Thread: A Convenient Fiction

Originally Posted by g hall

No it's dead

A couple of recent links suggest otherwise:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11646
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7592575.stm

Again...

Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shape

If you write a computer program for 'science' to give you the results you want no matter what data you enter into it, that is called fraud.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LUHNYznNXI]Hockey Stick - What is Normal?[/ame]

Originally Posted by Poptech

Again...

Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shape

If you write a computer program for 'science' to give you the results you want no matter what data you enter into it, that is called fraud.

Hockey Stick - What is Normal?

There are a few interesting comments in that video clip and forgive me if my quote isn't precisely verbatim.
To mention just a couple:
"CO2 is not the only factor at work"
"Probably not man made"
Then he highlights the wrong start of his "black line."
There's lots more but I am too indolent to post them.

On the red noise claim, a bit more of the mathematical basis would be helpful.
As it happens, I use computer modeling for harmonic analysis on electrical supplies where we connect our non-linear power electronics stuff. It is based on known magnitudes and frequencies. Now, I can reasonably predict what our kit will do to the supply and work out what configuration will meet agreed standards (usually EA G5/4) in the absence of any contribution from other consumers. It is usually a contractual obligation with financial penalties for getting it wrong.

But, of course, there are other consumers. As a supplier I could say, from a contractual POV, that's not my concern. As a responsible supplier, I go the extra mile to try to ensure that the customer is at least aware of other factors and how they affect quality of supply.

That's not so easy if you have little or no data on what the other consumers do to the supply. So I model it as a random function at the spectrum of frequencies and amplitudes applicable. AKA noise.

It has yet to randomly produce a hockey stick.

It is interesting that in your six ‘peer-reviewed’ list of scientific papers in post #22, five are by McIntyre & McKitrick which doesn’t bode well for impartiality and three of those papers, including the ‘other author’ were published in Energy & Environment (the shortcomings of this so-called journal are well known in the scientific world). I am almost ashamed to say this is published from a British University.

However, another impartiality-disturbing fact concerns these papers in E & E by M8M (pardon the abbrev.s – I’m going out soon) is that it is regarded as impeccable manners in a journal that if a contributor criticises another’s paper, then the 'criticised' is allowed to reply.

Specifically, in this case, even though he offered to do so, Mann was not permitted to reply to M&M's Hockey stick criticism.

Says it all for me !!!!

& I meant to ask you to clarify this earlier – you wrote again in #22

There is also no remote empirical evidence of any catastrophe regarding CO2 and species extinctions.

Do you mean about now or in the paleo-historical record ?

Originally Posted by Besoeker

On the red noise claim, a bit more of the mathematical basis would be helpful.

When using Mann's computer program that creates his temperature graph and entering made up data, it always produces a hockey stick shaped graph. This is what I am talking about, this is Computer Science 101, basic programming knowledge. His computer program is a fraud and designed to always get that graph shape (hockey stick).

Originally Posted by Besoeker

As it happens, I use computer modeling for harmonic analysis on electrical supplies where we connect our non-linear power electronics stuff. It is based on known magnitudes and frequencies. Now, I can reasonably predict what our kit will do to the supply and work out what configuration will meet agreed standards (usually EA G5/4) in the absence of any contribution from other consumers. It is usually a contractual obligation with financial penalties for getting it wrong.

But, of course, there are other consumers. As a supplier I could say, from a contractual POV, that's not my concern. As a responsible supplier, I go the extra mile to try to ensure that the customer is at least aware of other factors and how they affect quality of supply.

That's not so easy if you have little or no data on what the other consumers do to the supply. So I model it as a random function at the spectrum of frequencies and amplitudes applicable. AKA noise.

It has yet to randomly produce a hockey stick.

If you wished to produce this shape then you should get Mann to write your modeling program. Your scenario is irrelevant to this discussion however because Mann is using specific known data (temperature proxies) and statistically manipulating them into a temperature graph that is always shaped like a Hockey Stick. The mathematical calculations used in his program always smooths out early temperature records and statistically adds more weight to modern temperatures, thus you can make up data and run it through his program and the final temperature graph will look like a Hockey Stick. This is fraud and designed to sucker the computer illiterates.

Originally Posted by Clippo

It is interesting that in your six ‘peer-reviewed’ list of scientific papers in post #22, five are by McIntyre & McKitrick which doesn’t bode well for impartiality

Considering both "Hockey Stick" papers are by Mann, how many people debunk it is irrelevant. This is a worthless argument.

Originally Posted by Clippo

and three of those papers, including the ‘other author’ were published in Energy & Environment (the shortcomings of this so-called journal are well known in the scientific world). I am almost ashamed to say this is published from a British University.

Journals like Energy & Environment are necessary to get around the good old-boys network and AGW bias that prevents just about all skeptics from getting published in the most popular journals. You and others not liking the journal does not mean it does not exist or disputes anything from the papers published.

Originally Posted by Clippo

However, another impartiality-disturbing fact concerns these papers in E & E by M8M (pardon the abbrev.s – I’m going out soon) is that it is regarded as impeccable manners in a journal that if a contributor criticises another’s paper, then the 'criticised' is allowed to reply.

They were published in Geophysical Research Letters and Climate Research of which Mann never replied.

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

I'm no expert but I am concerned about the apparently inefficiency of ethanol in clean based fuels and wonder how it may affect agriculture.

Facts about Ethanol:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQTCETdjpwE]Myth: Ethanol is Great[/ame]

- Ethanol (E85) reduces fuel economy by 30% compared to gasoline (DOE)
- Ethanol (E85) costs more than Gasoline (USA Today)
- Ethanol cannot be transported in existing pipelines (BusinessWeek)
- Ethanol would supply only 12% of U.S. motoring fuel even if every acre of corn were used (USA Today)
- Ethanol displaces only 2% of U.S. oil consumption (EIA)
- Ethanol fires are harder to put out (ABC News)

The Many Myths of Ethanol (John Stossel, ABC News)
Ethanol: Myths and Realities (BusinessWeek)

Ethanol Fuel From Corn Faulted As "Unsustainable Subsidized Food Burning" In Analysis By Cornell Scientist (Science Daily)
Increase In Ethanol Production From Corn Could Significantly Harm Water Quality (Science Daily)

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

Anyway my point is, if global warming is a load of bull(which it is) then why do we need to switch from traditional fuels at all ?

We don't need to switch, the Greens want to and all the other economic illiterates who use emotion over logical reasoning.

Poptech wrote:-

Considering both "Hockey Stick" papers are by Mann, how many people debunk it is irrelevant. This is a worthless argument.

There are at least a dozen variations of the hockey stick graph using different proxies and published by completely different researchers with no connection to Mann.

AND THEY ALL REACH THE SAME CONCLUSION AS THE MANN 'HOCKEY STICK' I.E THE LATE 20TH CENTURY WARMING IS ANOMALOUS OVER THE AT LEAST THE LAST THOUSAND YEARS

(SOME SOURCES SUGGEST, IN THE EXTREME, OVER THE LAST FEW MILLION YEARS)