Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Pants-of-dog wrote:Then please demonstrate that your claim is true and there is no other possible reason for this failure to comply.
Sivad quoting Judith Curry wrote:Steve McIntyre has quite a different intepretation.
Sivad wrote:Whatever, I posted all the info anyone would ever need to understand what a crazy fucking fraud Michael E Mann is and you have graciously demonstrated what ludicrous depths of bullshit someone has to sink to in order to deny it.
Sivad quoting North as House Witness wrote:However, the substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales. We also question some of the statistical choices made in the original papers by Dr. Mann and his colleagues.
But there were some problems with that graph and the research behind it. Some very big problems. One was that the Medieval Warm Period which occurred between about AD 800 and 1100 along with the Little Ice Age (not a true Ice Age) which occurred between about AD 1350-1850 somehow turned up missing. And as for those Yamal tree samples, they came from only 12 specimens of 252 in the data set… while a larger data set of 34 trees from the same vicinity that weren’t used showed no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the Middle Ages.
Scientific critics raise another looming question. Mann’s 1,000-year-long graph was cobbled together using various proxy data derived from ice cores, tree rings and written records of growing season dates up until 1961, where it then applied surface ground station temperature data. Why change in 1961? Well, maybe it’s because that’s when other tree ring proxy data calculations by Keith Briffa at the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU) began going the other way in a steady temperature decline. After presenting these unwelcome results to Mann and others, he was put under pressure to recalculate them. He did, and the decline became even greater.
As recorded in ClimateGate e-mails, this presented what Mann referred to as a “conundrum” in that the late 20th century decline indicated by Briffa would be perceived by IPCC as “diluting the message”, was a “problem”, and posed a “potential distraction/detraction”. Mann went on to say that the warming skeptics would have a “field day” if Briffa’s declining temperature reconstruction was shown, and that he would “hate to be the one” to give them “fodder”.
In an e-mail sent to Mann and others, CRU’s director Philip Jones reported: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [journal] trick…to hide the decline [in global temperatures].” “Mike’s” ( Mann’s) “trick” was to add in real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years from 1979 onwards and from 1961 for Briffa’s, show all of the proxy and surface measurement chartings in different colors on a single graph, and then simply cut off Briffa’s in a spaghetti clutter of lines at the 1961 date.
blackjack21 wrote:I guess that's why we haven't heard from @Godstud yet.I don't give a fuck about pseudoscientific claptrap, from a self-professed 'intellectual', so don't drag me into your bullshit arguments.
blackjack21 wrote:I looked at the variance alone in the TAR forecasts and knew something was wrong.
Godstud wrote:I don't give a fuck about pseudoscientific claptrap, from a self-professed 'intellectual', so don't drag me into your bullshit arguments.
Sivad wrote:I don't. In this thread I've presented the opinions and analysis of chairs of three of the largest and most prestigious major research university climate science departments in the world, the findings of the National Academy of Science on Mann's proxy reconstructions, the assessment of a senior physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and the criticisms and objections of Mann's work and methods by his own colleagues at the Climatic Research Unit.
You responded to all of that by just making up crazy bullshit and going into obtuse denial mode.
Here's the National Academy of Science on the reliability of Mann's reconstructions:
ness31 wrote:The whole thing makes no sense really.
How was it even published in Nature if his methodologies weren’t verifiable?
Pants-of-dog wrote:Can you explain how they prove the claim that Mann lied?
Truth To Power wrote:Is it "lying" to deliberately cherry-pick data to remove evidence that proves you wrong? Dishonest and deceitful, yes, certainly; but maybe not "lying."
Sivad wrote:It's a lie of omission. If you read the IPCC third assessment report there's no mention of any of the myriad problems with proxies, there's no discussion of the controversial statistical methods employed in those reconstructions, and any inconvenient data was just left out.
So, if you read the TAR, there is mention of the problems that you accuse them of deliberately omitting.
Sivad wrote::knife: One sentence buried deep inside the report, that's hardly what you'd call an honest appraisal of the science. There's no mention at all in the summary for policy makers. We know these fuckers deliberately omitted data, Mann is on record pushing to have the data excluded.
Pants-of-dog wrote:It is not buried.
It is in the section where they discuss how they reconstruct paleoclimates. They literally could not make it easier to find unless they called it “Hey Sivad, Here Is Where We Talk About Curry’s Criticism Of the Divergence Problem And How She Pretends We Did Not Mention It”.
You are now changing your argument.
You originally claimed it was a deliberate lie of omission.
Now you are arguing that they did not clarify the issue as well as you would have liked.
Such shifting of the goalposts is an implicit concession.
Sivad wrote:I haven't shifted anything. The fact is there's zero mention of any of those issues in the summary for policy makers which is by far the most influential part of the report and there are only a couple of vague lines buried deep in the main report that don't even begin to convey the severity of the problems with those proxies. The confidence estimate is absurdly high given the limited work done on multi-proxy analyses and NAS says as much in its report. And we have Mann on record pushing to exclude data and we got Briffa objecting to the exclusion and saying that Mann's "likely" estimate was bullshit.
You're just desperately clinging to a semantic quibble because there's a mountain of criticism of Mann's bullshit tactics and dishonest methods and stupid little semantic quibbles is all you got.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Still, it is an implicit concession that they did discuss it, and your only criticism is that they did not discuss it as you would like.
How would a long winded discussion about the misleading tree ring data have helped formulate better policy?
Sivad wrote::knife: it wasn't discussed, it was vaguely referenced deep into the report after being prominently displayed at the very beginning of the report. Had they discussed it we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Are you seriously asking how a fair and honest treatment of the science would have helped policy makers make sound policy?
America is broken. There is no unity. The prom[…]
Yes they are loving none white supremacy.... repl[…]
And just to show that the anti-law enforcement big[…]
Let them eat cake, she said. In my area, housing[…]