Politics Climate Change Paradox

Should we act now, or wait for a unified global approach


  • Total voters
    68

(Log in to remove this ad.)

fishardansin

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Posts
14,896
Likes
9,824
Location
coburg
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Australian cricket team
Oh dear. I didn't know whether to puke or laugh out loud.

Stephen McIntyre exposed Mann's shoddy work. This presentation by him is a good summary.

http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/mcintyre-heartland_2010.pdf

Despite Mann's best efforts to prevent FOI access to the raw data, McIntyre found many mistakes in both the statistical techniques and the data used to make the hockey stick.

His finding included Mann’s undisclosed use in a 1998 paper (“MBH98”) of an algorithm which mined data for hockey-stick shaped series. The algorithm was so powerful that it could produce hockey-stick shaped 'reconstructions' from red noise.

Mann also deleted inconvenient data to 'hide the decline' in late 20th century temperatures. a phrase that was highlighted in the Climategate scandal, along with revelations that Mann and his buddies conspired to delete embarrassing emails on this matter.

After being discredited Mann later attempted to re-justify his hockey stick based on a ludicrously small sub-sample of just 12 Siberian larch trees.

Other errors by Mann were highlighted - such as a mistake that prevented 1934 being shown to be warmer than 1998 in America, the smoothing of sea-level rises in a way that concealed recent deceleration, the use of a Swedish lake sediment series upside down so it showed recent warming instead of cooling.

Conveniently, all Mann's errors served to reinforce his anthropogenic hypothesis. Various emails to colleagues point to a motivation to deliberately hide inconvenient data.

Mark Steyn's book is another good summary.

Ok, so McIntrye and Steyn have had their claims go through peer review? Why is this the domain of a culture warrior? Makes you worry, doesn't it?

Here is the paper you think deserves criticism

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf

Worth noting it has had over 2200 citations.

I can say that as we currently stand we don't have good statistical models of a space through time. Time series models and spatial models have both existed for a long time. Mann would have been trying to work through or around the difficulty. It is something I was working on in my post-graduate research. There are ways of hacking around it. Using topological methods, but they are computationally heavy and do create a pixilated picture.

Also, re climate-gate I love the quote from

https://www.nature.com/articles/480006a

"There is also the sense that many in the media felt cheated by the original Climategate. They were led by the nose, by those with a clear agenda, to a sizzling scandal that steadily defused as the true facts and context were made clear. Many will not make the same mistake — to write headlines first and ask questions later — again. Plus, it is hard for anyone except the most committed conspiracy theorist to see much of interest in the content of the released e-mails, even taken out of context."

After the lame second attempt to mislead with hacking emails and printing excerpts out of context.
 

Long Live HFC

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Posts
5,438
Likes
4,092
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Mann also deleted inconvenient data to 'hide the decline' in late 20th century temperatures. a phrase that was highlighted in the Climategate scandal, along with revelations that Mann and his buddies conspired to delete embarrassing emails on this matter.
this BS has been repeatedly debunked. the "nature trick" referred to in the emails was a reference to a paper published in the journal nature about tree rings and how they stopped being accurate temperature proxy records in recent decades. ie tree ring data matched other proxies until the latter half of the 20th century when they diverged from the rest. the hockey stick has been replicated like a dozen times using different proxies and other researchers. the science and scientists in the climategate "scandal" have been vindicated by at least 7 different investigations.

  1. The "decline" does not refer to a "decline in global temperature" as often claimed. It actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations. This decline began in the 1960s when tree-ring proxies diverged from the temperature record.
  2. "Mike's Nature trick" has nothing to do with "hide the decline". "Mike's trick" refers to a technique by Michael Mann to plot instrumental temperature data on the same graph as reconstructed data over the past millennium.
  3. The divergence of tree-ring proxies from temperatures after 1960 is openly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature and the last two IPCC assessment reports.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline-advanced.htm
 

fishardansin

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Posts
14,896
Likes
9,824
Location
coburg
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Australian cricket team
this BS has been repeatedly debunked. the "nature trick" referred to in the emails was a reference to a paper published in the journal nature about tree rings and how they stopped being accurate temperature proxy records in recent decades. ie tree ring data matched other proxies until the latter half of the 20th century when they diverged from the rest. the hockey stick has been replicated like a dozen times using different proxies and other researchers. the science and scientists in the climategate "scandal" have been vindicated by at least 7 different investigations.


https://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline-advanced.htm
I still don't understand why people are fighting such a dishonest fight against experts who spend their days working in this field. I mean, you understand why fossil fuel companies may do it. You understand why rightwing mouthpieces who are funded by fossil fuel companies through "think tanks" and foundations do it. Why do ordinary people who have nothing to gain? It just baffles me.

Has there been a "sceptics" argument that has stood the test of time?
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2018
Posts
123
Likes
107
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
I still don't understand why people are fighting such a dishonest fight against experts who spend their days working in this field. I mean, you understand why fossil fuel companies may do it. You understand why rightwing mouthpieces who are funded by fossil fuel companies through "think tanks" and foundations do it. Why do ordinary people who have nothing to gain? It just baffles me.

Has there been a "sceptics" argument that has stood the test of time?
It’s a nature occurring event for starters and thebclaims that those experts make never come true and always changing the goal posts on their failed science!

It’s nothing but a money grabbing exercise to place fear in to people!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevor...experiment-to-block-out-the-sun/#b63e1c940c24
https://gulfnews.com/uae/environment/stop-eating-meat-to-halt-climate-change-study-1.2288646

How do you take endless crap like this seriously!
Basic things like population growth ads to co2 omissions, air conditions pumping away in summertime does, volcanoes erupting and growing numbers of farm animals all add to this so called adding to climate change!

Last 20 years some predictions have been it was never going to snow, polar bears were going to be extinct and the ice caps were going to have melted!

None this crap has come true, and the ice caps are growing and thenearth is now entering a cooling faze

If you date back thousands of years, Tasmania was once part of the Australian mainland and the Sahara desert was once a tropical rain forest.

Areas that need to be focused on are little things like disposable waste
 

sorted

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 21, 2016
Posts
4,757
Likes
6,055
AFL Club
Geelong
this BS has been repeatedly debunked. the "nature trick" referred to in the emails was a reference to a paper published in the journal nature about tree rings and how they stopped being accurate temperature proxy records in recent decades. ie tree ring data matched other proxies until the latter half of the 20th century when they diverged from the rest.
As explained in the presentation I linked to there was a discrepancy between Mann's temperature reconstructions and Briffa's. Both had temperature reconstructions published in 1998. Both drew on very large tree ring networks, but their later 20th century results were diametrically opposite. Mann’s went sharply up, while Briffa’s went down. Disguising this inconsistency rather than explaining it led to the controversy. If, as you say, the tree rings stopped being accurate temperature proxy records in recent decades how does one know that the tree rings provide a good proxy record in response to warming in medieval times?

To 'hide the decline' Mann deleted the data after 1960. This is really shit science work. He's making the data fit the hypothesis. I don't think this is accidental. He has an agenda.

As an IPCC lead author he was in a position of power to promote his version of the reconstructions and also emphasise 'a consensus'. At the IPCC Lead Authors meeting in 1999 Coordinating Lead Author Folland wrote that the Briffa reconstruction 'dilutes the message rather significantly'. Mann wrote that 'everyone in the room agreed that the Briffa series was a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably consensus viewpoint we’d like to show'. Mann wanted to disregard Briffa's reconstructions 'otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. I don’t think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I’d hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!'

This is not science. It's politics based on ideology. But entirely consistent with the mission of the IPCC.
 

fishardansin

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Posts
14,896
Likes
9,824
Location
coburg
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Australian cricket team
It’s a nature occurring event for starters and thebclaims that those experts make never come true and always changing the goal posts on their failed science!

It’s nothing but a money grabbing exercise to place fear in to people!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevor...experiment-to-block-out-the-sun/#b63e1c940c24
https://gulfnews.com/uae/environment/stop-eating-meat-to-halt-climate-change-study-1.2288646

How do you take endless crap like this seriously!
Basic things like population growth ads to co2 omissions, air conditions pumping away in summertime does, volcanoes erupting and growing numbers of farm animals all add to this so called adding to climate change!

Last 20 years some predictions have been it was never going to snow, polar bears were going to be extinct and the ice caps were going to have melted!

None this crap has come true, and the ice caps are growing and thenearth is now entering a cooling faze

If you date back thousands of years, Tasmania was once part of the Australian mainland and the Sahara desert was once a tropical rain forest.

Areas that need to be focused on are little things like disposable waste
Dude, there is so much wrong in there it would take me too long to help you. Have your opinions but get out of the way when we look for the solution please.
 

fishardansin

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Posts
14,896
Likes
9,824
Location
coburg
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Australian cricket team
As explained in the presentation I linked to there was a discrepancy between Mann's temperature reconstructions and Briffa's. Both had temperature reconstructions published in 1998. Both drew on very large tree ring networks, but their later 20th century results were diametrically opposite. Mann’s went sharply up, while Briffa’s went down. Disguising this inconsistency rather than explaining it led to the controversy. If, as you say, the tree rings stopped being accurate temperature proxy records in recent decades how does one know that the tree rings provide a good proxy record in response to warming in medieval times?

To 'hide the decline' Mann deleted the data after 1960. This is really shit science work. He's making the data fit the hypothesis. I don't think this is accidental. He has an agenda.

As an IPCC lead author he was in a position of power to promote his version of the reconstructions and also emphasise 'a consensus'. At the IPCC Lead Authors meeting in 1999 Coordinating Lead Author Folland wrote that the Briffa reconstruction 'dilutes the message rather significantly'. Mann wrote that 'everyone in the room agreed that the Briffa series was a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably consensus viewpoint we’d like to show'. Mann wanted to disregard Briffa's reconstructions 'otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. I don’t think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I’d hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!'

This is not science. It's politics based on ideology. But entirely consistent with the mission of the IPCC.

Because the high levels of Co2 make the tree rings a worse proxy. To say otherwise and continue to argue your point shows you're disingenuous.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Isaac Cumming No 1

Premium Platinum
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Posts
9,390
Likes
7,105
AFL Club
GWS
I still don't understand why people are fighting such a dishonest fight against experts who spend their days working in this field. I mean, you understand why fossil fuel companies may do it. You understand why rightwing mouthpieces who are funded by fossil fuel companies through "think tanks" and foundations do it. Why do ordinary people who have nothing to gain? It just baffles me.

Has there been a "sceptics" argument that has stood the test of time?
Has any other religion ever welcomed a heretic and agreed with them?
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Posts
3,153
Likes
3,319
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Just have to keep an eye on the frogs, really.
Amphibians are one of the first indicators that something is badly wrong - and in Australia (not only, but at least), they're disappearing. Not population decline, we're talking species annihilation.

Oh, and bees. Don't forget the bees.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Posts
3,153
Likes
3,319
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
The dissapearance of frogs would have little affect on us, and the bee thing wouldn't be a human extinction event either.
I suppose this is a reason why so many people are accused of trolling.
The alternative to believing someone a mere troll is to be forced to confront the fact that such willful ignorance can actually exist.
 

Snake_Baker

Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Posts
36,838
Likes
64,136
Location
Destination Club
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Pfffft, as if!
I suppose this is a reason why so many people are accused of trolling.
The alternative to believing someone a mere troll is to be forced to confront the fact that such willful ignorance can actually exist.
Do you design cryptic crosswords for a living? Man is not going to turn away from technology. In fact, technology is our only savior.

1) If frogs die off, it would be a tragedy, but would barely register a blip on the human survival radar.
2) If bees ceased to pollinate, then the lack of pollination would cause issues for the human population as a whole, but would not lead to an extinction of our species.

I'm happy to see any credible data to the contrary.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Posts
3,153
Likes
3,319
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Do you design cryptic crosswords for a living? Man is not going to turn away from technology. In fact, technology is our only savior.

1) If frogs die off, it would be a tragedy, but would barely register a blip on the human survival radar.
2) If bees ceased to pollinate, then the lack of pollination would cause issues for the human population as a whole, but would not lead to an extinction of our species.

I'm happy to see any credible data to the contrary.
Technology being our only saviour is something I've said before. Along with many others.
The point was that amphibious species dying off (which they are) is a reliable indicator that something is going wrong. I didn't say anything beyond that.

What the **** does a human "extinction event" have to do with anything?
 
Top Bottom