Michael Mann "Hockey Stick" Definitively Established To Be Fraud - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15032019
Pants-of-dog wrote:I find it odd that a clear discussion on the uncertainty of one form of data, used in one graph, s now evidence that the whole field of climate science is wrong.


It's not one form of data, we can run right through all of it from the proxies to the instruments to the models, it's all a hot load. The case for CAGW is rickety as fuck, anyone trying to pretend otherwise is either an idiot or a fraud.

The proxies are the bedrock of the entire case for CAGW, if you can't even show that the last few decades are the warmest decades in at least a thousand years then what the fuck are we even talking about? If the proxy record is unreliable then the whole thing collapses.

And a thousand years is nothing in climatological time, the warmest decades in a one thousand year time span doesn't really prove all that much. They would need an accurate record for at least the last ten thousand years to show that the last thirty years are well outside natural variability in order to really prove anything.

All of it is highly speculative, they don't fully understand the climate system, they don't have accurate or reliable records of past climate, they haven't even identified, let alone quantified, all the variables, and all their future projections have been way off.


Most proxy reconstructions aren't even for the entire globe, they're for the northern hemisphere only. They don't know what the fuck was going on in the southern hemisphere and the tropics. The data for those is extremely limited. The whole thing is a fucking joke.
#15032022
Pants-of-dog wrote:I find it odd that a clear discussion on the uncertainty of one form of data,

Please present evidence that there has been a clear discussion of uncertainty involving one form of data. Thank you. When you have done so, we can proceed with the discussion.
used in one graph, s now evidence that the whole field of climate science is wrong.

Please present your evidence that someone has said the whole field of climate science is wrong. Thank you. When you have done so, we can proceed with the discussion.
#15032150
Sivad wrote:It's not one form of data, we can run right through all of it from the proxies to the instruments to the models, it's all a hot load. The case for CAGW is rickety as fuck, anyone trying to pretend otherwise is either an idiot or a fraud.

The proxies are the bedrock of the entire case for CAGW, if you can't even show that the last few decades are the warmest decades in at least a thousand years then what the fuck are we even talking about? If the proxy record is unreliable then the whole thing collapses.

And a thousand years is nothing in climatological time, the warmest decades in a one thousand year time span doesn't really prove all that much. They would need an accurate record for at least the last ten thousand years to show that the last thirty years are well outside natural variability in order to really prove anything.

All of it is highly speculative, they don't fully understand the climate system, they don't have accurate or reliable records of past climate, they haven't even identified, let alone quantified, all the variables, and all their future projections have been way off.


Take a deep breath. Calm down. Stop swearing.

If there are so many problems, you should find it easy to provide evidence for all these claims.

Just do so.

———————-

@Truth To Power

If you have an argument, please state it clearly and provide evidence, or link to said evidence if you think someone else has already provided it.
#15032946
Truth To Power wrote:You like to accuse others of strawman fallacies, but don't want me identifying your strawman fallacies. I get it.


If you want to ignore my actual point (i.e. that minor details are being used to discredit far more than those details actually discredit) and focus solely on my use of hyperbole, then you are not addressing my actual argument.

Have a good day.
#15033135
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you want to ignore my actual point (i.e. that minor details are being used to discredit far more than those details actually discredit) and focus solely on my use of hyperbole, then you are not addressing my actual argument.

How many "minor details" does it take to add up to a consistent pattern of deceit and dishonesty? How long do we have to give the benefit of the doubt when it's, "OK, we lied about that evidence, and cherry picked this evidence, and manipulated the other evidence, but this time you should trust us!"
#15033352
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”

From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise."

From the Harry Read Me file created by Ian Harris, who was responsible for altering the CRU's data to support the anti-CO2 hysteria campaign:

"It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found."

"So, once again I don't understand statistics. Quel surprise, given that I haven't had any training in stats in my entire life, unless you count A-level maths."

“I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more.”

"Bear in mind that there is no working synthetic method for cloud, because Mark New lost the coefficients file and never found it again (despite searching on tape archives at UEA) and never recreated it."

"So.. should I really go to town (again) and allow the Master database to be ‘fixed’ by this program? Quite honestly I don't have time - but it just shows the state our data holdings have drifted into. Who added those two series together? When? Why? Untraceable, except anecdotally. It's the same story for many other Russian stations, unfortunately - meaning that (probably) there was a full Russian update that did no data integrity checking at all. I just hope it's restricted to Russia!!"

"Had a hunt and found an identically-named temperature database file which did include normals lines at the start of every station. How handy – naming two different files with exactly the same name and relying on their location to differentiate! Aaarrgghh!!"

"Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)"

"Now looking at the dates.. something bad has happened, hasn't it. COBAR AIRPORT AWS cannot star[t] in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!"

"So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option - to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations (er, CLIMAT excepted). In other words, what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad, but I really don't think people care enough to fix 'em, and it's the main reason the project is nearly a year late."

"Because although I'm thrilled at the high match rate (87%!), it does seem worse when you realise that you lost the rest.."
Also, please clarify exactly who is deceiving whom.

Effectively all the "scientists" who claim CO2 controls temperature rather than the other way around are deceiving everyone else. Government custodians of climate data like NASA and NOAA are deceiving scientists.
#15033549
Pants-of-dog wrote:So, you see a pattern of deception in these out of context quotes.

Yes, because I am willing to know facts. You refuse to know any facts that prove your beliefs are false.
Despite the fact that all these quotes could easily be innocuous.

No. Each of them individually could be innocuous in some context. Not all of them in this context.
And I asked you to clarify exactly who is deceiving whom. Adding another accusation does not clarify anything, nor is it exact.

So, you are saying that unless I can identify the SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS who have committed or are committing the deception, you will refuse to know the fact that any deception has occurred or is occurring. That's exactly what I mean by your refusal to know facts.
#15033650
Pants-of-dog wrote:That post has no real argunents in it.

It seems to be mostly ad hominem.

That post has no real argunents in it.

It is ad hominem.
If you want to ignore my actual point (i.e. that minor details are being used to discredit far more than those details actually discredit) and focus solely on my use of hyperbole, then you are not addressing my actual argument.

You purposefully make your arguments as manipulative tools to entrap your opponents so you can "win." It is common sense to not address an argument like that. :lol:
makes it difficult to discuss topics with you

Why are you having a difficult time debating? :lol:

That's witty. But I would say that until all mi[…]

An August article in the New England Journal of M[…]

Election 2020

Can you cite any one regulation that was cut that […]

Antifa are terrorists because they make nazis fee[…]