Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Last month, a group of scientists headed by geologist Shaun Marcott launched the latest salvo in the global warming war. They announced that they had reconstructed the last 11,000 years of Earth climate history, based on various proxies, and had found that in the 20th century there was an unprecedented uptick in temperature. The Marcott paper was hailed by liberal media outlets; to cite just a few examples:
* “We’re screwed: 11,000 years’ worth of *climate data prove it.” The Atlantic, March 10.
* “The modern rise that has recreated the temperatures of 5,000 years ago is occurring at an exceedingly rapid clip on a geological time scale, appearing in graphs in the new paper as a sharp vertical spike.” Justin Gillis, New York Times, March 7.
* “’Rapid’ head spike unlike anything in 11,000 years. Research released Thursday in the journal Science uses fossils of tiny marine organisms to reconstruct global temperatures…. It shows how the glode for several thousands of years was cooling until an unprecedented reversal in the 20th century.” The Associated Press, March 7.
But when real scientists–that is, those who apply a skeptical, scientific approach rather than a religious attitude of fervor–studied the Marcott paper, it quickly fell apart. We wrote about the Marcott fiasco here and here. It turned out that Marcott and his colleagues had created the 20th century warming spike–which was, in reality, the sole purpose of their exercise–by changing the dates on some of the samples they used as proxies.
Last month, a group of scientists headed by geologist Shaun Marcott launched the latest salvo in the global warming war. They announced that they had reconstructed the last 11,000 years of Earth climate history, based on various proxies, and had found that in the 20th century there was an unprecedented uptick in temperature. The Marcott paper was hailed by liberal media outlets; to cite just a few examples:
* “We’re screwed: 11,000 years’ worth of *climate data prove it.” The Atlantic, March 10.
* “The modern rise that has recreated the temperatures of 5,000 years ago is occurring at an exceedingly rapid clip on a geological time scale, appearing in graphs in the new paper as a sharp vertical spike.” Justin Gillis, New York Times, March 7.
* “’Rapid’ head spike unlike anything in 11,000 years. Research released Thursday in the journal Science uses fossils of tiny marine organisms to reconstruct global temperatures…. It shows how the glode for several thousands of years was cooling until an unprecedented reversal in the 20th century.” The Associated Press, March 7.
But when real scientists–that is, those who apply a skeptical, scientific approach rather than a religious attitude of fervor–studied the Marcott paper, it quickly fell apart. We wrote about the Marcott fiasco here and here. It turned out that Marcott and his colleagues had created the 20th century warming spike–which was, in reality, the sole purpose of their exercise–by changing the dates on some of the samples they used as proxies.
This has nothing to do with the BEST study, it has to do with the deceptive practices used to construct Mann's version. There is two sets of data spliced together presented as one, you're trying to justify lying to people.
Seriously? There were no deceptive practices or lying to people. It was all there in his paper. Please do a little research on proxies and reconstructions - splicing data sets is standard practice. Data from other studies also include tree ring samples, ice cores, coral growth, ground temperature stations, satellite data, sunspot activity etc. How many MORE investigations do you need to finally understand that 'climategate' was bogus? How many MORE studies that confirm Mann's 'hockey stick' graph trend do you need?
Typical AGW alarmist... attack the post when you cannot refute the facts.
Typical AGW denier... singling out isolated, controversial cases to suport their view whilst ignoring a huge mass of studies and data with no associated scandal.
Research 101/Rhetoric 101: You can't make generalizations based on anecdotes and outliers. THAT'S bad science!
Typical AGW denier... singling out isolated, controversial cases to suport their view whilst ignoring a huge mass of studies and data with no associated scandal.
Research 101/Rhetoric 101: You can't make generalizations based on anecdotes and outliers. THAT'S bad science!
It should never have even been 'controversial'. That's what happens when denialists and conspiracy theorists go looking for monsters under other people's beds. They get blinded by dust bunnies.
If scientific facts are on your side, why lie? Why fake the data and the charts?
If I'm trying to prove to you that water turns to vapor when heated, I don't have to fake the data and I don't have to lie and I don't have to cover up my experiments.
But if I'm trying to prove to you that the earth is flat, I would have to lie and fake the data?
That's exactly what Michael Mann did. He faked the data to try to show that the 1990s was the warmest decade in history. He lied and tried to eliminate from the climate record the well-documented medieval warming from 700 to 1300 AD, when temperatures were actually much warmer than now.
The temperature curve from 1000 to 1900 AD in Mann's chart is flat and then spikes up at current years. This is his famous hockey stick chart. The intent of the fakery was to demonstrate that human industrial activity caused the purported increase. The fakery was exposed by two Canadian scientists, McIntyre and McKitrick. McKitrick actually showed that Mann's computer program generated hockey-stick curves even when random data were inserted.
So why tell lies if you have accurate data?
Actually its you that is lying.
The following link from NASA states "97% of all climate scientists say man made global warming is happening." Climate Change: Consensus
The following Australian documentary shows/explains how Fox news manipulates people like you in the matter of global warming. Fox news does this as a favor for large corporations like ExxonMobile, if we do something about global warming those corporations will make less money.
It should never have even been 'controversial'. That's what happens when denialists and conspiracy theorists go looking for monsters under other people's beds. They get blinded by dust bunnies.
Having been caught, Marcott and his colleagues have now recanted. On Easter Sunday, they published online responses to “FAQs” that included this stunner:
[The] 20th-century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
