Slashdot Mirror

https://deepclimate.org/

You know you're lying. Just admit it. Just admit that you'd rather billions of people die than you have to admit that you're a bitch boy for billionaires, a fool and the sort of low information braying self and other destructive jackass you like to proclaim others to be Admit you'd rather destroy the entire world than be shown to be wrong, because you're , you know ego-dysfunctional, weak and basically a sociopathic predator with onlya loosely-defined grip on reality, basically, you're a subhuman piece of shit.

Just , you know, admit it. You'll feel better.

You made a claim, I've simply been asking for you to back up that claim. After MULTIPLE requests you finally respond with a single source. Something, but nothing near 'most models overstate climate change'.

So the content of this study is irrelevant ....but here goes -

The author Patrick Michaels has been pretty thoroughly wrong about climate for a while now
link 1
link 2

Here's debunking of your two authors climate change opinions

here's another posting by your authors Watts Up With That
And here's another debunking.

So no I don't throw out the paper due to any preconceived ideas, I do tend to discount it because MULTIPLE SCIENCE professionals provide examples of why it's authors have been full of shit on this topic and are paid shills for the CATO institute - a well known political entity with obvious agendas to push.

Unlike you, science doesn't have agendas. Perhaps individual scientists, or 'people', do but science is data and it rules above all else.

Note the deepclimate article above, where it shows your authors clearly cherry picking which parts of a study to quote and what they leave out is the part about how it's easy to be disingenuous if you cherry pick data. Just WOW.

And one more thing - you perhaps noticed Ted Cruz claiming there's been no warming at all for the last 18 years. Funnily it does pan out that 1998 and 2015 are very similar in temps. What's that 18 year period though, seems like a random number right? Well that's the ONLY date range that shows his claim because 18 years ago was one of the hottest on record.

Downmodding valid for fake data. The frequency of the big lie is a classic denialist strategy in climate change and lots of right-wing thinking. For an response (from the non-idiots) see http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/19/vaclav-smil-no-global-warming-in-past-ten-year/

Actually McIntyre and McKitrick (and Wegman) cherry picked the top 100 out of 10,000 runs of the code to show that it always produces a hockey stick. There's a good discussion of it here.

The scientific consensus on climate change is no myth. It's a simple fact. You won't find a single respected scientific institution which does not accept the AGW theory. Only idiots and hacks ignore the facts and reject it because they find it to be incompatible with their fascist beliefs.

As for that nonsensical article you are linking to, it's just another example of creationists, I mean climate denialists, doing quote-mining and lying because the truth doesn't support their (your) ideology. Three articles debunking that quote by liar and hack Lawrence Solomon:

Mike Hulme sets Lawrence Solomon and Marc Morano straight

The climate consensus: How to take a quote out of context

Thanks for proving how extremely dishonest and disgusting denialists are. You should be ashamed of yourself for actively lying and doing quote-mining to try and fool others.

This data -- or at least the end-result manipulated data -- has been debunked, and the methods used to manipulate it seriously called into question (see the Wegman Report). But the alarmists just keep going along as though that never happened and nothing is wrong.

Wegman report? Do you mean this Wegman report

The guy has been completely discredited. He is a fraud and a plagiarist, and if GMU has any integrity at all, he will soon be an unemployed ex-faculty member.

BTW, who's paying you come here and spout this propaganda `Jane Q. Public'? Which right-wing `think tank' or petroleum-funded `research institute' do you work for?

(1) Mann and Wegman have nothing do to with anything in the article, or, for that matter future predictions of Global Warming.

(2) The Wegman Report was commissioned by Joe Barton and Ed Whitfield., from the Energy and Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives, not the Senate.

(3) Neither Barton (who recently gained further notoriety by apologizing to the CEO of BP), nor Whitfield were the chairman of the relevant committee at the time. The Republican chairman of the committee and the rest of the Republican and Democratic members commissioned a real report from the National Academy of Sciences. That report was by a team of real researchers, chosen by the normal, careful practices of the National Academy of Sciences. It was then sent out for a formal peer review. It found that while the statistical methods used by Mann et al had a minor problem, correcting the problem made no substantial difference. Moreover, Mann's results had been validated by being repeated by several different researchers that found the same results, using completely different proxies for past temperatures and mathematical analyses.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309102251

(4) In contrast, Wegman was chosen by Barton, whose opinions on climate change were already well known at the time, and Wegman was given material by Barton's staff to include in his report. He has said in interviews that he was under pressure to complete the report faster than he wanted.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2010-11-22-plagiarism_N.htm

(5) Wegman's report was *not* peer reviewed. Wegman claims to have sent it to 6 people to look at, but of course even if this is true, they were chosen by *him*, not by any normal process of peer review.

(6) Wegman's report is now known to have been plagiarized and Wegman is now under formal investigation for it by George Mason University.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2010-11-21-climate-report-questioned_N.htm

(7) Wegman has refused to release supporting code or data for his report. Prof. David Ritson of Stanford University made such a request in 2006, shortly after the Wegman report was released. Wegman's report called for disclosure of supporting materials and openness generally, but he has himself refused to comply, citing the technicality that his report was not federally funded.

http://deepclimate.org/2010/10/24/david-ritson-speaks-out/

The Wegman report is a piece of crap and it's pretty amusing that people who want to deny the reality of Global Warming keep citing it.

Oh man, did you just mention Wegman? I think you did! The Wegman report was a hilarious parody of science, as has been quite thoroughly documented. Not only that, but Wegman's penchant for plagiarism has apparently spread to his PhD students! Imagine that, an unethical scientist creating unethical students.

The whole thing is just funny, but a kinda sad sort of funny.

Oh man, did you just mention Wegman? I think you did! The Wegman report was a hilarious parody of science, as has been quite thoroughly documented. Not only that, but Wegman's penchant for plagiarism has apparently spread to his PhD students! Imagine that, an unethical scientist creating unethical students.

The whole thing is just funny, but a kinda sad sort of funny.

Oh man, did you just mention Wegman? I think you did! The Wegman report was a hilarious parody of science, as has been quite thoroughly documented. Not only that, but Wegman's penchant for plagiarism has apparently spread to his PhD students! Imagine that, an unethical scientist creating unethical students.

The whole thing is just funny, but a kinda sad sort of funny.

Let me continue the analogy for you for warmists - no matter how many natural drivers you show them, they always insist that the evidence is not strong enough, because there is "unaccounted for warming."

The concern is not "unaccounted for warming," but rather the warming that is accounted for and expected.

Of course science != consensus. But here's a refutation of the whitewash

You are citing the notorious Wegman report as a "refutation" of a report by the most respected independent scientific societies in the nation, if not the world? Are you joking?

So you didn't look at any of their graphs? Here, try page 792-793.

Nothing about "runaway global warming" there, either, just projected increases of a few degrees. That certainly will have serious consequences, but nothing approaching what you would get with runaway global warming such as is seen on Venus.

If CO2 has the same effect no matter where it comes from, you can't have lags -> CO2 emitted, whether from oceans in response to solar changes, or from supervolcanoes or model T fords, always acts as a positive feedback effect and raises temperatures. Lags wouldn't exist if CO2 amplified the increase in temperature, since whatever triggered the initial CO2 release, you'd end up with a positive feedback effect.

There is a positive feedback effect. Fortunately, there are also negative feedbacks that dampen this effect to some extent, at least for CO2 increases anticipated for plausible scenarios. Again, your misconceptioin on this matter simply illustrates how easy it is to fool yourself by making handwaving arguments about systems containing multiple positive and negative feedbacks. This is why models are so crucial--they serve as an invaluable "sanity check." Note that code for a number of models is publicly available, so you can even try them out yourself to verify that the relationship between CO2 and temperature in the model is as described, without the need to postulate absurdities like "CO2 memory"

(I hope you realise that most of your post consists of the well known strawman fallacy)

Oh good, so if I was setting up strawmen, then you aren't claiming that Mann et al 2008 used tree ring data improperly? Because that's the only position I attributed to you, as far as I can see. It would explain why you never supported that position; you never held it in the first place, you just insinuated that it was true.

Baillie, and many other dendrologists, are very wary about using tree rings as temperature proxies. I.e, your claim that Baillie's comment is about Keenan specifically is not correct, it's about oaks - no matter who uses them. (Climate signal in tree-ring chronologies in a temperate climate: A multi-species approach. Suarez, Butler, Baillie, 2009)

Did you even read the paper you're citing here? Did you even read the abstract? For those of you with access to it, here's a link to a pdf of the actual paper (it might be public access, I don't know).

Here's a quote from the abstract:

We nd that the moisture-related parameters, rainfall and the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), and to a lesser
extent, maximum and mean temperatures, can be reconstructed.

Then look on page ten. There's a heading. It's "Reconstructions". In that part of the paper, Suarez et al (and in this case, et al includes Baillie) proceed to reconstruct temperature data using tree ring data. So apparently, Baillie's statement is about oaks, no matter who uses them - including the Baillie himself. Indeed, the point of this paper is that by using multiple tree species you can extract okay data from just the dendrochronological record. Keep in mind that Mann et al weren't doing that - they were using the dendro record plus other proxies. This paper is about how far you can get with just dendro and some calibration.

As a side note, I would be wary of citing the Wegman report; the social networking segment, at least, is full of outright plagiarism which is kind of concerning.

Anyway, now that I look at Mann et al 2008(warning, pdf and also you might not have access to it), it doesn't matter if the bristlecone data isn't that great. Here's a quote from the paper:

For both methods, we perform reconstructions both with and without dendroclimatic proxies to address any potential sensitivity of our conclusions to issues that have been raised with regard to the reliability of tree-ring data on multicentury timescales(4,11,16,19,33,34).

And guess what? It doesn't really make much of a difference. Here's (pdf again) a graph of the various reconstructions both with and without tree ring data; the no tree lines spike a bit more, but are generally consistent.

Funny how the website you linked to never even mentions this fact. Weird, huh? It's almost like they (and you) didn't read the actual paper.

Oh yeah and if you're wondering how they know that Mann et al has exactly 119 oak tree records in their reconstruction, it's because the stuff is available online. There's a link in the paper.

If you want any respect for your opinions you might want to rethink your use of the Daily Mail as a reference. Their wild accusations and sensationalist reporting are legendary. Here is an excellent rebuttal of the exaggerations in your link:

http://deepclimate.org/2010/01/11/mojib-latif-slams-daily-mail/

And here is a climate scientist's view of the whole "email-gate" affair:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

> Why don't we examine the content of his report before disregarding it based on his non-qualifications.

Because people hired to make noise must be disregarded eventually. But since the noise-making apparently succeded enough to get a slashdot post, I can at least link to an examination at
deep climate.

Short version: He cut and pasted from various contrarian blogs and astroturf organisations - the ones that are now shouting censorhip - rewriting it slightly to remove too obvious editorialising. The actual content is standard issue denialist fare: misrepresenting papers (and ignoring the protests when the author complains), along with some long discredited talking points (global warming stopped in 1998, and anyway it was the sun and cosmic rays that did it)