Follow the Money....

[jfuh]

LOLOLOLOL!!!!! Yeah, I bet you and Southern Democrat both have the original Mann hockey stick graph on your beedroom wall. Giving it a resounding 'I BELIEVE!!' to reinforce the belief.
I think youve possibly missed some of the extensive critiques of Manns original data and graph and are confused as to what has been crushed.

Ahh, more of the insults going in so far as to what is in my bedroom - of course.
You must have missed when the national academy of sciences reaffirmed the hockey stick.
source

But we all know how in the face of evidence, you're now going to religiously deny it and make some more personal attacks.
Keep it up dixon, that's all you've got, religious partisan denial and insults.

 

[Renae]

Ahh, more of the insults going in so far as to what is in my bedroom - of course.
You must have missed when the national academy of sciences reaffirmed the hockey stick.
source

But we all know how in the face of evidence, you're now going to religiously deny it and make some more personal attacks.
Keep it up dixon, that's all you've got, religious partisan denial and insults.

That's over a year old, and they were rebuked. Sorry Jfuh, TRY to stay current would ya?

 

[dixon76710]

Ahh, more of the insults going in so far as to what is in my bedroom - of course.
You must have missed when the national academy of sciences reaffirmed the hockey stick.
source

But we all know how in the face of evidence, you're now going to religiously deny it and make some more personal attacks.
Keep it up dixon, that's all you've got, religious partisan denial and insults.

You cant comprehend what you read.

In particular, he says, the committee has a "high level of confidence" that the second half of the twentieth century was warmer than any other period in the past four centuries.

Mann's graph shows that the second half of the century is warmer than any other period in the last 1000 years. Over half of his graph

Overall, the committee thought the temperature reconstructions from that era had only a two-to-one chance of being right.

And even that 2/3 assesment seems a bit ridiculous based on all the research that shows the existance of the "little ice age" and the "midevil warm period. And to be quite honest, I never really saw the fact that we are warmer now than we have been in the last 1000 years to be evidence of really anything other than the fact that we are warmer now than we have been in the last 1000 years. The long term record shows repeated Ice ages with low temperatures, followed by periods of rapid warming that eventually reaches a peak. Then, the earth experiences less rapid cooling into another ice age. As well the long term record shows overall that each peak in temperature between ice ages is trending upward. Soooo, if history repeats itself, we will again reach a peak, likely higher than any peak ever experienced by the earth. The fact that history is repeating itself isnt evidence of man made global warming, its evidence that history is repeating itself. And Nooooo the Holocene maximum was not that peak but instead merely one of many bumps and dips in an overall upward trend following all of the earths ice ages.

 

[jfuh]

That's over a year old, and they were rebuked. Sorry Jfuh, TRY to stay current would ya?

Ahh I see, over a year old and debunked by what, whom and more importantly how?

 

[jfuh]

You cant comprehend what you read.
Mann's graph shows that the second half of the century is warmer than any other period in the last 1000 years. Over half of his graph

you do realize you're not making any statement that contradicts what has been written. the NAS findings concur with Mann's findings.

And even that 2/3 assesment seems a bit ridiculous based on all the research that shows the existance of the "little ice age" and the "midevil warm period. And to be quite honest, I never really saw the fact that we are warmer now than we have been in the last 1000 years to be evidence of really anything other than the fact that we are warmer now than we have been in the last 1000 years. The long term record shows repeated Ice ages with low temperatures, followed by periods of rapid warming that eventually reaches a peak. Then, the earth experiences less rapid cooling into another ice age. As well the long term record shows overall that each peak in temperature between ice ages is trending upward. Soooo, if history repeats itself, we will again reach a peak, likely higher than any peak ever experienced by the earth. The fact that history is repeating itself isnt evidence of man made global warming, its evidence that history is repeating itself. And Nooooo the Holocene maximum was not that peak but instead merely one of many bumps and dips in an overall upward trend following all of the earths ice ages.

The academy essentially upholds Mann's findings, although the panel concluded that systematic uncertainties in climate records from before 1600 were not communicated as clearly as they could have been. The NAS also confirmed some problems with the statistics. But the mistakes had a relatively minor impact on the overall finding, says Peter Bloomfield, a statistician at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, who was involved in the latest report. "This study was the first of its kind, and they had to make choices at various stages about how the data were processed," he says, adding that he "would not be embarrassed" to have been involved in the work.

Everything else you have here is nothing but spin.
We're already in the Holocene so there is no more rise, and that rapid rise that you are claiming of, tell us all won't you of how long that rise took place please? What time frame was this "rapid rise"?
Again, all you have is based on what you "believe" no solid evidence to support your rationals.

 

[dixon76710]

We're already in the Holocene so there is no more rise, and that rapid rise that you are claiming of, tell us all won't you of how long that rise took place please? What time frame was this "rapid rise"?

The "Holocene maximum", Holocene Climate Optimum, Holocene Megathermal, whatever you want to call it. Occured 5-9000 years ago. It is over.

 

[jfuh]

The "Holocene maximum", Holocene Climate Optimum, Holocene Megathermal, whatever you want to call it. Occured 5-9000 years ago. It is over.

:lamo, care to elaborate on just what this optimum is? How you arrived at the conclusion that this optimum is "over" what evidence you have to support your argument? Or is it merely your belief once more that it's over?

Oh and by the way, what was the time frame in which it took previous "sharp rises"? Have any evidence of such sharp rises in geological past that climaxed within less than a 100 years?

 

[dixon76710]

:lamo, care to elaborate on just what this optimum is? How you arrived at the conclusion that this optimum is "over" what evidence you have to support your argument? Or is it merely your belief once more that it's over?

The Holocene Climate Optimum was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P..

Holocene climatic optimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.............

 

[Gill]

Ahh, more of the insults going in so far as to what is in my bedroom - of course.
You must have missed when the national academy of sciences reaffirmed the hockey stick.
source

But we all know how in the face of evidence, you're now going to religiously deny it and make some more personal attacks.
Keep it up dixon, that's all you've got, religious partisan denial and insults.

More spin... Mann's 1998 study, along with his subsequent ones, were thoroughly debunked by McIntyre, Wegman, AND the NAS. Wegman, a real statistician, stated clearly that Mann used incorrect statistical methodology in his study. When asked if there was anything in Wegman's report that he disagreed with, the president of the NAS stated clearly and succinctly --- "NO". The NAS also stated that Mann's proxy, Bristlecone Pines, should NOT have been used as proxies.

Mann claimed that temperatures were higher now than at any time in the past 1,000 years. The NAS clearly said that was not true. I don't believe 1600 was over 1,000 years ago.

Since the Little Ice Age was in full bloom in 1600, no one doubts that temps are higher now than they were in the middle of an ice age. That's only common sense.

Panel members were less sanguine, however, about whether the original work should have loomed so large in the executive summary of the IPCC's 2001 report. "The IPCC used it as a visual prominently in the report," says Kurt Cuffey, a panel member and geographer at the University of California, Berkeley. "I think that sent a very misleading message about how resolved this part of the scientific research was."

Cuffey is stating plainly that there is NO consensus on the early temperature record or Mann's paper.

 

[dixon76710]

It seems, the most devout followers of the ideology of global warming maintain a level of willfull ignorance as to the facts.

 

[Gill]

Oh and by the way, what was the time frame in which it took previous "sharp rises"? Have any evidence of such sharp rises in geological past that climaxed within less than a 100 years?

Of course the climate has changed abruptly in the past. Here's one example, the Younger-Dryas:

The Younger Dryas saw a rapid return to glacial conditions in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere between 12,900 – 11,500 years before present (BP) in sharp contrast to the warming of the preceding interstadial deglaciation. The transitions each occurred over a period of a decade or so.Thermally fractionated nitrogen and argon isotope data from Greenland ice core GISP2 indicates that the summit of Greenland was ~15 °C colder during the Younger Dryas than today. In the UK, coleopteran (fossil beetle) evidence suggests mean annual temperature dropped to approximately 5 °C, and periglacial conditions prevailed in lowland areas, while icefields and glaciers formed in upland areas. Nothing of the size, extent, or rapidity of this period of abrupt climate change has been experienced since.

The temperature rose almost as quickly when the Younger-Dryas ended, over a 40-50 year period.

 

[jfuh]

.............

That's interesting note how even in your own source we do not see a single line that states that the holocene is already over. Thus again, please show just where you are finding this fact that the holocene is indeed "over". Seems more and more to be another one of your beliefs.

 

[jfuh]

More spin... Mann's 1998 study, along with his subsequent ones, were thoroughly debunked by McIntyre, Wegman, AND the NAS. Wegman, a real statistician, stated clearly that Mann used incorrect statistical methodology in his study. When asked if there was anything in Wegman's report that he disagreed with, the president of the NAS stated clearly and succinctly --- "NO". The NAS also stated that Mann's proxy, Bristlecone Pines, should NOT have been used as proxies.

Mann claimed that temperatures were higher now than at any time in the past 1,000 years. The NAS clearly said that was not true. I don't believe 1600 was over 1,000 years ago.

Since the Little Ice Age was in full bloom in 1600, no one doubts that temps are higher now than they were in the middle of an ice age. That's only common sense.


Cuffey is stating plainly that there is NO consensus on the early temperature record or Mann's paper.

:lamo classic spin that couldn't be anymore obvious.
The statement you isolated doesn't do anything to debunk anything.
The very title of the source

Academy affirms hockey-stick graph
But it criticizes the way the controversial climate result was used.

The very study re-confirms the hockey stick. You're simply lying again when you say that any of those people you listed debunked the hockey stick graph. They didn't do that, they questioned the method by which Mann's study collected it's data and made it's statistical calculations. They did not overrule the trend by any means.

 

[jfuh]

It seems, the most devout followers of the ideology of global warming maintain a level of willfull ignorance as to the facts.

Coming from some one who denies based on belief and not facts that's ridiculously ironic.

 

[jfuh]

Of course the climate has changed abruptly in the past. Here's one example, the Younger-Dryas:


The temperature rose almost as quickly when the Younger-Dryas ended, over a 40-50 year period.

:lamo still not providing a link to your wiki source? Can you tell me if the Youger-Dryas was a global event or not? Was the 40-50 year warming afterwards a global event?

 

[dixon76710]

That's interesting note how even in your own source we do not see a single line that states that the holocene is already over. Thus again, please show just where you are finding this fact that the holocene is indeed "over". Seems more and more to be another one of your beliefs.

That would be in the one singular sentence that I reproduced, that you could not comprehend. And for about the third time now, it is not the "holocene" that is over but the holocene maximum.

"The Holocene Climate Optimum was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P.. "

 

[jfuh]

That would be in the one singular sentence that I reproduced, that you could not comprehend. And for about the third time now, it is not the "holocene" that is over but the holocene maximum.

"The Holocene Climate Optimum was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P.. "

5000 to 9000 years yet you do not show any source that states it is over.
Even if you can, an end of the holocene climactic optimum does not necessitate that temperatures rise. Perhaps you can show how that relates?
Still dodging.

 

[Gill]

:lamo classic spin that couldn't be anymore obvious.
The statement you isolated doesn't do anything to debunk anything.
The very title of the source


The very study re-confirms the hockey stick. You're simply lying again when you say that any of those people you listed debunked the hockey stick graph. They didn't do that, they questioned the method by which Mann's study collected it's data and made it's statistical calculations. They did not overrule the trend by any means.

Classic :spin:

Mann claimed that 1998 was the warmest in 1,000 years, the NAS panel said that was impossible to determine. They confirmed that it was currently warmer than it's been since 1600. A no-brainer since we were in an ice age then.

Wegman stated that Mann used incorrect statistical methods, the NAS panel agreed.

McIntyre PEER REVIEWED paper showed the many mistakes Mann made, both Wegman and the NAS agreed.

From Congressional testimony:

MR. WALDEN. Now, in the Wall Street Journal article too, they
make a reference to a McIntyre and McKitrick critique, and I guess, have
you reviewed that one, Dr. North
DR. NORTH. Oh, I am familiar with their work and, in fact, Mr.
McIntyre is here. He will be testifying later.
MR. WALDEN. Did he present to your panel?
DR. NORTH. Yes, he did. And in fact--
MR. WALDEN. Can their data be replicated or the results be
replicated?
DR. NORTH. Well, what they did was a critical study, somewhat like
the Wegman report, and I think they did an honest job. It was a nice
piece of work.
MR. WALDEN. Dr. Wegman--
DR. NORTH. I have no complaint about what they did.
MR. WALDEN. In terms of replicating data or replicating studies, my
understanding is, it is difficult to replicate the Mann study but it was
possible to replicate the McIntyre and McKitrick study.
DR. WEGMAN. Yes, that is correct, and we did so.

 

[jfuh]

Classic :spin:

Mann claimed that 1998 was the warmest in 1,000 years, the NAS panel said that was impossible to determine. They confirmed that it was currently warmer than it's been since 1600. A no-brainer since we were in an ice age then.

Wegman stated that Mann used incorrect statistical methods, the NAS panel agreed.

McIntyre PEER REVIEWED paper showed the many mistakes Mann made, both Wegman and the NAS agreed.

From Congressional testimony:

No we were not in an ice age in the 1600's temps were cooler but would hardly by any means qualify as an ice age. It's simply mis-informing semantics that you are using here to progress your agenda.
I'm not denying that there were incorrect stats used by Mann, what I am staying, if you can stay on topic here, is that regardless of the hockey stick graph doesn't change.
Is it your claim that the questionable statistical means fundamentally changes the hocky stick graph?

 

[Gill]

No we were not in an ice age in the 1600's temps were cooler but would hardly by any means qualify as an ice age. It's simply mis-informing semantics that you are using here to progress your agenda.
I'm not denying that there were incorrect stats used by Mann, what I am staying, if you can stay on topic here, is that regardless of the hockey stick graph doesn't change.
Is it your claim that the questionable statistical means fundamentally changes the hocky stick graph?

You've already lost the debate on the LIA weeks ago.

Yep, I guess you could say that the hockey stick doesn't change, much that is. Proper statistical methods adds both the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period to the stick. Then it chops off the blade. The way Mann had the statistics rigged, any temperature data would produce a hockey stick.

If you call that not changing it, then I guess you're right.

 

[jfuh]

You've already lost the debate on the LIA weeks ago.

Yep, I guess you could say that the hockey stick doesn't change, much that is. Proper statistical methods adds both the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period to the stick. Then it chops off the blade. The way Mann had the statistics rigged, any temperature data would produce a hockey stick.

If you call that not changing it, then I guess you're right.

:lamo, moving the goal posts. You go from that the hockey stick has long been debunked to now simply that the blade isn't as obvious or "chopped off".
Listen gill, when you decide to deny AGW is the very moment that you already lost the debate. All you've managed to do is to bring up the point that there are inconsistencies. We can put all the little points you've brought about throw them all in and guess what, they don't make a damn change to the fact of AGW being reality.

 

[Gill]

:lamo, moving the goal posts. You go from that the hockey stick has long been debunked to now simply that the blade isn't as obvious or "chopped off".
Listen gill, when you decide to deny AGW is the very moment that you already lost the debate. All you've managed to do is to bring up the point that there are inconsistencies. We can put all the little points you've brought about throw them all in and guess what, they don't make a damn change to the fact of AGW being reality.

A simple question... a VERY simple question....

If a hockey stick has no blade, what good is it?? Do you think the IPCC would have published a hockey stick graph with no blade?? Think for a change.

When have I denied AGW?? When you refuse to recognize that science is built around skepticism, YOU have lost the debate.

On the testing of General Relativity Sagan wrote:
These efforts will continue as long as there are scientists. General relativity is certainly an inadequate description of Nature at the quantum level, but even if that were not the case, even if General Relativity were everywhere and forever valid, what better way of convincing ourselves of its validity than a concerted effort to discover its failings and limitations?

 

[dixon76710]

5000 to 9000 years yet you do not show any source that states it is over.
Even if you can, an end of the holocene climactic optimum does not necessitate that temperatures rise. Perhaps you can show how that relates?
Still dodging.

Wow! Perhaps you missed the use of "was" to define the holocene climactic optimum. And the use of "interval" to describe the beginning and the end of its occurence. English a second language for you?

 

[jfuh]

Wow! Perhaps you missed the use of "was" to define the holocene climactic optimum. And the use of "interval" to describe the beginning and the end of its occurence. English a second language for you?

Actually yes as a matter of fact English is a second language for me - though completely irrelevent.
What you sourced was a delta, difference of from start to finish. What you have not indicated is the start nor end date of the holocene climactic optimum. Which you claim is already over. Seems English is also a second language for you.
Hence again I challenge you to present a valid source that states the holocene climactic optimum has ended and the very time in which it ended.

 

[jfuh]

A simple question... a VERY simple question....

If a hockey stick has no blade, what good is it?? Do you think the IPCC would have published a hockey stick graph with no blade?? Think for a change.

When have I denied AGW?? When you refuse to recognize that science is built around skepticism, YOU have lost the debate.

:lamo there you go again, gill. Making shat up as you go along.
It still has a blade and it still indicates that global temps are rising.
When have I ever denied that science is built around skepticism? Please go ahead I challenge you to find me where I've ever stated such. You're just spinning constantly here to find a standing.

Oh no, you've never denied AGW:roll: Only when brought up that your avatar organization accepted AGW and supported measures to curb AGW you went on to state that you don't always agree with that organizations position.
Only when met with statements that the current warming is anthropogenic in origin you continually deny it saying that there is no evidence for or go on beating that it's a natural phenomena and asserting that the "hockey stick graph has been debunked".
So now are you stating that you concede that AGW is a reality?