|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 6, 2009 17:08:12 GMT
Permit me one more guess soclod.
It doesn't look like a hockey stick?
|
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Jun 6, 2009 18:12:34 GMT
I would like to understand the statistical arguments against (or for) the hockey stick.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Jun 6, 2009 22:58:17 GMT
Regarding socolds last comment....
rolling on the floor, laughing my hiney off, and blowing milk through my nose.
Now that was just darned funny!
How about finding a warmaholics site that doesn't delete opposing viewpoints?
|
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Jun 6, 2009 22:59:10 GMT
Do I suggest a 12 step program for warmaholics?
AGWA?
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 7, 2009 1:50:58 GMT
Who really cares? Now why don't you show us how honest and un-biased you are by finding something/anything, in the warmista's shameless propaganda that you are indignant about. Start with Al's blatant scaremongering fictional BS in his Academy Award winning horror film. Are you a scientist, or just a Scientologist? That's the thing, it's very easy for me to find distortions of statistics and graphs on skeptic blogs. I only have to go to icecap.us or iceagenow.com to guarantee I will find a post containing fallacious argument or blatent WW2 style propaganda distortions of fact of some form or other. And they seem to regurgitate/fabricate stuff daily, so it's a whole stream of nonsense in real-time. On the otherhand I am hard pressed to find an AGW blog that perform such actions. Perhaps blogs like realclimate do contain statistical errors that are beyond my understanding, but I can only spot what I can. Very basic graph distortions like the one presented above are obvious for me to spot, and indeed I suspect anyone. That's the thing, it's very easy for me to find distortions of statistics and graphs on skeptic blogs. Start listing them. Very basic graph distortions like the one presented above are obvious for me to spot, and indeed I suspect anyone. You still haven't cited the specific error or distortion. CO2 rises, temperatures do not; the correlation is negative. What's the problem? Perhaps blogs like realclimate do contain statistical errors that are beyond my understanding, But you believe the lying fraudsters just the same. Doesn't the following spark anything? www.climateaudit.org/?p=6203www.climateaudit.org/?p=6189Or this? wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/06/pielke-senior-comment-on-joe-romms-weblog-on-el-nino-and-global-warming/ |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 7, 2009 3:24:56 GMT
That's the thing, it's very easy for me to find distortions of statistics and graphs on skeptic blogs. I only have to go to icecap.us or iceagenow.com to guarantee I will find a post containing fallacious argument or blatent WW2 style propaganda distortions of fact of some form or other. And they seem to regurgitate/fabricate stuff daily, so it's a whole stream of nonsense in real-time. On the otherhand I am hard pressed to find an AGW blog that perform such actions. Perhaps blogs like realclimate do contain statistical errors that are beyond my understanding, but I can only spot what I can. Very basic graph distortions like the one presented above are obvious for me to spot, and indeed I suspect anyone. That's the thing, it's very easy for me to find distortions of statistics and graphs on skeptic blogs. Start listing them. Exhibit one is a variant on icecap.us graph in question. They used to start these co2/temp comparison graphs from 1998 under the guise of "last decade". However far more likely is they wanted to cherrypick a warm peak to start the trend from. Hence why they have as of late stopped doing "last decade" graphs which would now have to start from the inconvenient year of 1999. icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/correlation_last_decade_and_this_century_between_co2_and_global_temperature/Two involves ignoring the nature of la nina and the particular curve fitting that exagerates the last part of the graph wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/20/national-post-thirty-years-of-warmer-temperatures-go-poof/Three is more silliness in which the same level in two different years are compared, even though one is a peak and one is a trough, so they aren't the same afterall. Also done for ice levels in some cases. wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/02/what-a-difference-20-years-makes/Here's a four, falsely representing the IPCC co2 projections as linear. icecap.us/images/uploads/co2sppi.jpgThis one, a statistic is presented without any context. WUWT assumes that there is seldom a day when 115 record cold events occur. People start sarcastically commenting on the "mainstream media" not reporting it. People start interpretting it as confirming their belief in a cooling world. But all of this is just based on false assumption as over 115 record cold events happen on many days dozens of times since 2001. wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/30/chill-in-the-air-part-2-us-breaks-or-ties-115-of-cold-and-sets-63-new-snowfall-records/This is a reproduction of the distorted graph from icecap.us:  The choice of co2 scale and temp scale is key to the distortion. It causes the slope of the co2 trend to imply roughly 10C warming per doubling of co2. That's not anywhere near an honest representation of AGW. So it's a strawman. Here's a more realistic scale:  Not so dramatic is it? Either icecap.us is incompetent at conveying data accurately, as there is something like this in a lot of their graphs, or they are doing it deliberately. Looks to me like you've just copy pasted the link to most recent posts on climateaudit and wuwt. Have you even checked they contain anything relevant to this discussion? |
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 7, 2009 4:03:58 GMT
We are shocked soclod. There are errors on skeptic blogs. Some may even be deliberate. Probably BIG OIL CREATIONIST TOBACCO SMOKING EVIL STOOGES are responsible. Thanks for alerting us.
Did you get your criticisms of the stuff on wattsup from the comments? There is a free discussion of the articles posted there.
Do you have any criticisms of CARBON KING Al Gore's disingenuous graphology in his Academy Award winning science fiction film?
Maybe it's just me, but it seems to be extremely hypocritical that the warmistas hysterically pick the nit out of any skeptical challenge to their thing, but they don't have one word to say about the outrageous lies told by their chief propagandist. I guess it is just because he is their chief propagandist.
You people might want to try another strategy, soclod. You are losing the public. People just want to know where the heat is. A boogeyman that is thirty years late, just ain't very scary.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 7, 2009 5:25:01 GMT
Yes
Perhaps it's because I am not sitting here watching reruns of AIG (I haven't even watched it once in fact), but by virtue of reading skeptic blogs I do find myself watching reruns of icecaps graph distortions.
As an example I also don't harp on constantly about the "outrageous lies" in The Great Global Warming Swindle (unless prompted). Again because I am not sitting here watching reruns. I'll discuss what is happening and I am afraid all too much of what is happening is statistical gaffes and misleads on skeptic blogs.
|
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 7, 2009 13:35:46 GMT
I said: “Maybe it's just me, but it seems to be extremely hypocritical that the warmistas hysterically pick the nit out of any skeptical challenge to their thing, but they don't have one word to say about the outrageous lies told by their chief propagandist. I guess it is just because he is their chief propagandist”.
soclod: “Perhaps it's because I am not sitting here watching reruns of AIG (I haven't even watched it once in fact), but by virtue of reading skeptic blogs I do find myself watching reruns of icecaps graph distortions.
As an example I also don't harp on constantly about the "outrageous lies" in The Great Global Warming Swindle (unless prompted). Again because I am not sitting here watching reruns. I'll discuss what is happening and I am afraid all too much of what is happening is statistical gaffes and misleads on skeptic blogs.”
Perhaps you don’t find statistical gaffes and misleads on warmista blogs, because you are a committed, faithful warmista. You don’t want to see the flaws in your thing. The hysterical catastrophic AGW story does not have to be true. Stopping the burning of fossil fuels is just the right thing to do for the Earth and for future generations of all Earth’s critters, particularly the polar bears. You occupy the moral high ground. It is your mission to descend on little skeptic blogs with your mighty sword of truth to defend the faith. We get it.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 7, 2009 16:14:20 GMT
I said: “Maybe it's just me, but it seems to be extremely hypocritical that the warmistas hysterically pick the nit out of any skeptical challenge to their thing, but they don't have one word to say about the outrageous lies told by their chief propagandist. I guess it is just because he is their chief propagandist”. soclod: “Perhaps it's because I am not sitting here watching reruns of AIG (I haven't even watched it once in fact), but by virtue of reading skeptic blogs I do find myself watching reruns of icecaps graph distortions. As an example I also don't harp on constantly about the "outrageous lies" in The Great Global Warming Swindle (unless prompted). Again because I am not sitting here watching reruns. I'll discuss what is happening and I am afraid all too much of what is happening is statistical gaffes and misleads on skeptic blogs.” Perhaps you don’t find statistical gaffes and misleads on warmista blogs, because you are a committed, faithful warmista. You don’t want to see the flaws in your thing. The hysterical catastrophic AGW story does not have to be true. Stopping the burning of fossil fuels is just the right thing to do for the Earth and for future generations of all Earth’s critters, particularly the polar bears. You occupy the moral high ground. It is your mission to descend on little skeptic blogs with your mighty sword of truth to defend the faith. We get it. You should really abandon this line of topic because there is an easily demonstrated noise and cherrypicking style present on skeptic blogs. I guess when you have to churn out a dozen or more stories a week you tend to have to reach for the bottom of the barrel a bit. The skeptic bandwagon comprising of WUWT, icecap.us, inhofe, ect will make news out of anything cold related. For example Jan 08 we were treated to "Jan08 Northern Hemisphere snow cover: largest anomaly since 1966" wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/09/jan08-northern-hemisphere-snow-cover-largest-since-1966/ But June 2008 Northern Hemisphere snow cover was not newsworthy enough to mention I guess  Or in fact July 2008  You don't see this style of post on realclimate. Realclimate would look at the entire climate record of snow cover, not just one month out of context of the whole field. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 7, 2009 16:58:29 GMT
Yeah socold. But what sort of stooopid theory predicts global warming happing all the time EXCEPT JANUARY. Where does all the snow go in February. I repeat WHERE DOES ALL THE SNOW GO. (good post, socold  ) |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 7, 2009 17:59:43 GMT
Yeah socold. But what sort of stooopid theory predicts global warming happing all the time EXCEPT JANUARY. Where does all the snow go in February. I repeat WHERE DOES ALL THE SNOW GO. (good post, socold ) A pity that in SoCold's post he also cherry picked the 'ice age scare' years of the 60s-70's as _his_ start point As glc will repeatedly tell you it was really cold in the winter of '63 So SoCold (or wherever he obtained the chart's from) was using a cold start point - just the same tactic he was accusing others of using in his previous post only there it was choice of the 1998 hot year. So - everyone is at it - isn't that depressing for anyone attempting a scientific approach? |
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jun 7, 2009 19:46:44 GMT
Yes Perhaps it's because I am not sitting here watching reruns of AIG (I haven't even watched it once in fact), but by virtue of reading skeptic blogs I do find myself watching reruns of icecaps graph distortions. As an example I also don't harp on constantly about the "outrageous lies" in The Great Global Warming Swindle (unless prompted). Again because I am not sitting here watching reruns. I'll discuss what is happening and I am afraid all too much of what is happening is statistical gaffes and misleads on skeptic blogs. Hi socold. I have watched An Inconvenient Truth a few times. I went so far as to buy it. (Know your enemies, and so forth.) I would recommend that you take a look at it. It is downloadable from iTunes, I happen to know. I am sorry to say that without watching the movie, you may not be in a position to understand the wider debate taking place worldwide regarding climate. Although obscene, wrong, and sad -- Gore's movie is simply that significant. -- Harold |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 7, 2009 20:21:23 GMT
Yeah socold. But what sort of stooopid theory predicts global warming happing all the time EXCEPT JANUARY. Where does all the snow go in February. I repeat WHERE DOES ALL THE SNOW GO. (good post, socold ) A pity that in SoCold's post he also cherry picked the 'ice age scare' years of the 60s-70's as _his_ start point As glc will repeatedly tell you it was really cold in the winter of '63 So SoCold (or wherever he obtained the chart's from) was using a cold start point - just the same tactic he was accusing others of using in his previous post only there it was choice of the 1998 hot year. So - everyone is at it - isn't that depressing for anyone attempting a scientific approach? I didn't get the chance to choose anything. The graph is taken from the same source WUWT used and that's where the record begins for that source. |
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Jun 7, 2009 21:42:11 GMT
|
|
)
