GW: Separating facts from fiction

Lucifuge Rofocale

Muse
L
Joined
Dec 5, 2001
Messages
968
Ok I have this charts wich supports GW maybe casually linked to human activity:
ipcc-1.gif


But I have a different vission based in more and most complete data:

no-hockey.gif

based in data from McIntyre-McKitric ( http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf) wich corrects many falls of the Mann studie.

This graphic shows that GW cannot be man made, at least if we are ready to assume that man in the middle ages didn't have enought technology to have an influence in climate.

Anyone wants to comment something about this charts and their consecuences?
 
The two charts above are mased on mountains of evidence, from published sources, where the methodology, and data are there for all to see. Cut the pretty graph, and show us the meaty data.
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
Please check page 13 of http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre-mckitrick.pdf
Click to expand...

That is merely a critique of existing work, not new work.

Thank you, that brings me to my peet peeve about global warming. Why are we always on the defensive against Global warming critics? I challenge you to defend your premise that the vast quantities of green houses gases emmited into the atmosphere by automobiles, factories, and slash and burn agriculture has no effect what so ever on the world wide climate. By what form of science can you support that position?
 
ImaginalDisc said:
That is merely a critique of existing work, not new work.

Thank you, that brings me to my peet peeve about global warming. Why are we always on the defensive against Global warming critics? I challenge you to defend your premise that the vast quantities of green houses gases emmited into the atmosphere by automobiles, factories, and slash and burn agriculture has no effect what so ever on the world wide climate. By what form of science can you support that position?
Click to expand...

I suppose because that is how science works. You formulate a hypothesis and then try and prove it. Any and all work is then reviewed and challenged.

I certainly don't want to have to disprove, say, claims that homeopathy can cure X all the time. I think we should stick to the system of if it is your hypothesis, you prove it.
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
...based in data from McIntyre-McKitric
Click to expand...
I notice that McIntyre is a statistician and McKitric is a professor of economics. You hold up these bozos against expert scientists?

But that's not the least of it. I also notice that M&M have been exposed as gibbering idiots, skewing their findings by confusing degrees with radians. :D

Now that's comedy!
 
Last edited:
varwoche said:
I notice that McIntyre is a statistician and McKitric is a professor of economics. You hold up these bozos against expert scientists?
Click to expand...

Hey, being a statistician or professor of economics does not make one a bozo (though confusing degrees and radians certainly does).
 
Jorghnassen said:
Hey, being a statistician or professor of economics does not make one a bozo (though confusing degrees and radians certainly does).
Click to expand...
I have nothing against statisticians, or even economics professors, until they pose at knowledge outside their area of expertise.
 
varwoche said:
I have nothing against statisticians, or even economics professors, until they pose at knowledge outside their area of expertise.
Click to expand...

I might grant you the professor of economics, but when it comes to climate modelling, I wouldn't say that a statistician (or an applied mathematician) is necessarily outside his/her area of expertise.
 
are the grey thingies errorbands? Depending, it looks as though current temps are within statistical tolerance.
 
no longer tenable

“The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people,” said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. “The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable.”
Click to expand...
article
 
varwoche said:
I have nothing against statisticians, or even economics professors, until they pose at knowledge outside their area of expertise.
Click to expand...

When dealing with the statistical analysis of data, especially time series, who exactly is moving further outside their area of expertise - paleoclimatologists, statisticians or economtricians?
 
Geckko said:
When dealing with the statistical analysis of data, especially time series, who exactly is moving further outside their area of expertise - paleoclimatologists, statisticians or economtricians?
Click to expand...
Naturally, stats relates to the topic at hand. Too bad this particular statistician can't tell radians from shinola. That's the type of dumbass mistake that is apt to happen when a statistician and an economics professor -- lacking topic knowledge -- team-up to "debunk" expert climatologists.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Thank you, that brings me to my peet peeve about global warming. Why are we always on the defensive against Global warming critics? I challenge you to defend your premise that the vast quantities of green houses gases emmited into the atmosphere by automobiles, factories, and slash and burn agriculture has no effect what so ever on the world wide climate. By what form of science can you support that position?
Click to expand...

No, I challenge you do defend your premise that the vast quantities of green house gases emmited intot he atmosphere by automobiles, factories, and slash and burn agriculture has any affect what so ever on the world wide climate.

By what form of science can you support that position?

You haven't even figured out how to properly answer the question, so why should I trust your answer?
 
strathmeyer said:
No, I challenge you do defend your premise that the vast quantities of green house gases emmited intot he atmosphere by automobiles, factories, and slash and burn agriculture has any affect what so ever on the world wide climate.

By what form of science can you support that position?

You haven't even figured out how to properly answer the question, so why should I trust your answer?
Click to expand...

Are you criticising Imaginal, or are you criticising the science behind Global Warming?
 
As I said in another thread, I'm just making up my mind. Fortunately, I have a degree in computational mathemathics anda also master studies in economics. But I'm not a climatologist. Good luck is that almost all climatology modeling I'm looking at is statistical and computational. Right now I can tell you that the climate problem is not an easy one to model. You have to do an incredible amount of assumptions and variable settings and you know the problem with that, it tends to confirm the initial assumptions. As far as I see, the MakIntyre paper is right and the flaws in the Mann model are real. If someonme wants to impugnate that paper I'd say GREAT!. That's why I posted it. But as far as I see this thread, no one is doing that.I just see character assasination.
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
As I said in another thread, I'm just making up my mind. Fortunately, I have a degree in computational mathemathics anda also master studies in economics. But I'm not a climatologist. Good luck is that almost all climatology modeling I'm looking at is statistical and computational. Right now I can tell you that the climate problem is not an easy one to model. You have to do an incredible amount of saumptions and variable settings and you know the problem with that, it tends to confirm the initial assumptions. As far as I see, the MakIntyre paper is right and the flaws in the Mann model are real. If someonme wants to impugnate that paper I'd say GREAT!. That's why I posted it. But as far as I see this thread, no one is doing that.I just see character assasination.
Click to expand...

Many climatologists "try out" their models by simulating past climate change, and then comparing their "predictions" with what can be inferred from the geological record. I have been to a few conferences where this kind of work was presented, and I must tell you, it ain't perfect, but it works.
 
varwoche said:
I notice that McIntyre is a statistician and McKitric is a professor of economics. You hold up these bozos against expert scientists?

But that's not the least of it. I also notice that M&M have been exposed as gibbering idiots, skewing their findings by confusing degrees with radians. :D

Now that's comedy!
Click to expand...
Bump for Lucifuge, who inexplicably is still holding up these discredited buffoons as a valid data source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom