Analysis shows climate modeling fraud.. Pal Review by Journals

[IanC]

Wegmans wrote a report for the Congressional investigation into Mann's hockey stick. In it he pointed out the severe inbreeding of the authors who both produce and review Paleo reconstructions used to form the IPCC position. He especially recommended that climate science reach out to statisticians for help in their methods.

That hasn't happened.

Two egregious examples are the use of a five sigma outlier tree ring in a truncated cohort of less than one hundred samples, and the upsidedown use of a sediment proxy. Both were used by Mann, both were left uncorrected to contaminate following papers by authors using Mann as a reference.

Just how useful is a proxy that can be used upsidedown? Very. Mann's non tree ring paper fell apart without its inclusion, or with it used in the proper orientation.

The difficulties in getting the rebuttal of the upsidedown Tiljander proxy published is yet another black eye for pal review in climate science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Wegmans wrote a report for the Congressional investigation into Mann's hockey stick. In it he pointed out the severe inbreeding of the authors who both produce and review Paleo reconstructions used to form the IPCC position. He especially recommended that climate science reach out to statisticians for help in their methods.

That hasn't happened.

Two egregious examples are the use of a five sigma outlier tree ring in a truncated cohort of less than one hundred samples, and the upsidedown use of a sediment proxy. Both were used by Mann, both were left uncorrected to contaminate following papers by authors using Mann as a reference.

Just how useful is a proxy that can be used upsidedown? Very. Mann's non tree ring paper fell apart without its inclusion, or with it used in the proper orientation.

The difficulties in getting the rebuttal of the upsidedown Tiljander proxy published is yet another black eye for pal review in climate science.

The Hockey Stick has been validated many times over.

Climate scientists work closely with statisticians. Not sure who gavr you that bad info.

 

[IanC]

Wegmans wrote a report for the Congressional investigation into Mann's hockey stick. In it he pointed out the severe inbreeding of the authors who both produce and review Paleo reconstructions used to form the IPCC position. He especially recommended that climate science reach out to statisticians for help in their methods.

That hasn't happened.

Two egregious examples are the use of a five sigma outlier tree ring in a truncated cohort of less than one hundred samples, and the upsidedown use of a sediment proxy. Both were used by Mann, both were left uncorrected to contaminate following papers by authors using Mann as a reference.

Just how useful is a proxy that can be used upsidedown? Very. Mann's non tree ring paper fell apart without its inclusion, or with it used in the proper orientation.

The difficulties in getting the rebuttal of the upsidedown Tiljander proxy published is yet another black eye for pal review in climate science.

The Hockey Stick has been validated many times over.

Climate scientists work closely with statisticians. Not sure who gavr you that bad info.

You're new here, although I strongly suspect that you are a sock puppet.

I have gone through my reasoning and the info that brought me to my conclusions in the past. I decline to rehash the same things over and over again just because someone new hasn't heard it before.

You say the hockey stick has been validated but in reality it only has so called 'expert witnesses' who have found roughly the same results using the same flawed methods and the same flawed data.

Hide the Decline is real. Most proxies do not show exception recent warming. That is why they are clipped and instrumental data is grafted on to the end.

How much credence should we give to the past performance of a proxy if it doesn't work for the present?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Wegmans wrote a report for the Congressional investigation into Mann's hockey stick. In it he pointed out the severe inbreeding of the authors who both produce and review Paleo reconstructions used to form the IPCC position. He especially recommended that climate science reach out to statisticians for help in their methods.

That hasn't happened.

Two egregious examples are the use of a five sigma outlier tree ring in a truncated cohort of less than one hundred samples, and the upsidedown use of a sediment proxy. Both were used by Mann, both were left uncorrected to contaminate following papers by authors using Mann as a reference.

Just how useful is a proxy that can be used upsidedown? Very. Mann's non tree ring paper fell apart without its inclusion, or with it used in the proper orientation.

The difficulties in getting the rebuttal of the upsidedown Tiljander proxy published is yet another black eye for pal review in climate science.

The Hockey Stick has been validated many times over.

Climate scientists work closely with statisticians. Not sure who gavr you that bad info.

You're new here, although I strongly suspect that you are a sock puppet.

I have gone through my reasoning and the info that brought me to my conclusions in the past. I decline to rehash the same things over and over again just because someone new hasn't heard it before.

You say the hockey stick has been validated but in reality it only has so called 'expert witnesses' who have found roughly the same results using the same flawed methods and the same flawed data.

Hide the Decline is real. Most proxies do not show exception recent warming. That is why they are clipped and instrumental data is grafted on to the end.

How much credence should we give to the past performance of a proxy if it doesn't work for the present?

I am not asking you to go through even one iota of your reasoning, because you are a hack on a message board. These are matters for experts to debate. If you want to debate the math or the science, then get on your horse and go visit universities and scientific societies. Publish your work. Why haven't you? The answer is obvious...

yes, the hockey stick has been validated, in spite of your ad hoc nonsense.

there is no "hide the decline". Yes, the data shows "recent warming". In fact, more so than was expected.


Now you are saying ridiculously false things... then you have the audacity to call other scientists "liars" and "incompetent"... please, just another denier dog-and-pony show...

 

[westwall]

"An analysis that invalidates every single climate model study for the past 30 years, demonstrates that a global climate impact of CO2 emissions, if any, is presently unknowable, and that indisputably proves the scientific vacuity of the IPCC, does not reach a priority sufficient for a full review in Science Bulletin."

As I read the article and then the paper I found very egregious errors, basic errors, in how modeling is done today in climate science. As one who works with some of the models he evaluated I have to take a real hard look at how they work. The author of the paper is right on the money and his math is solid. I know PhD's who make the common errors he lists daily...

Its amazing how many of these faults are done daily by climate scientists who have their heads stuck in modeling..

A skeptic attempts to break the ‘pal review’ glass ceiling in climate modeling

Its an excellent read.. and if you have your math skills sharpened up the comments on this are awesome.... arguments both ways.. Better than any journal review by far. There are no less than about 78 PhD's who have responded to this paper over at WUWT and have given their points of view.

The paper is available at the link.
Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections
NOTICE: link is a download site to a pdf which is 13.4mb.

The author is a lying liar tryong to fool people into not noticing his own incompetence. His articles are rejected by journals not because his findings are unwelcome, but because his articles use poor methods and his analysis is bad analysis. Scientific journals do not reject articles for such silly reasons. They respond with analysis of the articles, often from several sources, and explain why the methods are poor. You and your denier bloggers are such suckers.

And you would not know if the author is "right on the money, or if his math is "solid". You know nothing about climate acience or the mathematics involved in climate models. You are an even bigger fraud than the author.

If the inputs to a function are uncertain, then the output of the function will at best be equally uncertain.
In reality, every time you perform an operation on uncertain data, you increase the uncertainty.

Guess what...The author is right and you are clueless... 6 different journals equivocated his correct position but refused to publish because their "readers would not approve" ... I thought we were dealing in science not feelings..

Ah yes...the author is right, you are sure of that, and all the others are icompetent or lying. And you understand all his math, and everyone else's climate model math, too.

Seems legit, if you don't think about it.

WOW...

Not once have you even addressed the BASIC CONCEPTS of physical error or range (margin) of error. One is quantifiable the other is determined on the error found on each iteration (cycle) of the program.

If you have a program that has multiple stacks of programs (each grid cell is a program of itself) and each program has a physical error, when those programs interact the range of possible error becomes n x n1 x n2 x n3 FOR EACH CYCLE. This is why the spaghetti graphs of the alarmist predictions ALWAYS explode into unrealistic ranges and enters a physical systems range that can never be obtained.. IE; Model FAILURE

The Good Dr is correct in his paper... SO sad that you can not address the real facts of the climate alarmists pseudo-science.

Correct, I will not be hashing out the math of models with a know-nothing internet hack. If you want to debate the math, then get an education , publish papers, and go speak at universities. But that will never happen.

Guess who has addressed the math? The global scientific community, and those whondedicate their lives to these models. You know, the people you are calling liars and incompetent. Imagine the nerve...an uneducated slob who knows less than nothing about any of this, calling them liars and incompetent. You deniers are a joke. The only reason you don't feel like everyone is laughing at you is because you hide on the internet and insulate yourself with fellow idiot deniers.

That's because you are incapable of carrying on a honest discussion about anything. Instead of arguing the immutable facts of mathematics, you attack the sceptic and hurl insults and invective. You are the epitome of clueless propagandist.

 

[westwall]

Wegmans wrote a report for the Congressional investigation into Mann's hockey stick. In it he pointed out the severe inbreeding of the authors who both produce and review Paleo reconstructions used to form the IPCC position. He especially recommended that climate science reach out to statisticians for help in their methods.

That hasn't happened.

Two egregious examples are the use of a five sigma outlier tree ring in a truncated cohort of less than one hundred samples, and the upsidedown use of a sediment proxy. Both were used by Mann, both were left uncorrected to contaminate following papers by authors using Mann as a reference.

Just how useful is a proxy that can be used upsidedown? Very. Mann's non tree ring paper fell apart without its inclusion, or with it used in the proper orientation.

The difficulties in getting the rebuttal of the upsidedown Tiljander proxy published is yet another black eye for pal review in climate science.

The Hockey Stick has been validated many times over.

Climate scientists work closely with statisticians. Not sure who gavr you that bad info.

No, it hasn't. It is a known, proven fraudulent piece of "work". Even the IPCC was forced to admit it was shit and have removed it from their official product.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The author is a lying liar tryong to fool people into not noticing his own incompetence. His articles are rejected by journals not because his findings are unwelcome, but because his articles use poor methods and his analysis is bad analysis. Scientific journals do not reject articles for such silly reasons. They respond with analysis of the articles, often from several sources, and explain why the methods are poor. You and your denier bloggers are such suckers.

And you would not know if the author is "right on the money, or if his math is "solid". You know nothing about climate acience or the mathematics involved in climate models. You are an even bigger fraud than the author.

If the inputs to a function are uncertain, then the output of the function will at best be equally uncertain.
In reality, every time you perform an operation on uncertain data, you increase the uncertainty.

Guess what...The author is right and you are clueless... 6 different journals equivocated his correct position but refused to publish because their "readers would not approve" ... I thought we were dealing in science not feelings..

Ah yes...the author is right, you are sure of that, and all the others are icompetent or lying. And you understand all his math, and everyone else's climate model math, too.

Seems legit, if you don't think about it.

WOW...

Not once have you even addressed the BASIC CONCEPTS of physical error or range (margin) of error. One is quantifiable the other is determined on the error found on each iteration (cycle) of the program.

If you have a program that has multiple stacks of programs (each grid cell is a program of itself) and each program has a physical error, when those programs interact the range of possible error becomes n x n1 x n2 x n3 FOR EACH CYCLE. This is why the spaghetti graphs of the alarmist predictions ALWAYS explode into unrealistic ranges and enters a physical systems range that can never be obtained.. IE; Model FAILURE

The Good Dr is correct in his paper... SO sad that you can not address the real facts of the climate alarmists pseudo-science.

Correct, I will not be hashing out the math of models with a know-nothing internet hack. If you want to debate the math, then get an education , publish papers, and go speak at universities. But that will never happen.

Guess who has addressed the math? The global scientific community, and those whondedicate their lives to these models. You know, the people you are calling liars and incompetent. Imagine the nerve...an uneducated slob who knows less than nothing about any of this, calling them liars and incompetent. You deniers are a joke. The only reason you don't feel like everyone is laughing at you is because you hide on the internet and insulate yourself with fellow idiot deniers.

That's because you are incapable of carrying on a honest discussion about anything. Instead of arguing the immutable facts of mathematics, you attack the sceptic and hurl insults and invective. You are the epitome of clueless propagandist.

What does that have to do with the fact that you internet hacks have zero standing in this topic, no matter how much you soothe yourself out loud to the contrary? None.

Again, it doesnt matter what my personality is or what your mom had for breakfast. You are not serious people, and you are not to be taken seriosuly. That is why you denier hacks are on USMB , trying to debate the math and science, instead of in serious company.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Wegmans wrote a report for the Congressional investigation into Mann's hockey stick. In it he pointed out the severe inbreeding of the authors who both produce and review Paleo reconstructions used to form the IPCC position. He especially recommended that climate science reach out to statisticians for help in their methods.

That hasn't happened.

Two egregious examples are the use of a five sigma outlier tree ring in a truncated cohort of less than one hundred samples, and the upsidedown use of a sediment proxy. Both were used by Mann, both were left uncorrected to contaminate following papers by authors using Mann as a reference.

Just how useful is a proxy that can be used upsidedown? Very. Mann's non tree ring paper fell apart without its inclusion, or with it used in the proper orientation.

The difficulties in getting the rebuttal of the upsidedown Tiljander proxy published is yet another black eye for pal review in climate science.

The Hockey Stick has been validated many times over.

Climate scientists work closely with statisticians. Not sure who gavr you that bad info.

No, it hasn't. It is a known, proven fraudulent piece of "work". Even the IPCC was forced to admit it was shit and have removed it from their official product.

Yes it has. And the IPCC did not remove it because it was invalidated, they removed it because of the denier bullshit in favor of something more robust. I would call you "wrong", but "liar" is more true.

 

[westwall]

Wegmans wrote a report for the Congressional investigation into Mann's hockey stick. In it he pointed out the severe inbreeding of the authors who both produce and review Paleo reconstructions used to form the IPCC position. He especially recommended that climate science reach out to statisticians for help in their methods.

That hasn't happened.

Two egregious examples are the use of a five sigma outlier tree ring in a truncated cohort of less than one hundred samples, and the upsidedown use of a sediment proxy. Both were used by Mann, both were left uncorrected to contaminate following papers by authors using Mann as a reference.

Just how useful is a proxy that can be used upsidedown? Very. Mann's non tree ring paper fell apart without its inclusion, or with it used in the proper orientation.

The difficulties in getting the rebuttal of the upsidedown Tiljander proxy published is yet another black eye for pal review in climate science.

The Hockey Stick has been validated many times over.

Climate scientists work closely with statisticians. Not sure who gavr you that bad info.

No, it hasn't. It is a known, proven fraudulent piece of "work". Even the IPCC was forced to admit it was shit and have removed it from their official product.

Yes it has. And the IPCC did not remove it because it was invalidated, they removed it because of the denier bullshit in favor of something more robust. I would call you "wrong", but "liar" is more true.

They removed it because it was crap. Anyone with a brain KNOWS this. Which leaves you out.

 

[westwall]

If the inputs to a function are uncertain, then the output of the function will at best be equally uncertain.
In reality, every time you perform an operation on uncertain data, you increase the uncertainty.

Guess what...The author is right and you are clueless... 6 different journals equivocated his correct position but refused to publish because their "readers would not approve" ... I thought we were dealing in science not feelings..

Ah yes...the author is right, you are sure of that, and all the others are icompetent or lying. And you understand all his math, and everyone else's climate model math, too.

Seems legit, if you don't think about it.

WOW...

Not once have you even addressed the BASIC CONCEPTS of physical error or range (margin) of error. One is quantifiable the other is determined on the error found on each iteration (cycle) of the program.

If you have a program that has multiple stacks of programs (each grid cell is a program of itself) and each program has a physical error, when those programs interact the range of possible error becomes n x n1 x n2 x n3 FOR EACH CYCLE. This is why the spaghetti graphs of the alarmist predictions ALWAYS explode into unrealistic ranges and enters a physical systems range that can never be obtained.. IE; Model FAILURE

The Good Dr is correct in his paper... SO sad that you can not address the real facts of the climate alarmists pseudo-science.

Correct, I will not be hashing out the math of models with a know-nothing internet hack. If you want to debate the math, then get an education , publish papers, and go speak at universities. But that will never happen.

Guess who has addressed the math? The global scientific community, and those whondedicate their lives to these models. You know, the people you are calling liars and incompetent. Imagine the nerve...an uneducated slob who knows less than nothing about any of this, calling them liars and incompetent. You deniers are a joke. The only reason you don't feel like everyone is laughing at you is because you hide on the internet and insulate yourself with fellow idiot deniers.

That's because you are incapable of carrying on a honest discussion about anything. Instead of arguing the immutable facts of mathematics, you attack the sceptic and hurl insults and invective. You are the epitome of clueless propagandist.

What does that have to do with the fact that you internet hacks have zero standing in this topic, no matter how much you soothe yourself out loud to the contrary? None.

Again, it doesnt matter what my personality is or what your mom had for breakfast. You are not serious people, and you are not to be taken seriosuly. That is why you denier hacks are on USMB , trying to debate the math and science, instead of in serious company.

We are able to argue points of science because we KNOW science. You don't. Thus you take the ignorant cowards way out and insult, but never ever argue the points of science because you are clueless.

You're typical of the vast majority of "believers" in AGW. Long on faith, but very, very short on real scientific knowledge. Here's a clue for you, science does not require "belief". It is either factual or it is not. The second you demand that people "believe" in your position, you have abandoned science and entered into the realm of fantasy and religion.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Wegmans wrote a report for the Congressional investigation into Mann's hockey stick. In it he pointed out the severe inbreeding of the authors who both produce and review Paleo reconstructions used to form the IPCC position. He especially recommended that climate science reach out to statisticians for help in their methods.

That hasn't happened.

Two egregious examples are the use of a five sigma outlier tree ring in a truncated cohort of less than one hundred samples, and the upsidedown use of a sediment proxy. Both were used by Mann, both were left uncorrected to contaminate following papers by authors using Mann as a reference.

Just how useful is a proxy that can be used upsidedown? Very. Mann's non tree ring paper fell apart without its inclusion, or with it used in the proper orientation.

The difficulties in getting the rebuttal of the upsidedown Tiljander proxy published is yet another black eye for pal review in climate science.

The Hockey Stick has been validated many times over.

Climate scientists work closely with statisticians. Not sure who gavr you that bad info.

No, it hasn't. It is a known, proven fraudulent piece of "work". Even the IPCC was forced to admit it was shit and have removed it from their official product.

Yes it has. And the IPCC did not remove it because it was invalidated, they removed it because of the denier bullshit in favor of something more robust. I would call you "wrong", but "liar" is more true.

They removed it because it was crap. Anyone with a brain KNOWS this. Which leaves you out.

That's a lie.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ah yes...the author is right, you are sure of that, and all the others are icompetent or lying. And you understand all his math, and everyone else's climate model math, too.

Seems legit, if you don't think about it.

WOW...

Not once have you even addressed the BASIC CONCEPTS of physical error or range (margin) of error. One is quantifiable the other is determined on the error found on each iteration (cycle) of the program.

If you have a program that has multiple stacks of programs (each grid cell is a program of itself) and each program has a physical error, when those programs interact the range of possible error becomes n x n1 x n2 x n3 FOR EACH CYCLE. This is why the spaghetti graphs of the alarmist predictions ALWAYS explode into unrealistic ranges and enters a physical systems range that can never be obtained.. IE; Model FAILURE

The Good Dr is correct in his paper... SO sad that you can not address the real facts of the climate alarmists pseudo-science.

Correct, I will not be hashing out the math of models with a know-nothing internet hack. If you want to debate the math, then get an education , publish papers, and go speak at universities. But that will never happen.

Guess who has addressed the math? The global scientific community, and those whondedicate their lives to these models. You know, the people you are calling liars and incompetent. Imagine the nerve...an uneducated slob who knows less than nothing about any of this, calling them liars and incompetent. You deniers are a joke. The only reason you don't feel like everyone is laughing at you is because you hide on the internet and insulate yourself with fellow idiot deniers.

That's because you are incapable of carrying on a honest discussion about anything. Instead of arguing the immutable facts of mathematics, you attack the sceptic and hurl insults and invective. You are the epitome of clueless propagandist.

What does that have to do with the fact that you internet hacks have zero standing in this topic, no matter how much you soothe yourself out loud to the contrary? None.

Again, it doesnt matter what my personality is or what your mom had for breakfast. You are not serious people, and you are not to be taken seriosuly. That is why you denier hacks are on USMB , trying to debate the math and science, instead of in serious company.

We are able to argue points of science because we KNOW science. You don't. Thus you take the ignorant cowards way out and insult, but never ever argue the points of science because you are clueless.

You're typical of the vast majority of "believers" in AGW. Long on faith, but very, very short on real scientific knowledge. Here's a clue for you, science does not require "belief". It is either factual or it is not. The second you demand that people "believe" in your position, you have abandoned science and entered into the realm of fantasy and religion.

You are not able to arvue the points of the science. That is why you are here, instead of debating panels of scientists and publishing science. I'm not sure when you hacks fooled yourself into believing you were serious people engaging in scientific debates...but trust me, you are not.

And the way I treat you is exactly how you should be treated by laypeolle. Imagine, the audacity of you hacks, calling the scientists "liars" and "incompetent". Your superstition and poltics have turned your brains to pudding.

Imagine you dedicated your entire life to a pursuit...then some moron steps to you and says You are an incompetent liar...oh, and this moron has virtually no education or experience in this pursuit, compared to you. You probably wouldnt even be insulted...you wojld just laugh at this moron...

Well, friend, this "moron" is you.

 

[westwall]

WOW...

Not once have you even addressed the BASIC CONCEPTS of physical error or range (margin) of error. One is quantifiable the other is determined on the error found on each iteration (cycle) of the program.

If you have a program that has multiple stacks of programs (each grid cell is a program of itself) and each program has a physical error, when those programs interact the range of possible error becomes n x n1 x n2 x n3 FOR EACH CYCLE. This is why the spaghetti graphs of the alarmist predictions ALWAYS explode into unrealistic ranges and enters a physical systems range that can never be obtained.. IE; Model FAILURE

The Good Dr is correct in his paper... SO sad that you can not address the real facts of the climate alarmists pseudo-science.

Correct, I will not be hashing out the math of models with a know-nothing internet hack. If you want to debate the math, then get an education , publish papers, and go speak at universities. But that will never happen.

Guess who has addressed the math? The global scientific community, and those whondedicate their lives to these models. You know, the people you are calling liars and incompetent. Imagine the nerve...an uneducated slob who knows less than nothing about any of this, calling them liars and incompetent. You deniers are a joke. The only reason you don't feel like everyone is laughing at you is because you hide on the internet and insulate yourself with fellow idiot deniers.

That's because you are incapable of carrying on a honest discussion about anything. Instead of arguing the immutable facts of mathematics, you attack the sceptic and hurl insults and invective. You are the epitome of clueless propagandist.

What does that have to do with the fact that you internet hacks have zero standing in this topic, no matter how much you soothe yourself out loud to the contrary? None.

Again, it doesnt matter what my personality is or what your mom had for breakfast. You are not serious people, and you are not to be taken seriosuly. That is why you denier hacks are on USMB , trying to debate the math and science, instead of in serious company.

We are able to argue points of science because we KNOW science. You don't. Thus you take the ignorant cowards way out and insult, but never ever argue the points of science because you are clueless.

You're typical of the vast majority of "believers" in AGW. Long on faith, but very, very short on real scientific knowledge. Here's a clue for you, science does not require "belief". It is either factual or it is not. The second you demand that people "believe" in your position, you have abandoned science and entered into the realm of fantasy and religion.

You are not able to arvue the points of the science. That is why you are here, instead of debating panels of scientists and publishing science. I'm not sure when you hacks fooled yourself into believing you were serious people engaging in scientific debates...but trust me, you are not.

And the way I treat you is exactly how you should be treated by laypeolle. Imagine, the audacity of you hacks, calling the scientists "liars" and "incompetent". Your superstition and poltics have turned your brains to pudding.

Imagine you dedicated your entire life to a pursuit...then some moron steps to you and says You are an incompetent liar...oh, and this moron has virtually no education or experience in this pursuit, compared to you. You probably wouldnt even be insulted...you wojld just laugh at this moron...

Well, friend, this "moron" is you.

The climatologists have been found repeatedly to have falsified data silly person. It is not "me" claiming that, it is other scientists not claiming it, but PROVING it as well. But we all know you religious nutters don't do facts.

 

[westwall]

Wegmans wrote a report for the Congressional investigation into Mann's hockey stick. In it he pointed out the severe inbreeding of the authors who both produce and review Paleo reconstructions used to form the IPCC position. He especially recommended that climate science reach out to statisticians for help in their methods.

That hasn't happened.

Two egregious examples are the use of a five sigma outlier tree ring in a truncated cohort of less than one hundred samples, and the upsidedown use of a sediment proxy. Both were used by Mann, both were left uncorrected to contaminate following papers by authors using Mann as a reference.

Just how useful is a proxy that can be used upsidedown? Very. Mann's non tree ring paper fell apart without its inclusion, or with it used in the proper orientation.

The difficulties in getting the rebuttal of the upsidedown Tiljander proxy published is yet another black eye for pal review in climate science.

The Hockey Stick has been validated many times over.

Climate scientists work closely with statisticians. Not sure who gavr you that bad info.

No, it hasn't. It is a known, proven fraudulent piece of "work". Even the IPCC was forced to admit it was shit and have removed it from their official product.

Yes it has. And the IPCC did not remove it because it was invalidated, they removed it because of the denier bullshit in favor of something more robust. I would call you "wrong", but "liar" is more true.

They removed it because it was crap. Anyone with a brain KNOWS this. Which leaves you out.

That's a lie.

No, that is called a fact. And we all know you don't "do" facts.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, here we are, approaching the AGU conference again. May we expect you, Mr. Westwall, claimed Phd Geologist, give the presentation that will blow all the scientists there that have demonstrated the effects of global warming, out of the water? New Orleans should be nice at that time of year. So, will there be a video of you that I can post here? Or, will you, once again, be a no show? LOL

2017 AGU Fall Meeting Heads to New Orleans, 2018 to Washington, D. C. - Eos

 

[skookerasbil]

"An analysis that invalidates every single climate model study for the past 30 years, demonstrates that a global climate impact of CO2 emissions, if any, is presently unknowable, and that indisputably proves the scientific vacuity of the IPCC, does not reach a priority sufficient for a full review in Science Bulletin."

As I read the article and then the paper I found very egregious errors, basic errors, in how modeling is done today in climate science. As one who works with some of the models he evaluated I have to take a real hard look at how they work. The author of the paper is right on the money and his math is solid. I know PhD's who make the common errors he lists daily...

Consensus climate scientists:

1. Think that precision is accuracy

2. Think that a root-mean-square error is an energetic perturbation on the model

3. Think that climate models can be used to validate climate models

4. Do not understand calibration at all

5. Do not know that calibration error propagates into subsequent calculations

6. Do not know the difference between statistical uncertainty and physical error

7. Think that “±” uncertainty means positive error offset

8. Think that fortuitously cancelling errors remove physical uncertainty

9. Think that projection anomalies are physically accurate (never demonstrated)

10. Think that projection variance about a mean is identical to propagated error

11. Think that a “±K” uncertainty is a physically real temperature

12. Think that a “±K” uncertainty bar means the climate model itself is oscillating violently between ice-house and hot-house climate states

Item 12 is especially indicative of the general incompetence of consensus climate scientists.

Its amazing how many of these faults are done daily by climate scientists who have their heads stuck in modeling..

A skeptic attempts to break the ‘pal review’ glass ceiling in climate modeling

Its an excellent read.. and if you have your math skills sharpened up the comments on this are awesome.... arguments both ways.. Better than any journal review by far. There are no less than about 78 PhD's who have responded to this paper over at WUWT and have given their points of view.

The paper is available at the link.
Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections
NOTICE: link is a download site to a pdf which is 13.4mb.

Hey Billy........but to the climate crusaders, those 78 scientists with Phd's are fake scientists!! The ones who fuck with the data.......those are the "real" scientists.

 

[Old Rocks]

Fact, the AGU policy on global warming;

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.

Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large‐scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long‐ understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.

Now Mr. Westwall is going to claim that all the scientists in the AGU are engaged in fraud, or that only the top guys agree with this. Yet, at the their conferences, the papers present for the last decade have all said that the Earth is warming, and we are the cause. Same for the papers presented at the GSA meetings. And the people presenting these papers are from many nations and cultures. Are they all frauds, Mr. Westwall? LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

Gotta love the burger flippers like Silly Billy that pretend to be scientists, yet have no idea what a Fourier Transform is. LOL Analysis shows that such people are seriously delusional.

 

[GreenBean]

Its amazing how many of these faults are done daily by climate scientists who have their heads stuck in modeling..

Are they "Errors" or could they possibly be intentionally designed to mislead ?? Given the disposition of leftarded "Researchers" to skew the numbers, alter statistics to suit their agenda and basically attempt to underhandedly alter public opinions - I tend to think many of these so called errors are intentional.

 

[Old Rocks]

Its amazing how many of these faults are done daily by climate scientists who have their heads stuck in modeling..

Are they "Errors" or could they possibly be intentionally designed to mislead ?? Given the disposition of leftarded "Researchers" to skew the numbers, alter statistics to suit their agenda and basically attempt to underhandedly alter public opinions - I tend to think many of these so called errors are intentional.

Given the level of scientific knowledge of people like you I tend to think that most of you would struggle to achieve a room temperature IQ. And then you call scientists that have worked decades in gaining the knowledge they have, frauds. Tell me, have you ever taken any science at the 200 level in college at all? What basis do you have to make the judgement you have? I bet the answer is zero.