An excellent conversation

[Crick]

Go here New York Times Op-Ed It Was a Mistake to Believe the Hockey Stick National Review Online and go to the comments. There, read the discussions between Carney3 and his opponents.

If you scroll down past the end of his AGW comments, you will find Carney3 arguing in favor of Reagan's tax cuts and supply side economics.

 

[westwall]

Carney sounds like Mann. And, he didn't do very well in the exchanges.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Excellent in that the decline hiders got shellacked like an Obama off year election

 

[Crick]

Astounding how your take can differ so much from mine. Were you struck by the similarities to the discussions here?

 

[westwall]

Astounding how your take can differ so much from mine. Were you struck by the similarities to the discussions here?

Your buddy was no different than you. When presented with real facts he ignored them and tried to deflect. He was just as intellectually dishonest as you are.

 

[flacaltenn]

OMG Bullwinkle -- You skipped Muller's comments to read the dopey reader comments?? Why don't you want to chat about what the man who confirmed "the hockey stick" has to say about the PROBLEMS with the hockey stick(s)? Sounds to me like Muller's getting all floppy about his involvement in this doomed movement and is looking for plausible deniability.

As for your hero reader spouting off about Reagan and ADVERTISING the worst science site on the Internet (skepscience) -- he's a tool. If that's where his arguments come from and he is that easily conned by redrawn cartoons of important graphs -- he's worthless.

Conservatives and Libertarians back Cap and Trade for POLLUTION. Made sense because you could calculate the externalities of the damage done by any individual pollutant. CO2 is NOT a pollutant. And more importantly -- you can't make a market for trading the damage from CO2 if the ESTIMATES of that damage are as vague as the TOO BROAD range that the climate scientists are spewing..

Should be Cap and Trade on scary Global Warming predictions. You can only make a new scary prediction if someone has already paid for your last one..

 

[Crick]

Let's have a look at the first exchange:

MarcJ • 4 months ago
It is useful to remind ourselves of the 40-year old history of that UN-led conspiracy.

So, he is open in his belief that this is a conspiracy and the central culprit is the UN.

It started in the 1970’s by the announcement of the coming “New Ice Age” scam

Where is the evidence that this was "a scam" or that it was in any way connected with the UN?

remedy = our unilateral disarmament;

Who here recalls any suggestion by climate scientists of the period that an ice age would be prevented by unilateral disarmament?

the big guru of Global warming hoax is Dr. Hansen who started his young career by that New Ice Age scam;

The argument "they predicted an ice age in the 70's" has barnstormed into the Top Tenthanks largely to an Investor's Business Daily article claiming James Hansen believed we were heading for an ice age. This is based on the 1971 paper Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate (Rasool 1971) that speculated if aerosol levels increase 6 to 8 fold, it could trigger an ice age.

However, James Hansen wasn't an author of the Rasool paper and never made any ice age predictions. So what was his involvement? According to Investor Business Daily, "Aiding Rasool's research was a 'computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen'." [ UPDATE - James Hansen explains in more detail about his program used in Rasool's paper ] As Tim Lambert succintly puts it at Deltoid, "By their logic, if I borrow a pen from you, you must agree with everything I write with your pen."

Putting James Hansen aside, the whole logic that "climate scientists got it wrong in the 70's so they must be wrong now" is a flawed ad hominem argument that says nothing about the current science of anthropogenic global warming. Is it really appropriate to compare a single study in the 70's to the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming today?

when that panic petered out in the 1990’s (after Reagan destroyed the Soviet Union)

He suggests that talk of a New Ice Age was ended by Reagan destroying the Soviet Union. Has anyone here heard such a suggestion? I have not. I think it just a little more likely it was overcome by the already dominant concerns being expressed about AGW

it continued by the announcement of the man-made catastrophic “Global Warming” hoax

And the evidence that it is a hoax? Oh, I forgot he accepted the grand, global conspiracy theory right from the get-go.

(remedy = UN-sponsored world socialist government to “spread the wealth around” and “reduce” the world population from the existing 6.5 billion down to the “sustainable” level of 1.5 billion);

Yes, now THAT is a realistic hypothesis.

after 18 years of considerable global cooling that panic was replaced by the “Climate Change” flimflam (so whatever happens with our climate – do “something”!)

His timeline seems a trifle nonlinear, but I guess he's now talking about the 'Hiatus'. It's bad enough to ignore the continued warming of our oceans, the continued and growing imbalance in LW radiation at the ToA and the record after record after record high global average temperatures, but to suggest what we've experienced is "considerable global cooling"... that takes a special kind of self-delusion.

and now by the “Cap & Trade” power grab with the purpose of nationalizing our energy companies.

Is that what it was when Ronald Reagan wanted to do it in response to acid rain. As commenter Carney3 notes, it was "hailed as an innovative, market-oriented alternative to the feds telling every individual power plant how much pollution this one and that one was allowed to emit. Suddenly the same mechanism is part of a sinister communist conspiracy?"

Whatever that coterie of government-paid drones controlled by the far-left UN Panel

That "coterie of government-paid drones" are selected by the government of 134 different nations. I had no idea leftism was so prevalent. Or perhaps the comment is simply due to the proportion of people to the left of commenter MarcJ

“specialists” is cooking up by means of faked data, reverse graphs (another guru of that conspiracy Dr. Mann “confused” cause and effect in his “hockey stick” graphs), and erroneous calculations

Mann presents no cause and effect in his graphs. Temperature over time is a simple observation.

– the final aim is to empower a new UN-sponsored world socialist government authorized to “spread the wealth around” and so save the planet from a sure annihilation caused by “the rapacious and irresponsible criminal capitalists”.

I went looking for the source of that "rapacious and irresponsible" quote. I had a number of hits, but in every case, it turned out that commenter MarcJ (actually Marc Jeric, from a comment at The Daily Signal) has posted this exact text ALL over the right side of the internet, under topics as widespread as fossil fuels, cyclones, Obama's policies and FEMA.

Not Muslim terrorism, not an unsecured border, not an ever-growing federal debt
that now exceeds $18,000,000,000,000, not the fact that 109,000,000 people live
in households on federal welfare programs - these are not the greatest threats
facing us today. “No challenge–no challenge–poses a greater
threat to future generations than Climate Change,”

Well, given the threat that global warming makes: mass starvation, water shortages, having to move half the world's population to high ground... NO, they do NOT pose a greater threat.

President B. Hussein Obama

How fooking subtle

declared in his State of the Union Address. And this after 18 consecutive years
of GLOBAL COOLING - which is the real reason the conspirators changed the name
of that United Nations socialist boondoggle from the Global Warming hoax before
to the Climate Change scam now.

Conspirators? Hmm... and his timing is a bit off. The term "climate change" appeared well before the turn of the century.

Carney3 to MarcJ • 4 months ago
Certainly some far left greens and globalists want to hijack the global warming issue to justify their pre-existing agenda. But that's no reason to reject reality, or to believe in absurd conspiracy crackpottery. You can't dismiss every major scientific institution in the nation and the world as part of a gigantic hoax to trick Americans out of their tax dollars, thousands of scientists speaking different languages all colluding to deliberately lie in the face of available physical evidence.

The Left claims that you'd need Nazi policies to halt and reverse illegal and recent legal immigration, so anyone opposed to amnesty and in favor of a break from the flood of legal immigrants must be a Nazi. It's similar absurd circular "reasoning", similar hysteria.

Ronald Reagan favored "cap and trade" to fight acid rain caused by sulfur dioxide. At that time it was hailed as an innovative, market-oriented alternative to the feds telling every individual power plant how much pollution this one and that one was allowed to emit. Suddenly the same mechanism is part of a sinister communist conspiracy? Take a breath and calm down.

All denier the tropes you parroted - "they changed the title from global warming to climate change"; "they were panicking about global cooling in the 70s", are refuted by science -- you know, that stuff that makes airplanes fly and the computer you're using to read this work -- here:

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

 

[flacaltenn]

Skipping over the ACTUAL news of Muller's comments on hockey sticks and getting your panties in a wad about a jerk quoting SkepScience as the ultimate science source for AGW is why BullWinkly, you remain so ignorant and uninformed about the debate. Explains VOLUMES about how you parse and read the information. What you VALUE and what you purposely ignore. You are wasting your life shilling instead of actually being an agent for learning about this topic.

NOBODY has any interest in a debate about crap on SkepScience. That ship is sunk and rotting..

You're sounding more shrill and trollish lately.. MAYBE -- some rejected reading is sinking in... Like the Muller comments in your OP --- that you obviously -- DON'T want to discuss...

 

[Crick]

News? That article is from 2013 dude.

Besides:

Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence

Eugene R. Wahl · Caspar M. Ammann
Received: 11 May 2005 / Accepted: 1 March 2006 / Published online: 31 August 2007

C Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Abstract
The Mann et al. (1998) Northern Hemisphere annual temperature reconstruction over 1400–1980 is examined in light of recent criticisms concerning the nature and processing of included climate proxy data. A systematic sequence of analyses is presented that examine issues concerning the proxy evidence, utilizing both indirect analyses via exclusion of proxies and processing steps subject to criticism, and direct analyses of principal component (PC) processing methods in question. Altogether new reconstructions over 1400–1980 are developed in both the indirect and direct analyses, which demonstrate that the Mann et al. reconstruction is robust against the proxy-based criticisms addressed. In particular, reconstructed hemispheric temperatures are demonstrated to be largely unaffected by the use or non-use of PCs to summarize proxy evidence from the data-rich North American region. When proxy PCs are employed, neither the time period used to “center” the data before PC calculation nor the way the PC calculations are performed significantly affects the results, as long as the full extent of the climate information actually in the proxy data is represented by the PC time series. Clear convergence of the resulting climate reconstructions is a strong indicator for achieving this criterion. Also, recent “corrections” to the Mann et al. reconstruction that suggest 15th century temperatures could have been as high as those of the late-20th century are shown to be without statistical and climatological merit. Our examination does suggest that a slight modification to the original Mann et al. reconstruction is justifiable for the first half of the 15th century (∼+0.05–0.10◦), which leaves entirely unaltered the primary conclusion of Mann et al. (as well as many other reconstructions) that both the 20th century upward trend and high late-20th century hemispheric surface temperatures are anomalous The National Center for Atmospheric Research is Sponsored by the National Science Foundation, USA. The authors contributed equally to the development of the research presented. E. R. Wahl ( ) Environmental Studies and Geology Division, Alfred University, One Saxon Dr., Alfred, NY 14802 e-mail: wahle@alfred.edu C. M. Ammann National Center for Atmospheric Research, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A. Springer 34 Climatic Change (2007) 85:33–69 over at least the last 600 years. Our results are also used to evaluate the separate criticism of reduced amplitude in the Mann et al. reconstructions over significant portions of 1400–1900, in relation to some other climate reconstructions and model-based examinations. We find that, from the perspective of the proxy data themselves, such losses probably exist, but they may be smaller than those reported in other recent work.

From http://nldr.library.ucar.edu/repository/assets/osgc/OSGC-000-000-011-900.pdf where full text is available

 

[there4eyeM]

CO2 is not a pollutant? It won't cause harm in high doses to an animal ? If a human sleeps in a closed space heated by an open charcoal fire, there is no danger?

 

[Crick]

You're sounding more shrill and trollish lately.

Really? Do you have some examples

MAYBE -- some rejected reading is sinking in... Like the Muller comments in your OP --- that you obviously -- DON'T want to discuss...

Do you actually think if that were true that I would have given you a link to it? Fer crissakes, get real.

 

[skookerasbil]

God Crick......making pollution this only conservative thing is a joke my friend. Not sure where you live but where I live, you look up in the sky on a variably cloudy day with little or no wind and you are looking at etch-a-sketch with the chemtrails. About 5 or 6 days a month, its laughable!! Anybody who doesn't think that atmosphere is being fucked with by the government..............well, I don't know what to say!!!

 

[IanC]

News? That article is from 2013 dude.

Besides:

Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence

Eugene R. Wahl · Caspar M. Ammann
Received: 11 May 2005 / Accepted: 1 March 2006 / Published online: 31 August 2007

C Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Abstract
The Mann et al. (1998) Northern Hemisphere annual temperature reconstruction over 1400–1980 is examined in light of recent criticisms concerning the nature and processing of included climate proxy data. A systematic sequence of analyses is presented that examine issues concerning the proxy evidence, utilizing both indirect analyses via exclusion of proxies and processing steps subject to criticism, and direct analyses of principal component (PC) processing methods in question. Altogether new reconstructions over 1400–1980 are developed in both the indirect and direct analyses, which demonstrate that the Mann et al. reconstruction is robust against the proxy-based criticisms addressed. In particular, reconstructed hemispheric temperatures are demonstrated to be largely unaffected by the use or non-use of PCs to summarize proxy evidence from the data-rich North American region. When proxy PCs are employed, neither the time period used to “center” the data before PC calculation nor the way the PC calculations are performed significantly affects the results, as long as the full extent of the climate information actually in the proxy data is represented by the PC time series. Clear convergence of the resulting climate reconstructions is a strong indicator for achieving this criterion. Also, recent “corrections” to the Mann et al. reconstruction that suggest 15th century temperatures could have been as high as those of the late-20th century are shown to be without statistical and climatological merit. Our examination does suggest that a slight modification to the original Mann et al. reconstruction is justifiable for the first half of the 15th century (∼+0.05–0.10◦), which leaves entirely unaltered the primary conclusion of Mann et al. (as well as many other reconstructions) that both the 20th century upward trend and high late-20th century hemispheric surface temperatures are anomalous The National Center for Atmospheric Research is Sponsored by the National Science Foundation, USA. The authors contributed equally to the development of the research presented. E. R. Wahl ( ) Environmental Studies and Geology Division, Alfred University, One Saxon Dr., Alfred, NY 14802 e-mail: wahle@alfred.edu C. M. Ammann National Center for Atmospheric Research, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A. Springer 34 Climatic Change (2007) 85:33–69 over at least the last 600 years. Our results are also used to evaluate the separate criticism of reduced amplitude in the Mann et al. reconstructions over significant portions of 1400–1900, in relation to some other climate reconstructions and model-based examinations. We find that, from the perspective of the proxy data themselves, such losses probably exist, but they may be smaller than those reported in other recent work.

From http://nldr.library.ucar.edu/repository/assets/osgc/OSGC-000-000-011-900.pdf where full text is available

one of the two Amman and Wahl papers written as a combo to rebut McIntyre's criticisms of Mann's hockeystick. they were announced to great fanfare from NCAR which is unusual for just a submission!. as it turns out the GRL paper was rejected and this CC paper was in limbo. the IPCC Dec 2005 deadline came and went. a new editor was implanted at GRL and amazingly the rejected paper was in play again, which released this paper from limbo, although both had been rewritten, and finally the paper was provisionally accepted in Feb 2006. needless to say, there was more than a year's worth of more shenanigans until Sep2007 when the two papers were finally published, with major revisions, and well after the IPCC report was released.


I dont know how many of you have taken any statistics but the correlation r^2 is very common, it runs from zero (no correlation) to one (perfect correlation). Mann's papers, rewritten by Amman and Wahl, showed r^2 that were very low for most of the centuries in the studies. going from memory I think it was 1400-1500 that had an r^2 value taken out to 5 significant figures just so it wouldnt be zero!!! hahahahaha. 0.00003, or some such lunacy!

Mann, of course, denied that he had even calculated these figures for his own papers although his computer code released had a subroutine for doing just that. he told the congressional (? senate) hearing that it would be ridiculous to use that method of checking significance. especially after he found out how low it was.

 

[jc456]

Maybe this thread is better:

Bill Nye vs Marc Morano on Climate credit youtube:

 

[jc456]

one more interesting one on youtube:

 

[flacaltenn]

Maybe this thread is better:

Bill Nye vs Marc Morano on Climate credit youtube:

That COULD have been a total killing of Nye's cred on the topic -- if it wasn't for the idiotic questions about today's weather from the CERTIFIED moron host... Neither Warmer wanted to discuss the science. They wanted to discuss overpopulation and CO2 as a scary pollutant and purposely conflate that with Carbon pollution..

 

[jc456]

or how about this one on youtube:

 

[jc456]

Maybe this thread is better:

Bill Nye vs Marc Morano on Climate credit youtube:

That COULD have been a total killing of Nye's cred on the topic -- if it wasn't for the idiotic questions about today's weather from the CERTIFIED moron host... Neither Warmer wanted to discuss the science. They wanted to discuss overpopulation and CO2 as a scary pollutant and purposely conflate that with Carbon pollution..

exactly, right and the commentator was trying to guide the discussion toward Nye, funny stuff. All I heard was but, but, but, but. LMAO

 

[hadit]

CO2 is not a pollutant? It won't cause harm in high doses to an animal ? If a human sleeps in a closed space heated by an open charcoal fire, there is no danger?

Using those criteria, oxygen is a pollutant.

 

[flacaltenn]

CO2 is not a pollutant? It won't cause harm in high doses to an animal ? If a human sleeps in a closed space heated by an open charcoal fire, there is no danger?

Using those criteria, oxygen is a pollutant.

Using the same faulty reasoning of the EPA --- WATER VAPOR is a pollutant. THAT is the major greenhouse gas.

Too answer There4 --- Anything that exist in your lungs in concentrations of multiple times what exists in "clear air" --- is NOT a pollutant.. All living things on this planet are little "carbon emitters or absorption factories".. Or haven't you watched StarTrek to understand carbon based lifeforms?

Ever read the indictment of DiHydrous Oxide as a pollutant? If you haven't -- I'll post it for you...