The hockey stick was wrong

[ding]

A new study has some proposed corrections to the hockey stick;

AGAIN...

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[Flash]

By the way, the purpose of that video is to sell something. The last third was nothing more than a commercial.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A new study has some proposed corrections to the hockey stick;

Mann's hockey stick was awesome!!!!

Why won't he release his data?

 

[Oddball]

The beauty of watching all of the falsehoods being pumped out of previous "Henny Penny" theorems that have now proven to be inaccurate is the fun of watching the left trying to take those old, dead and disproven components and somehow weave them into a futuristic prediction that has at least some accuracy to it. The problem with that of course is when half of your components are already false it's extremely difficult to make up for all of that falsehood with information that's actually accurate. The only thing they can do is lie twice as much and hope that it takes a little longer to discover that it's a lie.

Well, you didn't really think that them goalposts were going to move themselves, didja?

 

[Flash]

Mann's hockey stick was awesome!!!!

Why won't he release his data?

If was revealed that the hockey sick graph was fabricated on cherry picked ice ring and tree ring data among a set of about 5K samples. When all the 5K samples were analyzed it showed a slight cooling trend.

Typical for the kind of dishonesty we quite often see among so called Climate Scientists.

Like when they had to "adjust" real temperature measurements because it wasn't giving them the data they wanted. Even NOAA and NASA were in on that scam.

 

[Oddball]

A new study has some proposed corrections to the hockey stick;

 

[Oddball]

If was revealed that the hockey sick graph was fabricated on cherry picked ice ring and tree ring data among a set of about 5K samples. When all the 5K samples were analyzed it showed a slight cooling trend.

Typical for the kind of dishonesty we quite often see among so called Climate Scientists.

Like when they had to "adjust" real temperature measurements because it wasn't giving them the data they wanted. Even NOAA and NASA were in on that scam.

 

[Old Rocks]

If was revealed that the hockey sick graph was fabricated on cherry picked ice ring and tree ring data among a set of about 5K samples. When all the 5K samples were analyzed it showed a slight cooling trend.

Typical for the kind of dishonesty we quite often see among so called Climate Scientists.

Like when they had to "adjust" real temperature measurements because it wasn't giving them the data they wanted. Even NOAA and NASA were in on that scam.

Liars like you are the ones that are dishonest. What the video points out is that that study, and a dozen others, basically confirms the hockey stick. There are different details, but the point is that we are in a period of very rapid warming, unlike anything we have seen in the past few thousand years.

 

[Old Rocks]

View attachment 580360

Does this look like a lack of warming?

 

[eagle1462010]

Lie once ........Shame on you.

Lie Twice and believe it............Shame on me.

 

[Old Rocks]

AGAIN...

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

What fucking panels on the right? Scientists are not divided into right and left. Basically, you and the rest that spew that lie are idiots. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Against that we have uneducated fools like you spewing nonsense.

 

[Flash]

Liars like you are the ones that are dishonest. What the video points out is that that study, and a dozen others, basically confirms the hockey stick. There are different details, but the point is that we are in a period of very rapid warming, unlike anything we have seen in the past few thousand years.

It is really patethic to see how gulible you stupid uneducated Moon Bats are when it comes to this AGW scam.

It is like a silly religion to you nitwits.

Due to a long record of blatant dishonesty these Climate Scientists have less credibility than used car salesmen or politicians.

The scammers came up with a stupid computer program that filled in data where no data was present. They got paid big bucks to do that. What could possibly be wrong? You aren't smart enough to even figure that out, are you?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What fucking panels on the right? Scientists are not divided into right and left. Basically, you and the rest that spew that lie are idiots. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Against that we have uneducated fools like you spewing nonsense.

“A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth." -- Daniel Kahneman. Sounds like he's talking about all the "science" behind Manmade Global Climate Warming Change

 

[Flash]

 

[Sunsettommy]

Rockhead, thank you for admitting the Heavy shit paper was wrong. Meanwhile these people showed WHY it was wrong and the subsequent investigations agreed it was wrong.

Climate Audit Files

CORRECTIONS TO THE MANN et. al. (1998) PROXY DATA BASE AND NORTHERN HEMISPHERIC AVERAGE TEMPERATURE SERIES

Stephen McIntyre 512-120 Adelaide St. West, Toronto, Ontario Canada M5H 1T1;

Ross McKitrick Department of Economics, University of Guelph, Guelph Ontario Canada N1G2W1

Energy and Environment

2003

ABSTRACT

The data set of proxies of past climate used in Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, “MBH98” hereafter) for the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects. We detail these errors and defects. We then apply MBH98 methodology to the construction of a Northern Hemisphere average temperature index for the 1400-1980 period, using corrected and updated source data. The major finding is that the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century. The particular “hockey stick” shape derived in the MBH98 proxy construction – a temperature index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century and early 20th century and then increases dramatically up to 1980 — is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components

23 page PDF LINK

===

Climate Audit

The Wegman and North Reports for Newbies​

Stephen McIntire

November 6, 2007

Excerpt:

In recent discussion of the Weblog 2007 Awards, several commenters at other blogs have argued that our criticisms of the Mannian parlor tricks have been “thoroughly refuted and discarded by climatologists, published in a credible journal”; that “other professionals in the field who also have “looked in great detail at the problem at hand” and have come to the conclusion that rather than McIntyre’s findings being “valid and relevant”, they instead have found them to be “without statistical and climatological merit”; that CA “fluffed on the whole hockey stick thing”. See for example here

Omitted in these references are the fact that the people described as “climatologists published in a credible journal” or “professionals in the field” are none other than Wahl and Ammann, serial coauthors with Michael Mann, students of Mann, who are not independent of the controversy. Indeed, they largely use (without citation or attribution or even acknowledgment to Michael Mann) arguments originally published at realclimate (and already responded to in MM 2005b(EE). Aside from their lack of independence, neither Ammann nor Wahl qualify as statistical authorities. Ammann did his undergraduate work in geology; Wahl in divinity. While this does not exclude them from having potential insight in the matter, it is evidence that one should not necessarily expect a sure grasp of mathematical and statistical issues and that their conclusions cannot be relied upon uncritically, even if Stephen Schneider accepted their article.

Readers interested in a third party view of the matter are far better off consulting the North Report, the Wegman report, (particularly) Wegman’s Reply to Questions and Richard Smith’s account of the 2006 American Statistical Association session. All of these individuals are vastly more eminent than Ammann and Wahl. Wegman, in particular, has been Chair of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Theoretical and Applied Statistics and is a legitimate statistical expert. His comments on the Wahl and Ammann preprint are very acute and have not received appropriate consideration.

I’ve collated some of these remarks for the benefit of new readers who haven’t been following this particular story. Please read the comments below using the analogy from the previous post: see if any of our criticisms of Mannian parlor tricks have been refuted – as opposed to whether someone arguing that you can re-tool the trick to still saw the woman in half a different way. (And for this latter, pay particular attention to Wegman’s comments on Wahl and Ammann later in the post.)

The Wegman Report

The original Wegman Report is online here. Here are some excerpts from this report:

LINK

 

[skookerasbil]

Rockhead, thank you for admitting the Heavy shit paper was wrong. Meanwhile these people showed WHY it was wrong and the subsequent investigations agreed it was wrong.

Climate Audit Files

CORRECTIONS TO THE MANN et. al. (1998) PROXY DATA BASE AND NORTHERN HEMISPHERIC AVERAGE TEMPERATURE SERIES

Stephen McIntyre 512-120 Adelaide St. West, Toronto, Ontario Canada M5H 1T1;

Ross McKitrick Department of Economics, University of Guelph, Guelph Ontario Canada N1G2W1

Energy and Environment

2003

ABSTRACT

The data set of proxies of past climate used in Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, “MBH98” hereafter) for the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects. We detail these errors and defects. We then apply MBH98 methodology to the construction of a Northern Hemisphere average temperature index for the 1400-1980 period, using corrected and updated source data. The major finding is that the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century. The particular “hockey stick” shape derived in the MBH98 proxy construction – a temperature index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century and early 20th century and then increases dramatically up to 1980 — is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components

23 page PDF LINK

===

Climate Audit

The Wegman and North Reports for Newbies​

Stephen McIntire

November 6, 2007

Excerpt:

In recent discussion of the Weblog 2007 Awards, several commenters at other blogs have argued that our criticisms of the Mannian parlor tricks have been “thoroughly refuted and discarded by climatologists, published in a credible journal”; that “other professionals in the field who also have “looked in great detail at the problem at hand” and have come to the conclusion that rather than McIntyre’s findings being “valid and relevant”, they instead have found them to be “without statistical and climatological merit”; that CA “fluffed on the whole hockey stick thing”. See for example here

Omitted in these references are the fact that the people described as “climatologists published in a credible journal” or “professionals in the field” are none other than Wahl and Ammann, serial coauthors with Michael Mann, students of Mann, who are not independent of the controversy. Indeed, they largely use (without citation or attribution or even acknowledgment to Michael Mann) arguments originally published at realclimate (and already responded to in MM 2005b(EE). Aside from their lack of independence, neither Ammann nor Wahl qualify as statistical authorities. Ammann did his undergraduate work in geology; Wahl in divinity. While this does not exclude them from having potential insight in the matter, it is evidence that one should not necessarily expect a sure grasp of mathematical and statistical issues and that their conclusions cannot be relied upon uncritically, even if Stephen Schneider accepted their article.

Readers interested in a third party view of the matter are far better off consulting the North Report, the Wegman report, (particularly) Wegman’s Reply to Questions and Richard Smith’s account of the 2006 American Statistical Association session. All of these individuals are vastly more eminent than Ammann and Wahl. Wegman, in particular, has been Chair of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Theoretical and Applied Statistics and is a legitimate statistical expert. His comments on the Wahl and Ammann preprint are very acute and have not received appropriate consideration.

I’ve collated some of these remarks for the benefit of new readers who haven’t been following this particular story. Please read the comments below using the analogy from the previous post: see if any of our criticisms of Mannian parlor tricks have been refuted – as opposed to whether someone arguing that you can re-tool the trick to still saw the woman in half a different way. (And for this latter, pay particular attention to Wegman’s comments on Wahl and Ammann later in the post.)

The Wegman Report

The original Wegman Report is online here. Here are some excerpts from this report:

LINK

He's too busy sprinting off to get his 4th booster jab....that nobody else is getting btw except the fossils



Fully vaxed still 58%


Oooops

 

[Crick]

A Disgrace to the Profession

The "hockey stick" graph of global temperatures is the single most influential icon in the global-warming debate, promoted by the UN's tr...

www.goodreads.com

And yet what it purports to "prove" is disputed and denied by many of the world's most eminent scientists. In this riveting book, Mark Steyn has compiled the thoughts of the world's scientists, in their own words, on hockey-stick creator Michael E Mann, his stick and their damage to science. From Canada to Finland, Scotland to China, Belgium to New Zealand, from venerable Nobel Laureates to energetic young researchers on all sides of the debate analyze the hockey stock and the wider climate wars it helped launch. (less)

Translation:
"venerable nobel laureates" = senile neo-nazis
"energetic young researchers" = uneducated children

But, I have not watched the video. I have watched the vid from the OP and will compare.

I was appalled to see that the response video is over an hour and a half long. I was even more appalled to find, in the first 30 seconds or so, to hear it claim that we were being affected by changes to the "space" of the solar system that was being caused by a "larger galactic shift". I will go listen to some more of this, but the opening has, in amazingly few words, demonstrated that it is nothing but ignorant nonsense. I'm not even certain this will rise to the level of pseudo-science.

It's getting funnier and funnier. Mini-supernovas. Equatorial trees with no rings, fossils being found in the Arctic and so forth. This is some advanced... humor. Hard to believe someone would go to the trouble of making a 90 minute video just for trolling the uneducated, but it seems they have.

I see. The reversal of the Earth's magnetic poles cause the Earth to tilt significantly but it eventually returns to its original orientation. This tilt lasts long enough to develop equatorial life forms at the poles but not long enough to produce geological evidence of polar temperatures anywhere other than the poles. Apparently, neither the geologists of 1946 nor the creators of this video nor poster Eagle are familiar with plate tectonics. (Wegener, 1915)

I was thinking that poster Old Rocks had not given the video a fair shake. I was wrong. Sorry eagle 1462010 but this is ignorant nonsense. If you think this video has any validity, you need to reenroll (or enroll for the first time, as the case may be) in the 7th grade and take Basic Physical Science.

 

[skookerasbil]

What fucking panels on the right? Scientists are not divided into right and left. Basically, you and the rest that spew that lie are idiots. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Against that we have uneducated fools like you spewing nonsense.

lol

You've been saying THIS in here for almost 12 years............

"Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger"

Where has it mattered in the real world? Who is caring? Perhaps those scientific entities and those who do climate change as a hobby.......but nobody else. So why do you keep posting it after 12 years?

The analogy? The guy who drives past a big-ass billboard every day that says, "JESUS IS GOING TO BE COMING NEXT WEEK"......goes into the office every day and holds court at the coffee machine to tell everybody about the billboard!

Come on, man!!!

 

[Sunsettommy]

lol

You've been saying THIS in here for almost 12 years............

"Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger"

Where has it mattered in the real world? Who is caring? Perhaps those scientific entities and those who do climate change as a hobby.......but nobody else. So why do you keep posting it after 12 years?

The analogy? The guy who drives past a big-ass billboard every day that says, "JESUS IS GOING TO BE COMING NEXT WEEK"......goes into the office every day and holds court at the coffee machine to tell everybody about the billboard!

Come on, man!!!

He is that climate believer who simply can't get beyond a real fact that damages his long enduring delusion.

He has been told many times about many many consensus failures, yet he continues his brainless devotion the belief anyway because he is a B. E. L. I. V. E. R!

 

[Crick]

He is that climate believer who simply can't get beyond a real fact that damages his long enduring delusion.

He has been told many times about many many consensus failures, yet he continues his brainless devotion the belief anyway because he is a B. E. L. I. V. E. R!

And about what consensus failures has he been told?