What happened to global warming then?

[User482]

Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures

"Mann et al. reconstruction is robust against the proxy-based criticisms addressed."
"temperatures are demonstrated to be largely unaffected by the use
r non-use of PCs [principal component analyses] to summarize proxy evidence from the data-rich North American region.
"recent “corrections” to the Mann et al. reconstruction that suggest 15th century temperatures could have been as high as those of the late-20th century are shown to be without statistical and climatological merit."
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf
Just one of many peer reviewed papers that support Mann's conclusions. Still, I'm sure that VamP believes that they're wrong and he's right.

 

[User482]

I think VamPs opinion on Mann is probably more educated (ands therefore valid) than most, without bothering with specific semantics. As he says, its not a court of law.

Yet his opinion is at odds with the peer-reviewed literature. He relies on plagiarised and discredited work, and when called on it, he shifts his attack from lying to incompetence. It's not very edifying.

 

[Linford]

Will all the bickering or supposed/proposed manipulation change the outcome of the event ?

I see a huge amount of effort being expended by arguing the toss over something which realistically 'cannot' be changed. Reductuction in consumption per head isn't going to make a tangeable difference as that flies in the face of human nature, and as national strength comes from numbers, so the desire to reduce demand on resources by reducing the coresponding population is never going to win votes or be encouraged by egotistical national leaders looking to expand their empires.

 

[VamP]

Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures

"Mann et al. reconstruction is robust against the proxy-based criticisms addressed."
"temperatures are demonstrated to be largely unaffected by the use
r non-use of PCs [principal component analyses] to summarize proxy evidence from the data-rich North American region.
"recent “corrections” to the Mann et al. reconstruction that suggest 15th century temperatures could have been as high as those of the late-20th century are shown to be without statistical and climatological merit."
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf
Just one of many peer reviewed papers that support Mann's conclusions. Still, I'm sure that VamP believes that they're wrong and he's right.

Wahl and Amman are colleagues of Mann's. The peer review process in this instance is pretty incestuous. They have not (like you) addressed the math, instead, they have ''moved on''.

I note that you avoid speaking to the evidence, and prefer circumstantial bullshit.

I suspect that you don't understand the math.

 

[VamP]

Will all the bickering or supposed/proposed manipulation change the outcome of the event ?

Ah, well that depends on what this ''event'' that you speak of is?

 

[Linford]

Ah, well that depends on what this ''event'' that you speak of is?

Need to see my edit ^

 

[VamP]

Need to see my edit ^

The answer to that is no.

But it is an interesting exercise in understanding intellectual honesty, and people's inability to evaluate evidence objectivelly when it challenges their world view.

 

[User482]

Wahl and Amman are colleagues of Mann's. The peer review process in this instance is pretty incestuous. They have not (like you) addressed the math, instead, they have ''moved on''.

I note that you avoid speaking to the evidence, and prefer circumstantial bullshit.

I suspect that you don't understand the math.

Ah, of course: they agreed with Mann so they must be lying. You are a very sad individual.
McKintyre & McKitrick's paper omitted 70% of the proxy data used by Mann, as noted by Rutherford (2005). I wouldn't rely on it.

The peer-reviewed literature overwhelmingly supports Mann. I believe Mann, and not you. You are of course free to publish your own conclusions and submit it review: seeing as you're so clever, why don't you?

 

[User482]

The answer to that is no.

But it is an interesting exercise in understanding intellectual honesty, and people's inability to evaluate evidence objectivelly when it challenges their world view.

Indeed. It would take a pretty dishonest person to rely on plagiarised and discredited work, instead of the wealth of peer-reviewed lietrature.

 

[Linford]

The answer to that is no.

But it is an interesting exercise in understanding intellectual honesty, and people's inability to evaluate evidence objectivelly when it challenges their world view.

For a long time, I was firmly in the denier camp. It took a bit of convincing, and then I had an epiphany which really did change my world view - which is a whole lot more depressing than I think the vast majority of people want to live with.

I see the growth in the green economy, and the very vast majority of renewable energy as fiddling whilst Rome burns, and are being courted by the politicians for less than altruisitic motives - they want people to think they are kind and caring people and not like all the other nasty politicians who are a self serving bunch.

It is all a bit like the state of the world economy - the majority of us are screwed, but life will go on and we will adapt.

 

[User482]

I think User482' opinion on Mann is probably more educated (ands therefore valid) than most, without bothering with specific semantics. Its not a court of law*

[*In the interests of balance]

[My head hurts]

I didn't have an opinion on Mann prior to this thread. I was well aware of his work and the controversies that surrounded it, but I never dug any deeper. Having now done so, I've found:

1. Mann's conclusions have been broadly supported by various investigations and several subsequent studies.
2. There were some statistical errors in his 1998 paper, but these did not significantly affect the conclusions.
3. McKintyre & McKitrick's criticism is spurious: they eliminated approximately 70% of the proxy data used. One of their papers failed peer-review.
4. Wegman's critical report was not formally peer-reviewed and is under investigation for plagiarism. Another, earlier paper was also withdrawn because of plagiarism.

So, on the balance of probability, I'm with Mann.

 

[VamP]

Is that Rutherford et al (2005) as in Rutherford, Mann, et all (2005)??? Also doesn't speak to the math, and uses the same PCs that MBH 98 uses. Can you find someone that's not a Mann co-author who robustly defends his use of principal components in MBH97?

Let me save you some time. You cannot.

I note that you avoid speaking to the evidence, and prefer circumstantial bullshit.

I suspect that you don't understand the math.

At the risk of repeating myself.

 

[User482]

Is that Rutherford et al (2005) as in Rutherford, Mann, et all (2005)??? Also doesn't speak to the math, and uses the same PCs that MBH 98 uses. Can you find someone that's not a Mann co-author who robustly defends his use of principal components in MBH97?

Let me save you some time. You cannot.



At the risk of repeating myself.

At the risk of repeating myself: the evidence supports Mann, and not you. Having failed to substantiate your claims of lying and cheating, you're now moving on to incompetence. You're not doing any better with that.

As you are so good at the maths, I invite you to publish your paper...

 

[VamP]

I didn't have an opinion on Mann prior to this thread. I was well aware of his work and the controversies that surrounded it, but I never dug any deeper. Having now done so, I've found:

1. Mann's conclusions have not been broadly supported by various investigations and several subsequent studies, except those authored by himself and his co-authors.
2. There were major statistical errors in his 1998 paper, and these created the conclusions.
3. McKintyre & McKitrick's criticism of the statistical treatment is 100% supported by the Wegman Report, the North Report, and the conclusions of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. There is no analysis in existence in the world today which disproves this criticism.
4. Wegman's critical report was not formally peer-reviewed (as this was not required, neither was the North Report) and parts of it not dealing with the statistical treatment are under investigation for plagiarism. It is worth noting that Wegman is countersuing the accuser in this case, a climate blogger who goes by the monicker of Desmos. Another, earlier later paper, which deals with issues unrelated to MBH98, was also withdrawn because of alleged plagiarism.
5. The North Report endorses Wegman's critique of the statistical treatment 100%.

So, on the balance of probability, I'm with Mann, because it has ever been thus.

FTFY

 

[VamP]

We are going around in circles on this. As you are unwilling to enagage in discussion of the statistical treatment, or find evidence of someone who has done so that supports your side of the argument, I am going to park it there.