Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Case closed: Climategate was manufactured


Persia

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Little Fish

    49

  • Doug1029

    33

  • Von Bismarck

    7

  • DONTEATUS

    2

i would not trust that article one bit.

when they say lying crap like this:

When we say we used a "trick" to plot data (as one of the hacked emails says)

nope, the emails did not say they did something to plot data, the whole world knows that the emails said "trick to hide the decline"

http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/

I would reserve judegement until we've had a look at the mann emails.

Edited by Little Fish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s not often you can actually say "case closed", but in this case it’s literally true: climatologist Michael Mann has been cleared of all wrongdoing by the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/24/case-closed-climategate-was-manufactured/

The case was closed two years ago - nothing new here unless your an ostrich :w00t: (or a Fish)

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would reserve judegement until we've had a look at the mann emails.

Why don't you look at the research and what subsequent work in this area has to say about it? That's what's important. The rest is irrelevant.

Why don't you critique Mann's research? Post your findings here. Let's hear your expert analysis on the subject.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you look at the research and what subsequent work in this area has to say about it? That's what's important. The rest is irrelevant.

Why don't you critique Mann's research? Post your findings here. Let's hear your expert analysis on the subject.

Doug

Are we talking about the research that was "peer-reviewed" by his wife and friends?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you look at the research and what subsequent work in this area has to say about it? That's what's important. The rest is irrelevant.

Why don't you critique Mann's research? Post your findings here. Let's hear your expert analysis on the subject.

Doug

using 200 times weighting for tree rings from 3 yamal cores in siberia using pines not so sensitive to temperature, with satellite readings welded on the end.

mann's hockey stick is bunk (and everyone knows it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

using 200 times weighting for tree rings from 3 yamal cores in siberia using pines not so sensitive to temperature, with satellite readings welded on the end.

mann's hockey stick is bunk (and everyone knows it)

The graph has been repeated without that data set - and it looks the same.

The graph has been repeated with other datasets and it looks the same.

Your argument is hollow and ignores the reality. The only way you can sustain your critique is to accuse all those who have repeated and checked the work of Mann as been guilty of collusion and organised lying. Starting to look like paranoia there. At least yourve stopped quoting PRISON PLANET as a source :tu:

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The graph has been repeated without that data set - and it looks the same

<snip the usual insults>

please show where mann's hockey stick graph has been "repeated".

Edited by Little Fish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

please show where mann's hockey stick graph has been "repeated".

Here you go;

http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/MannetalPNAS08.pdf

This is a repeat of the original paper with a larger and more comprehensive dataset.

On top of this the Hockey Stick graph has been created by other teams completely independent of Mann and Jones on multiple occassions. All have passed the peer review process and passed careful scrutiny.

So which hockey stick graph do you have a problem with ??

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here you go;

http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/MannetalPNAS08.pdf

This is a repeat of the original paper with a larger and more comprehensive dataset.

it is by the same author michael mann, and he uses the Tiljander series - the data from this is upside down! hard to believe I know, but true, but more importantly he uses the same bristlecone pine outlier data to overrepresent the shape the curve.

prior to this study, the National Research Council (2006) “Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years“ recommended that the bristlecone and related “stripbark” pines not be used in paleotemperature reconstructions. This recommendation had also been made previously by other experts in the field. The problem for Mann, of course, is that the hockeystick signal doesn’t show up much when one leaves out the bristlecones. So like a junkie unable to resist going back for one last fix, Dr. Mann and his adherents have found it almost impossible to give up the bristlecones.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/30/kill-it-with-fire/

it even used the upside Tiljander series. tell me how that passed peer review?

On top of this the Hockey Stick graph has been created by other teams completely independent of Mann and Jones on multiple occassions.

can you show me something not authored by Michael Mann

So which hockey stick graph do you have a problem with ??
michael Manns'
Link to comment
Share on other sites

using 200 times weighting for tree rings from 3 yamal cores in siberia using pines not so sensitive to temperature, with satellite readings welded on the end.

mann's hockey stick is bunk (and everyone knows it)

Now do a real critique, one that shows you know what you're talking about.

I'll have to check out that bit about pines not being sensitive to temperature as I am about to start a study of temperatures in Arkansas using cores from shortleaf pines. I do not plan to use satellite data as I have surface observations extending from October 1, 1891 to yesterday, so I don't need them. Besides, using two different data sets creates problems getting them to correlate. My preliminary tests (done yesterday) show that there is sufficient correlation that I can pull late winter low temps and summer precip out of the data, hopefully more. That's the beauty of a large data set: you can do a lot with it that you can't do with small sets.

Right now I have to dig up data on storms that have hit the area so I can remove their effects from the data before I start on temps and precip. I'm going to be rather busy, so I will not be doing a whole lot of stuff on UM.

BTW: instrumental data from the Ouachita (31 stations) shows the "hockey stick" as well.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a few Hockey sticks in this paper;

http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/Thompsonetal-climatic-change-2003.pdf

And another which finds the same hockey stick using a different methodology;

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml

To quote;

Ammann and Wahl’s findings contradict an assertion by McIntyre and McKitrick that 15th century global temperatures rival those of the late 20th century and therefore make the hockey stick-shaped graph inaccurate. They also dispute McIntyre and McKitrick’s alleged identification of a fundamental flaw that would significantly bias the MBH climate reconstruction toward a hockey stick shape. Ammann and Wahl conclude that the highly publicized criticisms of the MBH graph are unfounded. They first presented their detailed analyses at the American Geophysical Union’s Fall Meeting in San Francisco last December and at the American Association of Geographers Annual Meeting in Denver this year.

And another hockey stick from another analysis;

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/all%20pdfs/DArrigoetal2006a.pdf

I am certain if I went looking I could find some more.

O dear you've sucked me into this pointless wheel reinvention again - shame on me.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And another hockey stick from another analysis;

The same "hockey stick" appears in Hansen's Global Temperature Anomalies. There's no analysis, but a blind chimp could see it without an analysis.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for fun, some more hockey sticks with sources other than tree rings;

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/Resources/Seminar/readings/Huang_boreholeTemp_Nature%2700.pdf

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/smith2006/smith2006.html

http://www.martinkodde.nl/glacier/data/bibliography/1810995712675.pdf

And a nice compendium graph showing hockey sticks with and without tree ring proxies;

NH_Temp_Reconstruction.gif

So which hockey stick is it ??

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And another which finds the same hockey stick using a different methodology;

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml

that was a press release about a paper being submitted. the journal rejected it later.

here is the back story concerning the Amman and Wahl "paper"

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that was a press release about a paper being submitted. the journal rejected it later.

here is the back story concerning the Amman and Wahl "paper"

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

We could go on finding hockey sticks but I think we both get the point - multiple reconstructions of multiple datasets show that the last century has been the warmest for at least 400yrs and probably 1000yrs (all when the natural forcings should mean that the LIA continued and got deeper).

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

since we are having fun, can we see the decline that was hidden.

It seems to me that you are nit-picking over one paper while ignoring dozens of others showing contrary findings. By your own admission, the Mann/Bradley/Hughes paper included all the available data; their only sin was in not presenting all of the resulting graph. Something that was done for clarity rather than any attempt to misrepresent the facts (As I've pointed out before, graphs are not data, nor are they results; they are nothing more than a convenient means of presenting a concept - the picture is worth a thousand words idea. Findings can be presented without the use of graphs; not even statistical analyses require their use.).

If you want to criticize dendrochronologists, here are two items you are missing:

1. Chronologies are either not corrected for autocorrelation at all, or are not adequately corrected. The thickness of one tree ring is correlated with those on either side of it. This is a particular problem with young trees. It violates the assumption of independence used in statistical analysis. This has to be corrected before a series can be considered accurate. If some researcher didn't do this, you should call him on it, but I haven't seen you bring this up even once.

2. McIntyre's and McKitrick's beef with Mann, Bradley and Hughes involves the application of a statistical method. The Mann/Bradley/Hughes method is robust, able to find a relationship in the face of high levels of variation, but it does so at the expense of confidence and reduces accuracy. McIntyre and McKitrick object to its use because it is so sensitive; they prefer one with less sensitivity and more confidence. But that's the problem: how do you find a relationship with only a 5% correlation if you don't use a robust method?

These are technical issues. To refute one side or the other will require a technical explanation, which even many professional statisticians won't be able to give. How is it then, that you expect to refute one of these papers when you don't even understand what they're talking about?

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems little fish should beware the bigger fish.

This is the wide open sea...you should be in a pond.

This was so yesterday and already proven to be correct.Climate change is real..it's happening.

There is a small chance to cling to that its a natural earth cycle.Whatever we can do to try to lower our emissions the better really.It certainly won't help doing nothing and just pumping out pollution.

Conspiracy isn't going to cut it with something so fundamentally serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems little fish should beware the bigger fish.

This is the wide open sea...you should be in a pond.

This was so yesterday and already proven to be correct.Climate change is real..it's happening.

There is a small chance to cling to that its a natural earth cycle.Whatever we can do to try to lower our emissions the better really.It certainly won't help doing nothing and just pumping out pollution.

Conspiracy isn't going to cut it with something so fundamentally serious.

can i see your proof then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its abundantly clear that he would be wasting his time on your conspiracy addled brain.

Br Cornelius

why do the moderators on this forum put up with you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

why do the moderators on this forum put up with you?

Maybe because I'm telling the truth.

Maybe you would like to accept that there are plenty of hockey stick graph proving the point that Mann was correct and that the last century was the warmest in the last 1000yrs - which after all was the point of this discussion and which I think has been more than adequately supported. I don't think you will because the concept of overwhelming evidence means little to you whilst ever there is a straw you can cling onto.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.