If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Review)   PSU's other scandal: "He was the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation"   (nationalreview.com) divider line 429
    More: Interesting, PSU, Jerry Sandusky, Rand Simberg, climatologies, Michael Mann, FBI Director Louis Freeh, Graham Spanier, Unabomber  
•       •       •

3556 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Jul 2012 at 1:47 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



429 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-16 04:56:02 PM  

Dull Cow Eyes: Cyclometh: This is all you need to know:


The GOP Democratic Party compares climate scientists to child rapists because they don't like their conclusions.


/i just wanted to post something equally as retarded and irritating


fark yooouuu!
And plonk.
 
2012-07-16 04:58:38 PM  
Was the "Dumbass" tag in therapy for for Sandusky related badness? Why is this "Interesting"???

/damn Fark and it's CLEARLY liberal bias!!
 
Bf+
2012-07-16 04:58:48 PM  
Hitler was like the Hitler of Hitlers.
/Hitler
 
2012-07-16 05:01:15 PM  

WelldeadLink: The same goes for the Climategate investigations. Look into just what they investigated... and didn't investigate.


I did. After all, there were at least 7 different investigations, and they all dismissed all charges of scientific misconduct. But please, tell me again how the British House of Commons as well as the Inspectors General of the Department of Commerce and the National Science Foundation are all just part of an even bigger conspiracy.

(Make sure you throw in a "we're through the looking glass, sheeple!" while you're in there.)
 
2012-07-16 05:09:52 PM  

TabASlotB: A "good cry"? I'm quite confident you're not a climate scientist. I'm not, but I know my way around research...
When Mann et al. ran their models with and without the Tiljander set, this was the result:


People don't usually refer to Mann's principal component analysis as "models". Where does Mann show what happens when he feeds red noise to his analysis process? Others have found hockey sticks emerge when random data is fed in. At least others think that they're doing the same thing as Mann -- nobody but Mann knows just how he creates his results.
 
2012-07-16 05:14:47 PM  

chimp_ninja: WelldeadLink: The same goes for the Climategate investigations. Look into just what they investigated... and didn't investigate.

I did. After all, there were at least 7 different investigations, and they all dismissed all charges of scientific misconduct. But please, tell me again how the British House of Commons as well as the Inspectors General of the Department of Commerce and the National Science Foundation are all just part of an even bigger conspiracy.

(Make sure you throw in a "we're through the looking glass, sheeple!" while you're in there.)


WAKE UP SHEEPLE! IT DON'T FEEL ANY HOTTER TO ME!
 
2012-07-16 05:16:23 PM  

chimp_ninja: WelldeadLink: The same goes for the Climategate investigations. Look into just what they investigated... and didn't investigate.

I did. After all, there were at least 7 different investigations, and they all dismissed all charges of scientific misconduct. But please, tell me again how the British House of Commons as well as the Inspectors General of the Department of Commerce and the National Science Foundation are all just part of an even bigger conspiracy.

(Make sure you throw in a "we're through the looking glass, sheeple!" while you're in there.)


No need for them to conspire. They independently found ways to investigate irrelevant things and ignore information. Look again at what they were told to investigate, and what they actually did in their investigations.

And, oh, it would be so much fun if there was an investigation in the House of Commons. That would be more entertaining than Questions day.
 
2012-07-16 05:17:41 PM  

WelldeadLink: nobody but Mann knows just how he creates his results.


I think you might be slightly confused about how these things work. I would save trying to tear down the fabric of peer reviewed science until after you read a starter book on the subject mkay?
 
2012-07-16 05:19:10 PM  

WelldeadLink: TabASlotB: A "good cry"? I'm quite confident you're not a climate scientist. I'm not, but I know my way around research...
When Mann et al. ran their models with and without the Tiljander set, this was the result:


People don't usually refer to Mann's principal component analysis as "models". Where does Mann show what happens when he feeds red noise to his analysis process? Others have found hockey sticks emerge when random data is fed in. At least others think that they're doing the same thing as Mann -- nobody but Mann knows just how he creates his results.


The code used by Mann and colleagues can be found here. Maybe you should see how he creates his results?
 
2012-07-16 05:19:21 PM  

randomjsa: One of these days all the so called "environmentalists" will actually wake up to real man-made environmental problems, of which there are many, and we can actually work on solving them.


That's a good point. We need to fix the obvious problems with man-made environmental pollution and destruction.

randomjsa: YoungSwedishBlonde: If mountains didn't want to be strip mined, then why did God decide to make them out of coal?

We need fossil fuels and no amount of crying about "renewable" and "conservation" is going to change that fact. Development of all energy sources must go forward.


Oh for fark's sake.

That's what I get for thinking randomfiringneurons was making sense.
 
2012-07-16 05:20:09 PM  

TabASlotB: jigger: Ryan2065: So Mann is the same as Sandusky because he published a paper in a peer reviewed paper that has been independently verified by studies since and has yet to be disproven...

[i145.photobucket.com image 300x300]

If by "yet to be disproven" you mean "thoroughly debunked" then, yeah.

If by "thoroughly debunked" you mean "Since 1999, there have been many independent reconstructions of past temperatures, using a variety of proxy data and a number of different methodologies. All find the same result - that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes)" then, yeah.


Not so much.

images.sciencedaily.com
 
2012-07-16 05:23:48 PM  

pdee: Not so much.


Climate in Northern Europe Reconstructed for the Past 2,000 Years: Cooling Trend Calculated Precisely for the First Time

Any comment on this, chimp_ninja?
 
2012-07-16 05:27:04 PM  

pdee: Not so much.


You are conflating "Northern Europe" with the whole planet. Why did you do that?
 
2012-07-16 05:28:17 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: pdee: Not so much.

You are conflating "Northern Europe" with the whole planet. Why did you do that?


www.theresilientearth.com
 
2012-07-16 05:38:03 PM  

Bloody William: [scranton.mylittlefacewhen.com image 635x549]


Yeah, me too.
 
2012-07-16 05:40:27 PM  
Jerry Sandusky is the Jerry Sandusky of Jerry Sanduskys.

/this is the Jerry Sandusky of threads
 
2012-07-16 05:49:29 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-07-16 05:49:47 PM  
Monica Bellucci is the Jerry Sandusky of hot women because she didn't molest me.
 
2012-07-16 05:54:18 PM  

palelizard: A Dark Evil Omen: Epoch_Zero: palelizard: Confabulat: Hitler is like the Sandusky of dictators.

Don't be the Mussolini of metaphors, Attila.

Atilla? He's more like a Mao, the Air Jordan of tyrants.

Air Jordans, the Breaking Bad of shoes.

Wasn't Breaking Bad the Game of Thrones of books?


It was more like the Indra Gandhi of snack salads.
 
2012-07-16 06:01:48 PM  

PonceAlyosha: palelizard: A Dark Evil Omen: Epoch_Zero: palelizard: Confabulat: Hitler is like the Sandusky of dictators.

Don't be the Mussolini of metaphors, Attila.

Atilla? He's more like a Mao, the Air Jordan of tyrants.

Air Jordans, the Breaking Bad of shoes.

Wasn't Breaking Bad the Game of Thrones of books?

It was more like the Indra Gandhi of snack salads.


[I'm so confused]
 
2012-07-16 06:08:08 PM  

pdee: TabASlotB: jigger: Ryan2065: So Mann is the same as Sandusky because he published a paper in a peer reviewed paper that has been independently verified by studies since and has yet to be disproven...

[i145.photobucket.com image 300x300]

If by "yet to be disproven" you mean "thoroughly debunked" then, yeah.

If by "thoroughly debunked" you mean "Since 1999, there have been many independent reconstructions of past temperatures, using a variety of proxy data and a number of different methodologies. All find the same result - that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes)" then, yeah.

Not so much.

[images.sciencedaily.com image 800x310]


It's a reconstruction from a high-latitude region in Scandinavia. Over the past two thousand years the Earth's orbital and axial movements have changed insolation patterns such that Northern Hemisphere high latitude zones receive 6 W/m^2 less energy today. That being the case it isn't surprising to find some high latitude regions had slightly higher temperatures in the Roman period than today, and roughly comparable temperatures around 1000AD. However, this insolation change decreases as you move towards the equator and is significantly smaller for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.

There is a finding of potential great interest in the paper - that a certain method of extracting information from tree rings produced higher inferred temperatures in the past than a different method. The authors speculate this may indicate that other high latitude tree ring proxy records, produced using the latter method, have underestimated earlier temperatures, and that this may in turn impact multi-record Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (which use these regional proxy records to construct a Hemispherical average). However, they don't offer much to support this. At this point it's just speculation.
 
2012-07-16 06:13:45 PM  

chimp_ninja: WelldeadLink: The same goes for the Climategate investigations. Look into just what they investigated... and didn't investigate.

I did. After all, there were at least 7 different investigations, and they all dismissed all charges of scientific misconduct. But please, tell me again how the British House of Commons as well as the Inspectors General of the Department of Commerce and the National Science Foundation are all just part of an even bigger conspiracy.

(Make sure you throw in a "we're through the looking glass, sheeple!" while you're in there.)


i20.photobucket.com

Seven of them, please.
 
2012-07-16 06:16:19 PM  

chuckufarlie: chimp_ninja: WelldeadLink: The same goes for the Climategate investigations. Look into just what they investigated... and didn't investigate.

I did. After all, there were at least 7 different investigations, and they all dismissed all charges of scientific misconduct. But please, tell me again how the British House of Commons as well as the Inspectors General of the Department of Commerce and the National Science Foundation are all just part of an even bigger conspiracy.

(Make sure you throw in a "we're through the looking glass, sheeple!" while you're in there.)

[i20.photobucket.com image 500x271]

Seven of them, please.


Start with this, then follow their citations.
 
2012-07-16 06:47:28 PM  

Bf+: Hitler was like the Hitler of Hitlers.
/Hitler


NEW! It'shiatler Lite! Now with more HITLER!

dont mention the war
 
2012-07-16 06:51:26 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: Eapoe6: Do people still believe that greenhouse gas theory?

That is ridiculous!

Some Germans wrote a paper about 7 or 8 years ago that "disproved" the Greenhouse Gas Theory. It was pimped majorly by the deniers until it was thoroughly run the fark over by SCIENCE


HA! You're ridiculous. Worthy of Farking Ridicule, you.
 
2012-07-16 07:25:11 PM  
Research group put together by climate change skeptic publishes a study funded by the Koch brothers and concluded climate change is real.
 
2012-07-16 07:25:28 PM  

chuckufarlie: I am getting very tired of dealing with lazy, shiftless stupid people.


Must be a hard life with so much self-loathing.
 
2012-07-16 07:26:58 PM  

Kome: Research group put together by climate change skeptic publishes a study funded by the Koch brothers and concluded climate change is real.


Of course. They figured out they could make way more money acknowledging it was real than just pouring money down the derp funnel in order to discredit the science. A rarity for them.
 
2012-07-16 07:27:06 PM  

HeartBurnKid: You: I WANT CITATIONS! CITATIONS, DAMNIT!
Me: Here you go.
You: HOW DARE YOU GIVE ME A HUGE LIST OF LINKS, YOU LAZY GOOD FOR NOTHING! THIS HUGE VOLUME OF CITATIONS YOU GAVE ME IS PROOF YOU CAN'T GIVE AN HONEST ANSWER!
Me: *facepalm* *ignore*


Hmmm... that seems oddly familiar to just a couple of days ago when he did the exact same thing. And then argued that Nature and Science were not reputable sources for scientific information, refused to say where reputable scientific research is published, and threw a gigantic hissy fit going so far as to remark "data is not evidence." It's like the dude is from the Bizzaro universe.
 
2012-07-16 07:31:56 PM  

HeartBurnKid: chuckufarlie: HeartBurnKid: chuckufarlie: HeartBurnKid: chuckufarlie: chimp_ninja: WelldeadLink: The same goes for the Climategate investigations. Look into just what they investigated... and didn't investigate.

I did. After all, there were at least 7 different investigations, and they all dismissed all charges of scientific misconduct. But please, tell me again how the British House of Commons as well as the Inspectors General of the Department of Commerce and the National Science Foundation are all just part of an even bigger conspiracy.

(Make sure you throw in a "we're through the looking glass, sheeple!" while you're in there.)

[i20.photobucket.com image 500x271]

Seven of them, please.

Start with this, then follow their citations.

I like your approach - basically you told me to go look all over the internet and I should find them. That seems to be the approach taken by all the warmers.

If by "go look all over the internet", you mean "read this convenient synopsis of the investigations, then read the links that they read to put together that synopsis which are conveniently linked from that page if you're still not convinced", then yeah, that's exactly what I told you to do.

I like your approach - basically you asked for citations, I gave you citations, and you refused to read them. That seems to be the approach taken by all the deniers.

I am getting very tired of dealing with lazy, shiftless stupid people. Your link was nothing more than a list of all sorts of links. I guess that is a good approach when you really cannot supply an honest answer.

You: I WANT CITATIONS! CITATIONS, DAMNIT!
Me: Here you go.
You: HOW DARE YOU GIVE ME A HUGE LIST OF LINKS, YOU LAZY GOOD FOR NOTHING! THIS HUGE VOLUME OF CITATIONS YOU GAVE ME IS PROOF YOU CAN'T GIVE AN HONEST ANSWER!
Me: *facepalm* *ignore*


I see. You are too ignorant to realize that you provided me with a long list of links but only a few of them actually met the requirement.

If you are going to provide that sort of "information" don't bother. It shows you ignorance and laziness.
 
2012-07-16 07:32:54 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: chuckufarlie: A Dark Evil Omen: chuckufarlie: I am getting very tired of dealing with lazy, shiftless stupid people.

Must be a hard life with so much self-loathing.

not as long as I have people like you in the world. You know the type. The ones who have lowered the average intelligence of the USA to the basement.

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 640x454]


This is exactly the level of intelligence and maturity that I have learned to expect from you warmers.
 
2012-07-16 07:57:17 PM  

TabASlotB: jigger: Ryan2065: So Mann is the same as Sandusky because he published a paper in a peer reviewed paper that has been independently verified by studies since and has yet to be disproven...

[i145.photobucket.com image 300x300]

If by "yet to be disproven" you mean "thoroughly debunked" then, yeah.

If by "thoroughly debunked" you mean "Since 1999, there have been many independent reconstructions of past temperatures, using a variety of proxy data and a number of different methodologies. All find the same result - that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes)" then, yeah.


Did all the other proxy studies use Mike's Nature trick too?

When "dendrochronologists" claim to reconstruct temperature, it's like a chiropractor manipulating your neck to diagnose you with cancer.

Multiple factors affect tree growth, including wetness, CO2 levels, nutrients in the soil, bug infestations etc. Temperature is actually a minor factor. Tree ring thickness peaks when an optimum is reached. So, if the ring gets thinner, is it because temperature fell? Or is it because the temp rose above the optimum? Or perhaps something ate half the leaves and the tree had stunted growth? Or maybe it was really cloudy and the tree got very little sun?

About the only thing these studies will tell you is whether a bunch of trees had good years for growth or not.
 
2012-07-16 07:58:45 PM  

jigger: About the only thing these studies will tell you is whether a bunch of trees had good years for growth or not.



Link me to your peer reviewed study that shows "the truth" or kindly STFU and GTFO
 
2012-07-16 08:01:44 PM  

chimp_ninja: jigger: Ryan2065: So Mann is the same as Sandusky because he published a paper in a peer reviewed paper that has been independently verified by studies since and has yet to be disproven...

[i145.photobucket.com image 300x300]

If by "yet to be disproven" you mean "thoroughly debunked" then, yeah.

Mann's temperature reconstructions, overlaid on common axes with results from many other groups:

[www.pnas.org image 424x440]

Please point to the problem. Source is the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Shaded areas denote measurement uncertainty. The original 'hockey stick' graph is Mann's 1999 study, which you can barely see buried under the other, similar lines.


Yes, other people used "dendrochronology" and shiatty statistics to make graphs. Thank you.

Here's another "dendrochronology" study that says something different. It's still crap though.

Link
www.nature.com
 
2012-07-16 08:01:57 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: So you don't believe in AGW not because of the science but the perceived slight of people coming together to discuss how to fix it. Gotcha.


In fact, the more people who say it's true is just more proof that it's false. Sort of like the official 9/11 story. Or the Holocaust. Right chuck?
 
2012-07-16 08:02:34 PM  

Kome: It's like the dude is from the Bizzaro universeonly cares about pushing his own narrative because he never had intention of honestly participating in the discussion in the first place.


FTFY
 
2012-07-16 08:04:01 PM  

patrick767: jigger
If by "yet to be disproven" you mean "thoroughly debunked" then, yeah.

First you said this, then you were immediately owned by two people with actual data. Look at how stupid you are!


Oh, I guess you also got "owned" by data. Look at what a retarded rhesus monkey you are.
 
2012-07-16 08:04:33 PM  
"WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE DATA?"

/sob
//not like that, Tasha
 
2012-07-16 08:05:03 PM  

jigger: Here's another "dendrochronology" study that says something different. It's still crap though.


What do you do for a living? What is your educational background?
 
2012-07-16 08:05:22 PM  
It's like watching a dog try to figure out his own reflection in the mirror and get mad at it.
 
2012-07-16 08:06:21 PM  

Splinshints: jigger: Here's another "dendrochronology" study that says something different. It's still crap though.

What do you do for a living? What is your educational background?


He thinks paleoclimatology is crap because he thinks tree rings are the only proxy source used for reconstruction. That's all you have to know
 
2012-07-16 08:06:47 PM  

lennavan: jigger: Ryan2065: So Mann is the same as Sandusky because he published a paper in a peer reviewed paper that has been independently verified by studies since and has yet to be disproven...

[i145.photobucket.com image 300x300]

If by "yet to be disproven" you mean "thoroughly debunked" then, yeah.

You know what the hockey stick graph and "the trick" was? They replaced calculated/predicted temperatures with actual measurements. THOSE BASTARDS ZOMGWTF


No sir.

That's not the trick.

The trick was to cut off part of the proxy data right when it starts to massively diverge from instrumental data of the same time.

The proxy data and the instrument data don't match after 1960 or so, like at all. But all the rest of the proxy data is good, right?

You can keep hanging onto the hockey stick if it makes you feel better, but it's garbage.
 
2012-07-16 08:27:15 PM  

intelligent comment below: jigger: About the only thing these studies will tell you is whether a bunch of trees had good years for growth or not.


Link me to your peer reviewed study that shows "the truth" or kindly STFU and GTFO


Oh ok. This old textbook explains dendrochronology and all its associated pitfalls. Go to chapter 3 "Data Analysis" where it says, "Although the use of tree rings for the studying environmental changes is widespread, the extraction of the desired signal from the unwanted noise can be difficult and uncertain." The rest of the chapter makes you realize that this is a vast understatement. It's statistical astrology that to make it work requires almost flawless statistical methods. Mann's methods were sloppy at best, or at least expert statisticians who were being nice said as much.

Why don't you show me how much you understand about the hockey stick?

Explain to me how Mann got absolute temperature from tree rings to such a high degree of accuracy that he felt confident enough to tack instrumental measurements on the end.
 
2012-07-16 08:30:37 PM  

Splinshints: jigger: Here's another "dendrochronology" study that says something different. It's still crap though.

What do you do for a living? What is your educational background?


It's irrelevant. What's yours?

YoungSwedishBlonde: Splinshints: jigger: Here's another "dendrochronology" study that says something different. It's still crap though.

What do you do for a living? What is your educational background?

He thinks paleoclimatology is crap because he thinks tree rings are the only proxy source used for reconstruction. That's all you have to know


People are claiming a level of accuracy that they have not actually produced.
 
2012-07-16 08:32:02 PM  

jigger: intelligent comment below: jigger: About the only thing these studies will tell you is whether a bunch of trees had good years for growth or not.


Link me to your peer reviewed study that shows "the truth" or kindly STFU and GTFO

Oh ok. This old textbook explains dendrochronology and all its associated pitfalls. Go to chapter 3 "Data Analysis" where it says, "Although the use of tree rings for the studying environmental changes is widespread, the extraction of the desired signal from the unwanted noise can be difficult and uncertain." The rest of the chapter makes you realize that this is a vast understatement. It's statistical astrology that to make it work requires almost flawless statistical methods. Mann's methods were sloppy at best, or at least expert statisticians who were being nice said as much.

Why don't you show me how much you understand about the hockey stick?

Explain to me how Mann got absolute temperature from tree rings to such a high degree of accuracy that he felt confident enough to tack instrumental measurements on the end.


This is why the concept of convergent validity is so important. If the only evidence for a claim was a rather tenuous method, then yea the conclusion should be held to a great degree of skepticism. But when the evidence gathered using a tenuous method coincides with evidence gathered using various other more stringent, more rigorous, and more standardized methods, then the flaws of the one method notwithstanding it does add to the body of the evidence supporting a particular conclusion. It isn't the case where pointing out the flaws of one method causes the entire corpus of evidence to be wrong, only that taking that one method's evidence alone as evidence for or against a theory should not be done.
 
2012-07-16 08:38:08 PM  

Kome: jigger: intelligent comment below: jigger: About the only thing these studies will tell you is whether a bunch of trees had good years for growth or not.


Link me to your peer reviewed study that shows "the truth" or kindly STFU and GTFO

Oh ok. This old textbook explains dendrochronology and all its associated pitfalls. Go to chapter 3 "Data Analysis" where it says, "Although the use of tree rings for the studying environmental changes is widespread, the extraction of the desired signal from the unwanted noise can be difficult and uncertain." The rest of the chapter makes you realize that this is a vast understatement. It's statistical astrology that to make it work requires almost flawless statistical methods. Mann's methods were sloppy at best, or at least expert statisticians who were being nice said as much.

Why don't you show me how much you understand about the hockey stick?

Explain to me how Mann got absolute temperature from tree rings to such a high degree of accuracy that he felt confident enough to tack instrumental measurements on the end.

This is why the concept of convergent validity is so important. If the only evidence for a claim was a rather tenuous method, then yea the conclusion should be held to a great degree of skepticism. But when the evidence gathered using a tenuous method coincides with evidence gathered using various other more stringent, more rigorous, and more standardized methods, then the flaws of the one method notwithstanding it does add to the body of the evidence supporting a particular conclusion. It isn't the case where pointing out the flaws of one method causes the entire corpus of evidence to be wrong, only that taking that one method's evidence alone as evidence for or against a theory should not be done.


Yeah, where in there is an explanation of Mann's methods?

Remember where this started? Mann's hockey stick is bunk.

But we can go into a different topic if you wish. Which proxy method is more stringent and rigorous than tree rings? Or a better question is which method is more accurate? Ice core "rings"?
 
2012-07-16 08:40:44 PM  

jigger: Oh ok. This old textbook explains dendrochronology and all its associated pitfalls. Go to chapter 3 "Data Analysis" where it says, "Although the use of tree rings for the studying environmental changes is widespread, the extraction of the desired signal from the unwanted noise can be difficult and uncertain." The rest of the chapter makes you realize that this is a vast understatement. It's statistical astrology that to make it work requires almost flawless statistical methods. Mann's methods were sloppy at best, or at least expert statisticians who were being nice said as much.


That would be the textbook written by Edward Cook and Keith Briffa, right?
i.imgur.com

You know, the guy you claim is totally unreliable for employing "Mike's nature trick" in the first place. So tell us, completely ignorant freak that clearly knows nothing about what he's talking about, if Keith Briffa is good enough to write the textbook you cite to rebut Keith Briffa's studies, why is Keith Briffa not good enough to write the studies that avoid the "pitfalls" he wrote the textbook on?

God, what a loser.

For anybody who is undecided on whether AGW is true or false, look at what just happened here. A guy whining about "Mike's nature trick" (something he doesn't understand, and can be explained step-by-step as to what Briffa was doing there, and why, and no, not only is it not deceptive, it didn't even make it into Briffa's final report, something jigger clearly doesn't know).

Do you want to believe AGW proponents, who have science so strongly on our side that our opponents' own reasoning destroys itself (as we just saw), or do you want to trust a lackwit idiot who literally just claimed the guy who wrote the textbook (he's citing, no less) on dendro walked into one of his own pitfalls a decade later?
 
2012-07-16 08:41:13 PM  
I demand a ridiculous burden of proof, which I will then ignore, deny that it was ever provided, and then repeat the same steps in the next thread.
 
2012-07-16 08:53:11 PM  

jigger: Yeah, where in there is an explanation of Mann's methods?

Remember where this started? Mann's hockey stick is bunk.

But we can go into a different topic if you wish. Which proxy method is more stringent and rigorous than tree rings? Or a better question is which method is more accurate? Ice core "rings"?


I'm not explaining Mann's method because I am not an expert in that methodology. I am, however, familiar with how science is generally conducted. And that's why I brought up the idea of convergent validity. Let me explain by analogy: You have 10 eyewitnesses to a crime, none of whom have ever met before and have no reason to collaborate in coming up with an explanation for the police. Nine of them say one thing happened and the 10th one says another happened. One of the nine is very weird and even though he independently and without prompting came up with a nearly identical story as the other eight, there is something very untrustworthy about him. As the lead investigator on the case, based solely on the details provided by the eyewitnesses, which story do you investigate first under the assumption that it is more deserving of more immediate investigation?

Just because there is a weak link in a network doesn't mean breaking the weak link brings the entire network down. All it does, most of the time, is remove the weakest link in the network leaving the other chains and links untouched.
 
2012-07-16 08:58:40 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: You know, the guy you claim is totally unreliable for employing "Mike's nature trick" in the first place. So tell us, completely ignorant freak that clearly knows nothing about what he's talking about, if Keith Briffa is good enough to write the textbook you cite to rebut Keith Briffa's studies, why is Keith Briffa not good enough to write the studies that avoid the "pitfalls" he wrote the textbook on?

God, what a loser.

For anybody who is undecided on whether AGW is true or false, look at what just happened here. A guy whining about "Mike's nature trick" (something he doesn't understand, and can be explained step-by-step as to what Briffa was doing there, and why, and no, not only is it not deceptive, it didn't even make it into Briffa's final report, something jigger clearly doesn't know).


If you're trying to claim that Mike's Nature Trick was not deceptive, then god what a loser. It means that you do not understand what was done even though it's pretty simple. The proxy data didn't match the instrumental data (as in it was WAY off) so they just excised it. That's crap science. But we're supposed to trust the absolute temperatures of 1000 years ago gleaned from tree rings.

Yeah, Briffa wrote this textbook and later he participated in the Nature Trick deception.

I linked to the textbook so that people could see what kind of voodoo is involved in getting the "signal that you want" from the noise.
 
Displayed 50 of 429 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report