Man Based Global Warming....

The hockey stick was confirmed by the people who created the hockey stick.

You obviously did not read the information in the links I provided. The only parroting I see is of the conclusions politicians draw from scientists in ther employ and those duped into believeing faulty temperature re-constructions.

Truly independent sources agree that the Mann et. al. use/used faulty methodology, refuse to provide data so that conclusions may be independently verified, and publish 'peer-reviewed' papers where the peers are colleagues who publish similar papers - often with the peers they are purportedly reviewing. Check it out. It's in the links.

The truth hurts when you've invested your time, effort, and passion pushing an agenda with proven mathematical mistakes. Mann and his colleagues admit the mistakes but stubbornly refuse to think they matter. That's the position of idealogues, not scientists.

 

Yes. None of the discussion you provided is about the later 2008 Mann PNAS paper. It all deals with a minor correction of the 2006 Mann paper.

In the 2008 Mann PNAS paper the hockey stick was confirmed by 16 independent sources. The minor correction discussed in your links pertains only to bristlecone records in the northern hemisphere used in Mann's 2006 paper.

 

Sorry, this is just bullshit. The overwhelming majority of the poor risk underwriting was done through private markets "insured" through derivates. It was not passed through, or require federal GSE underwriting guideline compliance.

This was made possible by congressional passage of financial deregulation at teh end of Clinton era.

 

That baloney is perpetuated a lot by conservative pundits (paid liars.) Let's analyze it, shall we?

1. Who was in control of Congress during the time period when the problems surfaced? Answer: The conservatives! With everyone's favorite conservative as president. (And he is definitely their favorite as they continued to back him throughout. The 22% who still supported him at the end were the core conservatives, not anyone else. He did their bidding.)
2. What did Dubya ever do with any of his oversight? Did he do any real enforcement to protect investors and consumers? No! His only real actions occurred AFTER the collapse was apparent, and even then he was trying to limit actual oversight.
3. Conservatives calling for more federal oversight is a good joke! Deregulation has been their mantra, and look what we have to show for it. Same result as the 1920's.
4. Dubya was the one who latched onto the "ownership society." Libs I know were complaining that many folks really were not ever cut out to be homeowners.

Complete BS. The few breakdowns I've seen of non-performing loans show that the ones helped by the CRA were not the problem, it is those who were outside of that.

And the financial institutions did not have a gun to their heads to write loans that they knew would fail. No, they did it because they were pursuing short term paper profits, and trying to pass the risk onto gullible investors. They believed the party would go on forever.

The real culprit was short term delusional thinking. Conservative supply siders failed to realize that business will do what is in their short term interest even if it sacrifices long term viability. Greenspan finally admitted this flaw in his model during congressional testimony. Unfortunately, conservative supply siders have been running the show for the past decade (longer if you count Greenspan.) They sought to deregulate and systematically remove the protections that were put in place to prevent a repeat of the Great Depression.

What locked up the financial system? It was those UNREGULATED derivatives that created irreconcilable exposure throughout the system. You know, the derivatives that Dubya's agencies could have actually regulated, but didn't in the spirit of "financial innovation." (There is a term that deserves as much ridicule as "compassionate conservative.")

What drove this was artificially depressed Fed rates that made ANY loan appear profitable. This was the Bush recovery that Greenspan engineered based on an orgy of supply siding excess. The tax cuts were the worst of it, since money was still being spent by govt. at an INCREASING rate, while the money to pay for it was simultaneously being given back to taxpayers so they could spend too. The result was predicted by many of us back in 2000. In Spring of 2006 I dumped all my stocks and mutual funds because I saw a housing/banking/energy driven recession coming. What surprised me is how adept banks and companies were in disguising their deteriorating situation--so much for transparency that makes a free market work. I was amazed that they continued the charade for so long.

Who was buying these houses to flip? It wasn't the poor. It was folks well up the chain who saw it as easy investing. And whose loans failed in mammoth numbers? Alt-A's, ARMS, the flippers, and the builders. It wasn't the folks who the CRA was to protect that were at the core of the problem. They are having trouble now though as they are losing jobs thanks to conservative ineptitude in managing the economy.

Watching someone do exactly what you warned them not to do, and predictably fail is indeed "perfect" for illustration. Too bad conservatives will never learn the lesson.

Free markets work well if they are properly regulated, the regulations are enforced, and there is sufficient transparency/accuracy. Unfortunately conservatives have done everything they can to prevent regulation, enforcement, and transparency in our markets. Caveat emptor is their motto.

 

One mann's 'minor correction' is another man's egregious scientific fraud.

Would you be kind enough to provide the links to the '16 independent sources' confirming the 2008 paper?

When I visit the site of Steve McIntyre, the man who with his colleague, McKittrick pointed out the flawed methodology in Mann's original and succeeding papers. He continues to point out glaring problems in all Mann's papers, including the 2008 as well as outright falsehoods from Mann's mouth.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=71

Page after page of real and possible problems with the paper, yet Mann refuses to be transparent.

Mann continues to fight a reargaurd action defending himself with obfuscations, stonewalling and attacks on his critics. Perhaps you noticed that prior 'confirmations' of Mann's work were authored by his own former students and other colleagues.

There are problems with each new paper. How many times can a guy cry wolf without incurring the ridicule of the scientific community? Well, apparently in the climate community, forever.

 

What I see is Mann publishing in peer reviewed journals and McIntyre whining in the background. He did publish his minor correction for the 2006 Mann paper but there is no publications on his name discussing the published results in 2008.

The 16 independent sources are on the PNAS 2008 paper I previously sited along with the main figure. There is no controversy regarding this hockey stick.



http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.full.pdf

Mann et al. (2008). Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia. PNAS September 9, 2008 vol. 105 no. 36.

 

I did find two published letters regarding the 2008 paper. One is McIntyre's objections and another Mann's answer to the objections. If McIntyre wants to be taken seriously he should publish his own data or interpretations rather than nitpick someone else's results:

http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/pnas-2009-mcintyre-0812509106.pdf

http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/MMReplyPNAS09.pdf

 

More correctly, he's nitpicking the methodology that leads to the results. McIntyre is not a climate scientist, but an expert in statistics. Mann, the climate scientist uses statistical methods, but does not have the expertise to use them correctly or ask for assistance (some would say for obvious reasons.)

Mann should present all the data he uses and the methodology. This he does not do. It requires those who wish to double check his conclusions to do painstaking work of figuring out what he did through 'reverse engineering' to get around the lack of transparency.

If the future of the world hangs in the balance, a real scientist following the scientific method would want his work to be corroborated by independent experts. Mann and his colleagues live in an echo chamber.

"...there are dozens of different and interesting defects in Mann et al 2008 worthy of being mentioned. Such a banquet of choices. If one wanted to design a lively applied statistics course illustrating all the sorts of pitfalls that people can fall into, one could have built an entire course around MBH98 and now a second one on Mann et al 2008. Someone who understood the problems would become pretty handy at applied statistics - I'm sure that the retention rate among the students would vastly exceed what they get out of some meritorious but dry statistics books. " - Steve McIntyre

 

Mann has the choice of using 1209 proxies. He cherry picks 489 to statistically massage into his latest 'hockey stick'.

Find here the link to ALL 1209 in gif format animation. Verrrry Interesting!

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3547

As someone said afer viewing them, "It is roughly equivalent to watching every one of your baseball team’s games, seeing them lose each one, and then being told that they have the best record in the league. It makes no sense."

 

AGW advocates are always going on about peer review. Here is a review of peer review:

William M. Briggs, Statistician & Consultant Peer review

 

Whatever statistical argument McIntyre believes he has, it has not led to a retraction of Mann's. If anything in the abscence of an actual publication his arguments should not even be considered.

There is no published work that argues that there is no hockey stick in world temperature.

 

Each of Mann's previous hockey stick papers was peer reviewed and published. Each of his previous papers contained methodological errors that were undetected by his reviewers.

Now, we've got a new paper and the same people who pointed out previous errors (and were proved to be correct) find errors in the 2008 version of the hockey stick. When it, too, becomes obvious that the errors slipped through the peer review process and taint his conclusions, he'll just publish another paper, refuse to discuss or disclose the methodology, attack his critics, count on his close circle of climate scientists to defend him and continue on his merry way.

Meanwhile the idea that the medieval warm period and the little ice age never happened and that the recent warming is the most drastic and rapid in history will continue in the minds of the uncritical. We've already seen the insane policy from the EPA that makes CO2 a pollutant.

The results will harm this country if the energy bill which just passed the House also passes the Senate. This is nothing more than a massive tax, the largest in the history of our country to date. The lunacy of it is magnified if one considers that China, India and other emrging economies will continue with no similar encumbrances. The CO2 level will continue to rise, regardless of what our country does. It's just beyond comprehension that sane people can allow this to happen.

And it is all based on a flawed or at best an incomplete theory.

Update: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/27/released-the-censored-epa-document-final-report/#more-8964

EPA disallows this paper because it does not conform to the pre-determined agenda. Download the pdf found on this link.

 

It's stunning to me what is happening in Washington these days. The so-called stimulus package was rammed down our throats by a congress that received a bill over a thousand pages long and voted on it before there was a chance for any human being (much less themselves) to read and comprehend it.

The energy bill that passed the house had over 300 pages added to it at 3:00 in the morning on the day of passage. NO WAY all the people who voted for it even read, much less understood what they approved. And this in light of our new Master's promise of transparency as we never had before. Personally, I've had it with lying politicians and their hand maidens. It sickens me that prople will stand around and cheer the very policies that are stealing their country, their wealth and their freedom right out from underneath them. Fools, Idiots!

 

Has it occurred to you that the objections have no merit and the errors are not there or insubstantial?

 

Scary picture

 

I know we have Global Warming and that it is getting worse every single day because Al Gore said we do.

And because Al Gore invented the Internet and the WWW and all that . . and I am on the Internet right this minute . . well that is all the proof I need. He has a lot of credibility.

Uh oh I have to go to Urgent Care right away because my tongue just got stuck in my cheek!

 

You realize you lose all credibility when you use that name in any global wamring thread in this forum right?

 

Anyone using that name loses all credibilty in any thread on any topic.

 

So why bring it up? Can we not talk science instead?

 

This Al Gore bashing is just dumb (if that's what you're up to).

He has almost single-handedly done more to help save the planet than all the rest of environmentalists combined.

People who think he is a hyprocrit and a scam artist point are simply criticizing the fact that he is a very intelligent investor. I say good for him.

He's a venture capitalist and an environmentalist. He proves that growing the economy and combating AGW are not mutually exclusive.

The only people to economically suffer in the future will be those that will try to cling to the fossil fuel cash cow of the past and try to prevent the decarbonizing of the economy. The rest of us will only benefit.

Case in point. Energy will only get cheaper the more it is decarbonized. If we continue to rely on fossil fuels (which can only get more expensive, being a finite resource) a larger and larger constraint will be placed on economic growth world-wide.

It was $147 oil that largely caused this recent world wide recession, not the mortgage foreclosures in Cleveland and Las Vegas. Don't believe me. Ask a former chief economist of a major Cdn bank - Jeff Rubin.... watch CBC News - The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulos starting at the 7:20 mark.