Well now.....A 45 second lecture destroying the global warming argument.
- Thread starter 1srelluc
- Start date
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 150,367
- 34,513
- 2,180
Evidence that crick will always lie! No matter the facts. Wow dude, I feel sorry you have no integrity
Show me what you believe to be a scientist lying in the Climategate emails.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
That is the antithesis of science, and the full on acceptance of "faith".
As in religion.
Do you think Dan Pena is a climate expert? Has he used the Scientific Method to reach his conclusions? Have you examined his claims for falsifiability, repeatability or accurate predictions?
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
I have no idea what abu afak might think about anything.
The reason for adding real data to proxy data (Mike's Nature trick) is to bring the two trends together and compensate for the known change in ring width:temperature ratio in the late 18th and early 19th century.
What does Ding think about that? Or you?
The reason for adding real data to proxy data (Mike's Nature trick) is to bring the two trends together and compensate for the known change in ring width:temperature ratio in the late 18th and early 19th century.
What does Ding think about that? Or you?
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
To hide the decline. Because that's truthful.
They had instrument data for that period. The change in tree ring behavior was widely-known and well established. Do you deny those facts?
Last edited:
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
They had instrument data for that period. The change in tree ring behavior was widely-known and well established.
It was. No need to combine them, right?
Do you or do you not understand my explanation? I'm not asking you whether or not you agree, just whether or not you understand what I'm saying they were doing.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
I understand that a proxy stopped working. Recent graphs would show a decline.
How does adding a real measurement to a non-working proxy add truthfulness?
The proxy didn't stop working. The proportionality factor between the proxy (tree ring widths) and temperature shifted over time. The "decline" being hidden was in the proportionality factor, not the temperature. Apparently they did not wish to plot data with a variable proportionality factor. They have instrument data for that time period so they know what was actually happening. So, if you believe their graph told a falsehood, what was false? You could say that they hid the change in proportionality factor, but that doesn't advance the denier interpretation, does it.
Last edited:
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
The proxy didn't stop working. The proportionality factor between the proxy (tree ring widths) and temperature shifted over time.
It stopped working as well as it did before? Isn't that kind of "not working"?
Would the rings since 1950 show an apparent decline in temperature?
The "decline" being hidden was in the proportionality factor, not the temperature. Apparently they did not wish to plot data with a variable proportionality factor.
But they did wish to add something to hide the declining usefulness of the data.
They have instrument data for that time period so they know what was actually happening.
Exactly. Stop using the old, changing proxy and use the new instrument data.
No need to "hide the decline" by mixing apples and oranges. People might think you're dishonest.
So, if you believe their graph told a falsehood, what was false?
Tree ring, tree ring, tree ring, (tree ring + instruments).....in the same graph.
Weird. It's almost like you want to hide the truth about the tree rings.
I wonder if only laypeople were fooled?
You could say that they hid the change in proportionality factor,
Only because they did.
but that doesn't advance the denier interpretation, does it.
That Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann is a liar? Yeah, I think it does.
This isn't a machine that can break down Todd.
They did show an apparent decline in temperature after 1960. This was true for certain populations at high latitudes whose growth had been slowing, likely due to rising temperatures. This conflicted with thermometer data for the same period.
They wished for the proxy trend to align with the instrument trend.
That's what they did Todd.
They weren't dishonest and the people who assumed they were from the very beginning don't seem to care about the facts.
Clearly delineated with a legend.
Weird. It's almost like you think it matters.
Fooled by what?
Keep in mind that the change was well known among dendrochronologists long before this plot ever appeared.
|
   Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'Link to this pageWhat the science says...
Climate Myth...Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature'Perhaps the most infamous example of this comes from the "hide the decline" email. This email initially garnered widespread media attention, as well as significant disagreement over its implications. In our view, the email, as well as the contextual history behind it, appears to show several scientists eager to present a particular viewpoint-that anthropogenic emissions are largely responsible for global warming-even when the data showed something different.' (David Lungren) There are a number of misconceptions concerning Phil Jones' email. These are easily cleared up when one takes the time to read Jones' words in context. The "decline" is about northern tree-rings, not global temperaturePhil Jones' email is often cited as evidence of an attempt to "hide the decline in global temperatures". This claim is patently false and shows ignorance of the science discussed. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations since 1960.Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature. Hence, tree-rings are used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem". Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades. The "decline" has nothing to do with "Mike's trick".Phil Jones talks about "Mike's Nature trick" and "hide the decline" as two separate techniques. However, people often abbreviate the email, distilling it down to "Mike's trick to hide the decline". Professor Richard Muller from Berkeley commits this error in a public lecture:Muller quotes "Mike's nature trick to hide the decline" as if its Phil Jones's actual words. However, the original text indicates otherwise: It's clear that "Mike's Nature trick" is quite separate to Keith Briffa's "hide the decline". "Mike's Nature trick" refers to a technique (a "trick of the trade") by Michael Mann to plot recent instrumental data along with reconstructed past temperature. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales. There is nothing secret about "Mike's trick". Both the instrumental and reconstructed temperature are clearly labelled. Claiming this is some sort of secret "trick" or confusing it with "hide the decline" displays either ignorance or a willingness to mislead. 
Figure 1: Northern Hemisphere mean temperature anomaly in °C (Mann et al 1999). The "decline" has been openly and publicly discussed since 1995Skeptics like to portray "the decline" as a phenomena that climate scientists have tried to keep secret. In reality the divergence problem has been publicly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature since 1995 (Jacoby 1995). The IPCC discuss the decline in tree-ring growth openly both in the 2001 Third Assessment Report and in even more detail in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report.The common misconception that scientists tried to hide a decline in global temperatures is false. The decline in tree-ring growth is plainly discussed in the publicly available scientific literature. The divergence in tree-ring growth does not change the fact that we are currently observing many lines of evidence for global warming. The obsessive focus on a misquote taken out of context, doesn't change the scientific case that human-caused climate change is real. 
Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'<p>'Mike's Nature trick' refers to the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.
skepticalscience.com
|
Last edited:
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Been saying a variation of that for 20 years.45 second lecture destroying the global warming argument. - AR15.COM
Firearm Discussion and Resources from AR-15, AK-47, Handguns and more! Buy, Sell, and Trade your Firearms and Gear.www.ar15.com
Sadly, not an effective argument because the people that need to hear it would rather believe that the banks and realtors are lying to them instead of the media, climate change weenies, and politicians lying to them.
It's a older vid but I've never heard or read of a rebuttal to it either.
If Goebbels warming were real and the seas were rising, filthy rich liberoidals wouldn't be buying ridiculously costly seaside property.
Watch what they do, not what they say.
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
This isn't a machine that can break down Todd.
They did show an apparent decline in temperature after 1960. This was true for certain populations at high latitudes whose growth had been slowing, likely due to rising temperatures. This conflicted with thermometer data for the same period.
They wished for the proxy trend to align with the instrument trend.
That's what they did Todd.
They weren't dishonest and the people who assumed they were from the very beginning don't seem to care about the facts.
Clearly delineated with a legend.
Weird. It's almost like you think it matters.
Fooled by what?
Keep in mind that the change was well known among dendrochronologists long before this plot ever appeared.
Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'
Link to this page
What the science says...
Select a level... 
Intermediate
Advanced
The "decline" refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports. Climate Myth...
Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature
'Perhaps the most infamous example of this comes from the "hide the decline" email. This email initially garnered widespread media attention, as well as significant disagreement over its implications. In our view, the email, as well as the contextual history behind it, appears to show several scientists eager to present a particular viewpoint-that anthropogenic emissions are largely responsible for global warming-even when the data showed something different.' (David Lungren)
There are a number of misconceptions concerning Phil Jones' email. These are easily cleared up when one takes the time to read Jones' words in context.
The "decline" is about northern tree-rings, not global temperature
Phil Jones' email is often cited as evidence of an attempt to "hide the decline in global temperatures". This claim is patently false and shows ignorance of the science discussed. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations since 1960.
Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature. Hence, tree-rings are used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem". Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.
The "decline" has nothing to do with "Mike's trick".
Phil Jones talks about "Mike's Nature trick" and "hide the decline" as two separate techniques. However, people often abbreviate the email, distilling it down to "Mike's trick to hide the decline". Professor Richard Muller from Berkeley commits this error in a public lecture:
Muller quotes "Mike's nature trick to hide the decline" as if its Phil Jones's actual words. However, the original text indicates otherwise:
It's clear that "Mike's Nature trick" is quite separate to Keith Briffa's "hide the decline". "Mike's Nature trick" refers to a technique (a "trick of the trade") by Michael Mann to plot recent instrumental data along with reconstructed past temperature. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.
There is nothing secret about "Mike's trick". Both the instrumental and reconstructed temperature are clearly labelled. Claiming this is some sort of secret "trick" or confusing it with "hide the decline" displays either ignorance or a willingness to mislead.
Figure 1: Northern Hemisphere mean temperature anomaly in °C (Mann et al 1999).
The "decline" has been openly and publicly discussed since 1995
Skeptics like to portray "the decline" as a phenomena that climate scientists have tried to keep secret. In reality the divergence problem has been publicly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature since 1995 (Jacoby 1995). The IPCC discuss the decline in tree-ring growth openly both in the 2001 Third Assessment Report and in even more detail in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report.
The common misconception that scientists tried to hide a decline in global temperatures is false. The decline in tree-ring growth is plainly discussed in the publicly available scientific literature. The divergence in tree-ring growth does not change the fact that we are currently observing many lines of evidence for global warming. The obsessive focus on a misquote taken out of context, doesn't change the scientific case that human-caused climate change is real.
Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'
<p>'Mike's Nature trick' refers to the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.skepticalscience.com
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 150,367
- 34,513
- 2,180
That’s not legal
Similar threads
