Ever since the discredited Mann 'hockey stick' of earlier IPCC reports it seems they (and other pro-AGW zealots) are doing all they can to maintain the 'hockey stick' at any cost.
But then this is what you get when climate 'authorities?' like the IPCC consist of (and is controlled by) politicians and not scientists.
Ever since the discredited Mann 'hockey stick' of earlier IPCC reports it seems they (and other pro-AGW zealots) are doing all they can to maintain the 'hockey stick' at any cost.
But then this is what you get when climate 'authorities?' like the IPCC consist of (and is controlled by) politicians and not scientists.
Discredited? Here's the story. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy As you make unsupported assertions and see fit to use language like "zealot" I'll simply request that you find out a bit more about a subject before giving us your deluded conspiracy theory-driven opinion.
I know it is hard to let go of something on which you so desperately rely but the 'hockey stick' model is so very very wrong.
Wiki is not perfect but their articles usually contain copious references and try to present a NPOV.
The 2 links you present are to one of M&M's own articles and to McIntyre's own website. The Wiki article gives a link to the latter, plus one to http://www.realclimate.org/ which anyone interested should also read if they wish to make any claim to an open-minded, balanced viewpoint.
Your last para is just another unsupported and nonsensical claim.
Originally posted by TrueSceptic: Wiki is not perfect but their articles usually contain copious references and try to present a NPOV.
Now if that's not playing down the facts then I don't know what is. The real problem is the nameless authors involved, and consequently the way it is used as a factual reference, as you did, when it not intended to be used as such.
quote:
Originally posted by TrueSceptic: The Wiki article gives a link to the latter, plus one to http://www.realclimate.org/ which anyone interested should also read if they wish to make any claim to an open-minded, balanced viewpoint.
Your last para is just another unsupported and nonsensical claim.
One of the RealClimate's contributors is Michael Mann himself so what do you expect him to say about the 'hockey stick' model? It's nonsensical perhaps?
Steve McIntyre on the other hand is a credible independent reviewer who condemns the 'hockey stick' model so how is that 'unsupported and nonsensical' exactly?
Originally posted by APL: Now if that's not playing down the facts then I don't know what is. The real problem is the nameless authors involved, and consequently the way it is used as a factual reference, as you did, when it not intended to be used as such.
Use it as a reference? Well, I used it to give an overview with the expectation that the reader would follow at least some of the links. Could you suggest a more neutral source for an overview? I would welcome an alternative.
quote:
One of the RealClimate's contributors is Michael Mann himself so what do you expect him to say about the 'hockey stick' model? It's nonsensical perhaps?
What are you saying? That McIntyre is not biased but Mann is? That you can post a link to one but I can't do so for the other?
[quote Steve McIntyre on the other hand is a credible independent reviewer who condemns the 'hockey stick' model so how is that 'unsupported and nonsensical' exactly?[/QUOTE] Independent in what way? He's a "sceptic" who happens to be more competent than most, that's all.
You appear to be having problems reading. Your last para was [quote] I know it is hard to let go of something on which you so desperately rely but the 'hockey stick' model is so very very wrong. [/quote/
Isn't it interesting I post a link to an article by Steve McIntyre that that raises serious questions about the motives and accuracy of the IPCC in that they appear to have omitted the last 34 years of tree ring data because it deviates from their beloved (and yours it appears) 'hockey stick' model and all you can do is degenerate the discussion into platitudes - why is that do you think? Could it be you do not have an answer for the original post?
Originally posted by APL: Isn't it interesting I post a link to an article by Steve McIntyre that that raises serious questions about the motives and accuracy of the IPCC in that they appear to have omitted the last 34 years of tree ring data because it deviates from their beloved (and yours it appears) 'hockey stick' model and all you can do is degenerate the discussion into platitudes - why is that do you think? Could it be you do not have an answer for the original post?
Odd, AGW proponents accuse their opponents of doing this, but it seems to me as a sceptic (rather than a denialist), that they do it at least as much as their opponents.
As soon as an argument is raised against AGW, they either say "funded by Exxon" (as though that means they're not going to consider the merits of the argument), or it comes back to platitudes.
Originally posted by JL(SFC58,AFCB): As soon as an argument is raised against AGW, they either say "funded by Exxon" (as though that means they're not going to consider the merits of the argument), or it comes back to platitudes.
Yes, as if some some unknown reason corporate funded research is going to be any less accurate than government funded research.
It always makes me chuckle to myself when this particular argument pops up in that those that keep on about these claims are totally oblivious to the fact that governments are run by politicians who skills involve people and truth manipulation sell policies through the use of fear and alarm.
These political techniques have been going on for centuries - these same people tell us that there are WMD in Iraq, are known to lie and for some incomprehensible reason when they go on about global warming they are then telling the truth - amazing short memories some people have.
Ever since the discredited Mann 'hockey stick' of earlier IPCC reports it seems they (and other pro-AGW zealots) are doing all they can to maintain the 'hockey stick' at any
APL, starting off calling people zealots is not really going to set off a civilised debate. As far as I can tell, McIntyre doesn't claim that a strong medieval warming period (ie, the globe warmer than now) existed, only that the evidence to disprove it is not strong. While the discussion as to the veracity and correctness of the statistics is valid, the Hockey Stick controversy is simply a smoke screen put up by deniers since most of the evidence for AGW has a physical basis validated by current observations of rapid warming.
Originally posted by APL: Isn't it interesting I post a link to an article by Steve McIntyre that that raises serious questions about the motives and accuracy of the IPCC in that they appear to have omitted the last 34 years of tree ring data because it deviates from their beloved (and yours it appears) 'hockey stick' model and all you can do is degenerate the discussion into platitudes - why is that do you think? Could it be you do not have an answer for the original post?
I have no need to answer it. Your claim has been refuted many times already. I merely ask you to justify your one-sided, close-minded, and somewhat offensive viewpoint.
As far as I can tell, McIntyre doesn't claim that a strong medieval warming period (ie, the globe warmer than now) existed, only that the evidence to disprove it is not strong.
As far as I can tell the Mckintyre graph based on the corrected data shows a MWP at least as warm as now so I'll make my interpretation based on the original vs the corrected that it was warmer in the MWP.
Originally posted by Steve_M: APL, starting off calling people zealots is not really going to set off a civilised debate.
You ought to try posting on Grist or some other pro-AGW forum as a sceptic. I notice many of the tactics being used there such as the patronising 'How to talk to a climate sceptic' appear on this forum also so I have to assume there are pro-AGW zealots about - if the cap fits.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve_M: As far as I can tell, McIntyre doesn't claim that a strong medieval warming period (ie, the globe warmer than now) existed, only that the evidence to disprove it is not strong. While the discussion as to the veracity and correctness of the statistics is valid, the Hockey Stick controversy is simply a smoke screen put up by deniers since most of the evidence for AGW has a physical basis validated by current observations of rapid warming.
I don't think you read the article - Steve McIntyre's latest attack is regards to question over the latest IPCC and missing tree ring data that should show a downward temperature trend over the last 34 years. This with his previous criticisms of Mann's 'hockey stick' which as you probably are aware are supported in the Wegman report, does not play down the inaccuracies in Mann's research as you just did, but shows that had Mann's statistical analysis been correct there would be no 'hockey stick' and that the model would show that temperatures in the medieval period were very much higher than today, which goes way beyond the discredited 'hockey stick' model being a smoke screen for deniers.
Yes, as if some some unknown reason corporate funded research is going to be any less accurate than government funded research.
Just like tobacco company funded research into smoking and health was completely accurate and unbiased? Are you that naive?
quote:
It always makes me chuckle to myself when this particular argument pops up in that those that keep on about these claims are totally oblivious to the fact that governments are run by politicians who skills involve people and truth manipulation sell policies through the use of fear and alarm.
These political techniques have been going on for centuries - these same people tell us that there are WMD in Iraq, are known to lie and for some incomprehensible reason when they go on about global warming they are then telling the truth - amazing short memories some people have.
Chuckle away. I said earlier
quote:
your deluded conspiracy theory-driven opinion.
and you now make my case for me again.
What does climate science have to do with Iraq? Do you imagine that the AGW consensus depends only on what politicians say?
If you have evidence for your claims you should be writing to your MP, not wasting your time here. You'd better get a move on too. The propaganda war against AGW was lost in science, then in politics and public opinion, some time ago.
Originally posted by TrueSceptic: What does climate science have to do with Iraq? Do you imagine that the AGW consensus depends only on what politicians say?
If you have evidence for your claims you should be writing to your MP, not wasting your time here. You'd better get a move on too. The propaganda war against AGW was lost in science, then in politics and public opinion, some time ago.
Climate science doesn't but climate politics does Iraq war driven on 'sexed up' information and so is AGW or are you being naive?
If the debate is over as you implywhy are you here? Clearly to keep spreading the 'end is nigh' message.
And tell us all about this propaganda war against AGW. When did that start exactly?
The only propaganda war has been for AGW or don't you read the papers and watch the news?
Climate science doesn't but climate politics does Iraq war driven on 'sexed up' information and so is AGW or are you being naive?
That is your opinion, nothing more. You need to provide evidence.
quote:
If the debate is over as you implywhy are you here? Clearly to keep spreading the 'end is nigh' message.
Because I'm trying to find out why some people refuse to accept GW no matter how persuasive and accepted the evidence. Your 'end is nigh' assertion is another example of your inability to make supported claims. I have never said anything like that.
Why are you here?
quote:
And tell us all about this propaganda war against AGW. When did that start exactly?
You really aren't aware of the countless "sceptical" websites out there?* The many "sceptical" papers published in fringe publications (but unable to get published in journals like 'Nature')? TV programs like TGGWS? Articles in the 'Telegraph" and elsewhere. I'll see if I can find some sort of start date, but it's certainly in the last century. *Actually, you have already linked to some of these so you must think they are completely balanced and fair.
quote:
The only propaganda war has been for AGW or don't you read the papers and watch the news?
The media like to spice up stories a little but to claim that presenting the scientific consensus is propaganda is rather far-fetched. I suspect that what you mean is that anything that doesn't agree with your beliefs must be propaganda.
should show a downward temperature trend over the last 34 years. .
Are you mad?
quote:
Originally posted by APL: that had Mann's statistical analysis been correct there would be no 'hockey stick' and that the model would show that temperatures in the medieval period were very much higher than today,.
This is just plain drivel. Look at other studies independent of Mann.
And tell us all about this propaganda war against AGW. When did that start exactly?
The only propaganda war has been for AGW or don't you read the papers and watch the news?
Picking a few of many, it goes back at least to:
1) 1990, when Fred Singer founded SEPP.
2) 1989, when the George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) began its program (Frederick Seitz)
3) Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) was founded 1984, but I don't think they were doing climate change work that far back.
I'd guess most of the effort postdates James Hansen's 1988 testimony to Congress.
These may not be so familiar to you, if you're in the UK. They are essentially lobbyist/PR firms found in/around Washington DC. I'm not sure if there are equivalent entities in the UK. They turn out a lot of position papers, and I'd speculate that at least some of TGGWS material originated there or in similar entities - it's hard to tell because many of the same people are involved in a bewildering array of cross-linked think-tanks or astroturf organizations.
They are involved in related activities, such as: - minimizing environmental regulation, as of CFCs - minimizing regulation/discouragement of smoking - avoiding efforts to require higher gas mileage - anti-AGW
They have often been funded by oil & tobacco companies (and related interests); GMI's CEO used to be an executive at the American Petroleum Institute.
Originally posted by John_M: Picking a few of many, it goes back at least to:
1) 1990, when Fred Singer founded SEPP.
2) 1989, when the George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) began its program (Frederick Seitz)
3) Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) was founded 1984, but I don't think they were doing climate change work that far back.
I'd guess most of the effort postdates James Hansen's 1988 testimony to Congress.
These may not be so familiar to you, if you're in the UK. They are essentially lobbyist/PR firms found in/around Washington DC. I'm not sure if there are equivalent entities in the UK. They turn out a lot of position papers, and I'd speculate that at least some of TGGWS material originated there or in similar entities - it's hard to tell because many of the same people are involved in a bewildering array of cross-linked think-tanks or astroturf organizations.
They are involved in related activities, such as: - minimizing environmental regulation, as of CFCs - minimizing regulation/discouragement of smoking - avoiding efforts to require higher gas mileage - anti-AGW
They have often been funded by oil & tobacco companies (and related interests); GMI's CEO used to be an executive at the American Petroleum Institute.
Thanks John_M. Most of us who have looked into this know about these organisations and individuals.
Have you seen TGGWS BTW? It is available on torrent sites and at YouTube. You will recognise many old friends (and out-dated evidence!).
