 1400 years.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#42703 Jan 16, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
From NATURE a recent confirmation of the Hockey Stick
"Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years."
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full...
So even with the disregarding of the Bristlecone Pine data, the data still confirms that the recent warming is unequaled in the past 1400 years.
"So even with the disregarding of the Bristlecone Pine data..."

What's that? An admission of error from a warmist? Do explain.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#42704 Jan 16, 2014
heavy tune wrote:
<quoted text>oh my 'middle', an unproven and unprovable theory can easily be made believable. the fairytale of global warming caused by man combined with the proper use of smoke and mirrors, and endless amounts of taxpayers funded government grant money has become a business that rivals even Hollywood. their 'ship of fools' event should not be thought of in any way as observable evidence that would lead any of the alarmists to believe that their climate theory is incorrect.
Another fantasyland denier, by the way who funds mothballs key hero's M&M one was a fossil fuel industry man & they give lectures under some bull$hit climate research organisation funded by Exxon Mobil. So go figure YOU would be paying for that as well, do you think Exxon do it as being a GOOD corporate citizen, no they are doing it to screw both your world and mine for GREED.
So feeding the ignorant with BS about the hockey stick graph gone wrong which has since been proven that is was correct. The wonder boys M&M who found errors in the dataset to try and pull the graph apart made errors themselves. So the hockey stick graph still stands.
What you idiots don't get that all your wild theories to try and explain the warming to some other source other than man have ALL been discounted. Now it's you that have turned denying into a religion because you have to believe in some myth other than fact.
heavy tune

Seattle, WA

#42705 Jan 16, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Another fantasyland denier, by the way who funds mothballs key hero's M&M one was a fossil fuel industry man & they give lectures under some bull$hit climate research organisation funded by Exxon Mobil. So go figure YOU would be paying for that as well, do you think Exxon do it as being a GOOD corporate citizen, no they are doing it to screw both your world and mine for GREED.
So feeding the ignorant with BS about the hockey stick graph gone wrong which has since been proven that is was correct. The wonder boys M&M who found errors in the dataset to try and pull the graph apart made errors themselves. So the hockey stick graph still stands.
What you idiots don't get that all your wild theories to try and explain the warming to some other source other than man have ALL been discounted. Now it's you that have turned denying into a religion because you have to believe in some myth other than fact.
way too funny 'ritz', it's too bad that most of your material was dumped on the french parliament steps.
heavy tune

Seattle, WA

#42706 Jan 16, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Another fantasyland denier, by the way who funds mothballs key hero's M&M one was a fossil fuel industry man & they give lectures under some bull$hit climate research organisation funded by Exxon Mobil. So go figure YOU would be paying for that as well, do you think Exxon do it as being a GOOD corporate citizen, no they are doing it to screw both your world and mine for GREED.
So feeding the ignorant with BS about the hockey stick graph gone wrong which has since been proven that is was correct. The wonder boys M&M who found errors in the dataset to try and pull the graph apart made errors themselves. So the hockey stick graph still stands.
What you idiots don't get that all your wild theories to try and explain the warming to some other source other than man have ALL been discounted. Now it's you that have turned denying into a religion because you have to believe in some myth other than fact.
by the way 'ritz', I like m&ms, you are in for a big fight now. this is almost like the amazed spectators finding out the fire was started by a volunteer firefighter. you fit right in buddy

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#42707 Jan 16, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
"So even with the disregarding of the Bristlecone Pine data..."
What's that? An admission of error from a warmist? Do explain.
Here is a dummies guide for the Bristlecone Pine controversy;
Perhaps it will help if you take the time to read it.
http://www.odlt.org/dcd/docs/Dummies%20guide%...
heavy tune

Seattle, WA

#42708 Jan 16, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a dummies guide for the Bristlecone Pine controversy;
Perhaps it will help if you take the time to read it.
http://www.odlt.org/dcd/docs/Dummies%20guide%...
are you really that nuts?
Jerry

Pittsboro, IN

#42709 Jan 16, 2014
Jugdish wrote:
<quoted text>
Remember the Population Explosion? By now, there were supposed to be so many people on Earth all sorts of dire things were to happen. What happened with that? Why don't we talk about the Population Explosion anymore?
Some of us do talk about it - it's a part of what is causing the problem with CO2. The more people that get added to the population, the faster we go through the nonrenewable fuels and the faster we add carbon to the thin atmosphere.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#42710 Jan 16, 2014
Jerry wrote:
<quoted text> Some of us do talk about it - it's a part of what is causing the problem with CO2. The more people that get added to the population, the faster we go through the nonrenewable fuels and the faster we add carbon to the thin atmosphere.
Correct and those other lil bonuses from globalisation taking the Chinese off bicycles to add another new car to the pollution pool every 2.6 seconds. None of this has any effect according to the deniers they blame pole shifts , volcanoes ,sun spots. In fact anything other than man as the cause.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#42711 Jan 16, 2014
The leaked IPCC draft report urges the world community to act without delay to cut emissions and shift to clean energy.
If CO2 gases are allowed to continue growing at their current rate, increased conservation and efficiency would not be sufficient to counter their impact, the document says. It accuses governments of spending far more on subsiding fossil fuels than switching to cleaner energy. And the document identifies economic growth and population growth as two main drivers for the rising greenhouse emissions.

In 2009, politicians from around the world took a decision at the Copenhagen climate conference to try to limit long-term global average temperature increases to 2C (36F). This, it was said, was the point above which dangerous changes to the planet would occur.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/j...
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#42714 Jan 17, 2014
Mothra wrote:
>>But what did the NAS report and the authors actually say about the Mann hockey stick? In fact, the NAS report validated all of the significant criticisms of McIntyre & McKitrick (M&M):

In subtle wording?


Mann never mentions that a subsequent House Energy and Commerce Committee report chaired by Edward Wegman totally destroyed the credibility of the ‘hockey stick’ and devastatingly ripped apart Mann’s methodology as ‘bad mathematics’. Furthermore, when Gerald North, the chairman of the NAS panel -- which Mann claims ‘vindicated him’– and panel member Peter Bloomfield who Mann says above came to the opposite conclusions as Prof Hand, were asked at the House Committee hearings whether or not they agreed with Wegman’s harsh criticisms, they said they did:
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?
DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.
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.’(Am Stat Assoc.)
Thus, despite Mann's incredible spin, Dr. Bloomfield did not "come to the opposite conclusion as Dr. Hand", nor those of Dr. Wegman, Steve McIntyre, and Dr. McKitrick.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/04/the...
It don't matter how many times you kick that dead horse, it just aint gonna get back up!

The bottom line is that the National Academies of Science agrees that global temperatures are “unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years” is...; indeed, the NAS reports that it is “supported by an array of evidence”(NAS 2006, pg. 3).

So M&M found errors, but they didn't amount to a hill of beans, certainly not enough to make a Federal case out of, which they promptly proceeded to do.

But, the dirty pool came to light, especially when James Inhofe or Joe Barton are involved.
Wegman's institution, George Mason University, confirmed in October 2010 that they were investigating misconduct charges, following a March 2010 formal complaint by Raymond S. Bradley alleging plagiarism and fabrications in the Wegman Report. A 250-page study by computer scientist John Mashey, posted on the "Deep Climate" website, claims that 35 of the 91 pages in the Wegman Report were plagiarized, and "often injected with errors, bias and changes of meaning."
Later, a George Mason committee unanimously found "that plagiarism occurred in contextual sections of the (CSDA) article, as a result of poor judgment for which Professor Wegman, as team leader, must bear responsibility", and Wegman was to receive an "official letter of reprimand". The investigation reports were to be sent on to federal authorities, but would not be made public.

ANOTHER EPIC FAIL!
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#42715 Jan 17, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
"So even with the disregarding of the Bristlecone Pine data..."
What's that? An admission of error from a warmist? Do explain.
Not a chance, not this time, genius.

Just doing you a favor. You don't like bristlecones, we'll take 'em out.

Guess what? Same results! In several studies.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#42716 Jan 17, 2014
There's no experimental evidence man can change the composition of the atmosphere; it's too big. The sky is the biggest thing on Earth.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#42717 Jan 17, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
There's no experimental evidence man can change the composition of the atmosphere; it's too big. The sky is the biggest thing on Earth.
There's all kinds of evidence that Man IS changing the composition of the atmosphere.

You are the biggest fool on Earth.

Since: Jul 13

Neptune, NJ

#42718 Jan 17, 2014
Mothra wrote:
>>But what did the NAS report and the authors actually say about the Mann hockey stick? In fact, the NAS report validated all of the significant criticisms of McIntyre & McKitrick (M&M):
1. The NAS indicated that the hockey stick method systematically underestimated the uncertainties in the data (p. 107).
2. In subtle wording, the NAS agreed with the M&M assertion that the hockey stick had no statistical significance, and was no more informative about the distant past than a table of random numbers. The NAS found that Mann's methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless. Mann’s data set does not have enough information to verify its ‘skill’ at resolving the past, and has such wide uncertainty bounds as to be no better than the simple mean of the data (p. 91). M&M said that the appearance of significance was created by ignoring all but one type of test score, thereby failing to quantify all the relevant uncertainties. The NAS agreed (p. 110), but, again, did so in subtle wording.
3. M&M argued that the hockey stick relied for its shape on the inclusion of a small set of invalid proxy data (called bristlecone, or “strip-bark” records). If they are removed, the conclusion that the 20th century is unusually warm compared to the pre-1450 interval is reversed. Hence the conclusion of unique late 20th century warmth is not robust—in other word it does not hold up under minor variations in data or methods. The NAS panel agreed, saying Mann’s results are “strongly dependent” on the strip-bark data (pp. 106-107), and they went further, warning that strip-bark data should not be used in this type of research (p. 50).
4. The NAS said " Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions", i.e. produce hockey sticks from baseball statistics, telephone book numbers, and monte carlo random numbers.
5. The NAS said Mann downplayed the "uncertainties of the published reconstructions...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.’
Mann never mentions that a subsequent House Energy and Commerce Committee report chaired by Edward Wegman totally destroyed the credibility of the ‘hockey stick’ and devastatingly ripped apart Mann’s methodology as ‘bad mathematics’. Furthermore, when Gerald North, the chairman of the NAS panel -- which Mann claims ‘vindicated him’– and panel member Peter Bloomfield who Mann says above came to the opposite conclusions as Prof Hand, were asked at the House Committee hearings whether or not they agreed with Wegman’s harsh criticisms, they said they did:
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?
DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.
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.’(Am Stat Assoc.)
Thus, despite Mann's incredible spin, Dr. Bloomfield did not "come to the opposite conclusion as Dr. Hand", nor those of Dr. Wegman, Steve McIntyre, and Dr. McKitrick.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/04/the...
A blogspot is not scientific evidence of anything. Try quoting a scientific, peer reviewed paper to support your comments.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min USAsince1680 1,156,301
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 9 min PEllen 98,885
Amy 12-28-14 13 min PEllen 2
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 17 min Yumpin Yimminy 68,920
Dear Abby 12-28 31 min PEllen 2
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 31 min rabbee yehoshooah... 71,278
Chicago police stop black motorists more, ACLU ... 40 min rico 7
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 hr Jacques Ottawa 182,195
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 7:12 am PST

ESPN 7:12AM
Sources: Some Bears coaches fear firings
Bleacher Report 8:22 AM
Chicago Bears vs. Minnesota Vikings: Live Chicago Score and Analysis
Bleacher Report 8:49 AM
Chicago Bears vs. Minnesota Vikings: Live Score and Analysis for Minnesota
Bleacher Report 8:49 AM
Indianapolis Colts vs. Tennessee Titans: Live Score and Analysis for Tennessee
NBC Sports 9:02 AM
Bears take out ad thanking fans, says club "won't make excuses"