|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Where Global Warming started sliding down the pipes: Mann's "HockeyStick" NOT supported by NAS Panel
Mann's "Hockey Stick" NOT supported by NAS Panel
********* In the accompanying thread anonymous "zencycle", like the fool Bill Asher before him, claims that the NAS Panel under Gerald North supported Michael Mann's Hockey Stick, now discredited, which was the "science" that was supposed to prove Global Warming once and for all. The NAS Panel was set up specifically to counter the Wegman Panel, which had been commissioned by the US Senate to investigate Michael Mann's statistical credibility, and had found it to be zero as related in "(OT) What Global Warming has in common with Marxism". The NAS Panel expressed itself less forcefully than the Wegman Panel but in every essential agreed with it, finding that, *** the principal components method by which Hockey Stick was achieved was flawed ***RE tests are insufficient for statistical significance (i.e. the Hockey Stick has zero meaning) ***Mann's Hockey Stick depends on bristlecone proxies which are known to be unreliable ***Such strip bark forms should be “avoided” in reconstruction This is a comprehensive condemnation of a statistical report, stated politely. (In plain English, Mann was either incompetent or deliberately cooked up a politically desirable result.) Certainly, to support a multi-trillion policy, for which purpose the Mann Hockey Stick was put forward by IPCC, one would expect at least enthusiastic support from a scientist's peers, especially from a panel which was constituted specifically to support Mann against Wegman. North and his panel were then also called before the Senate subcommittee, together with Wegman. The members of the NAS panel were then asked under oath if they wished to dispute the Wegman findings, and this interesting dialogue ensued: CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions [about the Mann papers] or the methodology of Dr. Wegman's report? DR. NORTH. No, we don't. We don't disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report. DR. BLOOMFIELD [statistician to the NAS Panel]. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman. WALLACE: The two reports were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent. In short, the NAS committee -- set up to support Mann -- agreed item by item with Wegman's devastating condemnation of the man and his methods as totally incompetent. I quote only two paragraphs of Wegman's comprehensive indictment of Mann: 'The controversy of Mann’s methods lies in that the proxies are centered on the mean of the period 1902-1995, rather than on the whole time period. This mean is, thus, actually decentered low, which will cause it to exhibit a larger variance, giving it preference for being selected as the first principal component. The net effect of this decentering using the proxy data in MBH98 and MBH99 is to produce a “hockey stick” shape.' Later Dr Wegman added that this was "politically convenient". The Wegman report executive summary concludes with a total, contemptuous dismissal of Mann's Hockey Stick: 'Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.' And Dr North and everone else on the NAS Panel agreed under oath to every word of that and more. North claimed, somewhat limply, that the fact that the statistics were totally crooked didn't mean Mann didn't arrive at the right answer. Remember, his Panel had been constituted specifically to support Michael Mann's contention that Global Warming is a danger. And the best they could officially say of the Mann papers were that they were statistically incompetent but that their conclusions were nontheless "plausible" in places. Wrong in method but "plausible"? And not even all of it, just in parts, the rest bad, like the curate's egg? Holy ****! And on that they want to commit trillions? With such a low standard of proof, anything at all can be made to appear plausible. In any event, plausibility without correct method and conclusive proof is a personal belief, nothing to do with science, which is all about proof. Edward Wegman said so: Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science. That was prophetic shorthand, as reports were already in the pipeline that applying Mann's algorithm, which Wegman had condemned so roundly, to random red noise also produced a Hockey Stick. Every time. If random inputs can duplicate your "science", it is cargo cult science. Speak into the tennis ball, Dr Mann. But Asher claims that the NAS Panel "supports" Mann's Hockey Stick! Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science Think on it, Asher. By the way, Asher, Edward Wegman, the most distinguished statistician in America, probably in the world, is a past chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences, the very institution that Mann (and you, little Bill Asher!) cites as supporting Mann's work! Well, actually no, Michael. Wegman consigned your incompetence to the devil, and North's solidarity was about as grudging as you can get without asking you to resign from the NAS. You screwed up, Dr Mann, and you got caught out. And your supporters and followers are operating on faith alone. The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age remain, and while they stand Global Warming is a joke. That, of course, is why the Global Warmies, like Michael Mann, expend so much energy to lie these historical phenomena out of existence. Andre Jute Reformed petrol head Car-free since 1992 Greener than thou! |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Where Global Warming started sliding down the pipes: Mann's"Hockey Stick" NOT supported by NAS Panel
On Sep 8, 7:10*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
Mann's "Hockey Stick" NOT supported by NAS Panel ********* In the accompanying thread anonymous "zencycle"..... claims that the NAS Panel under Gerald North supported Michael Mann's Hockey Stick, Really, where did I say that? What I said was that North admitted the wegman report and subsequent hearings were politically motivated. Try paying attention next time, ****head. btw - I'm not anonymous, you're just to ****ing stupid to figure it out..... |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Where Global Warming started sliding down the tubes: Mann's"Hockey Stick" NOT supported by North NAS Panel
On Sep 9, 1:39*pm, zencycle wrote:
On Sep 8, 7:10*pm, Andre Jute wrote: Mann's "Hockey Stick" NOT supported by NAS Panel ********* In the accompanying thread anonymous "zencycle"..... claims that the NAS Panel under Gerald North supported Michael Mann's Hockey Stick, Really, where did I say that? Well, if you agree that North and his Panel, specifically constituted by the NAS to defend Mann and his Hockey Stick, *didn't* support Mann and his Hockey Stick, we have nothing further to discuss, because once the Hockey Stick goes there is no Global Warming, only a slow climb from the Little Ice Age back to the balmy days of the Medieval Warm Period. Congratulations. That's the first time I ever heard a global warmie admit that his faith is a scientific fraud and a political ripoff of the taxpayer. What I said was that North admitted the wegman report and subsequent hearings were politically motivated. Hmm. Who cares what excuses North offered the prees -- or what they claimed he said. What matters is what North, and each member of his panel individually, said *under oath*, on penalty of perjury and contempt of the Senate: they said they agreed wholeheartedly with Wegman that the science was incompetently done and didn't support the stalinist disappearance of the historical features of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age by statistical crookery. the wegman report and subsequent hearings were politically motivated. Of course they were. It may have escaped your stalinist wet dreams, but that is how a democracy works, as an adversarial system in which you have on the one side the advocates for one way of spending the taxpayers' money -- in this case staggering trillions of it -- and on the other the advocates of not wasting the taxpayers' money on fool's gold. In this case those politicians who suspected that global warming is a faith-based scientific fraud got two opposing panels of the NAS to agree that the science the taxpayers paid for was incompetent. Game over. The failure of the Copenhagen green summit, carbon caps, etc, follow as night follows day. Try paying attention next time, ****head. I am, as I just demonstrated. You can track my posts on Google. I spotted the Barton hearings as a killer blow for Global Warming as they happened and predicted that within the decade it would fall apart. McIntyre and McKitrick, ClimateGate, the other IPCC scandals, the biased journalists disgraced, those were just the fissures widening. It is you who believes press reports rather than Senate minutes are the final arbiter. It is you who lives in a dream world. People who live in the real world, who understand how decisions are made, know that global warming is finished, and with it all that fear- mongering about climate change, because the "coming ice age" has already been done and disgraced a generation ago. btw - I'm not anonymous, you're just to ****ing stupid to figure it out..... I'm not that fascinated by another fulminating, spittle-spraying little flame warrier that I care to work out which of the worthless little twerps in particular you are; as far as I can see you lot are interchangeable impressionables, more offensively fashion-victim trendies, by definition ill-informed and brainless. Andre Jute Are we done now? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Where Global Warming started sliding down the tubes: Mann's"Hockey Stick" NOT supported by North NAS Panel
On Sep 9, 1:59*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
Congratulations. That's the first time I ever heard a global warmie admit that his faith is a scientific fraud and a political ripoff of the taxpayer. I didn't do that either. What I said was that North admitted the wegman report and subsequent hearings were politically motivated. Hmm. Who cares what excuses North offered the prees -- or what they claimed he said. You should, since your the one offering him up as a vapid attempt to gain credibility, and according to you he's a hypocrite. the wegman report and subsequent hearings were politically motivated. Of course they were. Good then you're on my side, They weren't conducting science, they were creating political positioning for the greedy republicans to ask for more campaign contributions from corporate robber barons in exchange for removing regulations on dirty industries, resulting in such laudable events like the massey energy mining disaster and Deep Water Horizon explosion It may have escaped your stalinist wet dreams, but that is how a democracy works, as an adversarial system in which you have on the one side the advocates for one way of spending the taxpayers' money -- in this case staggering trillions of it -- and on the other the advocates of not wasting the taxpayers' money on fool's gold. you failed 6th grade civics....dintcha' jootsy. Try paying attention next time, ****head. I am, as I just demonstrated. no, if you were, you wouldn't have claimed I 'lied', that I used media reports as justification, and wouldn't have claimed I agreed with you. You can track my posts on Google. I'd rather take a vacation at gitmo I spotted the Barton hearings as a killer blow for Global Warming as they happened and predicted that within the decade it would fall apart. Right....how's that working out for ya? I hate to be the one to break it to you (no, actually, I enjoy it), but global warming is occurring. Are there problems with the models? sure, and of course the biggest contention is over anthropogenesis, and how it takes quite a bit of 'manipulation' of the computer models to make even modest predictions of AGW seem imminent. FWIW - most scientists still understand that we are in the midst of a warming trend - the only question is why. The deniers you like to cite don't deny the warming trend, they doubt anthropogensis and actually have good science to back up their position. It's a distinction idiots like you tend to ignore. It is you who believes press reports rather than Senate minutes are the final arbiter. And where did I ever present a media report as my supporting evidence? I gave you links to the NASA website. It is you who lives in a dream world. I'd like to live in a world where I can dream, but jackasses like you keep ruining it. People who live in the real world, who understand how decisions are made, know that global warming is finished, and with it all that fear- mongering about climate change, unlike you who fearmonger about alleged communist motivations in our government. Yeah, thats _real_ different. because the "coming ice age" has already been done and disgraced a generation ago. It was a prediction made well before computers were able to crunch the massive amount of data (thermo and fluid dynamic computations) needed to make more reasonable predictions. There have been thousands of predictions made over the centuries, some based on vetted science, that have turned out to be false. You can't dwell on those as an indictment against science in general. btw - I'm not anonymous, you're just to ****ing stupid to figure it out..... I'm not that fascinated by another fulminating, spittle-spraying little flame warrier that I care to work out which of the worthless little twerps in particular you are; Then it might be in your best interest not to make such claims, unless you're willing to at least attempt to back up your claims. as far as I can see you lot are interchangeable impressionables, more offensively fashion-victim trendies, by definition ill-informed and brainless. As opposed to you greedy corporate fascists using the canard of 'freedom' to allow the subjugation of the middle class by supporting private industries "right" to pollute, socialize losses while privatizing profits, and pervert free speech by allowing corporate donations to control the press. Andre Jute Are we done now? Not even close, you pathetic corporate stooge. As I once told a stupid little sychophantic college intern, "suck his dick all you want, he's not going to share his bonus with you". And BTW - your bikes are _still_ ****ing hideous. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mann's "Hockey Stick" NOT supported by NAS Panel | Andre Jute[_2_] | Techniques | 5 | July 30th 09 08:10 PM |
Why the global warming "scientists" lied and lied and lied to removethe MWP and the LIA from history | Andre Jute[_2_] | Techniques | 0 | June 30th 09 01:52 AM |
"The global car industry is in crisis." | Doug[_3_] | UK | 6 | May 30th 09 07:43 PM |
why teams supported by "fans" don't work | [email protected] | Racing | 9 | February 12th 06 04:23 PM |
FS: NWT Cannondale "Global" Jersey - XL | Steven L. Sheffield | Racing | 0 | December 7th 05 04:56 AM |