Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
People that double check published papers are doing the scientific establishment a FAVOR.
If the peer review process would do due diligence none of this would be an issue.
And you can start tossing out the garbage with Mann whose hockey stick graph and anti-science efforts are a shame to real science, Matthew.
Really? So, link to scientific papers in peer reviewed journals that declare the Mann paper garbage. In the meantime, here you can find papers that support the Mann graph;
What evidence is there for the hockey stick?
A critique of the hockey stick was published in 2004 (McIntyre 2004), claiming the hockey stick shape was the inevitable result of the statistical method used (principal components analysis). They also claimed temperatures over the 15th Century were derived from one bristlecone pine proxy record. They concluded that the hockey stick shape was not statistically significant.
An independent assessment of Mann's hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick - that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.
While many continue to fixate on Mann's early work on proxy records, the science of paleoclimatology has moved on. Since 1999, there have been many independent reconstructions of past temperatures, using a variety of proxy data and a number of different methodologies. All find the same result - that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes). What are some of the proxies that are used to determine past temperature?
Changes in surface temperature send thermal waves underground, cooling or warming the subterranean rock. To track these changes, underground temperature measurements were examined from over 350 bore holes in North America, Europe, Southern Africa and Australia (Huang 2000). Borehole reconstructions aren't able to give short term variation, yielding only century-scale trends. What they find is that the 20th century is the warmest of the past five centuries with the strongest warming trend in 500 years.
Bullshit.
Mann used proxy tree ring data until it became inconvenient then he tossed it in favor of actual measured temps while the proxy data showed a continued drop in temperature for the past 50 years.
You establishment ass wipes cant think about science without appealing to authority like some half wit legal clerk, 'But Dr. So-n-so says it is valid...' but never dealing with the evidence directly.
Mann should be shot for fraud like they do in China.
I don't know what kind of brain disfuction can lead some moron to hate science so much? Do they wish we never developed the tech to double life spans, do they wish we never started to give our children education???
What kind of shit is this????
People that double check published papers are doing the scientific establishment a FAVOR.
If the peer review process would do due diligence none of this would be an issue.
And you can start tossing out the garbage with Mann whose hockey stick graph and anti-science efforts are a shame to real science, Matthew.
So, you are suggesting that people like you do the review? No education in science, but you consider yourself capable of judging scientists papers? Wow.
Really? So, link to scientific papers in peer reviewed journals that declare the Mann paper garbage. In the meantime, here you can find papers that support the Mann graph;
What evidence is there for the hockey stick?
A critique of the hockey stick was published in 2004 (McIntyre 2004), claiming the hockey stick shape was the inevitable result of the statistical method used (principal components analysis). They also claimed temperatures over the 15th Century were derived from one bristlecone pine proxy record. They concluded that the hockey stick shape was not statistically significant.
An independent assessment of Mann's hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick - that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.
While many continue to fixate on Mann's early work on proxy records, the science of paleoclimatology has moved on. Since 1999, there have been many independent reconstructions of past temperatures, using a variety of proxy data and a number of different methodologies. All find the same result - that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes). What are some of the proxies that are used to determine past temperature?
Changes in surface temperature send thermal waves underground, cooling or warming the subterranean rock. To track these changes, underground temperature measurements were examined from over 350 bore holes in North America, Europe, Southern Africa and Australia (Huang 2000). Borehole reconstructions aren't able to give short term variation, yielding only century-scale trends. What they find is that the 20th century is the warmest of the past five centuries with the strongest warming trend in 500 years.
Bullshit.
Mann used proxy tree ring data until it became inconvenient then he tossed it in favor of actual measured temps while the proxy data showed a continued drop in temperature for the past 50 years.
You establishment ass wipes cant think about science without appealing to authority like some half wit legal clerk, 'But Dr. So-n-so says it is valid...' but never dealing with the evidence directly.
Mann should be shot for fraud like they do in China.
Now you have proved my point. First, you have never read Mann's original paper, or you would not be making dumb asses statements like that. Second, we have many more papers from Mann and others that used far more than tree ring data. As did his original paper.
Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia
Publications of the National Academy of Sciences.
However, in the case of the early calibration/late validation CPS reconstruction with the full screened network (Fig. 2A), we observed evidence for a systematic bias in the underestimation of recent warming. This bias increases for earlier centuries where the reconstruction is based on increasingly sparse networks of proxy data. In this case, the observed warming rises above the error bounds of the estimates during the 1980s decade, consistent with the known divergence problem (e.g., ref. 37), wherein the temperature sensitivity of some temperature-sensitive tree-ring data appears to have declined in the most recent decades. Interestingly, although the elimination of all tree-ring data from the proxy dataset yields a substantially smaller divergence bias, it does not eliminate the problem altogether (Fig. 2B). This latter finding suggests that the divergence problem is not limited purely to tree-ring data, but instead may extend to other proxy records. Interestingly, the problem is greatly diminished (although not absentparticularly in the older networks where a decline is observed after ≈1980) with the EIV method, whether or not tree-ring data are used (Fig. 2 C and D). We interpret this finding as consistent with the ability of the EIV approach to make use of nonlocal and non-temperature-related proxy information in calibrating large-scale mean temperature changes, thereby avoiding reliance on pure temperature proxies that may exhibit a low-biased sensitivity to recent temperature change.
In other words, you don't know shit about science. Thought as much.
I don't know what kind of brain disfuction can lead some moron to hate science so much? Do they wish we never developed the tech to double life spans, do they wish we never started to give our children education???
What kind of shit is this????
People that double check published papers are doing the scientific establishment a FAVOR.
If the peer review process would do due diligence none of this would be an issue.
And you can start tossing out the garbage with Mann whose hockey stick graph and anti-science efforts are a shame to real science, Matthew.
Really? So, link to scientific papers in peer reviewed journals that declare the Mann paper garbage. In the meantime, here you can find papers that support the Mann graph;
What evidence is there for the hockey stick?
A critique of the hockey stick was published in 2004 (McIntyre 2004), claiming the hockey stick shape was the inevitable result of the statistical method used (principal components analysis). They also claimed temperatures over the 15th Century were derived from one bristlecone pine proxy record. They concluded that the hockey stick shape was not statistically significant.
An independent assessment of Mann's hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick - that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.
While many continue to fixate on Mann's early work on proxy records, the science of paleoclimatology has moved on. Since 1999, there have been many independent reconstructions of past temperatures, using a variety of proxy data and a number of different methodologies. All find the same result - that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes). What are some of the proxies that are used to determine past temperature?
Changes in surface temperature send thermal waves underground, cooling or warming the subterranean rock. To track these changes, underground temperature measurements were examined from over 350 bore holes in North America, Europe, Southern Africa and Australia (Huang 2000). Borehole reconstructions aren't able to give short term variation, yielding only century-scale trends. What they find is that the 20th century is the warmest of the past five centuries with the strongest warming trend in 500 years.
I don't know what kind of brain disfuction can lead some moron to hate science so much? Do they wish we never developed the tech to double life spans, do they wish we never started to give our children education???
What kind of shit is this????
People that double check published papers are doing the scientific establishment a FAVOR.
If the peer review process would do due diligence none of this would be an issue.
And you can start tossing out the garbage with Mann whose hockey stick graph and anti-science efforts are a shame to real science, Matthew.
So, you are suggesting that people like you do the review? No education in science, but you consider yourself capable of judging scientists papers? Wow.
I am talking about new next generation satellite, cures for diseases and telescopes to keep up the hunt for new extrasolar planets.
Each one of these areas are important....More important then nation building another nation half away around the world.
Real Science, the site for pseudo-science used by liars all.
What it comes down to is that every Scientfic Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. But people like Bowie know so much more than all the scientists in the world.
Before we condone scientific vigilantism, how do we know the vigilantes even know what they are reading, much less why a paper is wrong? I don't want scientists spending all their time defending themselves from the allegations that some neckbeard that failed College Algebra makes.
Top 10 NASA Inventions You Use Everyday
NASA's inventions benefit our lives on Earth - Technology & science - Space - Space.com | NBC News
Apollo 11 moon landing: top 15 Nasa inventions - Telegraph
Republicans think science is a faith. Like religion. They simply don't connect the computer they use or the tools the doctor uses. Or the medicines they take. Or what farmers have been taught and the feed they use. None of it to "scientists". Or alloys. Or what keeps food safe. The list of how science touches us is endless. And Republicans simply don't see the connection.
In fact, most Republicans actually believe most scientists are employed by government.
It's not just Democrats or Independents, but the entire world shakes it's collective head at the ignorance of such a large group of white people who live in both ignorance and the most advanced country in the world. Thank God for Blue States.
Yep, leave it to a libtard to bring race and politics into a discussion of science.
Top 10 NASA Inventions You Use Everyday
NASA's inventions benefit our lives on Earth - Technology & science - Space - Space.com | NBC News
Apollo 11 moon landing: top 15 Nasa inventions - Telegraph
Republicans think science is a faith. Like religion. They simply don't connect the computer they use or the tools the doctor uses. Or the medicines they take. Or what farmers have been taught and the feed they use. None of it to "scientists". Or alloys. Or what keeps food safe. The list of how science touches us is endless. And Republicans simply don't see the connection.
In fact, most Republicans actually believe most scientists are employed by government.
It's not just Democrats or Independents, but the entire world shakes it's collective head at the ignorance of such a large group of white people who live in both ignorance and the most advanced country in the world. Thank God for Blue States.
Yep, leave it to a libtard to bring race and politics into a discussion of science.
Republicans are 90% white. I believe the lack of diversity is part of what caused the "determined ignorance".
I don't know what kind of brain disfuction can lead some moron to hate science so much? Do they wish we never developed the tech to double life spans, do they wish we never started to give our children education???
What kind of shit is this????
People that double check published papers are doing the scientific establishment a FAVOR.
If the peer review process would do due diligence none of this would be an issue.
And you can start tossing out the garbage with Mann whose hockey stick graph and anti-science efforts are a shame to real science, Matthew.
Yep, leave it to a libtard to bring race and politics into a discussion of science.
Republicans are 90% white. I believe the lack of diversity is part of what caused the "determined ignorance".
No, it is due to the Big Lie Media subscribing to Identity Politics and blacks, Hispanics, gender war feminists,, etc are convinced that to vote GOP is to betray their group; i.e. most minorities are too racist and bigoted to give the GOP any serious consideration.
I don't know what kind of brain disfuction can lead some moron to hate science so much? Do they wish we never developed the tech to double life spans, do they wish we never started to give our children education???
What kind of shit is this????
People that double check published papers are doing the scientific establishment a FAVOR.
If the peer review process would do due diligence none of this would be an issue.
And you can start tossing out the garbage with Mann whose hockey stick graph and anti-science efforts are a shame to real science, Matthew.
You guys believe science is mistaken because it doesn't come to the same conclusion as Bible thumpers.
Where is right wingnut mysticism "peer reviewed"?
Do you even understand scientific peer review process? Or why peers from a single country aren't enough?
