Berkeley Earth Project

[IanC]

My goodness, Ian, look at the graph from the site that Walleyes posted.

Image : New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Lordy, lordy, a lumpy hockey stick. Whadaya know! Ol' Walleyes done turned traitor on you.

the black line on that graph which has the hockey stick shape is clearly marked 'Mann Data'

Yes, it is. It is so depressing to witness Scientists lying just to get more grants and accolades. It happens more than anyone might think. And unfortunately, many scientists are incredibly closed-minded. They've turned their current understanding of their chosen scientific field into kind of a religion and will not accept anything that upsets the status quo, but that's been going on for centuries so I don't expect it end anytime soon.

the truly unfortunate part is that many honest scientists choose to look away when dishonest scientists display their crooked wares

 

[Old Rocks]

My goodness, Ian, look at the graph from the site that Walleyes posted.

Image : New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Lordy, lordy, a lumpy hockey stick. Whadaya know! Ol' Walleyes done turned traitor on you.

the black line on that graph which has the hockey stick shape is clearly marked 'Mann Data'

And the other lines clearly tell the same story.

Image : New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

 

[IanC]

My goodness, Ian, look at the graph from the site that Walleyes posted.

Image : New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Lordy, lordy, a lumpy hockey stick. Whadaya know! Ol' Walleyes done turned traitor on you.

the black line on that graph which has the hockey stick shape is clearly marked 'Mann Data'

And the other lines clearly tell the same story.

Image : New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

dude! put your glasses on, and look at the graph again. hahaha

 

[Old Rocks]

LMAO.......from the video........"hockey stick graph is so clearly fraudulent...."

hey skooks. this video tells the tale of 'hide the decline'. finally someone chopped out the five relevant minutes out of the 52 min original lecture by the same guy who is organizing the berleley data set

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8BQpciw8suk

getting the picture on what 'hide the decline' means yet Trakar?

Hmmm...... Just watched the video. OK, they switched from tree ring data to actual temp data when the data from the tree rings showed the opposite direction. Yet, the data from ocean and ice coring by the Woods Hole Institute in this study confirmed their historical data.
Image : New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

And the modern temperature data has been confirmed by both surface stations and satellite data.

Dr. Mueler doesn't like their methods. But he does not deny the validity of the graph. And now we see confirmation of that graph from a totally independent source.
News Release : New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

And this is not the only time we have had independent confirmation of the Mann graph. Even the National Academy of Sciences, USA, stated that they disagreed with some of Mann's methodologies, yet, using their own, came up with a near identical graph.

The Mann graph stands. It has been confirmed by many differant studies using differant proxies and methodologies. Scream all you please, it has not be falsified by the many differant studies, but even more strongly confirmed.

 

[Old Rocks]

the black line on that graph which has the hockey stick shape is clearly marked 'Mann Data'

And the other lines clearly tell the same story.

Image : New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

dude! put your glasses on, and look at the graph again. hahaha

Image : New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Sea surface temperature reconstructions from the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool. Different colored symbols indicate data from different cores used in the reconstruction. A northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction from Mann et al. (2008) is shown in the black curve. The previously published data is from Newton et al. (2006). Colored lines are the average of the data points. Triangles at the bottom of the figure show where age control exists. The horizontal black line labeled 1997-2007 Mean Annual SST shows the value of the annual average sea surface temperature for the same time period. The Little Ice Age, which occurred around A.D. 1700, was a cool period, but its magnitude was only about 0.5 to 1˚C cooler than modern winter temperatures. Water temperature during the late Medieval Warm Period, between about A.D. 1000 to 1250, was within error of modern annual sea surface temperatures. (Oppo, Rosenthal, Linsley; 2009)

I suggest that everyone look at that graph. The historical data from the cores confirms the historical data that Mann presented. The data for the last 150 years is direct measurement, and goes straight up.

Obvious that you cannot read a simple graph, Ian.

 

[IanC]

And the other lines clearly tell the same story.

Image : New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

dude! put your glasses on, and look at the graph again. hahaha

Image : New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Sea surface temperature reconstructions from the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool. Different colored symbols indicate data from different cores used in the reconstruction. A northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction from Mann et al. (2008) is shown in the black curve. The previously published data is from Newton et al. (2006). Colored lines are the average of the data points. Triangles at the bottom of the figure show where age control exists. The horizontal black line labeled 1997-2007 Mean Annual SST shows the value of the annual average sea surface temperature for the same time period. The Little Ice Age, which occurred around A.D. 1700, was a cool period, but its magnitude was only about 0.5 to 1˚C cooler than modern winter temperatures. Water temperature during the late Medieval Warm Period, between about A.D. 1000 to 1250, was within error of modern annual sea surface temperatures. (Oppo, Rosenthal, Linsley; 2009)

I suggest that everyone look at that graph. The historical data from the cores confirms the historical data that Mann presented. The data for the last 150 years is direct measurement, and goes straight up.

Obvious that you cannot read a simple graph, Ian.

I guess I must be stupid then. I see five crosses above the line in the MWP and one in modern times. even then the modern blue cross is truncated and hard to see but I am assuming it is commeasurate with the 1998 El Nino

 

[skookerasbil]

Read about all the flip-flops from the IPCC over the past decade..........

Global Warming Alarmists Flip-Flop On Snowfall - James Taylor - Endpoint Analysis - Forbes


What do they say as a response? "This is an evolving science..........we know much more now then in 2001!!"

 

[asterism]

And the other lines clearly tell the same story.

Image : New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

dude! put your glasses on, and look at the graph again. hahaha

Image : New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Sea surface temperature reconstructions from the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool. Different colored symbols indicate data from different cores used in the reconstruction. A northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction from Mann et al. (2008) is shown in the black curve. The previously published data is from Newton et al. (2006). Colored lines are the average of the data points. Triangles at the bottom of the figure show where age control exists. The horizontal black line labeled 1997-2007 Mean Annual SST shows the value of the annual average sea surface temperature for the same time period. The Little Ice Age, which occurred around A.D. 1700, was a cool period, but its magnitude was only about 0.5 to 1˚C cooler than modern winter temperatures. Water temperature during the late Medieval Warm Period, between about A.D. 1000 to 1250, was within error of modern annual sea surface temperatures. (Oppo, Rosenthal, Linsley; 2009)

I suggest that everyone look at that graph. The historical data from the cores confirms the historical data that Mann presented. The data for the last 150 years is direct measurement, and goes straight up.

Obvious that you cannot read a simple graph, Ian.

Direct measurement? Mann used direct measurement? What did he measure?

 

[westwall]

LMAO.......from the video........"hockey stick graph is so clearly fraudulent...."

hey skooks. this video tells the tale of 'hide the decline'. finally someone chopped out the five relevant minutes out of the 52 min original lecture by the same guy who is organizing the berleley data set

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8BQpciw8suk

getting the picture on what 'hide the decline' means yet Trakar?

Hmmm...... Just watched the video. OK, they switched from tree ring data to actual temp data when the data from the tree rings showed the opposite direction. Yet, the data from ocean and ice coring by the Woods Hole Institute in this study confirmed their historical data.
Image : New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

And the modern temperature data has been confirmed by both surface stations and satellite data.

Dr. Mueler doesn't like their methods. But he does not deny the validity of the graph. And now we see confirmation of that graph from a totally independent source.
News Release : New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

And this is not the only time we have had independent confirmation of the Mann graph. Even the National Academy of Sciences, USA, stated that they disagreed with some of Mann's methodologies, yet, using their own, came up with a near identical graph.

The Mann graph stands. It has been confirmed by many differant studies using differant proxies and methodologies. Scream all you please, it has not be falsified by the many differant studies, but even more strongly confirmed.

I guess you live on different planet then us. In the video he says, "there are some scientists whose papers I will no longer read", sounds like a ringing endorsement if I ever heard one.

 

[Old Rocks]

Interesting Walleyes. If Mueler is no longer reading the papers from Woods Hole, why did you post it?

 

[westwall]

Interesting Walleyes. If Mueler is no longer reading the papers from Woods Hole, why did you post it?

Wow, are you really that dense? Yes, I guess you are that dense! No silly person, he no longer reads papers from Mann, Jones, Briffa, Trenberth, and all the other alarmist quacks who are behind the climate fraud.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, now, you silly fraud, the paper you posted has the same lines and data as the Mann graph, as you can clearly see by the overlay on the Mann graph.

Image : New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

The multi-corer clearly shows the modern rise, just like the direct measurements of temperature.

 

[Trakar]

Wow, are you really that dense? Yes, I guess you are that dense! No silly person, he no longer reads papers from Mann, Jones, Briffa, Trenberth, and all the other alarmist quacks who are behind the climate fraud.

What type of "science" is this that rejects unread published science in the relevent field of study?

(sounds like pseudoscience at best)

 

[westwall]

Wow, are you really that dense? Yes, I guess you are that dense! No silly person, he no longer reads papers from Mann, Jones, Briffa, Trenberth, and all the other alarmist quacks who are behind the climate fraud.

What type of "science" is this that rejects unread published science in the relevent field of study?

(sounds like pseudoscience at best)

This is the type of scientist who is ethical. Mann et all on the other hand published knowingly false papers with false data. That reduces them to the same level as a perjuror in a court of law. Once a perjuror, allways a perjuror. Thus, once a creator of false data, allways a creator of false data. That is what used to happen in cases of academic fraud. The scientific community ostracised them, but if you were a scientist you should know that.

 

[Trakar]

Wow, are you really that dense? Yes, I guess you are that dense! No silly person, he no longer reads papers from Mann, Jones, Briffa, Trenberth, and all the other alarmist quacks who are behind the climate fraud.

What type of "science" is this that rejects unread published science in the relevent field of study?

(sounds like pseudoscience at best)

This is the type of scientist who is ethical. Mann et all on the other hand published knowingly false papers with false data. That reduces them to the same level as a perjuror in a court of law. Once a perjuror, allways a perjuror. Thus, once a creator of false data, allways a creator of false data. That is what used to happen in cases of academic fraud. The scientific community ostracised them, but if you were a scientist you should know that.

A lot of assertions without any offers of support or reference,...the nature of your pseudoscience is self-evident. Science is open to evidences and proofs, it doesn't determine its support based on politics, religious belief, nor highest bidder, that is why some seemingly dislike it so.

 

[westwall]

What type of "science" is this that rejects unread published science in the relevent field of study?

(sounds like pseudoscience at best)

This is the type of scientist who is ethical. Mann et all on the other hand published knowingly false papers with false data. That reduces them to the same level as a perjuror in a court of law. Once a perjuror, allways a perjuror. Thus, once a creator of false data, allways a creator of false data. That is what used to happen in cases of academic fraud. The scientific community ostracised them, but if you were a scientist you should know that.

A lot of assertions without any offers of support or reference,...the nature of your pseudoscience is self-evident. Science is open to evidences and proofs, it doesn't determine its support based on politics, religious belief, nor highest bidder, that is why some seemingly dislike it so.

So tell me. What is your opinion of the various "investigations" that were held on both sides of the pond?

 

[IanC]

This is the type of scientist who is ethical. Mann et all on the other hand published knowingly false papers with false data. That reduces them to the same level as a perjuror in a court of law. Once a perjuror, allways a perjuror. Thus, once a creator of false data, allways a creator of false data. That is what used to happen in cases of academic fraud. The scientific community ostracised them, but if you were a scientist you should know that.

A lot of assertions without any offers of support or reference,...the nature of your pseudoscience is self-evident. Science is open to evidences and proofs, it doesn't determine its support based on politics, religious belief, nor highest bidder, that is why some seemingly dislike it so.

So tell me. What is your opinion of the various "investigations" that were held on both sides of the pond?

trakar/old rocks don't like to discuss the actual evidence or lack of looking for evidence at the inquiries. they only want to point out that the media says they were exonerated

 

[westwall]

A lot of assertions without any offers of support or reference,...the nature of your pseudoscience is self-evident. Science is open to evidences and proofs, it doesn't determine its support based on politics, religious belief, nor highest bidder, that is why some seemingly dislike it so.

So tell me. What is your opinion of the various "investigations" that were held on both sides of the pond?

trakar/old rocks don't like to discuss the actual evidence or lack of looking for evidence at the inquiries. they only want to point out that the media says they were exonerated

But of course, to do otherwise would mean they actually had to look at what is being said and done. They don't care. They have their agenda and that's all they want.

 

[Old Rocks]

Given the presentations at the AGU and the GSA for the last ten years seems to me that you are the one with an agenda that is rejecting real science.

And I have looked at what is being said and done. Just one source that says you are full of BS, Walleyes;

2009 AGU Fall Meeting: Featured Lectures

2010 AGU Fall Meeting: Featured Lectures

Real science by real scientists. Not undegreed pretenders like Monkton and Watts.

 

[westwall]

Given the presentations at the AGU and the GSA for the last ten years seems to me that you are the one with an agenda that is rejecting real science.

And I have looked at what is being said and done. Just one source that says you are full of BS, Walleyes;

2009 AGU Fall Meeting: Featured Lectures

2010 AGU Fall Meeting: Featured Lectures

Real science by real scientists. Not undegreed pretenders like Monkton and Watts.

That's certainly your claim. It's a surprise then that whenever a scientist in another field looks at their shoddy work they are appaled at the lack of credible scientific protocols. Don't worry, the whole mess is unravelling and will continue to do so until the perps are in prison. It will take a while all good cons take years to finally unravel, just look at Madoff, but unravel they eventually do.