More Global Warming lies coming to light.
Global warming graph attacked by study
"A key piece of evidence in climate change science was slammed as “exaggerated” on Wednesday by the UK’s leading statistician, in a vindication of claims that global warming sceptics have been making for years.
Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society, said that a graph shaped like an ice hockey stick that has been used to represent the recent rise in global temperatures had been compiled using “inappropriate” methods.
“It used a particular statistical technique that exaggerated the effect [of recent warming],” he said."
Yes liberals lie and cheat to get their way just like the commies do. Whatever it takes to get their way. Their favorite motto is "The ends justifies the means". This is no more truer than in the man made Global Warming myth they are trying to cram down our throats. Check out the article. Thank you very much.
"I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them."
Unfortunately in our haste to prove Al Gore wrong (which I think he is) we will ignore the real truth that the 50,000,000,000 fossil fuel burning engines of the world are doing some damage to our environment. But as usual we will ignore ignore and ignore some more until a catastrophe occurs. Hopefully we won't let our kids and grandkids suffer too much from our ignorance.
I feel that before fossil fuels wreck our environment, they will be depleted.
Nos operor non pensio volutabrum
I suppose that it could be said that my key posts over time usually involve science in one manner or another. I sort of agree with Glenn, but this problem is far more widespread than can even be imagined.
It started in the early 60s with the SETI project. A young man by the name of Frank Drake proposed the following equation;
N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL
Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.
Looks like a pretty heavyweight equation, yes? The problem, of course, is that none of the variables can be determined. None at all.
Later, in the 70's, Carl Sagan proposed a Nuclear Winter scenario. Look at the equation he proposed to support his claim;
Ds = Wn Ws Wh Tf Tb Pt Pr Pe
The amount of tropospheric dust=# warheads x size warheads x warhead detonation height x flammability of targets x Target burn duration x Particles entering the Troposphere x Particle reflectivity x Particle endurance...and so on.
See the similarity? NOBODY knows how long cities will burn, or how much smoke will be created, or what types of particles would be created. In fact, only four years earlier The Office of Technology Assessment reported that the scientific processes were so poorly understood that it would be nigh impossible to calculate the severity of damage of any kind.
Sagan not only made those unsupported estimations, he did so predicting devastating consequence. He was quite properly embarrassed years later during the first Iraq war when he predicted that the smoke from oil fires in Kuwait would create a nuclear winter type effect. None of it ever happened.
I suppose that one could say that my verbal campaigns are all rooted within this issue. I love science. I hate the fact that it has moved away from its hallmark; testing. Instead, folks can pretty much say anything that they want these days and it's eaten up by the masses.
And so we come full circle. Have you ever wondered why I get on the evolution thing so hard if I call myself agnostic? Maybe now you can begin to see. I really don't care who believes what. Honestly, I don't. However, while the discussons can be entertaining, my underlying goal is always to promote good and properly conducted science, like evolution, and poo-poo this developing idea of "consensus science", like global warming.
And the real reason I do it is for the sake of our children's future. I'm not sure that it is fully realized what is happening when one poops on valid science in front of thier kids. Evolution is a bunch of crap and such. What you are actually doing is setting your kids up to NOT be able to detect the charlatans from proper science.
I consider that more than a shame. It's downright DANGEROUS.
Maybe I can't change the world, but maybe I can clear a few clouds away. If one does not wish to see a society built by arrogant utopians where smart people use thier brains against the improperly educated for the purposes of control, then a good foundation in the basic principles of what makes good science is of PARAMOUNT importance to our children.
And right now, I am disappointed practically on a daily basis on how uneducated your average US citizen is on these matters. Once we were leaders, now we are falling WAY behind. And our society is heading down the long path of utopianistic control because... well... we won't collectively know any better.
One might observe that I'm blaming some fundamentalist Christians for this exclusively, but that would not be correct. I've spoken out about the global warming farce a lot here, and for the same basic reason that I participate in the evolution discussions.
It's all about a return to the integrity of science.
"Social networking" is an oxymoron.
Scrogdog, I appreciate your expertise and inpu but you are way over my head.
doublebogey, I am glad you feel that way. I hope you have some reasons to believe that theory other than the Al Gore haters.
Good post scrog ....agreed!
"The road to Hell is paved with progressive policies."
Yawn.................Hand's comments are based on the dribblings of an oil industry consultant and AGW-denier zealot.
Originally Posted by glennac
The U.S. National Academy of Science reviewed the "Hockey Stick" paper and concluded that it was scientifically valid.
Further, a fellow member of Hand's in the Royal Statistical Society, Peter Bloomfield, also backed the science of the "Hockey Stick."
On a related note, two of the investigations into the "Climategate" fuss have exhonorated the scientists involved.
I am certain that Glen, being the credible, honest paragon we have all come to know, not at all driven by partisan ideology and only interested in truth and science, was so busy investigating Oprah's private life that he was unable to post the results of these investigations.
A person of Glen's fine character would feel compelled to post the results of these investigations although they totally contradict his heated comments about the scientists involved.
That the announcement of these investigations was left to me in no way indicts Glen as a man of low character and honesty as he was otherwise occupied with important matters and surely would have posted the results of the investigations had time permitted.
Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.
Hey I read about you. Nice to meet you I am Frostie.
Originally Posted by geerair
Glenn? This is old news, let it rest.
The future will reveal the real truth.
He is just grinding his teeth searching the interwebs for dirt on Oprah and global warming activists. Even if the news is 5 years old, he's gunna post it. I bet we see a post about Y2K soon.
Originally Posted by seatonheating
I agree with you in part, most people do not know how things or science works. On Frank Drake, I think you miss the point of his equation. It is more to show the posibilities than an actual number.
Originally Posted by scrogdog
Sometimes you just have to take a stab in the dark when you have limited information. Just like 40 years ago.
A Canadian team that helped ensure the three astronauts huddled aboard a stricken Apollo 13 made it back to Earth safely 40 years ago was honoured Tuesday for efforts that were part science, part intuition.
Called in to help out, the team at the University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies had just four hours to come up with critical calculations.
Now 78, French said the members had to work off "inadequate" information as they sought to figure out what was needed to separate the two parts of the spacecraft using pressurized oxygen.
Too little pressure, and the separating craft might have collided as they hit the Earth's atmosphere. Too much, and the lunar-module hatch would have been fatally damaged.
"We had to guesstimate things; it really was almost what you might say back-of-the-envelope," French said.
"It was the intuition and educated guess work that went into it that made it work."
I used to do some testing for my boss (Test lab in an aerospace company) and he would take the three or four points I generated, draw a line through them and decide where they were going. But then again he was from the old school where you made parts rather than come up with fancy theories.
I had never been a supporter of the hockey stick theory even though I do think the whole global warming thing has a good chance of having some effect on us. Maybe it is because I am from a country with an over abundance of hockey sticks that I look at their curves with a different eye than others.
Originally Posted by glennac
So I am not really pushing the fact that the hockey stick curve is true or not. So my comment here is more along the lines of be careful who you believe and how they spin things.
Glen, the article you linked to was a bit sparse for me so I looked for an article with more meat. Now if I was a reporter with a bias for the hockey stick theory I would cherry pick the following statements and sell my point of view.
'Hockey stick' graph was exaggerated
The 'hockey stick' that became emblematic of the threat posed by climate change exaggerated the rise in temperature because it was created using 'inappropriate' methods, according to the head of the Royal Statistical Society.
Professor David Hand said that the research – led by US scientist Michael Mann – would have shown less dramatic results if more reliable techniques had been used to analyse the data.
Prof Hand was among a group of experts charged with investigating the "climategate" email scandal that engulfed the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) last year.
Sceptics claimed that the hacked messages showed scientists were manipulating data to support a theory of man-made global warming.
However the review, led by Lord Oxburgh into the research carried out by the centre, found no evidence of ''deliberate scientific malpractice".
Lord Oxburgh said the scientists at the research unit arrived at their conclusions ''honestly and sensibly''.
But the reviewers found that the scientists could have used better statistical methods in analysing some of their data, although it was unlikely to have made much difference to their results.
Prof Hand singled out a 1998 paper by Prof Mann of Pennsylvania State University, a constant target for climate change sceptics, as an example of this.
He said the graph, that showed global temperature records going back 1,000 years, was exaggerated - although any reproduction using improved techniques is likely to also show a sharp rise in global warming. He agreed the graph would be more like a field hockey stick than the ice hockey blade it was originally compared to.
So there you have it folks, the climate change graph is more like a field hockey stick rather than a ice hockey stick
While not incorrect my 'copy' would be telling the truth of the story but playing down any conclusion against the hockey stick graph as found by Professor Hand. And people that have negative views towards global warming would emphasize statements that support their side. In the case of the Financial Times article, they chose to leave out any information that does not support their view.
To the point that their article is all of two sentences long.
Well, I'm going to pull an ARP first and say that both Glenn and Geer are correct in thier own way. I'm sure that I will hear from each of them as they will be thrilled beyond measure to be grouped together in this way.
First Glenn alludes to (paraphrased) lies and deceit. Well, I would not use precisely those words but I'll get in this a bit further as I speak of the (in)famous "Hockey Stick".
As for Geer, he is quite correct that Climategate is a sham and that the Hockey Stick is valid (for what it is).
As to the allegation that Hand acted improperly or is some kind of manipulated shill, here I would disagree. At worst, he is misinformed with regards to the history of this research.
You see, it is easy to believe that a given investigator would see the data as somewhat limited and uncertain since an 1998 article called "Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations" co-authored by Michael Mann said as much. This, of course, talked of a body of work and not just the graph alone.
Indeed, in a follow up letter to Nature magazine during the heat of the controversy, Mann lamented that he failed to understand how he could have been more clear that the limitations and uncertainties were the point of an article written about his work as long ago as 1998!
The hockey stick itself is far from the problem. The problem is in how it was unscrupulously used.
How many people, I mean average Joe people, are aware of the limitations of this work? Not many, because that language is not used to temper what IS known by people who are eager to use science, improperly, as a tool for social modification.
This is the EXACT same stage we played on during Sagan's run with regards to Nuclear Winter. I mean, who wants to come out against any idea that a nuclear exchange would be pretty bad? However, I was proud of one of my favorite scientists, Richard Feynman who said with a smirk "well I don't think these guys really know what they are talking about". Other scientists were a bit more sheepish about the matter saying things like "well, the science is terrible but perhaps the psychology is good?"
And again when the EPA improperly labeled second hand smoke as a "class A carcinogen" almost a decade before having the supporting evidence (provided by a WHO study). Was it ok to do this because they were proved to be right? NO!
This was OPENLY FRAUDULANT science. Once we tread that path, we are doomed. One will be able to say or do anything they want, and all they will need to say is that they are backed by "science" and nay-sayers will be blacklisted.
And to speak out about this openly fraudulent practice was to mean that you'd be branded a shill of RJ Reynolds by some thought-cop.
And here we are again with global warming. Dissenters are branded as "shills" and blacklisted as the quest towards an over-arching social goal marches on to the drumbeat.
Since when were opposing viewpoints unhealthy for science?
So, who wants to come out against global warming? Only those of us interested in valid science and decrying immoral and unethical talking heads. And I am most certainly not referring to Geer, so don't even go there.
Last edited by scrogdog; 04-16-2010 at 11:49 PM.
"Social networking" is an oxymoron.