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 59
    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 (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-07-16 01:54:02 PM
8 votes:

This is all you need to know:

The GOP compares climate scientists to child rapists because they don't like their conclusions.
2012-07-16 12:25:35 PM
8 votes:
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
2012-07-16 01:13:22 PM
6 votes:

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...


I wonder if NRO knows that Sandusky was found guilty in a court of law on 45 felony counts, with a maximum sentence of 442 years in prison.

By comparison, the people accused in the "Climategate" hacking were cleared of all scientific misconduct charges by the British House of Commons, the CRU Science Assessment Panel, Penn State's internal investigation, a second independent panel convened by the British Government and led by Muir Russell, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce (NOAA is under Commerce for some reason), and the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation.

But aside from the whole "found guilty over and over in a court of law" vs. "found innocent over and over, even in civil investigations with a lower bar than "beyond reasonable doubt" for establishing guilt", I could see how the nanowatt brains at NRO could be short-circuited on that issue.
2012-07-16 11:15:15 AM
6 votes:
So this is what, some idiot Republican rambling about how he hates that a university did science that didn't conform to his ignorant worldview, and then compared it to child rape?

Sounds about right. Sounds about Republican.
2012-07-16 02:20:27 PM
5 votes:

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

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.
2012-07-16 08:40:44 PM
4 votes:

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 02:05:01 PM
3 votes:

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.
2012-07-16 01:56:27 PM
3 votes:
Conservatives, this is why nobody takes you seriously.
2012-07-16 11:09:13 AM
3 votes:
That has to be the most tortured metaphor roaming around the internet today.
2012-07-16 11:07:31 AM
3 votes:
scranton.mylittlefacewhen.com
2012-07-16 03:02:37 PM
2 votes:
WelldeadLink
Yes, all find the same result, except those that don't. Those that find the same result tend to be those which were done by Mann and his coworkers.


Did you look at the farking graph above? Most of the data was NOT from Mann and his coworkers. Look how many different data sources are there. Are you blind? Farking hell I'm so sick of people who read a few articles denying climate change thinking they know more than the scientists who study it. STFU, you ignorant cocks.

Humanity is completely farking themselves over because so many people are like you, ignorant as farking hell and totally ignorant of their own ignorance.

Yes, you idiot deniers, you must be right. Climate change science is a giant conspiracy of tens of thousands of scientists from dozens of countries to make BIIIIIIIIIIG money and screw the United States! Yeah, that's the ticket. That makes perfect sense. Pay no attention to the giant corporations making tens of billions off shiat that contributes to climate change. The real money's in scientific research!
/wtf?
//how do people get this stupid?
///Clearly our educational system is a failure
2012-07-16 02:57:20 PM
2 votes:

Ned Stark: Because of sandusky's actions a few kids go laid.


Or by GOP logic: Those sluts had it coming anyway.
2012-07-16 02:38:29 PM
2 votes:

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.


You are engaging in a self defeating effort of trying to use science to convince someone who doesn't believe in science that the science is correct.
2012-07-16 02:21:32 PM
2 votes:

space_cowgirl: Hmm. The "author" of this piece refers to the repeated rapes of children as "statutory." Why does NRO love child molestors?


Borrowing from another thread:

Sandusky : Boys :: NRO : That Chicken
2012-07-16 02:00:32 PM
2 votes:

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.
2012-07-16 01:56:25 PM
2 votes:

EnviroDude: Lsherm: WTF Indeed: Lando Lincoln: I bet Hitler is not pleased that Jerry Sandusky has replaced him in the "worst person to be compared to" category.

Please, Jerry Sandusky did nothing compared to what Joe Paterno did.

Wait, what?

No matter how bad the cover up of child rape is, the actual child rape is still worse. Sure, cover-ups can be worse for political scandals and the like, but child rape?

Joe Pa had the power to stop it and chose not to do so. Ergo, Joe Pa is as evil as Sandusky.


You know who else had the power to stop it? Jerry Sandusky.
2012-07-16 01:56:23 PM
2 votes:
I guess this is a good thread to remind everyone that Jerry Sandusky is a longtime donor to the Republican Party.
2012-07-16 11:20:51 AM
2 votes:
TFA's writer cornered logic in the shower and his editor covered it up.
2012-07-19 11:34:33 AM
1 votes:

GeneralJim: Hey, take a look at a very good correlation -- one so good that one is tempted to use it as "proof" of the relationship between the two quantities. And, while people got the relationship backwards between carbon dioxide and temperature (temperature has more effect on changes in carbon dioxide levels than the other way around) it is only the rarest of idiots -- say, Mojo, for instance -- who could be clueless enough to think that Earth's planetary temperature could have any measurable effect on sunspots. Take a look, and maybe let reality guide you, instead of trying to bully reality:

tucsoncitizen.com


GeneralJim posts another unsourced graph, which he presumably thinks shows a correlation between solar activity and "Earth's planetary temperature".

Back in reality, GeneralJim has posted a graph showing the well known relationship between solar activity and 14C production.

GeneralJim: Temperature has shifted up and down around 10 K in the major oscillation, and as temperature stays rather impressively stable in one of the two states, or transitions between them, carbon dioxide has dropped from twenty times current levels in a couple of big swoops -- with no apparent effect upon temperature.

carbon dioxide has fluctuated more than FIFTY TIMES as much as we have done so far, with no noticeable effect on planetary temperature.


GeneralJim believes this because his understanding of paleoclimate is based on a single graph he read on a blog somewhere.

Back in reality, the role of CO2 in driving climatic change over the past several hundred million years has been extensively published on in the primary scientific literature[1][2][3][4][5][6].

Temperature is not affected by swings of carbon dioxide

This is of course the denial of the greenhouse effect of CO2 that GeneralJim claims he never makes.

Because back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.

[1] Royer, D. L., R. A. Berner, I. P. Montañez, N. J. Tabor, and D. J. Beerling (2004), CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate, GSA Today, 14(3), 5.
[2] Royer, D. L. (2006), CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 70(23), 5665-5675, doi:10.1016/j.gca.2005.11.031.
[3] Came, R. E., J. M. Eiler, J. Veizer, K. Azmy, U. Brand, and C. R. Weidman (2007), Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era, Nature, 449(7159), 198-201, doi:10.1038/nature06085.
[4] Royer, D. L., R. A. Berner, and J. Park (2007), Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420million years, Nature, 446(7135), 530-532, doi:10.1038/nature05699.
[5] Breecker, D. O., Z. D. Sharp, and L. D. McFadden (2010), Atmospheric CO2 concentrations during ancient greenhouse climates were similar to those predicted for A.D. 2100, PNAS, 107(2), 576-580, doi:10.1073/pnas.0902323106.
[6] Park, J., and D. L. Royer (2011), Geologic constraints on the glacial amplification of Phanerozoic climate sensitivity, Am J Sci, 311(1), 1-26, doi:10.2475/01.2011.01.
2012-07-19 10:40:11 AM
1 votes:

GeneralJim: I like watching the artificial veneer of civilization crack...


First "response". Content free. No admission that claiming the Arctic = the globe is wrong. No admission that by GeneralJim's own criteria, CO2 is more than an order of magnitude better correlated with temps than solar is.

GeneralJim: you desperately trying to cherry-pick some small range of information, and a bizarre presentation to show a correlation that doesn't exist in any other time segment or view.


Back in reality, the time period I chose was the entire length of the satellite global temperature record. Back in reality, this was not a "cherry pick", but rather an explicitly stated way to sidestep GeneralJim's claims that the surface instrumental record was fraudulent. Of course, as we see below, GeneralJim is only too happy to accept the surface instrumental record at face value provided it shows something that he thinks supports his preexisting beliefs. Just as he does with dendro proxy records.

Just above, I posted a longer-term correlation.

Back in reality, this was not a correlation between solar activity and global temperature. It was an unsourced graph overlaying purported solar activity with Arctic temperature. Given the lack of source, the non-global nature of the coverage, and the fact that the values for solar activity are too high by ~600W/m^2, I hope that even GeneralJim can understand why no one will take it at face value.

So, rather than your obfuscatory scatter-gun point plot

Back in reality, a scatter plot is a very common way of displaying potential correlation.

let's look at both quantities in the same cherry-picked range, in a way that is easier to comprehend. Look at the following graph, and ask yourself which is a better match...

www.stopthespending.us


Here GeneralJim provides another unsourced graph.

This one many of us are familiar with. It purports to show a close match between Northern Hemisphere temperature and solar cycle length. First note that suddenly the instrumental record is now perfectly fine to use. Second, note that once again, we're not talking about global temperature. Third, we've now suddenly switched from TSI to solar cycle length. And, most importantly, the part most of us are familiar with, the graph cuts off rather obviously around the mid/late 80s:

i.imgur.com

That seems a rather odd choice to end such a graph, if one was being intellectually honest. We all can see where this is going by now. Back in reality, extending the graph past the 80s reveals that the purported correlation has collapsed completely[1]:

i.imgur.com

This is unsurprising because we know that for the past several decades, trends in solar and temperature have been neutral or in opposition[2][3][4].

Also note GeneralJim's claim earlier on that I was "desperately trying to cherry-pick some small range of information, and a bizarre presentation to show a correlation that doesn't exist in any other time segment or view". Recall that when I posted my comment I explicitly stated that the correlation only increased if we extended the time period over the full instrumental record. We can use ice core data for CO2 to extend it back to the beginning of the temp record:

i.imgur.com

Over the full GISTEMP record, the correlation increases significantly:

R2 = 0.8307

Up from R2 = 0.3594. in my "cherry-picked, totally fake, would never work on any other timescale" example.

Because, back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.

[1] Stauning, P. (2011): Solar activity-climate relations: A different approach. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 73(13), 1999-2012, doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2011.06.011.
[2] Lockwood, M., and C. Fröhlich (2007): Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Science, 463(2086), 2447 -2460, doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880.
[3] Lockwood, M., and C. Fröhlich (2008): Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. II. Different reconstructions of the total solar irradiance variation and dependence on response time scale. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Science, 464(2094), 1367 -1385, doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.0347.
[4] Gray, L. J., et al. (2010): Solar Influences on Climate. Reviews of Geophysics, 48, RG4001, doi:10.1029/2009RG000282.
2012-07-18 01:24:26 AM
1 votes:

GeneralJim: Like here, for instance... Are you seriously calling me out for a failure to demonstrate a psychic ability to predict the past? Are you that comically stunted and irony deficient?


Uh yup. That's exactly what I'm doing. You brag and bluster that you can "predict the past" with eerily clairvoyant accuracy:

GeneralJim: Nothing is easier to spot AFTER the fact, but it is INCREDIBLY hard to predict in advance, which is, of course, when predictions are most useful. Like everyone else, my track record of predictions of PAST events is clearly clairvoyant. It's predicting the future that's the biatch.

So what happens when we put your bullshiat to the test? I happens like this:

1. I make a post directly addressing Dr. Craig Loehle's study.
2. You make a post crying about linking to Michael Mann's website.
3. I laugh at you for crying about that while you link to Roy Spencer, because you hate source denegration... until, of course, it's something you want to do
4. You get in to one of your famous blusters, trying to obfuscate from the above fact by attempting to "correct" me by pointing out it's Dr. Loehle's study, not Dr. Spencer's.
5. Which, unfortunately for you, would carry a lot more weight if that was something I hadn't demonstrated I had knowledge of before you attempted to correct me.
6. Which, again very unfortunately for you, makes your claim that you can predict the past with stunning accuracy all the funnier.

This is wrong, yes? I mean, you seem to be suggesting that something here is clearly wrong when you state this:

GeneralJim: As far as I can recall, you have NEVER demonstrated you've been "fully aware" of anything. Like here, for instance... Are you seriously calling me out for a failure to demonstrate a psychic ability to predict the past? Are you that comically stunted and irony deficient?


So somewhere in that list of six fully cited, fully linked-to, documented premises, something must be wrong, right? Something amiss. Because if my conclusion is false, as you suggest, then either my reasoning must be invalid, or my facts must be untrue. If the reasoning is valid and the facts are true, the conclusion must be true. But I don't see you pointing out anywhere where it's actually wrong. You just insist it is, contradicting documented historical events vs. your desire to be right.

And I bet that if any further conversation comes from this thread of argument with you, something tells me that even if we go twenty posts on, you'll just continue playing contextomy games, leveling personal attacks as the sum total of your 'arguments' instead of little tidbits of vengeful goodness thrown in to a cold logic stew, and basically your typical MO of avoidance, attention whoring, and rage.

Though go on, do prove me wrong. I would love to learn something new about GeneralJim today.

Lack of self-awareness and lack of internal moral consistency are a biatch, aren't they Jim?
2012-07-17 11:50:30 AM
1 votes:

Kome: even mutually exclusive conspiracy theories that cannot both be true at the same time


What I find really interesting about this aspect is how they tend to congregate together and segregate in-fighting from fighting the out-group. To put it into perspective re: AGW, consider three camps we know exist (without assigning a truth value to any of them):

1. Anthropogenic climate change is real on the merits of climatology today.
2. Anthropogenic climate change is false, and furthermore the climate is not changing.
3. Anthropogenic climate change is false, however the climate is changing, but not because man is contributing to it.

Now, on the basis of simply attempting to deduce the truth value of this, we know both a) One of these must be true (it's a ternary choice, either the climate is or is not changing, and either man is or is not contributing to it, and if the climate is not changing then perforce man cannot be contributing to something which is not happening, which leaves us with three possibilities) and we know b) if one is true the other two must certainly be false.

However, notice how these camps tend to congregate? Even though we know choice 2 and choice 3 are in opposition to each other, and both cannot be true, we see 2 and 3 regularly challenge 1, and 1 regularly challenge 2 and 3, but we never see 2 challenge 3 nor vice versa.

Despite the claims to the truth of camps 2 and 3, and despite the fact that they ostensibly hate deception (so they present 1's position as), even though to each the other must be a deception, or a falsehood, they never challenge each other. It's absolutely fascinating to watch, and how nakedly they do it, no less.

Kome: From a cognitive style standpoint, people who endorse those beliefs typically score incredibly low on a very well used scale in psychology, the Need for Cognition


I would think that you would also find a large amount of novelty-seeking behaviour in the group as well, abnormally so. Though the extrovert part would be a tip-off that they have high (if not higher than normal) tendencies towards novelty. A kind of mental junk food, new and shallow experiences providing stimulation and comfort with little to no requirements towards introspection, investigation, or intellectual curiosity.

I would imagine the border of curiosity would be seeking out new things without seeking out understanding them; peeping through the keyhole and being titillated at the mere act of voyeurism and not the thought of what lies beyond the door to discover.
2012-07-17 11:04:12 AM
1 votes:

GeneralJim: Peer-Reviewed literature showing that climate sensitivity is actually MUCH less than the IPCC suggests, 2.0 to 4.5 K, at 66% certainty. Data from OBSERVATIONS show the least sensitivity, "data" from models show the most.


Oh hey. Added some new ones. Guess what? Still wrong!

Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations (new window)
Data Source: Observational -- Sensitivity: (1.3 to 1.8 K)


GeneralJim (or let's be honest, whoever he copied this from) is completely misrepresenting this paper's results. Transient climate sensitivity is not the same thing as equilibrium climate sensitivity. Back in reality, this research implies an ECS completely inline with the most likely range in the IPCC AR4.

An Observationally Based Estimate of the Climate Sensitivity (new window)
Data Source: Observational - Sensitivity: (1.7 to 2.3 K)


GeneralJim (or let's be honest, whoever he copied this from) is completely misrepresenting this paper's results. Back in reality, the paper actually finds a best estimate for ECS twice as high (6.1°C) as the mainstream value (~3°C):

i.imgur.com

Where did GeneralJim get the incorrect 1.7-2.3K "results" then? Back in reality, this range comes not from the paper's actual results, but from a section discussing how reductions in observational uncertainty could greatly constrain the upper bound, using a hypothetical example:

i.imgur.com

Probabilistic estimated of transient climate sensitivity subject to uncertainty in forcing and natural variability (new window)
Data Source: Mostly Observational - Sensitivity: (Most Likely: 1.6 K, Range: 1.3 to 2.6 K, 90% certainty)


GeneralJim (or let's be honest, whoever he copied this from) is completely misrepresenting this paper's results. Transient climate sensitivity is not the same thing as equilibrium climate sensitivity. Back in reality, , this research implies an ECS completely inline with the most likely range in the IPCC AR4.

The Climate Sensitivity and Its Components Diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget Data (new window)
Data Source: Mostly Observational - Sensitivity: 0.7-2.4 K using best fit, 1.0-3.6 K using worst case


GeneralJim (or let's be honest, whoever he copied this from) is completely misrepresenting this paper's results. Back in reality, the paper's abstract explicitly claims a "1.0-4.1-K range for the equilibrium warming due to a doubling of carbon dioxide", which is inline with the range found in the IPCC AR4.

i.imgur.com

On the generation and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity (new window)
Data Source: Analysis of other papers - Sensitivity: Upper limit of 4.5 K, > 95% certainty


GeneralJim (or let's be honest, whoever he copied this from) is completely misrepresenting this paper's results. Back in reality, this paper does not actually attempt to estimate climate sensitivity per se, but rather discusses the use of different priors on probabilistic attempts to estimate climate sensitivity, and their impact on economic estimates of damages from doubling CO2. They explicitly state that they are not themselves ruling out higher end sensitivities, merely showing how doing so affects different assumptions.

Back in reality, the paper's authors have published a very highly cited paper based on observational estimates finding a climate sensitivity of ~3°C, completely inline with the range found in the IPCC AR4.

The rest of these I have already addressed at length when he's brought them up before, e.g.:

http://www.fark.com/comments/6988429/75530579#c75530579
http://www.fark.com/comments/6988429/75543574#c75543574
http://www.fark.com/comments/6995138/75590458#c75590458
http://www.fark.com/comments/7035465/76070241#c76070241

Here is an example.

Back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.
2012-07-17 09:53:34 AM
1 votes:

quatchi: Is GJ still trying to pretend that it was only PSU that vindicated Mann's work?


If you point out that seven separate investigations by seven different bodies vindicated him (as was done above), he'll process it as proof that the conspiracy is larger than he thought. That's the problem with conspiracy theorists-- evidence against their delusions just feeds them.

So, nowadays: Inspector General of the National Science Foundation? In on it. The biggest libby lib libtard to ever defect to the main MSM stream lame media.

But what's funny is if you look at the far right's talking points before the NSF's IG got called in:
"But the final say will be in the hands of a skeptical inspector general at the National Science Foundation, the primary funder of the research into global warming. According to published documents obtained by FoxNews.com, the IG must determine whether Penn State's investigation was adequate. ... In other words, once the Penn State inquiry is over, the inspector general will likely step in. And if it does, it will be the first time that climate studies here will be scrutinized by an independent government organization with the skill and tools to investigate effectively."

Of course, after the NSF IG exonerated all of the accused climate scientists (for the 7th time, mind you), this was conveniently forgotten and ignored.
2012-07-17 09:11:46 AM
1 votes:

Chimperror2: If we are just comparing degrees, what climatology degree does Michael Mann have? Oh wait. None.


Um, he has a Ph.D. in geophysics and geology, and his dissertation was specifically on climate oscillations in the historical record. He did his postdoc on temperature reconstructions. He's worked his whole career since in the climate field, publishing in peer-reviewed journals on that very topic.

That's excellent preparation for doing paleoclimate work. Very few programs, especially 15 years ago, offered a degree called "climatology".
2012-07-17 08:59:48 AM
1 votes:

Dr. Mojo PhD: GeneralJim: Oh, really? Actually, it's only fraudulent studies which show that, like Briffa's, and Mann's, which relies heavily upon Briffa's BS, cherry-picked bristlecone pine data set. Real multi-proxy studies look very much like this:

What GeneralJim isn't telling you here, because he lacks intellectual curiosity and doesn't bother to vet his sources (he mirrored the image from Dr. Roy Spencer), is that this was from Dr. Craig Loehle. Ooh, what's he a doctor in? If anybody guessed "NOT climate-related fields", you'd be right!

Dr. Craig Loehle
He received a B.S. in forest science from the University of Georgia, a M.S. in forest management from the University of Washington, and a Ph.D. in range management (mathematical ecology) from Colorado State University.

Forest science, forest management, range management.

Would you trust Dr. Alfred Kinsey, as good as he might be in biology and zoology, to tell you about particle physics? Of course not, you'd go to a physicist!

Notice how when the Heartland Institute proudly brags about featuring Dr. Loehle, they refer to him as a "scientist", but never what his science field is? He works for the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement. Very fancy, right? It was founded by paper and pulp companies. One of those PR names by a big industry to sound feel-good. But yeah, I'm sure a guy with a degree in range management knows more about climate than three climatologists. That's plausible.

I also go to my car mechanic for dental work.


What mojo is saying is ad hominem is a proper form of rebuttal when you have nothing else.

If we are just comparing degrees, what climatology degree does Michael Mann have? Oh wait. None.
2012-07-16 11:27:06 PM
1 votes:
Science Denial is a Blind Faith indeed.

Like the Flat Earthers and Heliocentrists before them.

The fact that large energy concerns spend millions annually on pseudo scientists and corporate propaganda to help perpetuate the myths and muddy the waters of debate aint helping. It just allows whack-a-doodles to pretend they have the first clue in debates on the subject.

The Church of the Whacky Denier has two primary tenets.

First: Climate Change is massive scam cooked up by scientists around the world over the last couple hundred years.

Second: The Mann Hockey Stick Graph has been completely debunked.

Anyone who buys into either of those beliefs here in 2012 is functionally brain dead.

/Nice work on this thread, Doc M. Phd.
2012-07-16 10:36:12 PM
1 votes:

Dr. Mojo PhD: 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 image 696x358]

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?


[ohsnap.jpg]
2012-07-16 09:33:37 PM
1 votes:

jigger: It depends on what you're talking about. Sure, most neuroscience seems fine and some leads to improved lives. That's great. But, some "neuroscience" is pure shiat. I've seen actual scientists claim shiat about an afterlife because the quantum information stored in the brain goes into the universe or some other shiat they pulled out of their asses.


For neuroscience, I'm talking about fMRI specifically, although I could just as easily levy this claim about a few other parts of neuroscience as a discipline. The entire use of it as a proxy measure for neural activity. It's actually something of a major controversy in the field right now. And yet, again because of issues like converging validity (in neuroscience, converging with other neural scanning techniques) and independent replication, it's still the single most used brain scanning technique for research purposes. Which, as I said, has been responsible for knowledge that has been used by physicians to save hundreds of millions of lives.

Astrophysics is pretty precise in most areas. Which parts are you saying are sketchy? Dark matter and dark energy? Ok, but at least they admit they don't know what it is. Sometimes they have the balls to admit that maybe they don't exist and they've got something else fundamentally wrong.

As for astrophysics, I hope you know that dark matter and dark energy are not measurement techniques, but theoretical constructs that serve as a proxy that have to be used in order to make physics models of the universe work. Do you have the slightest idea the kinds of washing techniques that have to be done on any image coming from space so that it can even be remotely legible to an astrophysicist, much less a layperson like you or I? Seriously, check out Phil Plait's blog every now and again, or browse through his archives, and he occasionally does go into some amazing detail about what exactly goes on to make an image taken by the instruments used make any kind of sense to a human.

The excised data was the "cleaned" data. Nothing they could do could make it match the instrumental record, so they made it disappear. That's crap science no matter who you ask.

Even if that were true, which it isn't in this case (that much of this case I do know) elimination of statistical outliers is a valid data cleaning technique. Every science uses it at some points, and things like microprocessors and insulin still work just fine almost all of the time. The thing that makes it unethical is not reporting that you eliminated statistical outliers and why you did so. The fact that we know he did anything with the data to make it "work" is, from a scientific ethics standpoint, incredibly advantageous for his claim that he didn't do anything unethical.

But I'm getting the feeling that in spite of what I've said, you don't seem to take issue with astrophysics and neuroscience in spite of being bigger "abusers" of similar techniques that you're taking massive issue with in this thread. Why is that?
2012-07-16 09:27:31 PM
1 votes:

jigger: A Dark Evil Omen: jigger: The excised data was the "cleaned" data. Nothing they could do could make it match the instrumental record, so they made it disappear. That's crap science no matter who you ask.

No they didn't, you lying goddamned moron. It's right here, all of it. You don't even know what you're upset about; if they had "made the data disappear" there wouldn't be this nontroversy because it never would have been matched in the first place. Sweet merciful fark.

Wow, talk about not know WTF you're talking about. You linked to the HadCRUT3 instrumental record. Is any of that proxy data of any kind? NO.

Here, watch this little lesson on "hide the decline".

In the end he says that he'll lead a study to "redo all this in a transparent way." Well, they redid the analysis of the instrumental record, but they didn't begin to touch on proxies. I do wonder if they'll make a go at it, but I'm not holding my breath.


I don't have to watch your little Youtube bullshiat, I've read the source code that was leaked. I can do that because I actually know some things. It's a nonissue.
2012-07-16 09:19:34 PM
1 votes:

jigger: The excised data was the "cleaned" data. Nothing they could do could make it match the instrumental record, so they made it disappear. That's crap science no matter who you ask.


No they didn't, you lying goddamned moron. It's right here, all of it. You don't even know what you're upset about; if they had "made the data disappear" there wouldn't be this nontroversy because it never would have been matched in the first place. Sweet merciful fark.
2012-07-16 07:25:11 PM
1 votes:
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 06:16:19 PM
1 votes:

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 05:17:41 PM
1 votes:

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 05:01:15 PM
1 votes:

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 04:54:44 PM
1 votes:
Rand Simberg really is the Jerry Sandusky of bloggers, except instead of raping children he rapes metaphors.
2012-07-16 04:45:19 PM
1 votes:
A site focusing on climate change with actual science.

Enjoy. It'll make you less retarded.
2012-07-16 04:24:59 PM
1 votes:

WelldeadLink: TabASlotB:
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.

Yes, all find the same result, except those that don't. Those that find the same result tend to be those which were done by Mann and his coworkers.

For a good cry, look up "upside down Tjilander", where Mann processes data which indicates cooling so it indicates warming. Or just try It's Saturday Night Live


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:
www.meteo.psu.edu
It's not as big a deal as you might want to think it it...Leaving out the proxies with identified concerns minimally altered the results. Mann provides some further explanations at his site, too. You can find links to the scientific literature there.

Mann and other scientists are human and can fall prey to mistakes and biases; peer review is an imperfect method of controlling these issues. The extra-peer review from much of the climate change skeptic/denial blogosphere can at times provide valid critical analysis. The signal-to-noise ratio, however, is generally disappointing. There's a reason that climate scientists are near unanimous in accepting anthropogenic climate change: the data from disparate fields and wholly independent research groups reliably trend towards such an effect. Errors, real or perceived, in a given data analysis won't crumble that foundation.
2012-07-16 04:18:23 PM
1 votes:

platedlizard: cubic_spleen: Why does Fark allow links to some sites which promote child molestation, such as the National Review Online, but don't allow links to others; for instance, NAMBLA? It gets confusing. I wish the mods were more consistent.

If NAMBLA would just get with the times and start posting incoherent screeds about the evils of Libs I'm sure they would.


That would explain conservative support of the Catholic League.
2012-07-16 04:14:24 PM
1 votes:

cubic_spleen: Why does Fark allow links to some sites which promote child molestation, such as the National Review Online, but don't allow links to others; for instance, NAMBLA? It gets confusing. I wish the mods were more consistent.


If NAMBLA would just get with the times and start posting incoherent screeds about the evils of Libs I'm sure they would.
2012-07-16 03:23:28 PM
1 votes:

neversubmit: can't believe this went green, what next stormfront?


Think that's what they're softening us up for.

They'll prolly lead into it with a Twitchy link then maybe a Breitbart one and then BOOM!

/Just a theory.
2012-07-16 03:18:52 PM
1 votes:

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.


If mountains didn't want to be strip mined, then why did God decide to make them out of coal?
2012-07-16 03:11:58 PM
1 votes:

meat0918: Are they still pissed "Climate-email-gate" or whatever didn't stop global warming?


Yep. Oddly enough, no matter how much mudslinging one does, it's hard to change reality.

Science != politics.
2012-07-16 03:10:01 PM
1 votes:

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
2012-07-16 02:57:20 PM
1 votes:
Stay classy, "conservatives."

I guess "Darwin led to Hitler" wasn't inflammatory enough.

Ass. Holes.
2012-07-16 02:46:38 PM
1 votes:
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...

To the ignorant, lying shiatbags at the NRO, yes, absolutely. Accepting peer reviewed science is just like accepting the Nazis.

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!

WI241TH
Here's a Popular Science article featuring Mann. So far the only similarity I can possibly imagine is the death threats.

That is all kinds of farked up. Scientists do their jobs and study the climate, then release papers detailing their studies. Right wing assbags who are far too ignorant to understand the research send them death threats. Idiocy is a contagious disease that causes violence. That doesn't even count the ignorant farks like Inhofe who use the government to try to shut down scientific research that they don't like. Assholes.

Even the Popular Science article you linked is full of comments below it from stupid as fark deniers who read a few articles or listened to Fox News for awhile and think they know more about the topic than actual climate scientists. Goddamn people are stupid.
2012-07-16 02:36:23 PM
1 votes:
Wow, I knew the NRO were shiatstains, but that's low, even for them.
2012-07-16 02:31:07 PM
1 votes:
Climate Science = Child Rape now?

i293.photobucket.com

So. Much. FAIL.
2012-07-16 02:29:32 PM
1 votes:

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:



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.


But that source was published in magazine form. Don't you know you can't trust anything from publications that were just STAPLED together and not properly bound.

Someone with a GED in Science told me this once.
2012-07-16 02:17:22 PM
1 votes:
i614.photobucket.com
2012-07-16 02:06:37 PM
1 votes:
This accusation rapes reality so bad it's the Jerry Sandusky of accusations.
2012-07-16 01:55:49 PM
1 votes:
Good God. The NRO is the Sandusky of political commentary.
2012-07-16 01:54:52 PM
1 votes:
This analogy raped the internet. Not even figuratively.
2012-07-16 12:17:13 PM
1 votes:
1. Stop with the analogy, it's painful beyond words.

2. I'm almost convinced that there's one truth in the Mann part of the story: There are people who believe in climate change, and there are people who don't. The gray area is very, very small, and the two sides aren't going to change their mind for any amount of evidence.

\me? I'll just do what I can to help the environment. What's the worst that happens?
2012-07-16 11:48:34 AM
1 votes:

WTF Indeed: Lando Lincoln: I bet Hitler is not pleased that Jerry Sandusky has replaced him in the "worst person to be compared to" category.

Please, Jerry Sandusky did nothing compared to what Joe Paterno did.


Wait, what?

No matter how bad the cover up of child rape is, the actual child rape is still worse. Sure, cover-ups can be worse for political scandals and the like, but child rape?
2012-07-16 11:42:04 AM
1 votes:

WTF Indeed: Lando Lincoln: I bet Hitler is not pleased that Jerry Sandusky has replaced him in the "worst person to be compared to" category.

Please, Jerry Sandusky did nothing compared to what Joe Paterno did.


Well... the molestation's kind of worse, objectively. But both were farking scumbags and PSU and State College were wrong to worship them fanatically to the point that they looked the other way.
2012-07-16 11:33:41 AM
1 votes:
Really NRO? Really? You're going to go there?
2012-07-16 11:13:36 AM
1 votes:
This is going to work about as well as comparing anything to the Holocaust.
2012-07-16 11:13:13 AM
1 votes:
I'm sure that the right investigators can find a whole lot more that's been swept under the rug at that school and various affiliations.
 
Displayed 59 of 59 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report