Your Universal Remote Control Center
RemoteCentral.com
Everything Else Forum - View Post
Previous section Next section Previous page Next page Up level
Up level
The following page was printed from RemoteCentral.com:

Login:
Pass:
 
 

Page 4 of 14
Topic:
Global Warming
This thread has 203 replies. Displaying posts 46 through 60.
Post 46 made on Sunday September 8, 2019 at 04:18
davidcasemore
Super Member
Joined:
Posts:
January 2003
3,197
On September 8, 2019 at 02:05, tomciara said...
You haven’t refuted djy, who speaks science rather than politics.

He speaks pseudo-science rather than politics. I've got way better things to do than argue a topic which has been settled quite some time ago. It's like if I tried to argue with some street-corner bible thumper that there is absolutely no evidence for god(s). Why the hell would I waste my time?
Fins: Still Slamming' His Trunk on pilgrim's Small Weenie - One Trunk at a Time!
Post 47 made on Sunday September 8, 2019 at 09:12
tomciara
Loyal Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2002
7,324
OK, I get it, pseudo science.

The scientific method starts with a hypothesis “could this be true?”

The final judgment says yes/no. A critical step in proving/disproving the hypothesis is observation. If the evidence that has been observed contradicts the hypothesis, then it cannot be stated as fact. So...

On September 7, 2019 at 20:46, djy said...
The planet is warming, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric CO2 content has increased, ergo CO2 must be the cause. The problem with such a simplistic argument, however, is that it completely ignores historical understanding (global temperatures have been warmer and CO2 levels higher) and natural variability; i.e. with atmospheric CO2 content being too low to have any effect, what caused the early 20th century warming and with it increasing what caused the mid 20th century cooling?

If actual, observed CO2 rising and falling refuses to coincide with actual, observed rising and falling of temperature, wouldn’t you consider that a critical data point in conflict with your belief? Or is your mind made up?

Again, I am not trying to slam you, just trying to address the issue clear and logically.

Last edited by tomciara on September 8, 2019 10:23.
"People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive." - Blaise Pascal
Post 48 made on Sunday September 8, 2019 at 11:32
Anthony
Ultimate Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2001
28,515
On September 7, 2019 at 20:46, djy said...
That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is undeniable, but without it and/or the greenhouse effect, life on Earth would not exist. How one can then claim it is killing people (particularly as it's aiding in planetary re-greening and record crop production) is beyond me.

first of all when I said kills people I did not mean on the "global warming" side of it but on the more simplistic side. What would happen if you start your car in an enclosed room? why do we have smog alerts? CO2 but the other stuff that are part of the same process.

As for your point , it does not make sense you are assuming exclusivity when it does not need to be that way. You can't without water, but hold your head under water for long enough and you will be dead, you can't live without salt and some herbivores will travel miles to salt licks and some birds eat salt chucks but too much salt in your diet is detrimental to your health.


You, I and every other animal create CO2 by breathing the question is do we need a lot more of it (like burning stuff)

Thus, one has to ask oneself, in the vast, chaotic complexity of the Earth's climate system, can a minor atmospheric trace gas really be a control knob? Try as I may, I just cannot see it.

absolutely, that is why the expression the straw that broke the camel's back. there are many examples where something is balanced and just a small change has a large effect.
...
Post 49 made on Sunday September 8, 2019 at 12:52
Anthony
Ultimate Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2001
28,515
On September 8, 2019 at 09:12, tomciara said...
If actual, observed CO2 rising and falling refuses to coincide with actual, observed rising and falling of temperature, wouldn’t you consider that a critical data point in conflict with your belief? Or is your mind made up?

Can't talk for davidcasemore but

1) the Earth is closest to the sun in Jan at 146 million km the Earth is farthest from the sun in July at 152 million km yet in January it might be -30oC
and in July much warmer and +30.

does that mean
a) the distance numbers are wrong and we are closer in July then January?
b) the temperature numbers are wrong in Montreal in January it is warmer then July?
c) the sun is cold and the farther we are the warmer it is?
d) bad partial assumptions and it misses the reality
---- a) because of the distance July is colder then it would other wise be and January is warmer then it would otherwise be
---- b) Earths Axis means that in Jan then days are shorter and less of the suns rays reach Montreal compared to July.

Myopic analysis always leads to fallacious conclusions.

2) like DJY agreed CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas , so any real analysis should look at all of them. As well as all other things that could have an effect

3) they would never "coincide", that does not mean there is no cause and effect. For example my friend has a cottage (chalet, cabin... second house in the country). In the fall he winterizes it ( shuts the water valves and empties all the pipes). But since it is near a hill some times he leaves his place around 9:30 am, gets there around 10:30, lights the fire in the fireplace, loads it with logs and by 11:30 he is out of there to do a 1/2 day skiing, gets back around 7 PM throws in some logs and re-lights the fire place. At 11:00 AM is it freezing in the home (colder then outside) even though there is a huge fire in the fireplace? absolutely at 7:00 PM when he gets back is it toasty warm even though there is no fire in the fire place? Does it still make sense to say the house warming is caused by the fire in the fire place? absolutely it just takes time and so the two won't coincide they will be shifted.
...
Post 50 made on Sunday September 8, 2019 at 15:10
djy
RC Moderator
Joined:
Posts:
August 2001
33,820
On September 8, 2019 at 11:32, Anthony said...
first of all when I said kills people I did not mean on the "global warming" side of it but on the more simplistic side. What would happen if you start your car in an enclosed room? why do we have smog alerts? CO2 but the other stuff that are part of the same process.

As for your point , it does not make sense you are assuming exclusivity when it does not need to be that way. You can't without water, but hold your head under water for long enough and you will be dead, you can't live without salt and some herbivores will travel miles to salt licks and some birds eat salt chucks but too much salt in your diet is detrimental to your health.

You, I and every other animal create CO2 by breathing the question is do we need a lot more of it (like burning stuff)

absolutely, that is why the expression the straw that broke the camel's back. there are many examples where something is balanced and just a small change has a large effect.

Part of the net-zero plans envisioned by the CCC (the UK's Committee on Climate Change) sees the large scale adoption of Hydrogen to replace Natural Gas. The electrolysis of water produces no 'harmful' by-products, but it's not scalable economically. The alternative is steam reformation of Natural Gas, but the process produces CO2 as a by-product and is thus predicated on the development of a cost effective carbon capture and storage process and suitable storage sinks. However, my concern with such a plan is that large scale CO2 storage sinks are environmental disasters in the making, such as the natural one which occurred at Lake Nyos in 1986.

A limnic eruption in the lake released several hundred thousand tons of CO2, which descended onto the surrounding villages, suffocating 1,746 people and 3,500 livestock. In answer to your comment then. Yes, there are times when we can have too much of a good thing, but the order of magnitude you are talking about is far beyond the imagination of even the IPCC. For example, you comment on breathing, but are you aware that we inhale circa 400ppm CO2, but exhale circa 40-50,000ppm, which was at one time (until other circumstances intervened) considered perfectly acceptable for artificial respiration?

CO2 is not a pollutant, as you seem to imply, but an essential life-giving gas and plant fertiliser. Has one not even considered the possibility of the previous low levels being a CO2 drought, rather than today’s level being an excess?
Post 51 made on Sunday September 8, 2019 at 15:53
djy
RC Moderator
Joined:
Posts:
August 2001
33,820
On September 8, 2019 at 12:52, Anthony said...
Can't talk for davidcasemore but

1) the Earth is closest to the sun in Jan at 146 million km the Earth is farthest from the sun in July at 152 million km yet in January it might be -30oC
and in July much warmer and +30.

does that mean
a) the distance numbers are wrong and we are closer in July then January?
b) the temperature numbers are wrong in Montreal in January it is warmer then July?
c) the sun is cold and the farther we are the warmer it is?
d) bad partial assumptions and it misses the reality
---- a) because of the distance July is colder then it would other wise be and January is warmer then it would otherwise be
---- b) Earths Axis means that in Jan then days are shorter and less of the suns rays reach Montreal compared to July.

Myopic analysis always leads to fallacious conclusions.

2) like DJY agreed CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas , so any real analysis should look at all of them. As well as all other things that could have an effect

3) they would never "coincide", that does not mean there is no cause and effect. For example my friend has a cottage (chalet, cabin... second house in the country). In the fall he winterizes it ( shuts the water valves and empties all the pipes). But since it is near a hill some times he leaves his place around 9:30 am, gets there around 10:30, lights the fire in the fireplace, loads it with logs and by 11:30 he is out of there to do a 1/2 day skiing, gets back around 7 PM throws in some logs and re-lights the fire place. At 11:00 AM is it freezing in the home (colder then outside) even though there is a huge fire in the fireplace? absolutely at 7:00 PM when he gets back is it toasty warm even though there is no fire in the fire place? Does it still make sense to say the house warming is caused by the fire in the fire place? absolutely it just takes time and so the two won't coincide they will be shifted.

"Myopic analysis always leads to fallacious conclusions."

As does simplistic analysis.

The five important greenhouse gases Water Vapour, Carbon Dioxide, Ozone, Methane and Nitrous Oxide are discussed by physicist William van Wijngaarden in the following video.



And the following image highlights the importance of Water Vapour and the very limited effect of Methane.

Post 52 made on Sunday September 8, 2019 at 16:30
Anthony
Ultimate Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2001
28,515
On September 8, 2019 at 15:10, djy said...
CO2 is not a pollutant, as you seem to imply, but an essential life-giving gas and plant fertiliser.

I am not implying it is a "pollutant", like you admitted above "Yes, there are times when we can have too much of a good thing"

Has one not even considered the possibility of the previous low levels being a CO2 drought, rather than today’s level being an excess?

is it important? Venus has naturally a heavy atmosphere and the surface temperature is 462oC. Mars has a light atmosphere and it can reach 20oC (warmest). There is a reason we are talking about trip to Mars, there is no way to survive on Venus.

Let's assume you are righty and the high levels of 200M years -150M years ago for example should be what we consider "normal" does it matter? we were not around then, our bodies and the world we built for them was not build for such high levels and temperatures.

For me it is not about what is normal or natural, if a huge planet destroying asteroid was headed to earth I would hope that we find a way to stop it oand minimize its effect.

Last edited by Anthony on September 14, 2019 10:37.
...
Post 53 made on Sunday September 8, 2019 at 17:04
djy
RC Moderator
Joined:
Posts:
August 2001
33,820
On September 6, 2019 at 16:41, davidcasemore said...
There is no contrary evidence to this topic, just like there is no contrary evidence that we live on a globe. Get over it. This ship has sailed. The "contrary evidence" has been argued to death and ripped apart at the seams to the point that there is NO MORE POINT in examining it.

Trivialising the issue by comparing those who disagree with consensus alarmism to conspiracy theorists and cranks is precisely what Stephan Lewandowsky attempted to do with his "NASA Faked the Moon Landing – Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax" paper. It has since gone on to become something of a seminal work and case study1 on how left-wing bias has crept into social psychology: that "graduate students were entering the field in order to change the world rather than discover truths".

In researching science (and climate science in particular), it quickly became apparent to me that my previous opinion of its being conducted by wholly honourable professionals was misplaced. Whether for financial gain, notoriety or both, the field is well stocked with its fair share of charlatans and tricksters, only here, if believed, it can lead research down blind alleys and even do serious harm. (For the present at least, I think I/we can be thankful that, unlike Lysenkoism, climate scepticism is not being met with gulags or a bullet in the back of the head.)

Notwithstanding the ethical issues surrounding its financing2, the abstract of Lewandowsky's Moon Landings paper (published in "Psychological Science" in 2013) says this:

"We…show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings above and beyond commitment to laissez-faire free markets. This provides confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science."

Upon actually reading of the paper though, which is recognised (even within its profession) as being replete with obfuscation and statistical techniques designed to obscure the study's true results, it becomes apparent that out of the 1145 participants, only 10 agreed that the moon landings were a hoax. Furthermore, 98.7% of participants, who thought that climate science was a hoax, did not think that the moon landings were a hoax: the complete opposite of what the paper's title was claiming. Perhaps even more disturbing though is that: "no peer reviewers, or journal editors, took the time, or went to the effort of scrutinizing the study in a way that was sufficient to identify the bold misrepresentations."

It appears that in the realm of social psychology, those on the left outnumber those on the right by a ratio of about 10:1. This means that even if left and right biases were equal, there would be about ten times more research validating left-wing narratives than right. When "adding in the apparent double standards in the peer review process (where studies validating left-wing narratives seemed to be easier to publish) then the bias within the field could vastly exceed the ratio of 10:1. In other words, research was becoming an exercise in groupthink".

Parallels with this can be seen in climate science. After hearing that the Medieval Warming Period was causing the alarmist message to be diluted, a biased researcher seeking to find evidence of anthropogenic global warming produces a study overturning a swathe of previously accepted research. It is accepted (seemingly without question) not only by its reviewers but also by a political organisation seeking a realignment of world politics. When its authenticity/robustness is questioned, and independent verification demanded, not only is the request denied but those making the request are accused of being unqualified, not understanding the science, or even of being science deniers - which is laughable as some are more eminently more qualified than the researcher himself.

With the support of a UN body, further similar studies unsurprisingly produce similar results and are latched upon by a compliant MSM eager to promote the message of alarm. Little is heard, from those in mainstream science concerned at the quality of the science being produced and the lack of verification. With money now pouring into climate research, the incentive not to question increases exponentially, while those who continue to do so lose funding and have their livelihoods threatened3. Peer-review publications abound with new revelations of impending disaster. The BBC holds a seminar and determines, from a group of 'leading experts in the field', that contrary to its charter of impartiality, the sceptic viewpoint is no longer to be heard. And without any understanding of how it's to be achieved, the UK passes the 2008 Climate Change Act: enacting legally binding legislation to reduce CO2 emissions - still the only country in the world to do.

With such overwhelming coverage supporting the notion of anthropogenic climate change, it’s of little wonder so many members of the public unquestionably accept it. Rarely, however, have I encountered a mind so closed that not only is the door shut, it's bolted, locked and the keys thrown away. Such a denial of reason logic and evidence is the very definition of groupthink4.

To me, the claim there is no contrary evidence in climate science is akin to saying there is no contrary evidence in politics or the law, but Trump remains your President, and we now find ourselves battling Parliament for them to honour the referendum result of 2016.

The "science" of Mann’s graph has been shown to be shoddy (as to have others using similar methodologies). I thus find it staggering that someone with such conviction is happy to see such material, the author of which still refusing to submit it for verification, being used as evidence to support a drive for global political change as a 'cure' which could, in reality, quite easily be worse than the 'disease'.

Climategate showed collusion between a body of scientists to delete emails and withhold data, pressure being applied to alter results, pressure being applied to see peer review periodicals and editors suppress or delay publication of counter-evidence, pal review, and doubt and uncertainty with their methods. On the media front, exaggerations and distortions abound, with the BBC's darling nonagenarian being at the forefront of propaganda so blatant and easily refutable it beggars belief. Is one also aware of the determined resistance by the BBC to deny a pensioner the right to know who the 'leading experts in the field', at their aforementioned seminar, were - a publicly funded body refusing to allow the public knowledge of its editorial policy? Needless to say, it was eventually exposed as a sham, as those 'experts' were found to be nothing more than a collective of activists, advocates and business representatives with a vested interest in maintaining alarm. And while its outcome was to deny the likes of Lord Lawson a voice at the BBC, we now learn of a BBC meeting, which entertained representatives of the anarchist group Extinction Rebellion, to discuss its editorial coverage of the same.

Science doesn’t occur in a vacuum; it evolves with further research deepening one's understanding. After 30 years of 10 years to save the planet there is now increasing evidence that CO2 isn't the demon it' portrayed as being. Like Brexit though, where remoaner desperation continues to use the fear of the unknown and every trick at its disposal to thwart the democratic will of the people, so to have the alarmist calls become more strident and desperate. Nature is failing to play to play the IPCC game: to the extent that the US historical temperature record is being reinvented homogenised to suggest that 20th century warming was more significant than it actually was5.

Clearly one has faith in the prognostications of the purveyors of flaky science, a nonagenarian Malthusian, and a pig-tailed Swedish teenage with a personality disorder. Call me a doubting Thomas, but I would prefer to see clear evidence before jumping off the cliff. What there was didn't cut it, and what counter-evidence there now is (and continually being produced) suggests I was right to resist the temptation.

[1] [Link: quillette.com]

[2] [Link: australianclimatemadness.com]

[3]

[4] [Link: thegwpf.org]

[5]

Last edited by djy on September 12, 2019 02:09.
Post 54 made on Sunday September 8, 2019 at 18:34
djy
RC Moderator
Joined:
Posts:
August 2001
33,820
On September 8, 2019 at 16:30, Anthony said...
I am not implying it is a "pollutant", like you admitted above "Yes, there are times when we can have too much of a good thing"

is it important? Venus has naturally a heavy atmosphere and the surface temperature is 462oC. Mars has a light atmosphere and it can reach 20oC (warmest). There is a reason we are talking about trip to Mars, there is no way to survive on Venus.

Let's assume you are righty and the high levels of 200M years -150M years ago for example should be what we consider "normal" does it matter? we were not around then, our bodies and the world we built for them was not build for such high levels and temperatures.

For me it is not about what is normal or natural, if a huge planet destroying asteroid was headed to earth I would hope that we find a way to stop it oand minimize its effect.

"I am not implying it is a 'pollutant'".
And yet you associate it with Carbon Monoxide poisoning and smog.

"Yes, there are times when we can have too much of a good thing.”
Indeed, but how much CO2 is too much? Which, of course, rather presupposes the increased level of CO2 is a problem.

Is it [the level of atmospheric CO2] important?
Your previous comments appear to suggest you do, hence the question.

"Let's assume you are righty and the high levels of 200M years -150M years ago for example should be what we consider "normal" does it matter?"
The Medieval Warm Period is, I believe, a little more recent, hence the continuing efforts to undermine its significance.

"For me it is not about what is normal or natural."
Then what is one arguing about?
Post 55 made on Sunday September 8, 2019 at 19:29
djy
RC Moderator
Joined:
Posts:
August 2001
33,820
On September 8, 2019 at 04:18, davidcasemore said...
He speaks pseudo-science rather than politics. I've got way better things to do than argue a topic which has been settled quite some time ago. It's like if I tried to argue with some street-corner bible thumper that there is absolutely no evidence for god(s). Why the hell would I waste my time?

It's easy to cry foul when one doesn't tell one's opponent the rules of engagement.

I'm more than happy to discuss any aspect of climate change, and also provide evidence in support of my views. Taking a leaf out of your book, though, what would be the point when you have already convinced yourself of your own version of the issues being the only correct one?
OP | Post 56 made on Monday September 9, 2019 at 11:45
BizarroTerl
Active Member
Joined:
Posts:
October 2002
538
On September 5, 2019 at 13:57, tomciara said...
You do realize there is a lot of pressure to conform. You know the ridicule that is experienced if somebody speaks against man-made climate change. In the scientific, and especially the academic community, it can cost you the career you have been working towards. It is easier to go with the flow then to examine contrary evidence.

It is way easier to say 90% of scientists agree, rather than maybe there are some valid points, maybe some seriously valid points to the contrary. And if all you do is follow mainstream media, you will clearly understand the debate is over and deniers are stupid.

The only trouble is, some of the deniers are also PhD’s and experts. They are not stupid people. But they get dumped on as though they are 10th grade drop outs.

There may be some valid points, but when you get to the point where the claim is global warming isn't partially man caused you're past good science. Scientific theories are always a mass of competing thought which are proven or unproven by further analysis. As more is known basic facts become evident. The scientific community as a whole has determined that global warming is occurring and it is in part human caused. That is a fact. Your argument is that the scientific community acts like a 4th grade social group with a "in" crowd that ostracizes the "out" crowd and thus human accelerated global warming isn't happening is not how science works.
OP | Post 57 made on Monday September 9, 2019 at 12:04
BizarroTerl
Active Member
Joined:
Posts:
October 2002
538
On September 5, 2019 at 19:01, djy said...
"Note that the author of 'The Hockey Stick Illusion' is an accountant, not someone that has a degree in global climate science."

Has one considered why the distinction needed to be made? Could it possibly be that the accountant’s analytical approach to the events highlighted practices not exactly conducive to the scientific method and that some would thus prefer people didn't read it? Furthermore, is it a requirement of MSM reporters to have a degree in global climate science before being allowed to comment? Did Michael Mann have the requisite statistical expertise to produce a paper so heavily reliant on 'new statistical techniques'?

snip

No. It is because when it comes to science or any other discipline education and experience are more important. If anyone reading this started to bleed from places they shouldn't who do they go to? A plumber? He may be a great plumber, maybe the best that has ever lived. He does not however have the training and education to help with that bleeding.

Why should reporters have a degree to report on anything? Their job is to report the news and that is what they do. Once they start to make claims on subjects they're not educated in they're no longer acting as a reporter, they're in an area they're not educated and thus should be discounted.

Michael E. Mann - The paper you reference was written by him and 2 others, both of which are highly educated and respected in Geosciences. Michael's education - A.B. applied mathematics and physics (1989), MS physics (1991), MPhil physics (1991), MPhil geology (1993), PhD geology & geophysics (1998). Applied mathematics appears to be a really good start to come up with a way to develop a new statistical method to analyze climate data. Much better than doing tax returns.
Post 58 made on Monday September 9, 2019 at 16:48
djy
RC Moderator
Joined:
Posts:
August 2001
33,820
On September 9, 2019 at 11:45, BizarroTerl said...
There may be some valid points, but when you get to the point where the claim is global warming isn't partially man caused you're past good science. Scientific theories are always a mass of competing thought which are proven or unproven by further analysis. As more is known basic facts become evident. The scientific community as a whole has determined that global warming is occurring and it is in part human caused. That is a fact. Your argument is that the scientific community acts like a 4th grade social group with a "in" crowd that ostracizes the "out" crowd and thus human accelerated global warming isn't happening is not how science works.

There is no necessity for the scientific to determine planetary warming, as one can see it for oneself here1. Planetary warming, however, is not in itself unusual, nor planetary cooling; e.g. MWP and LIA. Concerning the present warming though, one has to ask several questions.

i) What caused the early 20th-century warming?
ii) What caused the mid-20th-century cooling (noting that during the 70s there was some concern about the onset of a new ice age)?
iii). What caused the late 20th-century warming?
iv). What caused the early 21st-century pause?

Because of its being a greenhouse gas, it would be easy to assume that (iii) is purely the result of increased CO2, but that would ignore the other factors which must have influenced (i) and (ii). And what of (iv)? Why a pause when the CO2 level continues to increase?

Because of their political agenda, the IPCC wants us to believe CO2 is the sole culprit, hence their proclamations of certainty. The reality, however, is that there is no real consensus regarding its effect (as attested to by the wide range of climate sensitivity calculations) and the anthropogenic component remains unknown. However, I think it's safe to assume there is one (if only from the rise in global population etc.) but the claim ‘part human-caused’ is ambiguous as it applies to both half a degree and a thousandth of a degree.

“As more is known basic facts become evident.”
I quite agree. Here are several relatively recent papers suggesting a low climate sensitivity, along with a minimal anthropogenic component2-6.

[1] [Link: woodfortrees.org]
[2] [Link: researchgate.net]
[3] [Link: link.springer.com]
[4] [Link: iopscience.iop.org]
[5] [Link: iopscience.iop.org]
[6] [Link: arxiv.org]

On September 9, 2019 at 12:04, BizarroTerl said...
No. It is because when it comes to science or any other discipline education and experience are more important. If anyone reading this started to bleed from places they shouldn't who do they go to? A plumber? He may be a great plumber, maybe the best that has ever lived. He does not however have the training and education to help with that bleeding.

Why should reporters have a degree to report on anything? Their job is to report the news and that is what they do. Once they start to make claims on subjects they're not educated in they're no longer acting as a reporter, they're in an area they're not educated and thus should be discounted.

Michael E. Mann - The paper you reference was written by him and 2 others, both of which are highly educated and respected in Geosciences. Michael's education - A.B. applied mathematics and physics (1989), MS physics (1991), MPhil physics (1991), MPhil geology (1993), PhD geology & geophysics (1998). Applied mathematics appears to be a really good start to come up with a way to develop a new statistical method to analyze climate data. Much better than doing tax returns.

As you claim. Andrew Montford isn’t conducting science outside of his expertise, he a reporter recounting events – with the added benefit of an accountant’s analytical eye.

Oh, there is no doubt Mann is well educated, but competent?1 I reserve judgement until he allows independent verification of the data and code for his hockey stick graph.

[1] [Link: climateaudit.org]
OP | Post 59 made on Tuesday September 10, 2019 at 16:12
BizarroTerl
Active Member
Joined:
Posts:
October 2002
538
On September 9, 2019 at 16:48, djy said...
Oh, there is no doubt Mann is well educated, but competent?1 I reserve judgement until he allows independent verification of the data and code for his hockey stick graph.

This has already been refuted. Reread post 26.
Post 60 made on Tuesday September 10, 2019 at 18:52
djy
RC Moderator
Joined:
Posts:
August 2001
33,820
On September 10, 2019 at 16:12, BizarroTerl said...
This has already been refuted. Reread post 26.

What has been refuted? That the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age didn't exist? That Mann refuses to allow independent verification of his code and data? That others using similarly discredited techniques to Mann produced similar results? That the Bristlecone Pines proxy reconstruction failed to correlate with modern temperatures? That real temperature data was spliced into these reconstruction graphs to hide this issue? That although advised not to, he used the Tiljander lakebed sediments in another reconstruction. And not only did he use those lakebed sediments, he used them incorrectly?

I think one needs to be a little more specific.

Just because someone is well educate doesn't absolve them from being wrong. Resplandy et. al. 2018 is a perfect example of this.

Last edited by djy on September 10, 2019 19:02.
Find in this thread:
Page 4 of 14


Jump to


Protected Feature Before you can reply to a message...
You must first register for a Remote Central user account - it's fast and free! Or, if you already have an account, please login now.

Please read the following: Unsolicited commercial advertisements are absolutely not permitted on this forum. Other private buy & sell messages should be posted to our Marketplace. For information on how to advertise your service or product click here. Remote Central reserves the right to remove or modify any post that is deemed inappropriate.

Hosting Services by ipHouse