NationStates Jolt Archive

Interesting, most interesting....

http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=14429&cid=18&cname=Opinion

A favourite ploy by AGW alarmists is to repeat ad infinitem that the science about AGW has been settled and that there is consensus among scientists that it is happening and that it will have cataclysmic consequences for our planet. People using these consensus arguments forget that scientific truth is not determined by consensus. But apart from being unscientific, the consensus argument is also a myth.....


The Hockey Stick graph was first published by Mann, Bradley and Hughes in 1998 in Nature (vol. 392: 779-787). It is now generally referred to as “MBH98”. Two Canadian statistical experts, McIntyre and McKitrick set out to audit the Hockey Stick. They had great trouble getting the necessary information from Michael Mann. He put many obstacles in their path and even refused to release his computer code, saying that “giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in” and that “if we allowed that sort of thing to stop us from progressing in science, that would be a very frightening world”. He apparently was not willing to accept that one of the litmus tests of a scientific theory is its reproducibility. Anyhow, McIntyre and McKitrick found serious flaws and deliberate manipulation of data in the methods used by MBH98 to obtain their Hockey Stick. They even found that that the statistical methods used by MBH98 always produces a hockey stick shaped graph, even when random numbers are used.

I doubt you'll find a climatologist today who still believes the infamous 'Hockey Stick' graph - it was descredited long ago. Are you trying to imply that because this piece of research was nonsense that all the thousands of other papers are as well?

I call all research into question. That's the point of science. I also question why, if the graph was discredited so long ago, it is still being used so regularly if not for an agenda.

From the article:

In its first Scientific Assessment Report (1990), the IPCC still had a temperature graph showing the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. It is now clear in the 2001 report that the IPCC has deliberately eliminated these natural climate fluctuations with sleight of hand.

OK. Here's a good question: why would anyone fake global warming? Some people seem pretty adamant that climate change is not happening, but don't explain why the science would be faked, or why so many scientists would go along with the lie.

OK. Here's a good question: why would anyone fake global warming? Some people seem pretty adamant that climate change is not happening, but don't explain why the science would be faked, or why so many scientists would go along with the lie.

Activism doesn't always require logic or facts. Just look at PETA.

Activism doesn't always require logic or facts. Just look at PETA.
And of course PETA consists of tens of thousands of PhDs.

I call all research into question. That's the point of science. I also question why, if the graph was discredited so long ago, it is still being used so regularly if not for an agenda.
As in any debate which gets the public attention, most advocates on each side are unqualified members of the public - just look at Crichton.

And of course PETA consists of tens of thousands of PhDs.

Arguement by Authority.

As the article states, "scientific truth is not determined by consensus".

This article clearly showes that a number of the most influential GW studies have been flawed and the researchers are reluctant to release their data.

"Like in the MBH98 case, some independent scientists asked Jones for his basic data. He first said that “the data was on one of many diskettes at his office and he could not locate it without going to a lot of trouble”. When Warwick Hughes (pers.com. Warwick is a geology graduate from Auckland working in Australia. His website is worth a visit) also asked for those data he got the reply: “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it”. No comment is necessary here.



If their data is good, why are they reluctant to release it for critique?

So because a couple of scientists havent released their data, the thousands of pieces which have been released, are automatically wrong?

So because a couple of scientists havent released their data, the thousands of pieces which have been released, are automatically wrong?

If they are based off of results of that research, it does call it into question. Do you disagree w/ that?

Now show me where I said all the "pieces" were wrong.

Interesting, most interesting....

http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=14429&cid=18&cname=Opinion

A favourite ploy by AGW alarmists is to repeat ad infinitem that the science about AGW has been settled and that there is consensus among scientists that it is happening and that it will have cataclysmic consequences for our planet. People using these consensus arguments forget that scientific truth is not determined by consensus. But apart from being unscientific, the consensus argument is also a myth.....

i don't know, there was an actual scientific paper published in nature about the percentage of peer-reviewed papers that disagreed with the consensus view. the answer was that they found not a single paper in their sample which did so. so it appears to be a scientific fact that there is a scientific consensus on global warming. (this is not to say that there aren't any such papers, merely that there are an insignificant number of them compared to the overwhelming number that are part of the consensus.)

yes, science isn't done by consensus. it's done by evidence. and since one side is doing all the data gathering and publishing, and a few cranks are standing on the sidelines crying "nuh-uh" but not actually doing science, i think it's clear which side the evidence is on.


Anyhow, McIntyre and McKitrick found serious flaws and deliberate manipulation of data in the methods used by MBH98 to obtain their Hockey Stick. They even found that that the statistical methods used by MBH98 always produces a hockey stick shaped graph, even when random numbers are used.

no, they didn't.
http://timlambert.org/2005/02/climate3/
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/02/moving_goalposts.php
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=98
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121

OK. Here's a good question: why would anyone fake global warming? Some people seem pretty adamant that climate change is not happening, but don't explain why the science would be faked, or why so many scientists would go along with the lie.

You can't fake climate change, since it occurs naturally, and now we're in the end of the lovely period of transition from the little ice age from the 1800's and we're entering a warmer age. Should we be alarmed, like many of us want us to be? Shall we be scared of a global warming that would make the earth just as warm as the period where the Vikings flourished? Remember Greenland wasn't always as icy as today (Not that the giant ice shelf has ever left there, since that dates back to the Big Ice age)

Oh, and whoever says that Climate Change is not happening is a liar, the only thing climate does is change, it is never stable, it is mostly cyclical. But also whoever says that we're all going to die because of Climate Change is also a liar. Adaptation is the key.

I'll stick with my own conspiracy theories. The climate-change-facade conspiracy lacks shock value.

i don't know, there was an actual scientific paper published in nature about the percentage of peer-reviewed papers that disagreed with the consensus view. the answer was that they found not a single paper in their sample which did so. so it appears to be a scientific fact that there is a scientific consensus on global warming. (this is not to say that there aren't any such papers, merely that there are an insignificant number of them compared to the overwhelming number that are part of the consensus.)

yes, science isn't done by consensus. it's done by evidence. and since one side is doing all the data gathering and publishing, and a few cranks are standing on the sidelines crying "nuh-uh" but not actually doing science, i think it's clear which side the evidence is on.




no, they didn't.
http://timlambert.org/2005/02/climate3/
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/02/moving_goalposts.php
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=98
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121


Wait, now it was earlier stated that "I doubt you'll find a climatologist today who still believes the infamous 'Hockey Stick' graph - it was descredited long ago".

Which is it people, was it discredited or not?

The article provided sources to others who have critiqued it as well along w/ the original audit.

http://www.climateaudit.org/

and a response to much of the above links:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=512

Arguement by Authority.
That's ironic, given that most of the article was Straw Man Arguments. (And you compared global warming scientists to PETA activists.) While you can't say that something is true because an authority says so, authorites [i]are more likely to be correct[/o] (that's what makes them authorities) and if we lack sufficient knowledge of the field (I'm not a climatologist - are you?) the only choice is to defer to those that don't.

That's ironic, given that most of the article was Straw Man Arguments.

Which is an Ad Hominem.

W/ links to the actual data and the various critiques. Try again.

(And you compared global warming scientists to PETA activists.)

No, I said activism doesn't always revolve around science or sense. Try again.

While you can't say that something is true because an authority says so, authorites [i]are more likely to be correct[/o] (that's what makes them authorities) and if we lack sufficient knowledge of the field (I'm not a climatologist - are you?) the only choice is to defer to those that don't.

So you're saying we should just accept anything someone in "authority" says and not question it?

I try and learn about the issue by reading both sides of the debate, not just saying "all these people say it's true so the other side must be wrong."

You stated the "hockey-stick" was discredited among climatologists and Soviets showed articles showing it wasn't. I showed articles critiqueing both.

Which is it?