What happened to global warming then?

[User482]

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.

We are going round in circles because you dismiss everything in support on Mann, whilst uncritically accepting the plagiarised, spurious and discredited work that does not support him.

Unless you are prepared to produce a paper in support of your assertions, I can only assume that you have nothing else to offer. It's a pity: your argument-from-authority schtick suggested that you had more in your locker. Obviously not.

 

[jonesy]

It all started when FM pointed me to Real Climate (Mann's website) and suggested that I brush up my reading. I retorted, as a throw away line, that I had no time for Mann as he was a liar and cheat, and then the other two piled on.

The argument is not about climate change, it's about the specifics of one climate scientist, and his way of going about things. Ironically, despite jonesy's and User482's outrage at the way that I have been dismissive of Mann's science, they have resisted my invitation to debate the science, preferring to snipe from a distance because a ''cursory glance'' is enough to *know* that my allegations are ''silly''.

If I understand correctly, they *know* this, because I am a ''poor contrarian troll''.

No, for the nth time of repeating, the issue under debate is your allegation of lying and cheating. No matter how many times you keep diving back to criticisms of his method, it does not follow from methodological failings that he is guilty of dishonesty. And despite your insistence that the evidence supports your claim of dishonesty, you keep citing articles that say things like "I don't think there is anything dishonest about it or anything like that". I'm curious as to how long you can keep deluding yourself that you are doing well in this debate, and presenting an informed opinion, when you keep citing sources that don't agree with your central claim! Even your supporters in this discussion will start to notice eventually...

 

[theclaud]

You really struggle with interpreting information don't you?

That's Jonesy you're talking to, right? I am on the popcorn bench for this one, but I can't help chucking in a little advice about not underestimating your opponents...

 

[VamP]

That's Jonesy you're talking to, right? I am on the popcorn bench for this one, but I can't help chucking in a little advice about not underestimating your opponents...

As jonesy doesn't seem capable of moving past the cheating vs incompetent conundrum, and actually look at the method, I am kind of done here. He has brought nothing to this debate, and I don't expect that to change.

 

[User482]

As jonesy doesn't seem capable of moving past the cheating vs incompetent conundrum, and actually look at the method, I am kind of done here. He has brought nothing to this debate, and I don't expect that to change.

You are the one making the allegation, not Jonesy. Why should he move on when you have not substantianted nor retracted your accusation?

Regarding the method, well-qualified people have looked at it, and published their results in peer-reviewed journals. They found that Mann was right, and McIntyre & McKitrick were wrong. I say again: if you think otherwise, produce your paper.

Here's a snippet:
"Our results show that the MBH [Mann] climate reconstruction method applied to the original proxy
data is not only reproducible, but also proves robust against important simplifications and modifications. The results of this study demonstrate that the primary climatological claim described in MM05a [McIntyre & McKitrick] ...cannot be upheld, and leaves unchanged the overall MBH result of uniquely high Northern Hemisphere temperatures in the late 20th century (relative to the entire 15th–20th century period).
Wahl & Ammann, 2007.

 

[jonesy]

As jonesy doesn't seem capable of moving past the cheating vs incompetent conundrum, and actually look at the method, I am kind of done here. He has brought nothing to this debate, and I don't expect that to change.

Let me help you with this, as you are clearly struggling. If I were to argue "X is true", and to support my argument kept posting articles that say "Y is true", where Y does not equal X; or, even worse, that say "X is not true", then I wouldn't feel I'd made my case very well...

As User482 points out, it was you that introduced the allegation of cheating, so it is for you to substantiate it. If you wish to "move on", then the ball is in your court, as all you need to do is retract the accusation that you made and can't substantiate. No need to thank me.

 

[VamP]

Christ you two don't half talk a lot of crap.

I am avoiding this thread until you engage on the statistics.

 

[Holdsworth]

I'd just like to put my contribution to this thread, below is a pie chart showing the composition of Venus. It has the highest surface temperature of any planet in the Solar System, surpassing that of barren and airless Mercury. This is despite it being only just beyond the inner edge of Sol's habitable zone where liquid water can exist. That is the atmosphere of a planet with a runaway greenhouse effect. Water vapour only makes up a paltry 17ppm compared to CO2 which makes up over 96%.

 

[User482]

Christ, I've been talking crap, and people have noticed.

I am going to talk about something else instead. That's probably crap, too.

FTFY.

 

[VamP]

FTFY.

I see what you did there, I bet you're a riot at parties

So far, you have defended Mann by referring to two sources. A paper co-authored by, erm... Mann. And a paper by Wahl and Amman, which was interestingly rejected twice by Geophysical Research Letters, before finally getting published by Climactic Change.

In it WA claim that they have proved the robustness of Mann's methodology by replicating it. They then make a schoolboy error of including their verification statistics in their appendices - something that at least Mann was clever enough to avoid doing.

Here they are:

Now I am man enough to give you credit to understand the significance of the above, but as this is a lay forum, here is a quick explanation of what the r squared verification statistic does:

Nagelkerke (1991) generalizes the definition of the coefficient of determination:

1. A generalized coefficient of determination should be consistent with the classical coefficient of determination when both can be computed;
2. Its value should also be maximised by the maximum likelihood estimation of a model;
3. It should be, at least asymptotically, independent of the sample size;
4. Its interpretation should be the proportion of the variation explained by the model;
5. It should be between 0 and 1, with 0 denoting that model does not explain any variation and 1 denoting that it perfectly explains the observed variation;
6. It should not have any unit.

And in case you think that Nagerlke is some heineous denier troll, here is the reference. I selected one you're very familiar with, and shouldn't have any trouble trusting

 

[User482]

That's very nice. Is anyone saying here that there weren't problems with the original paper? You're putting a great deal of effort into refuting an argument that no one is making.

The fact remains that Mann's results are widely replicated whereas mcintyre and mckitrick's results are not. Probably because they missed out stuff they didn't like, and because their paper fails elementary statistical tests.

Written your paper yet?

 

[VamP]

Problems with the original paper????

r2 verification of 0.5 shows statistical correlation of red noise. Both MBH98 and WA 07 have r2 stats at 0.2 and less. Mostly much much less. The data is complete garbage.

Mann cheated, and nobody has been able to reconstruct his analysis based on his data. Fact.

You don't understand the issues and refuse to look at the data. Fact.

Why am I wasting my time talking to you? Now that is a very good question.

 

[theclaud]

You don't understand the issues and refuse to look at the data. Fact.

Bear with User482. He means well but he's a bit thick and not too good with numbers. He's also a bit of a fragile sort, and all this personal abuse might be upsetting him.

 

[Crackle]

Bear with User482. He means well but he's a bit thick and not too good with numbers. He's also a bit of a fragile sort, and all this personal abuse might be upsetting him.

He's doing quite well considering his normal wallflower personality.

This, by the way, is one of the best climate debates in some time and I'm not taking the pee, I'm finding it extremely interesting so I hope no one does take the hump and it continues.

 

[theclaud]

He's doing quite well considering his normal wallflower personality.

This, by the way, is one of the best climate debates in some time and I'm not taking the pee, I'm finding it extremely interesting so I hope no one does take the hump and it continues.

I can't say I'm finding it quite as edifying as you are. VamP seems to me to be hawking a sideshow.