The ldsfaqs / Climate Change MEGATHREAD

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
_ldsfaqs
_Emeritus
Posts: 7953
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:41 pm

Re: Dr. Michael Mann... Fake Nobel Prize and Fake Hockey St

Post by _ldsfaqs »

Res Ipsa wrote:Frankly, the whole incident is confusing. Someone else tried to figure it out, but it just doesn't make sense. https://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/10/17/1943 I think it's McIntyre who introduced the confusion by linking Deming with the e-mail, but it's really unclear.

But, as evidence of fraud, Deming's testimony is extremely weak as far as evidence goes. He testifies about an e-mail he received 10 years before from a major figure in climate science that said something pretty shocking, but he can't remember who and he doesn't have the e-mail. Frankly, I think he's misremembering. There simply isn't any evidence that Mann was involved. And there isn't any evidence that Mann fraudulently removed evidence of the MWP from his hockey stick paper. (Actually, I don't think the first paper in 1998 even covered the period of the MWP, but I'd have to double check.) If there was, you could easily prove the fraud by showing what he did. Not to mention the fact that there are lots of reconstructions now through the relevant time period, and they all look pretty similar. If you like conspiracy theories, the claim that scientists have all conspired to get rid of the MWP certainly sounds attractive, but where's the evidence? So far you've got a 10 year old recollection by a guy who can't remember who it was.


So, according to one interview Deming said he couldn't remember "for sure", but he thinks it WAS Overpeck.

So, since this is the likely case, and the Overpeck email you linked WAS the same year as the apparent email to Deming, I would first point out that the email you linked clearly wasn't sent to Deming, since it says all the people it was sent to, thus, the likelihood is that if it was Overpeck, then it likely was another email that Overpeck sent to Deming but using those famous words instead. Yes, your linked email by Overpeck downplays the other words from Deming's email, but the "theme" is certainly similar, so it's not out of bounds that Overpeck said those words to Deming that Deming claims were said.

As to his memory... In the video, he specifically "quotes" and "unquotes" the statement from the email.
So, it would seem he still had the email at that time of his testimony or had it written in notes or something being that specific about it.

So, doing some research I came upon this:
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/03/11 ... ing-spike/

This is a really good "overview" from beginning to end on how the hockey stick came to be, and how it's been debunked.
You'll note, that not only did Mann eliminate the Medieval Warm Period, his ending spike was also fraudulent.
Be sure to watch the short video, because it shows you the raw data compared to Manns version in which he changes the methodology to make the Warming more extreme then it actually is.
Also, the first post in the comments has a good link with the most latest studies (90 papers, 120 Graphs) which destroy the hockey stick.
https://notrickszone.com/2017/09/28/upd ... wzFgs.dpbs

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017 ... is-a-myth/
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017 ... -my-reply/
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: The 1970s Global Cooling Consensus was not a Myth... Stu

Post by _Res Ipsa »

Keeping digging, FAQs. You flat out denied that he combined the databases when the blog post explicitly said he did.

You keep straining at gnats and swallowing camels. Even if the database of skeptical papers included a couple of warming papers, it still invalidated his analysis. The added database was a self-selected database of skeptical papers. As you’ve admitted, it was a lopsided collection of papers. That introduced a huge bias into the dataset. And you’re misunderstanding what I said. What he should have done was not combine the databases and conduct a broader search, using only the papers that the new search found. That’s not the same as doing a search in addition to an already biased database.

What he did was invalid. And, as the review I posted demonstrated, the additional database moved the goalpost.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_ldsfaqs
_Emeritus
Posts: 7953
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:41 pm

The Raw Data didn't convince you.. So maybe data comparison?

Post by _ldsfaqs »

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/img/fi ... ure1_2.png

1. I want you to look at this image and tell me what you see "different" about all the charts?
What's different, is they basically ALL "start" in the year that most promote their claims, rather than a more full picture of the data.
They all start at different years, and no they don't do that because that's when the data starts as you will see in the below video.

2. This video goes though most of the charts in the above image and shows you clearly how they manipulate the public by starting at a time for which they can show a "serious increase" instead of showing you the more fuller data which doesn't show any "serious increase", in fact near all cases it shows a decrease, not an increase.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8455KEDitpU

Basically, this video is showing Climate Alarmists how to better lie using his software.
Well, technically he's showing how they lie. LOL But they can do it even more easy with his software as shown more toward the end.
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: Dr. Michael Mann... Fake Nobel Prize and Fake Hockey St

Post by _Res Ipsa »

ldsfaqs wrote:
Res Ipsa wrote:Frankly, the whole incident is confusing. Someone else tried to figure it out, but it just doesn't make sense. https://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/10/17/1943 I think it's McIntyre who introduced the confusion by linking Deming with the e-mail, but it's really unclear.

But, as evidence of fraud, Deming's testimony is extremely weak as far as evidence goes. He testifies about an e-mail he received 10 years before from a major figure in climate science that said something pretty shocking, but he can't remember who and he doesn't have the e-mail. Frankly, I think he's misremembering. There simply isn't any evidence that Mann was involved. And there isn't any evidence that Mann fraudulently removed evidence of the MWP from his hockey stick paper. (Actually, I don't think the first paper in 1998 even covered the period of the MWP, but I'd have to double check.) If there was, you could easily prove the fraud by showing what he did. Not to mention the fact that there are lots of reconstructions now through the relevant time period, and they all look pretty similar. If you like conspiracy theories, the claim that scientists have all conspired to get rid of the MWP certainly sounds attractive, but where's the evidence? So far you've got a 10 year old recollection by a guy who can't remember who it was.


So, according to one interview Deming said he couldn't remember "for sure", but he thinks it WAS Overpeck.

So, since this is the likely case, and the Overpeck email you linked WAS the same year as the apparent email to Deming, I would first point out that the email you linked clearly wasn't sent to Deming, since it says all the people it was sent to, thus, the likelihood is that if it was Overpeck, then it likely was another email that Overpeck sent to Deming but using those famous words instead. Yes, your linked email by Overpeck downplays the other words from Deming's email, but the "theme" is certainly similar, so it's not out of bounds that Overpeck said those words to Deming that Deming claims were said.

As to his memory... In the video, he specifically "quotes" and "unquotes" the statement from the email.
So, it would seem he still had the email at that time of his testimony or had it written in notes or something being that specific about it.

So, doing some research I came upon this:
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/03/11 ... ing-spike/

This is a really good "overview" from beginning to end on how the hockey stick came to be, and how it's been debunked.
You'll note, that not only did Mann eliminate the Medieval Warm Period, his ending spike was also fraudulent.
Be sure to watch the short video, because it shows you the raw data compared to Manns version in which he changes the methodology to make the Warming more extreme then it actually is.
Also, the first post in the comments has a good link with the most latest studies (90 papers, 120 Graphs) which destroy the hockey stick.
https://notrickszone.com/2017/09/28/upd ... wzFgs.dpbs

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017 ... is-a-myth/
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017 ... -my-reply/


FAQs, if you want to "destroy" the hockey stick, you need to at least come forward with a global temperature reconstruction that isn't hockey stick shaped. The No Tricks blog is filled with graphs and papers that aren't that. It's a mish mash of stuff on a bunch of different topics, usually with graphs at single locations. Of course there are graphs showing a significant medieval warming period in some locations.

I don't need to see yet another anything on the hockey stick, let alone some denier's biased theories. The National Academies of Sciences reviewed the MBE paper and found no fraud. There have been reconstructions of global temperatures in the last 30 years, and none of them destroy the hockey stick. The most recent one I can remember was the Pages2K reconstruction. Here's the abstract:

Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between AD 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period AD 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.


Marcott may have been more recent, but it doesn't show what you want it to either.

You deniers can stomp and scream and hold your breaths until you turn blue. The climate doesn't give a crap.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_ldsfaqs
_Emeritus
Posts: 7953
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:41 pm

Re: The 1970s Global Cooling Consensus was not a Myth... Stu

Post by _ldsfaqs »

There was no "moved goalpost"...

- The original study clearly intentionally left out a LOT of papers on climate, including 38 Neutral Papers and 2 Warming, not just the 71 Global Cooling ones.
- The Second study found near ALL the actual papers.
- The new study searched ALL the available/accessible sources, found only 2 that were missed by the previous two studies and verified what already was found by the previous 2 studies.

That's it... You can continue to deny science and research all you want, but what I linked is the most complete and actually TRUTHFUL research on the matter.
The 1970's Climate "Consensece" was for Global Cooling, NOT Warming like the original study falsely claimed by entirely ignoring a LOT of papers, and not just the papers, but ignored important science journals also, entirely so they could omit nearly ALL Global Cooling papers.

I mean my lord... Do you really call the original study saying there were only "7" Global Cooling papers, when there actually was 86, truthtelling?
But not only that, 30 of those papers believed an Ice Age was likely.
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: The 1970s Global Cooling Consensus was not a Myth... Stu

Post by _Res Ipsa »

ldsfaqs wrote:There was no "moved goalpost"...

- The original study clearly intentionally left out a LOT of papers on climate, including 38 Neutral Papers and 2 Warming, not just the 71 Global Cooling ones.
- The Second study found near ALL the actual papers.
- The new study searched ALL the available/accessible sources, found only 2 that were missed by the previous two studies and verified what already was found by the previous 2 studies.

That's it... You can continue to deny science and research all you want, but what I linked is the most complete and actually TRUTHFUL research on the matter.
The 1970's Climate "Consensece" was for Global Cooling, NOT Warming like the original study falsely claimed by entirely ignoring a LOT of papers, and not just the papers, but ignored important science journals also, entirely so they could omit nearly ALL Global Cooling papers.

I mean my lord... Do you really call the original study saying there were only "7" Global Cooling papers, when there actually was 86, truthtelling?
But not only that, 30 of those papers believed an Ice Age was likely.


FAQs, you just can't stop making crap up, can you? There is zero evidence that the original study intentionally left out anything. And you keep saying things about the blog post that the blog post doesn't say. First, the No Trick's database wasn't a study of any kind. It was a collection of materials put together by a skeptic to prove that global cooling was a consensus. Throwing that in with the original paper's list is biased. There is no two ways around that. And running an additional search doesn't fix that, because the vast majority of the cooling papers were found by combining the databases and not using the search results. Did he exclude cooling papers from the final results if his new search didn't turn them up? Nothing that he did in any way verifies anything, let alone fixes the bias he injected by using the collection of skeptic papers.

I've never expressed an opinion on the original paper. Because I understand why there were papers that reached different conclusions during that period of time. I've explained that to you, and you keep ignoring that. It makes the whole "global cooling scare" issue ridiculous. Only after folks got together and started looking at all the potential climate drivers at once was anyone able to assess the likely future of the climate. In my opinion, you can't have a consensus unless everyone is looking at all the relevant data. That's why the President asked the NAS to check things out and why the IPCC was formed.

So I view the whole argument as a red herring. I've read papers from that period, and the ones that predict cooling are right -- given the assumptions in the papers. And the ones that predict warming are right -- given the assumptions in the papers. But that's because the assumptions are incomplete. If you looked at aerosols, you got cooling. Orbital cycles -- cooling. Greenhouse gases -- warming. The only papers that matter, in my opinion, are the ones that looked at them all.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: The Raw Data didn't convince you.. So maybe data compari

Post by _Res Ipsa »

FAQs, not interested in whatever examples Heller cherry picked. If spend your days like Heller, obsessively poring through every graph you can get ahold of, you'll find ones that are bad or misleading. My preference is always to include the entire data set that contains the data. That doesn't include what Tony does -- smoosh together data sets, ignoring whether the two are actually comparable. For example, I would have shown the entire heating and cooling degree chart. I suspect the issue was space and not deception, as adding the rest of the chart doesn't change the point.

If you can post me links to Tony's graphs, I'll take a look. I find videos useless for analyzing data. And I'm not giving a fraudster more views. ;-)
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: The 1970s Global Cooling Consensus was not a Myth... Stu

Post by _Res Ipsa »

Just cuz I’m a masochist, I read through a bunch of the papers that the blogger listed as cooling. It was pretty atrocious. I found materials that weren’t published at all at the time, papers that discussed only past trends without making predictions, papers that discussed both warming and cooling effects of aerosols without saying which one predominated, papers that expressly said they weren’t making predictions — he even classified an NAS paper that said that we needed an integrated program to study climate as “cooling.”

It’s obvious why this was a blog post and not a paper — it was at best, really sloppy. I recommend that anybody who actually cares read the papers for yourself.

I also read the original paper, and wasn’t impressed. I think the search he did was too narrow. I also thought his classification was poor. What he should have been looking for were papers that actually made a prediction about future climate.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Re: The Raw Data didn't convince you.. So maybe data compari

Post by _Some Schmo »

Republican voters are morons. There's no other conclusion one can draw that makes any real sense. They have to be ignorant morons to keep voting R.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_canpakes
_Emeritus
Posts: 8541
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:54 am

Re: Dr. Michael Mann... Fake Nobel Prize and Fake Hockey St

Post by _canpakes »

ldsfaqs wrote:
canpakes wrote:faqs, who wrote the text in the court doc?

C’mon, don’t be a lying liary liar. Show us the proof that Mann wrote these words about himself. Not that it says anything about climate change conclusions regardless - I’m just trying to give you an opportunity to be right about something for once. Don’t blow your chance.


LOL, they were HIS court docs... Just because his "lawyer" may have wrote it, doesn't mean he didn't review and approve it.
It's HIS Testimony... Do you know what "testimony" is?

Again, I show you you're wrong, yet again.

OK. So Mann didn’t write that. His lawyer did in general reference to a team. You’re wrong again, and trying to find a way to slip out of your claim.

That’s like, 0 for 842 so far. Maybe it’s time for you to start posting photoshopped magazine covers again. At least they’re somewhat amusing.
Post Reply