What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Cherrypicking

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
McIntyre has finally posted up something on Wilson2016 but it wasnt what I expected.

it has to do with one of the co-authors

D’Arrigo has candidly admitted to the selection of data to arrive at a preconceived result. At the 2006 NAS panel workshop, Rosanne D’Arrigo famously told the surprised panelists that you had to pick cherries if you want to make cherry pie.

the backstory and details here Cherry-Picking by D'Arrigo

the money table-

cnwt_reconciliation1.png


the money graph using all the cores-

cnwt_compare.png


and the funniest comment I have seen for a while-

Steve, well researched, well explained, well written.
I was totally amazed by this comment:
98.6% of the cores of one site on the D’Arrigo et al 2006 location map were used, while 96.7% of the cores from another site shown on the location map were not used
Upon further reflection, I realized that this simply shows that like mainstream climate scientists, the trees themselves participate in the famed “98% consensus” that I’ve read so much about …
Can’t thank you enough for your continuing explorations,

w.


hahahahahaha....consensus!
 
OP
I

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
Steve appropriately called the behaviour of dendrochronologists, CalvinBall.

Calvinball
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
24,674
Reaction score
6,900
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
Two weeks ago, I predicted that McIntyre's response to Wilson 2016 would be paranoid, and that Ian would parrot it. Can I call it?

McIntyre is just recycling the garbage that failed 10 years ago, where he pretends that discarding bad data is "cherrypicking". It is interesting, how fixated DearLeader is on tree rings, given how many other hockey sticks are out there.

And D'arrigo's supposed cherry-pie quote is not confirmed by anyone except DearLeader. It was most likely a joke telling people not to act like McIntyre. And the fact that McIntyre always feels it necessary to launch personal attacks against people shows how weak his science is.
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
25,557
Reaction score
12,542
Points
1,430
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
Two weeks ago, I predicted that McIntyre's response to Wilson 2016 would be paranoid, and that Ian would parrot it. Can I call it?

McIntyre is just recycling the garbage that failed 10 years ago, where he pretends that discarding bad data is "cherrypicking". It is interesting, how fixated DearLeader is on tree rings, given how many other hockey sticks are out there.

And D'arrigo's supposed cherry-pie quote is not confirmed by anyone except DearLeader. It was most likely a joke telling people not to act like McIntyre. And the fact that McIntyre always feels it necessary to launch personal attacks against people shows how weak his science is.
LOL

Got those blinders on pretty tight hairball.. Are you loosing blood flow to your last brain cell?

McIntyer is correct in his assessment.. I see your using SKS talking points of John Cook... Not a good or credible source for anything.
 

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,908
Points
280
Two weeks ago, I predicted that McIntyre's response to Wilson 2016 would be paranoid, and that Ian would parrot it. Can I call it?

McIntyre is just recycling the garbage that failed 10 years ago, where he pretends that discarding bad data is "cherrypicking". It is interesting, how fixated DearLeader is on tree rings, given how many other hockey sticks are out there.

And D'arrigo's supposed cherry-pie quote is not confirmed by anyone except DearLeader. It was most likely a joke telling people not to act like McIntyre. And the fact that McIntyre always feels it necessary to launch personal attacks against people shows how weak his science is.
LOL

Got those blinders on pretty tight hairball.. Are you loosing blood flow to your last brain cell?

McIntyer is correct in his assessment.. I see your using SKS talking points of John Cook... Not a good or credible source for anything.
Predicting bad science from the most incompetent group of pseudoscientists since phrenology isn't that much of a stretch....what is a stretch is actually believing that it represents good science.
 
OP
I

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
I really should have put down the definition of Calvinball, but the first link didnt allow cut and paste.

What is CalvinBall?
It's quite simple, really. CalvinBall is a game that you never play the same way twice. Anyone can add a rule, and not all parties must agree for a change to be implemented.

it really does appear that the climate scientists that make up these hockeystick graphs are familiar with the concept of making up the rules as they go along.

here we have the case of d'Arrigo. when she collected more tree ring cores from two previously sampled sites. she used 354 of 366 from one site that supported the hockeystick, and only 5 of 356 from the site that gave inconvenient results.

publicly they deny,
we would never select or manipulate data in order to arrive at some preconceived or unrepresentative result

then they obfuscate in papers,
The divergence problem can be partially circumvented by utilizing tree-ring data for dendroclimatic reconstructions from sites where divergence is either absent or minimal.

but they never release inconvenient data from their cold, clenched fingers.

actually, this expose of cherrypicking was made possible in large part because G Jacoby (long time collaborator of d'Arrigo) released a large amount of tree ring data on his deathbed.
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
25,557
Reaction score
12,542
Points
1,430
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
I really should have put down the definition of Calvinball, but the first link didnt allow cut and paste.

What is CalvinBall?
It's quite simple, really. CalvinBall is a game that you never play the same way twice. Anyone can add a rule, and not all parties must agree for a change to be implemented.

it really does appear that the climate scientists that make up these hockeystick graphs are familiar with the concept of making up the rules as they go along.

here we have the case of d'Arrigo. when she collected more tree ring cores from two previously sampled sites. she used 354 of 366 from one site that supported the hockeystick, and only 5 of 356 from the site that gave inconvenient results.

publicly they deny,
we would never select or manipulate data in order to arrive at some preconceived or unrepresentative result

then they obfuscate in papers,
The divergence problem can be partially circumvented by utilizing tree-ring data for dendroclimatic reconstructions from sites where divergence is either absent or minimal.

but they never release inconvenient data from their cold, clenched fingers.

actually, this expose of cherrypicking was made possible in large part because G Jacoby (long time collaborator of d'Arrigo) released a large amount of tree ring data on his deathbed.

Jacoby did indeed release data on his death. Once it could no longer threaten his income. The release was very enlightening, to say the least. The release showed the intentional deceptions by Calvin, in his work, which many alarmist still cling too today. One being Michale Mann. Funny how they have so much invested that saying "I was wrong" would send them into the dustbins of history. Jacoby will be remembered as coming clean on his death bed.
 
OP
I

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
if a skeptic published papers with the same disregard of data disclosure and cherrypicking in choice of data do you think there would be no outcry? I find it disgusting that the standard operating procedures for science are flouted by climate science. and has been for so long that even when it is exposed no one seems to care because it has been normal in the field for decades.
 
OP
I

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
Picking Cherries in the Gulf of Alaska

More of the same. Trimming out inconvenient data and adding more favourable data from a different site to exaggerate the Hockeystick. Why don't they just use all of the data? Why is it OK to look at all the data and then pick and choose the pieces that give the results they want? How is this science?
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
98,066
Reaction score
12,285
Points
2,180
everything with the left is a double standard. Anything they get involved with is a double standard, it's amazing the flat out hypocrisy with which they conduct themselves. Cherry picking as they do isn't any different.

And we'd see the whole but, but, but from them as well. The fact is it isn't science and they know it isn't. That's how brass they are.
 
OP
I

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
everything with the left is a double standard. Anything they get involved with is a double standard, it's amazing the flat out hypocrisy with which they conduct themselves. Cherry picking as they do isn't any different.

And we'd see the whole but, but, but from them as well. The fact is it isn't science and they know it isn't. That's how brass they are.


I consider myself a classical liberal. Which means you think about the issues and weigh the pros and cons against reality and find a way to be progressive so that most people's lives are better. Unfortunately the new Left has left their brains behind and instead just blindly follow a doctrine of political correctness with no concern of the consequences.

That said, science done properly has no allegiance to politics. Climate science has mutated into just another level of political activism and the damage being done to science in general may be irreparable.

Feynman said the first principle of science is not to fool yourself. Climate science is not only fooling themselves but punishing those who would steer back to towards reality.

The West used to scornfully laugh at how the USSR hurt itself by letting party politics destroy their society. Now we have become them.
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
98,066
Reaction score
12,285
Points
2,180
everything with the left is a double standard. Anything they get involved with is a double standard, it's amazing the flat out hypocrisy with which they conduct themselves. Cherry picking as they do isn't any different.

And we'd see the whole but, but, but from them as well. The fact is it isn't science and they know it isn't. That's how brass they are.


I consider myself a classical liberal. Which means you think about the issues and weigh the pros and cons against reality and find a way to be progressive so that most people's lives are better. Unfortunately the new Left has left their brains behind and instead just blindly follow a doctrine of political correctness with no concern of the consequences.

That said, science done properly has no allegiance to politics. Climate science has mutated into just another level of political activism and the damage being done to science in general may be irreparable.

Feynman said the first principle of science is not to fool yourself. Climate science is not only fooling themselves but punishing those who would steer back to towards reality.

The West used to scornfully laugh at how the USSR hurt itself by letting party politics destroy their society. Now we have become them.
and I don't see what you wrote as any different than me being a conservative. I weigh pros and cons and I look for ways for people to prosper. I want everyone to have money, the difference is how you get it. I don't believe in stealing money and that is what welfare is if one doesn't ween off of it. I also don't see why those who get welfare money can't actually do community work. Science isn't about people liberal or conservative, science is the action of dealing with facts and truths. Lying about and making up data is so not scientific. Knowing one's limitations is exceptional.
 
OP
I

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
everything with the left is a double standard. Anything they get involved with is a double standard, it's amazing the flat out hypocrisy with which they conduct themselves. Cherry picking as they do isn't any different.

And we'd see the whole but, but, but from them as well. The fact is it isn't science and they know it isn't. That's how brass they are.


I consider myself a classical liberal. Which means you think about the issues and weigh the pros and cons against reality and find a way to be progressive so that most people's lives are better. Unfortunately the new Left has left their brains behind and instead just blindly follow a doctrine of political correctness with no concern of the consequences.

That said, science done properly has no allegiance to politics. Climate science has mutated into just another level of political activism and the damage being done to science in general may be irreparable.

Feynman said the first principle of science is not to fool yourself. Climate science is not only fooling themselves but punishing those who would steer back to towards reality.

The West used to scornfully laugh at how the USSR hurt itself by letting party politics destroy their society. Now we have become them.
and I don't see what you wrote as any different than me being a conservative. I weigh pros and cons and I look for ways for people to prosper. I want everyone to have money, the difference is how you get it. I don't believe in stealing money and that is what welfare is if one doesn't ween off of it. I also don't see why those who get welfare money can't actually do community work. Science isn't about people liberal or conservative, science is the action of dealing with facts and truths. Lying about and making up data is so not scientific. Knowing one's limitations is exceptional.


Fair enough. Perhaps we both agree that climate science has taken on the characteristics of a welfare recipient. Lose your individuality and tick off the right boxes on the form and you will get paid.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
71,512
Reaction score
26,493
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
Two weeks ago, I predicted that McIntyre's response to Wilson 2016 would be paranoid, and that Ian would parrot it. Can I call it?

McIntyre is just recycling the garbage that failed 10 years ago, where he pretends that discarding bad data is "cherrypicking". It is interesting, how fixated DearLeader is on tree rings, given how many other hockey sticks are out there.

And D'arrigo's supposed cherry-pie quote is not confirmed by anyone except DearLeader. It was most likely a joke telling people not to act like McIntyre. And the fact that McIntyre always feels it necessary to launch personal attacks against people shows how weak his science is.









"Paranoid"? You accuse sceptics of cherry picking data to support their arguments and here you have PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGEMENT by one of yours to that very thing and you accuse sceptics of paranoia?

So......what does that make you? Intellectually dishonest? Propagandist? Prevaricator?

I know! ALL of them apply to you!
 
OP
I

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
Two weeks ago, I predicted that McIntyre's response to Wilson 2016 would be paranoid, and that Ian would parrot it. Can I call it?

McIntyre is just recycling the garbage that failed 10 years ago, where he pretends that discarding bad data is "cherrypicking". It is interesting, how fixated DearLeader is on tree rings, given how many other hockey sticks are out there.

And D'arrigo's supposed cherry-pie quote is not confirmed by anyone except DearLeader. It was most likely a joke telling people not to act like McIntyre. And the fact that McIntyre always feels it necessary to launch personal attacks against people shows how weak his science is.








"Paranoid"? You accuse sceptics of cherry picking data to support their arguments and here you have PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGEMENT by one of yours to that very thing and you accuse sceptics of paranoia?



So......what does that make you? Intellectually dishonest? Propagandist? Prevaricator?

I know! ALL of them apply to you!

Crick had a tread called 'where is the confession'. I keep showing him the proof and he keeps ignoring it.

You can't fix willful stupidity.
 

Wuwei

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
4,469
Reaction score
681
Points
255
I also don't see why those who get welfare money can't actually do community work.
Fair enough. Perhaps we both agree that climate science has taken on the characteristics of a welfare recipient. Lose your individuality and tick off the right boxes on the form and you will get paid.
I really hate to belabor this off-topic sidetrack, but I really hate it when right-wingers have such a simplistic view of just who welfare recipients are.

Federal budget and Census data show that with welfare recipients,
53% of people are 65 and up.
20% of people are disabled.
18% have jobs with sub-survival pay.
9% goes to households with non-elderly, non-disabled people, without jobs.

Much of that 9% involves health care and unemployment insurance.
A small fraction of of that 9% are "welfare queens". Yet the right wing acts as though they are the majority of welfare recipients.

If you think too much money is diverted to welfare, I am not going to argue that point. But you really need to look at the wider problem of what to do with these people. "Get a job" does not answer the problem since only 9% are without a job when you subtract those who are too old to work, too disabled, or receiving sub-survival pay.
 
OP
I

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
I am unfamiliar with US welfare. Old age pensioners are considered welfare recipients?

I remember talking about subsides with my kids. It is easy for 95 people out of a 100 to support the other 5. Not so easy for 75 to support 25.

Did your census numbers say how many people are net taxpayers compared to tax recipients? The last time I saw any figures like this the bottom half of the population were net negative. Just sayin'. I am all for taking care of people but I don't think we should demonize the people who foot the bill either.

In five years I will collect the Canadian Old Age Pension. Between paying taxes for all my pensions, property taxes, income taxes, etc, I doubt I will become a net negative taxpayer. Will I still be a welfare recipient in your eyes?
 
OP
I

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
Perhaps the essence of the Liberal outlook could be summed up in a new decalogue, not intended to replace the old one but only to supplement it. The Ten Commandments that, as a teacher, I should wish to promulgate, might be set forth as follows:

1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
2. Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.
3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.
4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavour to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.
5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.
7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent that in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.
9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.
10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness.
by Bertrand Russell
 

Wuwei

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
4,469
Reaction score
681
Points
255
I am unfamiliar with US welfare. Old age pensioners are considered welfare recipients?

I remember talking about subsides with my kids. It is easy for 95 people out of a 100 to support the other 5. Not so easy for 75 to support 25.

Did your census numbers say how many people are net taxpayers compared to tax recipients? The last time I saw any figures like this the bottom half of the population were net negative. Just sayin'. I am all for taking care of people but I don't think we should demonize the people who foot the bill either.

In five years I will collect the Canadian Old Age Pension. Between paying taxes for all my pensions, property taxes, income taxes, etc, I doubt I will become a net negative taxpayer. Will I still be a welfare recipient in your eyes?
You definitely would not be considered to be on welfare. All the Social Security I'm now receiving I paid for by mandatory pay deductions I've made over decades of work since a teenager. It is not a government "hand-out" like many conservatives here feel. Social security alone is sub-subsistence level. You need savings to supplement it.

Welfare in the US is largely​
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Medicaid
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Food and nutrition programs (SNAP) (Food stamps)

Welfare does not include​
Unemployment insurance (Very temporary)
Social Security (Old age pensions paid by lifetime salary deductions)
Medicare (Generally over 65)

Poverty trends analyst, LaDonna Pavetti:
In an "average" year, about one-half of the AFDC caseload leaves the welfare rolls. The best available estimates indicate that between one-half and two-thirds of those who leave do so because they have found paid employment.
I don't know exactly how many are in the negative tax bracket here. I believe around 45% do pay zero or less taxes. There are lots of problems looming up on how to handle the increasing subsistence level people, but that's another story.
 

Wuwei

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
4,469
Reaction score
681
Points
255
Perhaps the essence of the Liberal outlook could be summed up in a new decalogue, not intended to replace the old one but only to supplement it. The Ten Commandments that, as a teacher, I should wish to promulgate, might be set forth as follows:
.... etc
That's a great list. But very few follow much of it. I wish more followed that on this forum.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$505.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top