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.
It is customary to provide a proper reference or link when objecting to information and making a claim as you have. Could you provide the source to this?
Really Mann? Are you sure? Would this be like your MBH98?
Sorry, this guy is a joke. Sure, we should look at his data, but look at the following...
This one is good:
Oh really? You don't say? I guess you didn't read that part Bluefly? Umm... sorry his credability is in the trash, he has already been shown to allow extreme bias in his past work. Is this why you only referred to it vaguely?
The rest of your response is alarmist and invalid. Try staying on the "science" part of this issue. You know, that "real science"?
Seriously? Suggesting we use our ingenuity to create new technologies and jobs is now "alarmist and invalid"?!?
You, gentle sir or ma'am, have lost all credibility. The point of that statement was that you all are obsessed with a game of oneupmanship to see who is right about climate change, and you're missing the greater opportunity to build a world that works to instead serve your egos (on both sides).
..And if you can cite any peer review process that has disproven Mann's research on the hurricanes discussed above, then by all means I will retract it. As far as I know, it stands as valid research, no matter what may have happened with previous models.
Drive up the price of home heating and energy through government legislation, then when winters get more brutal they can make a big show of providing assistance to those who can't afford to pay it. They squeeze everybody and look like the good guy.
Cap and Trade, fleece and steal.
Seriously? Suggesting we use our ingenuity to create new technologies and jobs is now "alarmist and invalid"?!?
So that is what cap and trade is now? A suggestion? Is that what Kyoto was about? A simple suggestion? You aren't "suggesting" anything, you are demanding everyone conform to poorly thought out policies driven by fanatical belief in a hypothesis that is assumptive computation to which consistently conflicts with observational trends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
You, gentle sir or ma'am, have lost all credibility. The point of that statement was that you all are obsessed with a game of oneupmanship to see who is right about climate change, and you're missing the greater opportunity to build a world that works to instead serve your egos (on both sides).
Do you have any clue what I am talking about? You display the ignorance of a blind supporter who surfs talking point sites yet knows nothing about the actual science of the topic.
Mann WAS proven wrong on his MBH98 data (aka the hockey stick) isn't defended in the Climate science community anymore and his current research is in question and hotly contested and debated in the community. You should know better, his discredit in this work is common knowledge.
Everything on Mann, his comments, his stonewalling of data, the rebuttal to which was shown to be as garbage oriented as Mann's MBH98. All of the points concerning Mann can be replicated if you know how to do math, so knock yourself out. You are arguing a point that has already been dealt with. The IPCC acknowledged the faults with Mann, his discredit in this area is not up for debate, it is old news and attempting to claim otherwise is foolish and ignorant.
So... this is where we start when we now look at Mann's claims concerning Hurrican's. He has a history of wild methods and applications, poorly reconstructed data, and a love for hiding anything that might allow a reviewer to check his work.
You have not even begun to make an argument against my credibility, you haven't even dealt with the facts of the issue. I speak of the issues through the data and the actual researchers names, records, and methodology. You speak of vague headlines as references to support your position. You aren't even in the same ballpark as me in this discussion, you are out of your league not because I say so, but because your responses show extreme ignorance to the subject.
I will however humor you this time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
..And if you can cite any peer review process that has disproven Mann's research on the hurricanes discussed above, then by all means I will retract it. As far as I know, it stands as valid research, no matter what may have happened with previous models.
Ok, not that his previous reputation is evidence, but we have already established Mann's approach to past subjects, so lets look at his current research.
Also keep in mind that Nature has HUGE problems with following its own policy of publication. That is, they have a tendency to publish research that has not been properly archived for review.
Note the link below on the numerous problems with Natures publications and policy concerning certain Authors, Mann being one of them. Also note that Science has a history of the same issues.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=31 (broken link)
Now lets take a look at Mann's own words concerning this research. I quoted a couple previously, you ignored them, lets take a second look.
Quote:
Mann says that if sea surface temperatures continue to rise as a result of global warming, the world can expect to see more hurricanes. But this increase could be tempered if climate change doesn't increase the El Niño effect, something that's debated in current climate-change models. Debate also rages in the hurricane-research community over whether the increase in hurricanes seen over the past decade is accurate or just due to improved techniques in counting the storms.
Chris Landsea, a hurricane researcher at the National Hurricane Centre in Miami, Florida, says that other research has shown that 3 or 4 hurricanes were missed in annual counts from the late nineteenth century. This would "nullify" the peak in activity seen over the past ten years, he says.
But Mann says that the statistical model used in his study takes into account the possibility that historical hurricane counts could have been inaccurate, yet the results still show a peak in activity over the past decade.
Man again says he accounts for such with his models, keep in mind there is a debate in this area and Mann is 0 for 1 in the area of modeling past, present and future predictions.
It doesn't prove he is wrong, yet keep in mind he is nowhere near proving that he is correct either. He is making large assumptions and those assumptions are questioned by those in the community.
Here is a link to more specifics concerning this write up.
Mann et al 2009 reconstructs Atlantic tropical cyclone counts resulting in a curve that looks pretty much like every other Mannian curve. Atlantic tropical cyclone counts as a linear combination of reconstructed Atlantic SST in the east tropical Atlantic "main development region" (MDR), reconstructed El Nino and reconstructed North Atlantic Oscillation, using a formula developed in (3,16) - which surprisingly enough turn out to be articles by Mann himself (Mann and Sabatelli, 2007; Sabatelli and Mann 2007) previously discussed at CA here. This is summarized in the article as follows:
Quote:
At the time that Nature published this article, there was precisely NO information available on what proxies were used in the reconstruction of Atlantic SST or El Nino or how these reconstructions were done. Did any of the Nature reviewers ask to see the other Mann submission? I doubt it. I wonder if it uses Graybill bristlecone pines.
Proper peer review? Notice the issues with this when it was released? You keep quoting "peer review", but does that mean its policies are only applied to those who may disagree with the research? Why did Nature publish this when it wasn't properly reviewed and applied to policy? Do AGW supporters get a pass using Green Peace methodology? Is it ok to lie, forgo proper practice because its "a real important issue"?
Here is some more information on his work and comments by
What is troubling is that the analysis in the second paper depends to some degree upon the first (that is, if there is a significant undercount, which Mann dismisses, then the nature of the relationships used in the second paper changes). I note that the recent paper shows a dramatic uptick in storm activity that has been convincingly refuted by "strong evidence that there has been no systematic change in the number of north Atlantic tropical cyclones during the 20th century." It would be interesting to see Mann's analysis run with observational data properly adjusted for undercount and short-duration storms, or at a minimum considering these factors as part of the uncertainties in the analysis.
At the minimum, the two Mann et al. studies rely on highly inconsistent assumptions, yet one analysis depends upon the other. Not good.
Edit: In case you missed the "convincingly refuted" link above, let me link it again:
Now here is the important thing to note. First off, by applying the poor review and archive process that Nature has, it creates huge problems with being able to review the data and methods of the researcher. Noting Mann's previous dealing with such and the weak support he offers in the research in question as well as the conflict and debate among that part of the community, it would be irresponsible at best to even begin to make conclusions about his work in the manner you do.
You seem out of touch with the actual details of these topics. I would suggest that if you truly cared about the issue, you do a bit more reading into it rather than simply referring to these studies as definitive in objection to others linked material. It makes you appear ignorant and agenda serving.
I think it is your credibility to which is in question for your position is entirely of fallacious attacks and assumptions.
Well, glad I gave you an opening to rant about your pet issue.
1. Your ideology is clouding your clarity. What aspect of creating the innovations and technologies to live in a sustainable world involves government intervention?
Please cite where I stated that we need government to control us. I'll wait for it. You're making a leap of logic that simply does not exist in my argument - lumping me into some Green Peace activist worldview. It's pretty absurd what you're asserting about me.
You are, essentially, undermining the value of the American spirit. I know your interests only focus on science and you think this issue begins and ends with ivory tower academics, but my entire point is that, in the big picture, that doesn't matter. It can tell us we have problems or we don't, but as free thinking individuals and entrepreneurs, we have the ability to create the technologies, businesses, and developments that end pollution altogether (the local effects of which are irrefutable) and make this whole argument irrelevant.
It has nothing to do with government. It has everything to do with human ingenuity and willpower. Your argument would be akin to saying that the automobile or the television or electricity were forced upon us by government because there was a need for them rather than emerged from creative individuals.
2. Regarding the research, it would appear that Mann has acknowledged the potential shortcomings and that none have yet to refute it officially, no matter what his past record is. So, as of now, it stands.
Well, glad I gave you an opening to rant about your pet issue.
...
Red Herring.
We are talking about the science. Remember? "Real Science" and yet you spent the majority of your post attempting to attack character to avoid dealing with the issue.
Let me sum up my position on your argument here so we can move on to the "science".
I am for cleaner and more efficient products. I think few would argue against that point. I am however practical as one must be in this issue. I do not support dumping tons of money fueled by alarmist claims of necessity into technologies to which were not progressed simply because they are impractical and not cost efficient. There is a reason many of these technologies didn't "take off" and if you think they are all of a sudden making a break through, well... again you need to read up on your science some more.
I do not support taxing, regulating, capping, and fining industry to PUSH it to a direction demanded by a crowd who can not even get its math right in the research it uses to support its claim.
If you are not suggesting that, then we have no argument. If you are, then you must have support as to why this must be done. Which brings us again back to the science.
I am done arguing over this. You know my position, I will not speak of this again. Stick to the science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
2. Regarding the research, it would appear that Mann has acknowledged the potential shortcomings and that none have yet to refute it officially, no matter what his past record is. So, as of now, it stands.
It helps if you read what I provided. My posts deals with the legitamcy issue of Manns work, the publishing journals he used as well as OFFICIAL refutations to his work on this particular study. You might have seen if you actually read the post, but seeing that your response spent most of its time arguing about irrelevant political banter, it is not a surprise you missed it.
Read it again, and if you can't be bothered to read it then don't post in subjects you are severely misinformed in.
Edit: Let me help you out, I don't want you to get confused and shoot off on another irrelevant tangent.
I linked both in the above post. This was the first link:
Thus, to understand the source of the century-scale increase in Atlantic TC counts in HURDAT, one must explain the relatively monotonic increase in very short duration storms since the late-19th Century. While it is possible that the recorded increase in short duration TCs represents a real climate signal, we consider it is more plausible that the increase arises primarily from improvements in the quantity and quality of observations, along with enhanced interpretation techniques, which have allowed National Hurricane Center forecasters to better monitor and detect initial TC formation, and thus incorporate increasing numbers of very short-lived systems into the TC database.
This of course doesn't stop Mann from using it as yet another sensationalist claim to support his biased view. Though you would know this if you followed ANY of his work closely concerning tree rings.
We are talking about the science. Remember? "Real Science" and yet you spent the majority of your post attempting to attack character to avoid dealing with the issue.
I didn't bother reading past this point because you are so unwilling to step out of your comfort zone and deal with the larger issues.
Look at the title of this thread: "Drop in world temperatures fuels global warming debate...global warming what alot of BS!!!...LOL"
Pardon me if my comprehension skills are lacking, but this doesn't strike me as a forum for in-depth scientific analysis. It seems the topic of the thread is the debate over dropping world temperatures, the assertion of a most unscientific opinion ("BS"), and the chortles of a teenage girl.
So, here it is, once and for all: I don't give a crap about the science because I don't give a crap about global warming.
Your pet issue is harping on the scientific analysis because, I guess, that's what you do. It's not what I do, and you won't accept that difference. You try to turn every single thread into some scientific epic and denigrate anybody capable of assessing the larger socio-economic implications.
Here's the children's book version: We need to stop burning oil and coal because, without any shadow of a doubt, it causes local pollution and that is bad. That's plenty enough for me to say, "Hey! Let's create innovations and lifestyles that don't pollute! Let's use human ingenuity to create some pretty cool things!"
I don't care about global warming. It doesn't change a thing whether it's proven (which it pretty much is) or not.
Anyway, read "Conversations with God". God states explicitly in one of those books that global warming is very real and that we're not going to survive much longer if we don't fix it.
So, if you have an issue with it, take it up with God. Show her your data and see what she has to say about it. (haha - now I've brought God into your scientific debate! Winner winner chicken dinner!)
I didn't bother reading past this point because you are so unwilling to step out of your comfort zone and deal with the larger issues.
First off, I am not surprised you didn't read anything I posted, in fact this is your problem with this entire subject. You are too busy arguing over "the bigger picture" aka "political claim" that you have no understanding of how your "bigger picture" is irrelevant if it is not factual supported.
You base your position on the assertion that we are causing something and you take the typical ignorant alarmist position of demanding solutions due to this fallacious position. When the facts counter your position, you wave them off and proclaim urgency and demand conformity to your view evading the very issue that the science doesn't work into your fanatical belief.
The simple fact is, you jump to conclusions and make extreme assumptions based on gossip and laymen understanding of the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
Look at the title of this thread: "Drop in world temperatures fuels global warming debate...global warming what alot of BS!!!...LOL"
Pardon me if my comprehension skills are lacking, but this doesn't strike me as a forum for in-depth scientific analysis. It seems the topic of the thread is the debate over dropping world temperatures, the assertion of a most unscientific opinion ("BS"), and the chortles of a teenage girl.
It is not your comprehension skills that are lacking, but an issue of ignorance on how all of this is related. Your lack of understanding of the entire debate results in a misunderstanding of the concepts. The very issue of temperatures are key to many AGW positions and you might understand this if you were not so arrogantly pushing a political stand.
Also, your pride results in your continued sparring with me when you have no ground to stand on for your position. You are without merit in your position and it is no more valid than that of simple gossip at a hair salon. Your call for solutions and demand for urgency is not founded and simply hot air typical from the uninformed internet groupie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
So, here it is, once and for all: I don't give a crap about the science because I don't give a crap about global warming.
Your pet issue is harping on the scientific analysis because, I guess, that's what you do. It's not what I do, and you won't accept that difference. You try to turn every single thread into some scientific epic and denigrate anybody capable of assessing the larger socio-economic implications.
Again, you make conclusions based on nothing more than your subjective opinion which we have already assessed as invalid. You keep trying suggest there are certain implications, but refuse to evaluate the fact that your claims lack any real support. This is why you continue to operate in the political realms rather than argue the science. In the political realm, the ignorant can make claims and demand solutions without having to provide evidence to their claim. I am sorry, but your position is invalid unless you can properly support it. Since you refuse to provide proper supporting premises, your position is nothing short of a logical fallacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
Here's the children's book version: We need to stop burning oil and coal because, without any shadow of a doubt, it causes local pollution and that is bad. That's plenty enough for me to say, "Hey! Let's create innovations and lifestyles that don't pollute! Let's use human ingenuity to create some pretty cool things!"
I don't care about global warming. It doesn't change a thing whether it's proven (which it pretty much is) or not.
Anyway, read "Conversations with God". God states explicitly in one of those books that global warming is very real and that we're not going to survive much longer if we don't fix it.
So, if you have an issue with it, take it up with God. Show her your data and see what she has to say about it. (haha - now I've brought God into your scientific debate! Winner winner chicken dinner!)
Maybe part of the problem is that you educate yourself using children s material and religious assertions while evading answer by claiming disinterest in the very position you attempt to represent.
It appears that not only are you lacking in understanding of the topic you attempt to demand solutions, yet you are also lacking in the basic concept of a logical argument and it is to this detriment that you consistently fail in presenting your view.
I suggest you either limit your conclusions of fact or simply spend more time listening so as not to make yourself look more foolish in your position than you already have.
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.
(haha - now I've brought God into your scientific debate! Winner winner chicken dinner!)
An Inconvenient Truth
