Weather Channel Owner Suing Al Gore For Fraud....

[BrianH]

Brian, most of the text of his posts are cut-and-paste jobs from online journals. This might be why he's doing a fairly poor job of answering your questions.

Climate scientists do not "know" CO2 is the bad guy. They DO know that CO2 can force warming slightly in a controled setting. They DO know that measured temperatures have increased on average over the past 100 years.

They do NOT know, however, how this slight increase in atmospheric CO2 increase resonates in our extremely chaotic climate system. In the models that project runaway warming, they ASSUME a strong net positive feedback mechanism that accelerates/amplifies the initial CO2 input. It is these assumptions about feedback that lead to the catastrophic scenarios.

You can prove that CO2 can cause an initial preturbance, but the response of the climate system to that input CANNOT be proven empirically.

The reality is that when scientists encounter an unknown, but longterm stable system, they assume the system is regulated by NEGATIVE FEEDBACK! Which makes sense of course, since systems dominated by positive feedbacks are not stable over time. Prior irregular inputs to the climate system have not turned the Earth into a Venus-like inferno, or a Mars-like ice rock. It seems like a strong positive feedback mechanism is a pretty dim assumption - but don't tell that to AGW alarmists!

Yeah I agree, I can tell that he copies and pastes things and then throws in a few things to attempt to make everyone feel ignorant.

I completely agree with your take on this. I know CO2 is a contributor to an event such as GW, but I do not believe it to be the main cause, or that it's rapidly increasing the globe's climate. There are too many undetermined factors about our globe. The study of AGW is filled with so many loop holes, you could make a tennis-shoe out of it. It seems as though scientists are criss-crossing data to come up with desired results.
A money making deal if you ask me.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Brian, most of the text of his posts are cut-and-paste jobs from online journals. This might be why he's doing a fairly poor job of answering your questions.

Climate scientists do not "know" CO2 is the bad guy. They DO know that CO2 can force warming slightly in a controled setting. They DO know that measured temperatures have increased on average over the past 100 years.

They do NOT know, however, how this slight increase in atmospheric CO2 increase resonates in our extremely chaotic climate system. In the models that project runaway warming, they ASSUME a strong net positive feedback mechanism that accelerates/amplifies the initial CO2 input. It is these assumptions about feedback that lead to the catastrophic scenarios.

You can prove that CO2 can cause an initial preturbance, but the response of the climate system to that input CANNOT be proven empirically.

The reality is you referenced an article by a Dr. Fred Singer who claims he 'debunked' or discredited the Mann Hockey stick graph. Well, he did not. Not even close.

Stand by your original claim and your source or shut the hell up.

Singer has no climate science credentials and takes money from Tobacco and oil lobby. Yet you claimed the Hockey stick graph was debunked via Singer's 'work.'

And now you're mad at me because you sourced out garbage.

 

[BrianH]

The reality is you referenced an article by a Dr. Fred Singer who claims he 'debunked' or discredited the Mann Hockey stick graph. Well, he did not. Not even close.

Stand by your original claim and your source or shut the hell up.

Singer has no climate science credentials and takes money from Tobacco and oil lobby. Yet you claimed the Hockey stick graph was debunked via Singer's 'work.'

And now you're mad at me because you sourced out garbage.

The Mann Hockey-Stick graph has been discredited. Get over it. Mann simply left out historical climate change periods and was cherry-picking proxy evidence to get desired results.
Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick did find vase inconsistencies in the hockey-stick graph and were the original disputers. Prompting an investigation of the graph as well as the methods of it's collection and representation. The IPCC even dropped it as it's poster child because of it's inconsistencies. Only leftist-liberal AGW alarmists such as yourself are the ones who support it. Which means that it's a political agenda. You're following a fallacy dude, whether you believe it or not.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

The Mann Hockey-Stick graph has been discredited. Get over it. Mann simply left out historical climate change periods and was cherry-picking proxy evidence to get desired results.

Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick did find vase inconsistencies in the hockey-stick graph and were the original disputers. Prompting an investigation of the graph as well as the methods of it's collection and representation. The IPCC even dropped it as it's poster child because of it's inconsistencies. Only leftist-liberal AGW alarmists such as yourself are the ones who support it. Which means that it's a political agenda. You're following a fallacy dude, whether you believe it or not.

Wrong you are actually. Those two aren't even climate scientists. One works for the mining industry the other is an economist.

In fact their paper criticizing Mann's hockey stick was thoroughly and completely discredited by peer reviewed papers published in scientific journals. It was so bad, many peer-reviewed journals wouldn't even publish their 'study' for serious unforgivable mistakes.

In fact, the paper they wrote wasn't even peer-reviewed and didn't even appear in a scientific scholarly journal...it appeared in a 'social science' publication funded by the oil and gas industry.

Once again, you get caught in a lie and using fraudulent sources.

 

[TopGunna]

The reality is you referenced an article by a Dr. Fred Singer who claims he 'debunked' or discredited the Mann Hockey stick graph. Well, he did not. Not even close.

Stand by your original claim and your source or shut the hell up.

Singer has no climate science credentials and takes money from Tobacco and oil lobby. Yet you claimed the Hockey stick graph was debunked via Singer's 'work.'

And now you're mad at me because you sourced out garbage.

You must be confused (shocker!) but I don't know Singer's work. The massive statistical errors (as pointed out by McIntyre and McKitrick) are plenty damning to the Mann Hockey stick graph.

From MIT's Technology Review: http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/?a=f

"But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.

But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!"

I guess that might be why Mann was so reluctant to release his statistical method details... sorry, that's a pretty big no-no when you're talking about publicly funded science.

I actually thought about taking an environmental science class during my "undecided" days at UVA... some sort of benign force must have helped steer me clear. Must have been a man-made causing, that's for sure!

 

[TopGunna]

Wrong you are actually. Those two aren't even climate scientists. One works for the mining industry the other is an economist.

In fact their paper criticizing Mann's hockey stick was thoroughly and completely discredited by peer reviewed papers published in scientific journals. It was so bad, many peer-reviewed journals wouldn't even publish for serious unforgivable mistakes.

In fact, the paper they wrote wasn't even peer-reviewed and didn't even appear in a scientific scholarly journal...it appeared in a 'social science' publication funded by the oil and gas industry.

Once again, you get caught in a lie and using fraudulent sources.

Interestingly enough, the IPCC found the flaws in Mann's work significant enough to drop the graph from their 2007 report.

Also, you don't need to be a "climate scientist" studying tree rings to identify statistical errors. An inflection point that occurs when two seperate data sets are grafted together can be identified by an lay statistician.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Interestingly enough, the IPCC found the flaws in Mann's work significant enough to drop the graph from their 2007 report.

Also, you don't need to be a "climate scientist" studying tree rings to identify statistical errors. An inflection point that occurs when two seperate data sets are grafted together can be identified by an lay statistician.

The IPCC never, I repeat NEVER dropped the Mann hockey stick graph. In fact, if you had done the research - a simple 60 second seacrh - would have revealed to you that it is still very much in the IPCC report.

What's more is that if you do a case sensitive search on the IPPC report "Mann" you will see that he is referenced 63 times in chapter 6 alone.

A good portion of those are referencing Mann's 1999 hockey stick. And if you do a search on "hockey stick" you will get a hit on page 34 in the middle of a series of paragraphs dedicated solely to defending the Mann's hockey stick.

The hockey stick has also been defended by the National Academy of Sciences, Nature, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and the American Meteorological Society.

You are a bold faced liar.

Take back your claim the hockey stick was dropped from the IPCC. It is unforgivable to make such a distorted, outrageous and false claim.

 

[BrianH]

The IPCC never, I repeat NEVER dropped the Mann hockey stick graph. In fact, if you had done the research - a simple 60 second seacrh - would have revealed to you that it is still very much in the IPCC report.

What's more is that if you do a case sensitive search on the IPPC report "Mann" you will see that he is referenced 63 times in chapter 6 alone.

A good portion of those are referencing Mann's 1999 hockey stick. And if you do a search on "hockey stick" you will get a hit on page 34 in the middle of a series of paragraphs dedicated solely to defending the Mann's hockey stick.

The hockey stick has also been defended by the National Academy of Sciences, Nature, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and the American Meteorological Society.

You are a bold faced liar.

Take back your claim the hockey stick was dropped from the IPCC. It is unforgivable to make such a distorted, outrageous and false claim.

"Wha wha wha..... take it back! take it back!" What a wus.
I'm done debating your sorry ass on this issue. You're obviously more of an ignorant Gore follower than I had once thought. Here's some advice...stay a way from the bull shit, you might get Gored.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

"Wha wha wha..... take it back! take it back!" What a wus.
I'm done debating your sorry ass on this issue. You're obviously more of an ignorant Gore follower than I had once thought. Here's some advice...stay a way from the bull shit, you might get Gored.

I'd be done debating if I was exposed as a liar as well.

 

[TopGunna]

I'm not a liar, I think you're still confused though, Turbo!

I'm talking about the IPCC's 4TH ASSESSMENT FROM 2007. On this document, page 34 is blank! Chapter 6 is 2 pages long!

Take back your claim that I'm a liar. It is unforgivable to make such a distorted, outrageous and false claim.

 

[BrianH]

I'll tell you what, you keep posting on this thread. And as soon as you post absolute proof of your position. I'll chime in that I agree and that you are right. Not very likely you'll post proof, but get to posting, you're bound to come across something slightly significant. maybe....the only liar here is the one who claims he can prove that GW is man-made and has yet to do so. And of course the pictures of Gore. Keep up the crappy work. I'll chime in when you've proven your claim.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

I'll tell you what, you keep posting on this thread. And as soon as you post absolute proof of your position. I'll chime in that I agree and that you are right. Not very likely you'll post proof, but get to posting, you're bound to come across something slightly significant. maybe....the only liar here is the one who claims he can prove that GW is man-made and has yet to do so. And of course the pictures of Gore. Keep up the crappy work. I'll chime in when you've proven your claim.

I got a better idea, why don't you lie and claim the Mann hockey stick was debunked and removed from the IPCC report again.

That was one of your best moments.

Liar.

 

[TopGunna]

I got a better idea, why don't you lie and claim the Mann hockey stick was debunked and removed from the IPCC report again.

That was one of your best moments.

Liar.

Idiot. It is no where to be found in the 2007 report. I don't know what report YOU are talking about.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Idiot. It is no where to be found in the 2007 report. I don't know what report YOU are talking about.

HAHA!!

Good one.

More lies.

I found it easily and I also found the symbol for the graph and the graph itself just as easily "MBH 1999"

I also did a case reference check on it...it was referenced numerous times.

You are a liar and a bad one at that.

I do not know where you came up with the claim that Mann and the hockey stick graph was somehow dropped from the fourth assessment of the IPCC.

 

[TopGunna]

HAHA!!

Good one.

More lies.

I found it easily and I also found the symbol for the graph and the graph itself just as easily "MBH 1999"

I also did a case reference check on it...it was referenced numerous times.

You are a liar and a bad one at that.

I do not know where you came up with the claim that Mann and the hockey stick graph was somehow dropped from the fourth assessment of the IPCC.

Here's the link I'm using: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm

There's zippy mention of the hockey stick graph in the linked report and I will stand by that.

Do you have another link for the report you're referencing? I'll be happy to check it out. Or you could just call me a liar again

 

[BrianH]

I got a better idea, why don't you lie and claim the Mann hockey stick was debunked and removed from the IPCC report again.

That was one of your best moments.

Liar.

[ame]http://youtube.com/watch?v=zfafW_3oJ3Q&feature=related[/ame]

Check-mate asshole. Who's the liar? I guess they're all liars as well and didn't really read the report. They're all followers of the oil-companies. Watch the whole video

http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/mann's-hockey-stick-climate-graph.htm
http://www.oneclimate.net/2007/12/05/hockey-stick-20th-century-warming/
http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm


I knew you'd eventually screw the pooch on this one. And by gosh you've done it. I'm still waiting for your proof.

 

[Angel Heart]

[ame]http://youtube.com/watch?v=rkJUJ5-PL-0[/ame]

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

the IPCC found the flaws in Mann's work significant enough to drop the graph from their 2007 report.

This is the claim that was made by TopGunna.

1st claim: The IPCC found flaws in Mann's work.

2nd claim: It was significant enough to drop the graph from their 2007 report.


You have provided no evidence to indicate Mann's work was dropped by the IPCC for serious flaws.

What you have done, what is apparent, is you have taken conjecture written by climate skeptics as gospel.

Show me the official report authored by the IPCC outlining the mistakes made by Mann. Then show me that Mann's work and graph - or anything like it - does not appear at all because of the purposeful removal of his work by the IPCC.

I do not know where you came up with the claim that Mann, his work and the hockey stick graph was somehow dropped from the fourth assessment of the IPCC for "significant flaws".

Until then what you have done is obvious. Repeated a distorted claim made climate skeptics with no basis on evidence - only conjecture.

There is an obvious way to find a resolution to your claim. Write Dr.Mann and write the IPCC explain who you are and the purpose of your email/letter, and get a definitive answer straight from the horse's mouth.

So again, find me the evidence straight from the IPCC or shut the hell up.

 

[Angel Heart]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7347638.stm

China 'now top carbon polluter'
By Roger Harrabin
BBC Environment analyst

China has already overtaken the US as the world's "biggest polluter", a report to be published next month says.

The research suggests the country's greenhouse gas emissions have been underestimated, and probably passed those of the US in 2006-2007.

The University of California team will report their work in the Journal of Environment Economics and Management.

They warn that unchecked future growth will dwarf any emissions cuts made by rich nations under the Kyoto Protocol.

The team admit there is some uncertainty over the date when China may have become the biggest emitter of CO2, as their analysis is based on 2004 data.

Until now it has been generally believed that the US remains "Polluter Number One".

Provincial data

Next month's University of California report warns that unless China radically changes its energy policies, its increases in greenhouse gases will be several times larger than the cuts in emissions being made by rich nations under the Kyoto Protocol

The researchers say their figures are based on provincial-level data from the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency.

More...

 

[PpleLOSINGpower]

First, through our discussion of both the National Research Council report and the Wegman report, we established that the original studies by Mann and his coauthors were flawed, and could not support the related findings of the 2001 IPCC assessment. Dr. Wegman's independent committee found and reported that Dr. Mann and his coauthors incorrectly applied a statistical methodology that would preferentially create hockey stick shapes. Dr. Wegman also found that more recent methodologies used in temperature reconstruction studies may also generate problematic biases when determining temperature histories.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/rep...006hearing2001/The_Honorable_Ed_Whitfield.htm


Hmmm interesting!!!!!!!!!!