Global Warming Bombshell (Moonbat Mathematics Revealed)

MIT Technology Review ^ | 15 October 2004 | Richard Muller

[AdmSmith]

Perhaps we all should contact our local newspaper and ask them to describe PCA, and then use this as an example?

No, I don't think that they understand the math.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Geological data aren't singular, either."

Yes, but given the usage of them by the "global warmers", they appear to THINK that they are singular. I can't think of any other way they can come up with some of the extrapolations that they do.

"(Born and raised a Marylander, North Dakotan by choice.)"

Masochist??? (North Dakota winters :^) ) My blood is WAY too thin to handle that kind of cold weather!

[Smokin' Joe]

Cold? What cold? We'd never get the tourists out of here if we didn't tell those stories...

[Publius6961]

BUMP!

[xp38]

Canadians know about hockey sticks.

[Wonder Warthog]

"The 'little ice age' is a matter of historical record. It shows up clearly in the corrected plot. It's nnowhere to be seen in the Mann plot."

Hey, little things like "experimental data" mean nothing to the eco-"computer modellers". Far be it from them to let "historical fact" stand in the way of a good theory/model.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Cold? What cold? We'd never get the tourists out of here if we didn't tell those stories..."

Ah, I see---it's like the "it rains a lot in Seattle" verbiage.

[Right Wing Professor]

Hey, little things like "experimental data" mean nothing to the eco-"computer modellers". Far be it from them to let "historical fact" stand in the way of a good theory/model.

Yes, but the rest of us are supposed to catch them at it. Me, I just assumed they had done the basic analysis correctly. Bad assumption, it turns out.

(Thank heavens this isn't actually my field. I'd be mortified.)

[dljordan]

That's EXACTLY what I was thinking. Of course I'm paranoid and cynical.

[Smokin' Joe]

I don't know, I have never been to Seattle. If so, I'd better take my water wings if I ever go :)

[Yelling]

I don't follow you here. The little ice age is taken to be between about 1300 and 1800 (depending on when you count it). In the "corrected" plot they are showing temperatures higher then now during the little ice age!!!

[Yelling]

Of course they don't bother to mention that McKitrick just published a paper where he mixed up degrees and radians! Lets see him explain that before we worry too much about "math corrections"

However if you read the reviewers comments on McKitrick's site they say things like:

1) At this stage, I think any Correction or Retraction by MBH98 is premature and really not required.

2) The reply by MBH04 on the previous comment by MM04 addresses in my opinion both points raised by MM04 in a convincing way. Although it is for a reviewer impossible to check all the technical details involved in this reply, they arguments used by MBH04 seem plausible, and I would say they are probably correct. This is of course no guarantee that the entirety of MBH98 work and conclusions are free of error.

3) In summary, judging from the present version of the manuscript and the response by MBH04, I now think that basis for MM04 has wavered and that further work , or further convincing evidence, would be needed to present a more solid case.

4) Considering the changes relative to the first version of MM04, it seems to me that the case presented by MM04 has weakened considerably.

5) Unfortunately, I have the impression that preconceived notions affect the potential "audit" by McIntyre and McKitrick. That would, of course, not mean that their assessment is necessarily wrong, but might explain the rather harsh and tricky wording used here and at other places by both parties, and I generally do not believe that this sort of an "audit" and rebuttal will lead to a better understanding of past climate variations.

With the reviewers saying Mann's paper still seems intact is it no wonder that Nature did not publish.

Of course if M&M finish with Mann, they still have Jones, Crawley and the others to deal with who used independently data and produced similar results.

[Right Wing Professor]

The little ice age really started to take hold in Shakespeare's day (late 16th century) and was at its most severe around 1700.

[Yelling]

Well, the latest date I could find for the start of the little ice age was about 1500. Most seem to be about 1450 e.g.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/10051.htm
The ones that are later have a previous period called the Medieval glaciation which indicates it was still cold.

Looking at the graph we see a large warm spike that was much warmer than current temperatures at 1500.

regards,
Yelling

[spunkets]

" cooking the books in their favor."

Yep.

[spunkets]

"Energy conservation has to be strictly enforced "

That's right, but these guys don't care about that. It's their agenda they care about, not the physics of the situation. That's why their simulations include lots of bogus methods and data accompanied by as much handwaving. Like Bellisiles account of American history, or any leftist construction, reality doesn't matter. It's the desired outcome that does.

[Triple]

I have equivalent statistical experience - no PhD, but grad level study / applied science degree / application of statistical methods in real life with real data.

I totally agree with your assertions about patterns in random data (they can be expected). Where I disagree is that PhD professional statisticians can by chance make an error that supports their case without intent. If you and I know about this potential, bet your but they do. There is one area where lesser PhD level statisticians make genuine mistakes, IMO. It is not in data normalization, but in the application of a priori rules to a posteriori questions. So, my starting point is malice on their part, because their mistakes systematically supported their political agenda. Regards,

[Steve Schulin]

The "corrected" graph you're commenting on displays the effects of an audit of Mann et al's data. McIntyre and McKitrick don't claim that

(a) applying, as this graph does, as close to Mann et al's _unreplicable_ method as possible to the datasets actually disclosed (including updates, excluding undisclosed truncations, etc) in the Mann et al paper will

(b)actually reflect hemispheric climate history.

[MonroeDNA]

"That graph image is false. Why? Always look for the spike in temperatures which occurred during the 1930s. If that spike is not shown, then something is wrong with the presentation.

It is the rolling, 20-year mean; a lot easier to see the fraud than the yearly one. I am sure you are correct. I will post the yearly one shortly.

You know yer stuff!

[MonroeDNA]

The previous graph that I posted showed a rolling, 20-year mean, with the charts overlaid. This is the yearly ones; not as easy to see, but trend is the same.

Top one is the bogus one, bottom is the corrected one.