Why do so many people deny climate change

[PMZ]

According to the NAS that's exactly what you're doing. Allow me to quote them:

"While the work of Michael Mann and colleagues presents what appears to be compelling evidence of global temperature change, the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid."

In other words, the Hockey Stick is a fraud.

Talk about logical fallacies.

"the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid."

Does not lead to

"the Hockey Stick is a fraud"

The fact that you thought so is evidence of how easy you are to fool.

Yes it does lead to that. McIntyre pretty much stated the Hockey Stick is a fraud. Although he doesn't outright accuse Mann of deliberately doctoring his results. He does point out all the flaws in the process, most of which would have to be done deliberately to determine the desired result.

You are the one that made the logical fallacy.

 

[bripat9643]

Talk about logical fallacies.

"the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid."

Does not lead to

"the Hockey Stick is a fraud"

The fact that you thought so is evidence of how easy you are to fool.

Yes it does lead to that. McIntyre pretty much stated the Hockey Stick is a fraud. Although he doesn't outright accuse Mann of deliberately doctoring his results. He does point out all the flaws in the process, most of which would have to be done deliberately to determine the desired result.

You are the one that made the logical fallacy.

What's the fallacy?

 

[PMZ]

Talk about logical fallacies.

"the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid."

Does not lead to

"the Hockey Stick is a fraud"

The fact that you thought so is evidence of how easy you are to fool.

Yes it does lead to that. McIntyre pretty much stated the Hockey Stick is a fraud. Although he doesn't outright accuse Mann of deliberately doctoring his results. He does point out all the flaws in the process, most of which would have to be done deliberately to determine the desired result.

Just the process of piecing together sketchy, undersampled historical proxy data with accurate oversampled modern era instrumentation is a red flashing alarm.. The proxy data is not good enough for that purpose..

If Mann had reviewed the statistics of that process and some of the bad proxy data he was handed, ---- he might not be so embarrassed today..

He is BTW the SAME guy who defended his Hockey Stick by IGNORING 30 or 40 proxy studies of historical worldwide data to declare the MWPeriod to be "a local event".

I don't think that you understand how science works. Everything is built on previous work. Mann was an early pioneer. One of the first to reconstruct a long term global temperature history. He advanced that science. It has continued to be advanced from his work by others. Not by McIntyre et al. They are well paid to drag red herrings across the path of progress instead of advancing it. Mann is a climate scientist. McIntyre is an anti science politician.

 

[PMZ]

..

He is BTW the SAME guy who defended his Hockey Stick by IGNORING 30 or 40 proxy studies of historical worldwide data to declare the MWPeriod to be "a local event".

30or40? The number of published papers proving he MWP was warmer than the present and global is far larger than that.

So-Called Medieval Warm Period Not So Warm After All

Published: October 1st, 2012


Michael D. LemonickBy Michael D. Lemonick

The so-called Medieval Warm Period (MWP), a 400-year span from about 950 to 1220 A.D. when the Vikings colonized Greenland, was relatively balmy by the standards of the past 2,000 years, leading some to argue that the global warming we’re now experiencing isn’t that big a deal. But a new report in the journal Geology argues that the MWP wasn’t all that warm after all — and certainly not as warm as the climate is today.

According to William D’Andrea of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and his co-authors, summer temperatures in the Svalbard Archipelago, a group of islands in the Arctic Ocean about 400 miles north of Norway, have been between 3.6°F and 4.5°F higher over the past 25 years, on average, than the summers the Vikings enjoyed.

View of the area around Ny-Ålesund, located on Svalbard, an archipelago in the Arctic Ocean north of mainland Europe.
Credit: United Nations Photo/flickr

“As more research has come in over the past decade,” D’Andrea said, “it’s becoming clear that this medieval period was not uniformly warm, and we can see that for sure in this one location.”

The question isn’t just academic. Climate scientists are convinced that rising temperatures during the 20th century, and especially over the past 50 years, are largely due to heat-trapping properties of greenhouse gases generated by the burning of coal, oil and other carbon-based fuels. If they’re going to project how fast and how high temperatures will rise in the future — to know where we’re going — it’s important to know where we’ve been.

What complicates the matter is that global temperatures can also change for purely natural reasons — and if they spiked dramatically during the MWP, it might suggest that nature has a significant role in today’s warming.

“We need to disentangle natural variability from the changes we humans are provoking,” D’Andrea said, and the best way to do that is to look to a time before humans began burning fossil-fuels in earnest.

The problem, of course, is that the Vikings didn’t have thermometers. We know from their records and those of others that the MWP was warm, but not precisely how warm. So like all scientists who want to understand ancient temperatures, D’Andrea and his colleagues relied on proxies — natural processes that change with temperature.

The bow of a Viking ship located in the Viking Ship Museum, Oslo, Norway.
Credit: zement/flickr.

In this case, they looked at lipids, or fat molecules created as a biological by-product by algae in Kongressvatnet, a lake on the island of Spitzbergen. When the lake water is colder, the algae tend to churn out unsaturated fats; when it’s warmer, the fats tend to be saturated. Then, when the algae die, their fat-containing corpses drift to the lake bottom, where they’re buried deeper and deeper each year by new layers of algae and other debris.

D’Andrea and his co-workers extracted about 1,800 years’ worth of layers from the lake bottom, measured the relative amounts of saturated and unsaturated fats in each one, and came up with a detailed temperature profile of the lake water going back 18 centuries (these were summer temperatures only: in winter, the lake is frozen).

In order to keep their lake-bottom “thermometer” honest, the scientists compared the most recent hundred years’ worth of fat levels with records from actual thermometers located on Spitzbergen. “It turns out,” D’Andrea said, “that the lipid levels really do a very accurate job of recording temperature.”

That, D’Andrea said, gave them the confidence that they really could say something meaningful about temperatures back to the Medieval Warm Period and beyond. “We can say that summer temperatures at this location have been warmer in the recent past than they have over the past 1,800 years.”

One possible criticism of the study is that it’s based on just one location. Maybe this lake, or this region, was significantly cooler during the MPW for some reason than the rest of the world. For that reason D’Andrea and his scientific collaborators are doing the same sort of research in other lakes — in Greenland, Alaska, and the Ural Mountains of Russia; and on Ellesmere Island, in the Canadian High Arctic.

Those results haven’t been published yet, but, D’Andrea said, “the more work we do, the more this finding seems to hold up.”

The research is important, not just because it reinforces the conclusion that humans are now putting their own imprint on the climate, but also, D’Andrea said, because it can help scientists predict where the climate is going from here.

“If we can understand how the climate system reacted to natural forces in the past,” he said, “we’ll have a better understanding of how it will respond to the changes we’re imposing on it.”

 

[PMZ]

Yes it does lead to that. McIntyre pretty much stated the Hockey Stick is a fraud. Although he doesn't outright accuse Mann of deliberately doctoring his results. He does point out all the flaws in the process, most of which would have to be done deliberately to determine the desired result.

You are the one that made the logical fallacy.

What's the fallacy?

"the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid"

Does not lead to

"the Hockey Stick is a fraud"

 

[PMZ]

From Howstuffworks

If the polar ice caps melted, how much would the oceans rise?

by Marshall Brain
307

Antarctica accounts for about 90 percent of the world's ice.

You may have heard about global warming. It seems that in the last 100 years the earth's temperature has increased about half a degree Celsius. This may not sound like much, but even half a degree can have an effect on our planet. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the sea level has risen 6 to 8 inches (15 to 20 cm) in the last 100 years (see How do they measure sea level?).

*This higher temperature may be causing some floating icebergs to melt, but this will not make the oceans rise. Icebergs are large floating chunks of ice. In order to float, the iceberg displaces a volume of water that has a weight equal to that of the iceberg. Submarines use this principle to rise and sink in the water, too.

But the rising temperature and icebergs could play a small role in the rising ocean level. Icebergs are chunks of frozen glaciers that break off from landmasses and fall into the ocean. The rising temperature may be causing more icebergs to form by weakening the glaciers, causing more cracks and making ice mo*re likely to break off. As soon as the ice falls into the ocean, the ocean rises a little.

If the rising temperature affects glaciers and icebergs, could the polar ice caps be in danger of melting and causing the oceans to rise? This could happen, but no one knows when it might happen.

The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing.

At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted sea levels would not be affecte*d.

There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted. Because Greenland is closer to the equator than Antarctica, the temperatures there are higher, so the ice is more likely to melt.

But there might be a less dramatic reason than polar ice melting for the higher ocean level -- the higher temperature of the water. Water is most dense at 4 degrees Celsius. Above and below this temperature, the density of water decreases (the same weight of water occupies a bigger space). So as the overall temperature of the water increases it naturally expands a little bit making the oceans rise.

In 1995 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report which contained various projections of the sea level change by the year 2100. They estimate that the sea will rise 50 centimeters (20 inches) with the lowest estimates at 15 centimeters (6 inches) and the highest at 95 centimeters (37 inches). The rise will come from thermal expansion of the ocean and from melting glaciers and ice sheets. Twenty inches is no small amount -- it could have a big effect on coastal cities, especially during storms.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

From Howstuffworks

If the polar ice caps melted, how much would the oceans rise?

by Marshall Brain
307

Antarctica accounts for about 90 percent of the world's ice.

You may have heard about global warming. It seems that in the last 100 years the earth's temperature has increased about half a degree Celsius. This may not sound like much, but even half a degree can have an effect on our planet. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the sea level has risen 6 to 8 inches (15 to 20 cm) in the last 100 years (see How do they measure sea level?).

*This higher temperature may be causing some floating icebergs to melt, but this will not make the oceans rise. Icebergs are large floating chunks of ice. In order to float, the iceberg displaces a volume of water that has a weight equal to that of the iceberg. Submarines use this principle to rise and sink in the water, too.

But the rising temperature and icebergs could play a small role in the rising ocean level. Icebergs are chunks of frozen glaciers that break off from landmasses and fall into the ocean. The rising temperature may be causing more icebergs to form by weakening the glaciers, causing more cracks and making ice mo*re likely to break off. As soon as the ice falls into the ocean, the ocean rises a little.

If the rising temperature affects glaciers and icebergs, could the polar ice caps be in danger of melting and causing the oceans to rise? This could happen, but no one knows when it might happen.

The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing.

At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted sea levels would not be affecte*d.

There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted. Because Greenland is closer to the equator than Antarctica, the temperatures there are higher, so the ice is more likely to melt.

But there might be a less dramatic reason than polar ice melting for the higher ocean level -- the higher temperature of the water. Water is most dense at 4 degrees Celsius. Above and below this temperature, the density of water decreases (the same weight of water occupies a bigger space). So as the overall temperature of the water increases it naturally expands a little bit making the oceans rise.

In 1995 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report which contained various projections of the sea level change by the year 2100. They estimate that the sea will rise 50 centimeters (20 inches) with the lowest estimates at 15 centimeters (6 inches) and the highest at 95 centimeters (37 inches). The rise will come from thermal expansion of the ocean and from melting glaciers and ice sheets. Twenty inches is no small amount -- it could have a big effect on coastal cities, especially during storms.

At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted sea levels would not be affected.

How can this be? You said melting Arctic Ocean ice has flooded our coasts, many times.

 

[PMZ]

From Howstuffworks

If the polar ice caps melted, how much would the oceans rise?

by Marshall Brain
307

Antarctica accounts for about 90 percent of the world's ice.

You may have heard about global warming. It seems that in the last 100 years the earth's temperature has increased about half a degree Celsius. This may not sound like much, but even half a degree can have an effect on our planet. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the sea level has risen 6 to 8 inches (15 to 20 cm) in the last 100 years (see How do they measure sea level?).

*This higher temperature may be causing some floating icebergs to melt, but this will not make the oceans rise. Icebergs are large floating chunks of ice. In order to float, the iceberg displaces a volume of water that has a weight equal to that of the iceberg. Submarines use this principle to rise and sink in the water, too.

But the rising temperature and icebergs could play a small role in the rising ocean level. Icebergs are chunks of frozen glaciers that break off from landmasses and fall into the ocean. The rising temperature may be causing more icebergs to form by weakening the glaciers, causing more cracks and making ice mo*re likely to break off. As soon as the ice falls into the ocean, the ocean rises a little.

If the rising temperature affects glaciers and icebergs, could the polar ice caps be in danger of melting and causing the oceans to rise? This could happen, but no one knows when it might happen.

The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing.

At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted sea levels would not be affecte*d.

There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted. Because Greenland is closer to the equator than Antarctica, the temperatures there are higher, so the ice is more likely to melt.

But there might be a less dramatic reason than polar ice melting for the higher ocean level -- the higher temperature of the water. Water is most dense at 4 degrees Celsius. Above and below this temperature, the density of water decreases (the same weight of water occupies a bigger space). So as the overall temperature of the water increases it naturally expands a little bit making the oceans rise.

In 1995 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report which contained various projections of the sea level change by the year 2100. They estimate that the sea will rise 50 centimeters (20 inches) with the lowest estimates at 15 centimeters (6 inches) and the highest at 95 centimeters (37 inches). The rise will come from thermal expansion of the ocean and from melting glaciers and ice sheets. Twenty inches is no small amount -- it could have a big effect on coastal cities, especially during storms.

At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted sea levels would not be affected.

How can this be? You said melting Arctic Ocean ice has flooded our coasts, many times.

I said AGW in the Arctic would flood our coasts.

Why?

Greenland glaciers melting.

Thermal expansion of water.

Read the article again and tell us what those two things would do to sea level.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

From Howstuffworks

If the polar ice caps melted, how much would the oceans rise?

by Marshall Brain
307

Antarctica accounts for about 90 percent of the world's ice.

You may have heard about global warming. It seems that in the last 100 years the earth's temperature has increased about half a degree Celsius. This may not sound like much, but even half a degree can have an effect on our planet. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the sea level has risen 6 to 8 inches (15 to 20 cm) in the last 100 years (see How do they measure sea level?).

*This higher temperature may be causing some floating icebergs to melt, but this will not make the oceans rise. Icebergs are large floating chunks of ice. In order to float, the iceberg displaces a volume of water that has a weight equal to that of the iceberg. Submarines use this principle to rise and sink in the water, too.

But the rising temperature and icebergs could play a small role in the rising ocean level. Icebergs are chunks of frozen glaciers that break off from landmasses and fall into the ocean. The rising temperature may be causing more icebergs to form by weakening the glaciers, causing more cracks and making ice mo*re likely to break off. As soon as the ice falls into the ocean, the ocean rises a little.

If the rising temperature affects glaciers and icebergs, could the polar ice caps be in danger of melting and causing the oceans to rise? This could happen, but no one knows when it might happen.

The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing.

At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted sea levels would not be affecte*d.

There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted. Because Greenland is closer to the equator than Antarctica, the temperatures there are higher, so the ice is more likely to melt.

But there might be a less dramatic reason than polar ice melting for the higher ocean level -- the higher temperature of the water. Water is most dense at 4 degrees Celsius. Above and below this temperature, the density of water decreases (the same weight of water occupies a bigger space). So as the overall temperature of the water increases it naturally expands a little bit making the oceans rise.

In 1995 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report which contained various projections of the sea level change by the year 2100. They estimate that the sea will rise 50 centimeters (20 inches) with the lowest estimates at 15 centimeters (6 inches) and the highest at 95 centimeters (37 inches). The rise will come from thermal expansion of the ocean and from melting glaciers and ice sheets. Twenty inches is no small amount -- it could have a big effect on coastal cities, especially during storms.

At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted sea levels would not be affected.

How can this be? You said melting Arctic Ocean ice has flooded our coasts, many times.

I said AGW in the Arctic would flood our coasts.

Why?

Greenland glaciers melting.

Thermal expansion of water.

Read the article again and tell us what those two things would do to sea level.

Ohhh, so when you said Arctic Ocean ice melting, you meant Greenland.

 

[PMZ]

At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted sea levels would not be affected.

How can this be? You said melting Arctic Ocean ice has flooded our coasts, many times.

I said AGW in the Arctic would flood our coasts.

Why?

Greenland glaciers melting.

Thermal expansion of water.

Read the article again and tell us what those two things would do to sea level.

Ohhh, so when you said Arctic Ocean ice melting, you meant Greenland.

In what ocean is Greenland located? It seems like you've been overwhelmed by important points that you have been wrong about. You'd like to compensate by bringing up unimportant points that you'd like to claim to be not as wrong about.

Feel free.

 

[PMZ]

Don't forget.

Read the article again and tell us what those two things would do to sea level.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I said AGW in the Arctic would flood our coasts.

Why?

Greenland glaciers melting.

Thermal expansion of water.

Read the article again and tell us what those two things would do to sea level.

Ohhh, so when you said Arctic Ocean ice melting, you meant Greenland.

In what ocean is Greenland located? It seems like you've been overwhelmed by important points that you have been wrong about. You'd like to compensate by bringing up unimportant points that you'd like to claim to be not as wrong about.

Feel free.

In what ocean is Greenland located?

Ummmmmm....Greenland ice isn't in the Arctic Ocean.

I'm overwhelmed by the important points you have been wrong about.

 

[PMZ]

Ohhh, so when you said Arctic Ocean ice melting, you meant Greenland.

In what ocean is Greenland located? It seems like you've been overwhelmed by important points that you have been wrong about. You'd like to compensate by bringing up unimportant points that you'd like to claim to be not as wrong about.

Feel free.

In what ocean is Greenland located?

Ummmmmm....Greenland ice isn't in the Arctic Ocean.

I'm overwhelmed by the important points you have been wrong about.

Why can't you answer a simple question?

The important points that you want to be true, simply aren't. I know that that sucks for you. Two choices. Continue to deny, or join those of us in the real world. I know that denial is your preference because of your insatiable ego. But, you're not the first person in the world to screw up. Man up and admit it. Because the other choice, defending the indefensible, sucks, big time.

Growing up and taking responsibility for yourself is tough. The only thing worse is trying to avoid it.

But, acting like a grownup has its own set of advantages.

You can do it.

 

[bripat9643]

You are the one that made the logical fallacy.

What's the fallacy?

"the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid"

Does not lead to

"the Hockey Stick is a fraud"

Yes it does, because that is exactly what McIntryre's criticism says, doofus.

 

[bripat9643]

From Howstuffworks

If the polar ice caps melted, how much would the oceans rise?

by Marshall Brain
307

Antarctica accounts for about 90 percent of the world's ice.

You may have heard about global warming. It seems that in the last 100 years the earth's temperature has increased about half a degree Celsius. This may not sound like much, but even half a degree can have an effect on our planet. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the sea level has risen 6 to 8 inches (15 to 20 cm) in the last 100 years (see How do they measure sea level?).

*This higher temperature may be causing some floating icebergs to melt, but this will not make the oceans rise. Icebergs are large floating chunks of ice. In order to float, the iceberg displaces a volume of water that has a weight equal to that of the iceberg. Submarines use this principle to rise and sink in the water, too.

But the rising temperature and icebergs could play a small role in the rising ocean level. Icebergs are chunks of frozen glaciers that break off from landmasses and fall into the ocean. The rising temperature may be causing more icebergs to form by weakening the glaciers, causing more cracks and making ice mo*re likely to break off. As soon as the ice falls into the ocean, the ocean rises a little.

If the rising temperature affects glaciers and icebergs, could the polar ice caps be in danger of melting and causing the oceans to rise? This could happen, but no one knows when it might happen.

The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing.

At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted sea levels would not be affecte*d.

There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted. Because Greenland is closer to the equator than Antarctica, the temperatures there are higher, so the ice is more likely to melt.

But there might be a less dramatic reason than polar ice melting for the higher ocean level -- the higher temperature of the water. Water is most dense at 4 degrees Celsius. Above and below this temperature, the density of water decreases (the same weight of water occupies a bigger space). So as the overall temperature of the water increases it naturally expands a little bit making the oceans rise.

In 1995 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report which contained various projections of the sea level change by the year 2100. They estimate that the sea will rise 50 centimeters (20 inches) with the lowest estimates at 15 centimeters (6 inches) and the highest at 95 centimeters (37 inches). The rise will come from thermal expansion of the ocean and from melting glaciers and ice sheets. Twenty inches is no small amount -- it could have a big effect on coastal cities, especially during storms.

Your chances of winning the lottery are 1000 times better than the chance of Antarctica melting.

 

[SSDD]

I don't think that you understand how science works. Everything is built on previous work. Mann was an early pioneer. One of the first to reconstruct a long term global temperature history.

Everything being built on previous work is fine and well if that work is substantiated, proven, and sound. If that isn't the case, then you have described precisely how an error cascade can destroy an entire field of research. A single bit of foundational research is wrong and then is, in turn, used by others and amplified with each reference. mann's work has become part of the foundation of climate science, but he really wasn't a pioneer. There were many long term global temperature histories made before him (dozens) across the globe and the vast majority of them identified the Roman and Medieval warm periods as being both warmer than the present and global in nature. Today, literally hundreds of peer reviewed papers dispute mann's findings that the MWP was about the same temperature as the present and was not global in nature.

Literally hundreds of papers peer reviewed and published in respectable journals and yet, mann's findings, even though his methodology, and data source itself, has been called into question and been found wanting by no less than the National Academy of Science form the basis for climate science insofar as climate history is concerned.

With the vast body of evidence pointing to multiple warm periods in the not so distant past that were both warmer than the present and global in nature, why do you suppose mann's work is the benchmark?

His work is accepted by all climate scientists after him as sound and used, without checking, in their own research....taken as a given...and the error is amplified with each additional use as that paper will then become part of the reference data set. That means that every bit of research that has used mann's findings and accepted them as sound is a flawed paper. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of them by now.

The medical research community is, at present, reeling from just such an error cascade, and the medical research community is, as a whole, better educated and more tightly controlled than the climate science community. If it can happen in medicine, it can happen anywhere.

He advanced that science. It has continued to be advanced from his work by others.

He has been instrumental in destroying the credibility of a whole field of science. Why would an individual's work which goes against the findings of literally hundreds of published, peer reviewed papers, and whose methodology and data sources themselves have been called into question and in some areas found wanting become the benchmark?

Paper after paper has been published since mann, finding that the MWP and RWP were both warmer than the present and global in nature. Why then does mann's work remain the benchmark. How exactly is that a sign of a healthy branch of scientific research? Neither the findings, nor the methodology, nor the data sources of these hundreds of papers has been called into question and found wanting and yet, mann's paper which goes against them remains the benchmark. Does that sound like good science to you? Really?

To me it sounds like the few papers whose findings were that smoking wasn't bad for your health against the overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary. Climate science has become the equivalent of tobacco company research and it will pay dearly for putting politics ahead of scientific integrity.

Not by McIntyre et al. They are well paid to drag red herrings across the path of progress instead of advancing it. Mann is a climate scientist. McIntyre is an anti science politician.

The National Academy of Science found mann's work wanting and it doesn't matter who or why the work was called into question. The fact is that his work was found to be substandard. The national academy said about mann's work:

the hockey stick method systematically underestimated the uncertainties in the data (p. 107).

NAS agreed with the M&M assertion that the hockey stick had no statistical significance, and was no more informative about the distant past than a table of random numbers. The NAS found that Mann's methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless. Mann’s data set does not have enough information to verify its ‘skill’ at resolving the past, and has such wide uncertainty bounds as to be no better than the simple mean of the data (p. 91). M&M said that the appearance of significance was created by ignoring all but one type of test score, thereby failing to quantify all the relevant uncertainties. The NAS agreed (p. 110), but, again, did so in subtle wording.

M&M argued that the hockey stick relied for its shape on the inclusion of a small set of invalid proxy data (called bristlecone, or “strip-bark” records). If they are removed, the conclusion that the 20th century is unusually warm compared to the pre-1450 interval is reversed. Hence the conclusion of unique late 20th century warmth is not robust—in other word it does not hold up under minor variations in data or methods. The NAS panel agreed, saying Mann’s results are “strongly dependent” on the strip-bark data (pp. 106-107), and they went further, warning that strip-bark data should not be used in this type of research (p. 50).

NAS said " Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions", i.e. produce hockey sticks from baseball statistics, telephone book numbers, and monte carlo random numbers.

NAS said Mann downplayed the "uncertainties of the published reconstructions...Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.’

A subsequent House Energy and Commerce Committee report chaired by Edward Wegman totally destroyed the credibility of the ‘hockey stick’ and devastatingly ripped apart Mann’s methodology as ‘bad mathematics’. Furthermore, when Gerald North, the chairman of the NAS panel -- which Mann claims ‘vindicated him’ – was asked at the House Committee hearings whether or not they agreed with Wegman’s harsh criticisms, he said they did:

CHAIRMAN BARTON: Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

.

DR. BLOOMFIELD [Head of the Royal Statistical Society]: Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

WALLACE [of the American Statistical Association]: ‘the two reports [Wegman's and NAS] were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.

The hard fact is that mann's work was found wanting and yet remains the benchmark in a field of science whose political aspirations have replaced the scientific method.

Explain, as concisely as possible why you think mann's work, which has been questioned remains the benchmark while literally hundreds of papers, which have not been called into question, and dispute his findings, are ignored by the field.

 

[SSDD]

So-Called Medieval Warm Period Not So Warm After All

God buy you are stupid. One paper looking at one small chain of islands overturns hundreds of papers that find that the MWP was warmer and global in your mind?

Africa:
Level 1 Studies:
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science

Level 2 Studies:
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science

Level 3 Studies:
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science


Antarctica
Level 2 Studies:
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science

Level 3 Studies:
CO2 Science


Asia
Level 1 Studies:
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science

Should I continue? I can if you like. Study after study after study in every region of the globe finding that the MWP was warmer than the present and global in nature. How many peer reviewed papers published in respected journals would it take to make you believe that mann missed the mark and was incorrect in his findings. Name a number.

 

[PMZ]

What's the fallacy?

"the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid"

Does not lead to

"the Hockey Stick is a fraud"

Yes it does, because that is exactly what McIntryre's criticism says, doofus.

Because someone being paid to deny science, does, you conclude that it must be logical.

No wonder you're so easily fooled.

 

[bripat9643]

"the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid"

Does not lead to

"the Hockey Stick is a fraud"

Yes it does, because that is exactly what McIntryre's criticism says, doofus.

Because someone being paid to deny science, does, you conclude that it must be logical.

No wonder you're so easily fooled.

He's not being paid to do anything, doofus. He's retired. Apparently he just despises fraud, so he exposes it when he sees it.

Do you believe everything the priests of the cult tell you to believe?

 

[PMZ]

So-Called Medieval Warm Period Not So Warm After All

God buy you are stupid. One paper looking at one small chain of islands overturns hundreds of papers that find that the MWP was warmer and global in your mind?

Africa:
Level 1 Studies:
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science

Level 2 Studies:
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science

Level 3 Studies:
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science


Antarctica
Level 2 Studies:
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science

Level 3 Studies:
CO2 Science


Asia
Level 1 Studies:
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science

Should I continue? I can if you like. Study after study after study in every region of the globe finding that the MWP was warmer than the present and global in nature. How many peer reviewed papers published in respected journals would it take to make you believe that mann missed the mark and was incorrect in his findings. Name a number.

You have one source and I have one source. You like your source because what they say you want to be true.

As far as I can tell, the MWP is over. Whatever happened then will be understood some day. Just as what's happening now is understood. The two things are unrelated unless you believe that there were 7B Vikings all burning fossil fuels.

People who want to pursue scientifically that period are certainly welcome to. Maybe, when we get all of the urgent energy problems solve, someone will fund a MWP IPCC just out of curiosity.

I'm for all of the knowledge that we can uncover.