|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Cape Blue
(Post 8142270)
Why are they doing that? Why are scientists from thousands of different institutions all around the world colluding to fudge data to prove MMCC? What is in it for them? Do they all have shares in wind farms?
If I had to say what I think happened it would be this: In the late 90s Michael Mann, then an unknown PhD student at the University of Virginia, fudged some data to finish his paper. It seemed inconsequential, everyone was looking for proof of manmade global warming, and no one would take any notice anyway. But things went wrong. The paper was thrust into the spotlight. Other researchers seized upon its results and expanded upon them. Luminaries like Al Gore made movies about the bloody thing. The IPCC used it as its centrepiece evidence in its 2001 Third Assessment Report. The IPCC did that because it justified their alteration of the 1995 Second Assessment Report. I suspect Mann told some of his peers – certainly many of them subsequently went to great lengths to hide Mann’s original data. Why? Because they had unknowingly used the same tainted data to extend the research. What could they do? Admit that they had been conned? Earlier this year researchers finally obtained the original Mann data and proved it to be faked. But now the juggernaut is rolling. Careers have been built upon it, and no one is going to allow it to stop. Pretty much all of the above is provable. It depends if you want to do a Nelson (I see no evidence of fudging) or not. How open or closed minded you are… |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by slapphead_otool
(Post 8142438)
Firstly, there are not scientists from “thousands of institutions†fudging data. There are scientist from thousands of institutions using fudged data. A very different thing.
If I had to say what I think happened it would be this: In the late 90s Michael Mann, then an unknown PhD student at the University of Virginia, fudged some data to finish his paper. It seemed inconsequential, everyone was looking for proof of manmade global warming, and no one would take any notice anyway. But things went wrong. The paper was thrust into the spotlight. Other researchers seized upon its results and expanded upon them. Luminaries like Al Gore made movies about the bloody thing. The IPCC used it as its centrepiece evidence in its 2001 Third Assessment Report. The IPCC did that because it justified their alteration of the 1995 Second Assessment Report. I suspect Mann told some of his peers – certainly many of them subsequently went to great lengths to hide Mann’s original data. Why? Because they had unknowingly used the same tainted data to extend the research. What could they do? Admit that they had been conned? Earlier this year researchers finally obtained the original Mann data and proved it to be faked. But now the juggernaut is rolling. Careers have been built upon it, and no one is going to allow it to stop. Pretty much all of the above is provable. It depends if you want to do a Nelson (I see no evidence of fudging) or not. How open or closed minded you are… http://www.logicalscience.com/skepti...fakeddata.html Can you post a link to the bit where earlier this year researchers finally obtained the original Mann data and proved it to be faked. I note: There is an ongoing debate about the details of the temperature record and the means of its reconstruction, centered on the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998), "hockey stick" graph. Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick [3] claimed various errors in the methodology of Mann et al. (1998) and that the method of Mann, Bradley, and Hughes when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shaped first principal component. In turn, Michael E. Mann (supported by Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa and Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit) has disputed the claims made by McIntyre and McKitrick [14][15]. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report says that McIntyre and McKitrick "may have some theoretical foundation, but Wahl and Ammann (2006)[16] also show that the impact on the amplitude of the final reconstruction is very small."[17] |
Re: Global warming
This thread is hilarious.
Maybe it was climate scientists that faked the moon landings. Oh hang on I am getting my conspiracy theories confused. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Cape Blue
(Post 8142517)
You appear to be indicating that only one scientist has ever done the base research (Mann) and every other scientists has been leveraging off his work. Surely other scientists have used the base data and yet others have used other sources of information to come to their conclusions?
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by slapphead_otool
(Post 8142573)
Well here its over to you Cape Blue. you show me evidence of global warming that does NOT relate to the Yamal data set or CRU data that was derived from the Yamal data. :)
Earlier this year researchers finally obtained the original Mann data and proved it to be faked. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by slapphead_otool
(Post 8142573)
Well here its over to you Cape Blue. you show me evidence of global warming that does NOT relate to the Yamal data set or CRU data that was derived from the Yamal data. :)
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Cape Blue
(Post 8142517)
Can you post a link to the bit where earlier this year researchers finally obtained the original Mann data and proved it to be faked.
Which basically is Mann saying – my work was rubbish and its other peoples fault for believing it. Secondly, at the 2007 European Geosciences Union General Assembly there were three papers from groups in Copenhagen and Bern; Bürger’s papers in 2005; Moberg’s paper in Nature in 2005; various papers on borehole temperature; The National Academy of Science Report from 2006 – all of which have helped to clarify that the hockey-stick methodologies lead indeed to questionable historical reconstructions. Thirdly, in 2009, after ten years of scientists requesting the Yamal data and CRU staunchly refusing to provide it, journal editors insisted that it be made available. When this happened it became obvious that Mann had selected evidence to support the theory. When the ENTIRE Yamal data set was included (The Schweingruber Yamal sample of living trees instead of the 12 picked trees used in the CRU archive) The difference was staggering. Take note – TWELVE PICKED TREES, from one part, of one forest, in Russia. This conclusively debunked Manns papers, and anything else that relied upon his findings. http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/...stick-is-dead/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/2...stick-is-dead/ http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168 |
Re: Global warming
I should have added:
The 1998 paper by Mann is the one that Al Gore used in his shock horror movie “Inconvenient Truthâ€. The Hockey stick Graph showing temperature increasing during the 1980s. The only inconvenient bit (for Al) was that it was based upon Manns analysis of just TWELVE BLOODY TREES!!!!! The 1998 paper by Mann was used as the centrepiece evidence of the IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report. The only thing it assessed was the life of TWELVE BLOODY TREES!!!!! Almost every other piece of Climate Warming evidence is linked to these SAME TWELVE BLOODY TREES! |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by slapphead_otool
(Post 8142615)
Firstly, Mann himself backtracked on his 1998 paper. In a letter to Nature on August 10, 2006, he pointed out that the paper included the statement: "more widespread high-resolution data are needed before more confident conclusions can be reached and that the uncertainties were the point of the article." Mann and his colleagues said that it was "hard to imagine how much more explicit" they could have been about the uncertainties surrounding their work and blaming "poor communication by others" for the "subsequent confusion."
Which basically is Mann saying – my work was rubbish and its other peoples fault for believing it. Secondly, at the 2007 European Geosciences Union General Assembly there were three papers from groups in Copenhagen and Bern; Bürger’s papers in 2005; Moberg’s paper in Nature in 2005; various papers on borehole temperature; The National Academy of Science Report from 2006 – all of which have helped to clarify that the hockey-stick methodologies lead indeed to questionable historical reconstructions. Thirdly, in 2009, after ten years of scientists requesting the Yamal data and CRU staunchly refusing to provide it, journal editors insisted that it be made available. When this happened it became obvious that Mann had selected evidence to support the theory. When the ENTIRE Yamal data set was included (The Schweingruber Yamal sample of living trees instead of the 12 picked trees used in the CRU archive) The difference was staggering. Take note – TWELVE PICKED TREES, from one part, of one forest, in Russia. This conclusively debunked Manns papers, and anything else that relied upon his findings. http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/...stick-is-dead/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/2...stick-is-dead/ http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168 you said "Earlier this year researchers finally obtained the original Mann data and proved it to be faked." I can't see where they state that Mann has faked his data. In fact they mostly don't mention Mann but seem to be focussed on a guy called Schweingruber. Can you tell me where I am missing the bit where the researchers prove the Mann data is faked. Mann must be embarrased to have been caught-out faking his research, has he been fired? Two of the links appear to be from the same source - Steve Mcintyre, he seems an interesting guy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics from the University of Toronto. He studied philosophy, politics and economics at the University of Oxford before graduating in 1971.[1] McIntyre worked for 30 years in the mineral business,[1] the last part of these in the hard-rock mineral exploration as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies.[2] He has also been a policy analyst at both the governments of Ontario and of Canada.[3] He was the president and founder of Northwest Exploration Company Limited and a director of its parent company, Northwest Explorations Inc. When Northwest Explorations Inc. was taken over in 1998 by CGX Resources Inc. to form the oil and gas exploration company CGX Energy Inc., McIntyre ceased being a director. McIntyre was a strategic advisor for CGX in 2000 through 2003.[4] Prior to 2003 he was an officer or director of several small public mineral exploration companies. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by slapphead_otool
(Post 8142643)
I should have added:
The 1998 paper by Mann is the one that Al Gore used in his shock horror movie “Inconvenient Truthâ€. The Hockey stick Graph showing temperature increasing during the 1980s. The only inconvenient bit (for Al) was that it was based upon Manns analysis of just TWELVE BLOODY TREES!!!!! The 1998 paper by Mann was used as the centrepiece evidence of the IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report. The only thing it assessed was the life of TWELVE BLOODY TREES!!!!! Almost every other piece of Climate Warming evidence is linked to these SAME TWELVE BLOODY TREES! http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Comparison.png Reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures for the last 1,000 years according to various older articles (bluish lines), newer articles (reddish lines), and instrumental record (black line) |
Re: Global warming
How did Mann “fake†the data?
Firstly he selected sample data to support a theory. A big NO NO. The minute you do that you are faking evidence. Secondly, he tacked on actual thermal records for recent years onto the extrapolated thermal records obtained from the selected tree rings. By not adjusting the extrapolated temperatures to the actual thermal records, he managed to show a “hockey stick graph†showing increasing temperature in the latter half of the 20C. In simple terms, the two data sets were not adjusted to be in series. This is accurately described in the November 1999 email from Phil Jones to his colleagues (including Mann) in his sentence “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline†That is faking it. |
Re: Global warming
Back in the real world, it's unlikely that an ETS as proposed by the Rudd government would deliver any decrease in CO2 emissions anyway.
Firstly, the Liberal proposals as accepted, to give free passes to most of the major "polluters" is ludicrous. if the objective is to make the enduser change his consumption by making the supplier pay and therefore pass on higher charges it is ridiculous to subsidise the suppliers. Secondly, the likely result would be the (desired) substantial increase in energy (and goods') prices, causing the inflation index to rise and then to increases in linked payments such as pensions, as well as union demands for higher wages. All of which would negate the desired outcome of forcing lower consumption. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Wol
(Post 8142756)
Back in the real world, it's unlikely that an ETS as proposed by the Rudd government would deliver any decrease in CO2 emissions anyway.
Firstly, the Liberal proposals as accepted, to give free passes to most of the major "polluters" is ludicrous. if the objective is to make the enduser change his consumption by making the supplier pay and therefore pass on higher charges it is ridiculous to subsidise the suppliers. Secondly, the likely result would be the (desired) substantial increase in energy (and goods') prices, causing the inflation index to rise and then to increases in linked payments such as pensions, as well as union demands for higher wages. All of which would negate the desired outcome of forcing lower consumption. We need real action not talk. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar
(Post 8142763)
The problem with the ETS is that it's 15 years too late and is an outdated concept.
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by slapphead_otool
(Post 8142736)
How did Mann “fake†the data?
Firstly he selected sample data to support a theory. A big NO NO. The minute you do that you are faking evidence. Secondly, he tacked on actual thermal records for recent years onto the extrapolated thermal records obtained from the selected tree rings. By not adjusting the extrapolated temperatures to the actual thermal records, he managed to show a “hockey stick graph†showing increasing temperature in the latter half of the 20C. In simple terms, the two data sets were not adjusted to be in series. This is accurately described in the November 1999 email from Phil Jones to his colleagues (including Mann) in his sentence “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline†That is faking it. The use of the term "trick" has already been debunked many times - it was colloquial for a 'clever idea". |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 7:03 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.