What happened to global warming then?

[VamP]

...you continue to repeat things that are untrue...

That sounds like an unfounded accusation User482. Where is your evidence?

 

[User482]

That sounds like an unfounded accusation User482. Where is your evidence?

Hey, you should know! I've provided you with the evidence. If haven't read it, or don't understand it, I can't help you.

 

[Archie_tect]

Really? This stopped being of any relevance for me on Friday.

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

 

[Crackle]

Really? This stopped being of any relevance for me on Friday.

So you don't think global warming is caused by a lot of hot air then.

 

[VamP]

1. Mann has been the subject of a comprehensive NRC investigation, which does not support your claims.
2. The Wegman report is not peer-reviewed, excludes peer-reviewed literature that specifically refutes McIntyre & McKitterick, and is still the subject of a plaigiarism investigation. I note that another of Wegman's papers has been retracted by the publisher because of plagiarism.

This is North's sworn testimony, talking about the Wegman report:

DR. NORTH. Well, I think that on many things we are in
agreement. The studies that--I mean, the examination they did of
the statistical procedures and the Mann et al. papers is not the
way we would--that I would have done it in hindsight, especially
now looking back. It is not the way I would have done it. I don't
think there is anything dishonest about it or anything like that,
but I think that the analyses that the Wegman group did really
were--some of those were examined by the statisticians on our
committee and I don't think that we are in any great disagreement
about it. Let me just mention this, that the criticisms don't mean
that the MBH claims were wrong. They just mean that the MBH claims
are not convincing by themselves. So if you pull together other
information, then that does change the view a bit.
It is not possible to evaluate Mann's honesty based on this, but it is a clear support of Wegman's critique of the stats manipulation. Wegman also stops short of accusing Mann of cheating.

I have come to the conclusion that Mann manipulated the data intentionally. You are free to conclude that he was incompetent, and I will not argue the point. Ultimately I don't care that much.

Getting the correct answer by using incorrect methodology is generally known as poor science.

There, you've made me serve it up for you on a platter. Any more requests?

Are you ready to start debating the statistical analysis?

 

[VamP]

Figure 9-2 shows the result of a simple simulation along the lines of McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) (the computer code appears in Appendix B). In each simulation, 50 autocorrelated time series of length 600 were constructed, with no coherent signal. Each was centered at the mean of its last 100 values, and the first principal component was found. The figure shows the first components from five such simulations overlaid. Principal components have an arbitrary sign, which was chosen here to make the last 100 values higher on average than the remainder.
Principal components of sample data reflect the shape of the corresponding eigenvectors of the population covariance matrix. The first eigenvector of the covariance matrix for this simulation is the red curve in Figure 9-2, showing the precise form of the spurious trend that the principal component would introduce into the fitted model in this case.
This exercise demonstrates that the baseline with respect to which anomalies are calculated can influence principal components in unanticipated ways. Huybers (2005), commenting on McIntyre and McKitrick (2005a), points out that normalization also affects results, a point that is reinforced by McIntyre and McKitrick (2005b) in their response to Huybers.

This is also from the North report. Still think it supports Mann?

Wanna debate the math?

 

[jonesy]

This is North's sworn testimony, talking about the Wegman report:

DR. NORTH. Well, I think that on many things we are in
agreement. The studies that--I mean, the examination they did of
the statistical procedures and the Mann et al. papers is not the
way we would--that I would have done it in hindsight, especially
now looking back. It is not the way I would have done it. I don't
think there is anything dishonest about it or anything like that,
but I think that the analyses that the Wegman group did really
were--some of those were examined by the statisticians on our
committee and I don't think that we are in any great disagreement
about it. Let me just mention this, that the criticisms don't mean
that the MBH claims were wrong. They just mean that the MBH claims
are not convincing by themselves. So if you pull together other
information, then that does change the view a bit.
It is not possible to evaluate Mann's honesty based on this, but it is a clear support of Wegman's critique of the stats manipulation. Wegman also stops short of accusing Mann of cheating.

I have come to the conclusion that Mann manipulated the data intentionally. You are free to conclude that he was incompetent, and I will not argue the point. Ultimately I don't care that much.

Getting the correct answer by using incorrect methodology is generally known as poor science.

There, you've made me serve it up for you on a platter. Any more requests?

Are you ready to start debating the statistical analysis?

It really doesn't matter how bombastically you keep repeating the same argument, you still haven't supported your initial claim of dishonesty. If you wish to make an argument of incompetence, then fine, do so (that would also be debatable of course). But that isn't lying or cheating and you really ought to be aware of the distinction. And given that dishonesty was your original claim, then you do look rather absurd to be claiming to have 'served it up on a platter' when in your very own words you say you can't evaluate Mann's honesty!

 

[VamP]

It really doesn't matter how bombastically you keep repeating the same argument, you still haven't supported your initial claim of dishonesty. If you wish to make an argument of incompetence, then fine, do so (that would also be debatable of course). But that isn't lying or cheating and you really ought to be aware of the distinction. And given that dishonesty was your original claim, then you do look rather absurd to be claiming to have 'served it up on a platter' when in your very own words you say you can't evaluate Mann's honesty!

I would have time for you, if we were debating this in some kind of formal context. As it's a ludicrous sub-forum on a cycling forum, I think I can speak my mind and not weigh every nuance.

It's not like the fate of the Western World hangs on the balance of a potential slur on Mann's reputation, uttered in an environment that is comparable in seriousness to a public bar.

Let me ask you another question. Do you really think Mann would rather be thought incompetent than dishonest? You are welcome to begin your career as his defence advocate , I am sure he can't wait to get you on his side.

PS: And I did say it was not possible to evaluate Mann's honesty based on North's evidence. That's not the same as saying that it's not possible to evaluate Mann's honesty.

 

[Archie_tect]

What we haven't touched on yet is the concept that any significant change in the relative percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere will trigger a cause and effect alteration in the plantetary balance. What I mean is: the increase in CO2 available in the atmosphere will set off compensatory changes capable of taking advantage of the increased level which will with time address the 'inbalance'... the planet is finely balanced and tuned, it has coped with massive contamination due to volcanic activity and the like... eg: this could perhaps go in some way to explain the rise in algae growth at the interface between warm and cold currents around the globe which in themselves are significant... + look at the examples of the rapidly reactive adjustments to excess within the natural food chain.

 

[col]

Ding ding!

 

[subaqua]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodandd...ey-Whittingstalls-River-Cottage-HQ-burns-down.

i blame hugh.

 

[Crackle]

Ding ding!

Shove over and give me some of that popcorn. Vamp's thrown a brand new ball into the playground. Now are FM, Jonesy and User482 gonna play with it or scuff their shoes kicking around the one they punctured.

 

[col]

Shove over and give me some of that popcorn. Vamp's thrown a brand new ball into the playground. Now are FM, Jonesy and User482 gonna play with it or scuff their shoes kicking around the one they punctured.

No problem, here . I think they have gone swotting up a bit, before rejoining the fray .

 

[jonesy]

Well, basically he's admitted that his allegation is just his personal opinion and that he can't actually provide any supporting evidence for it. So no new ball in play here, no swotting needed.