December 21, 2012: The end of the world

[Duke Nukum]

No, I want you to explain it in your own words.  Tell me what the chart means. 

The graph compares two temperature reconstructions spanning many centuries against instrument data from the past century. The two plots match up really well.

Let me know if you need anything else.

And what are the controversies surrounded the so-called Hockey stick?

[The Night Owl]

I was kind of wondering about his comment.  If climatology is so good at predicting the far off future, how come they weren't predicting 1998 as the hottest year on record in 1978 when all the liberal news media was trying to scare us with The New Ice Age?

That 1998 or any other year may have been the hottest on record is a more or less irrelevant statistic. The scientists studying global warming are trying to make predictions about temperature trends, not absolute temperatures.

[The Night Owl]

And what are the controversies surrounded the so-called Hockey stick?

Am I being quizzed?

Stephen McIntyre found that some of the data used to create one of the hockey stick graphs was erroneous, but because the data represented the US surface temperature record and not the global average, the hockey stick was not significantly altered by a correction of the data.

[Freeper]

In 2011 look for Art Bell to do radio spots for store able food. 

did you hear last nights show? something about how some country is damming up water and its making the earth wobble right now? 

I havent caught Coast to Coast in years maybe I should start tuning in again 

my husband says, 'its like reading the Bat Boy papers every evening...'   i think it just makes him feel nice and normal. 

LOL good analysis actually it is like DU but, on the radio.

[Freeper]

Won't we all be dead by then from Global warming Climate change? 

Don't ask me. I haven't argued that global warming will bring about doomsday.

Then what will Global warming errr climate change bring us?

[Duke Nukum]

And what are the controversies surrounded the so-called Hockey stick?

Am I being quizzed?

Stephen McIntyre found that some of the data used to create one of the hockey stick graphs was erroneous, but because the data represented the US surface temperature record and not the global average, the hockey stick was not significantly altered by a correction of the data.

So then, why was it declared dead in 2005?

[The Night Owl]

So then, why was it declared dead in 2005?

What has been declared dead? The Hockey Stick graph? According to the NAS and various other respected scientific institutions, the Hockey Stick graph is still very much alive...

http://www.conservativescave.com/index.php?topic=1710.msg24636#msg24636

[The Night Owl]

Then what will Global warming errr climate change bring us?

Mixed results. I suspect that some parts of the world will benefit from a warmer climate but other parts may be adversely affected by it. The main reason why we should be concerned about climate change is that we don't know exactly what consequences it will have. Mankind is basically heading into uncharted waters.

[Duke Nukum]

So then, why was it declared dead in 2005?

What has been declared dead? The Hockey Stick graph? According to the NAS and various other respected scientific institutions, the Hockey Stick graph is still very much alive...

http://www.conservativescave.com/index.php?topic=1710.msg24636#msg24636

So, in other words some scientists say the hockey stick is dead while others claim it isn't so your graph is not actual proof of Global Warming(TM) put proof that people are adept at finding the conclusions they've decided they want.

[The Night Owl]

So, in other words some scientists say the hockey stick is dead while others claim it isn't so your graph is not actual proof of Global Warming(TM) put proof that people are adept at finding the conclusions they've decided they want.

Only a few scientists are claiming that the hockey stick is broken and none of them have any published work to support that claim. As I have pointed out, all the various hockey stick graphs have been subjected to intense peer scrutiny and they have so far held up.

[Lord Undies]

So then, why was it declared dead in 2005?

What has been declared dead? The Hockey Stick graph? According to the NAS and various other respected scientific institutions, the Hockey Stick graph is still very much alive...

http://www.conservativescave.com/index.php?topic=1710.msg24636#msg24636

So, in other words some scientists say the hockey stick is dead while others claim it isn't so your graph is not actual proof of Global Warming(TM) put proof that people are adept at finding the conclusions they've decided they want.

Remember, the useless, debunked, laughed-at, ridiculous "hockey stick" was created by leaving out vital known information in an effort to manifest a lie to further the cause of destroying capitalism (the USA).  Nothing more.  Nothing less.  Only an idiot would bring up the "hockey stick" in an otherwise intelligent conversation.  Every intelligent person knows about its origin.

[Duke Nukum]

So then, why was it declared dead in 2005?

What has been declared dead? The Hockey Stick graph? According to the NAS and various other respected scientific institutions, the Hockey Stick graph is still very much alive...

http://www.conservativescave.com/index.php?topic=1710.msg24636#msg24636

You know, the other thing, the graph you posted eariler looks nothing like the graph in that PDF you posted to prove the hockey stick isn't dead.

Don't you find that interesting?

The one you posted looks like a hockey stick.  The one in the pdf looks like a bunch of random squiggles.  If I could get the picture out of the pdf I would post a comparison.  So they are saying if you take the hockey stick out of the graph, then the hockey stick isn't dead.

Interesting.  Don't you find that interesting?

I wonder why you posted the one with the hoaxed data?

[Lord Undies]

Nothing in Senator James Inhofe's (R - OK) speech about global warming yesterday is new to anyone who is actually interested in the science of climatology, as opposed to the sensationalist nonsense that passes for it in the modern media, or has dug deeper than the front page of the New York Times. But here, Inhofe has concisely and expertly rebutted the last decade of eco-ridiculousness - with the cites to back it up. I recommend bookmarking it for the next time some hippy demands to know why ratifying the Kyoto Agreement isn't a "family value." Here are some highlights:


On the Media's ability to learn from history:

Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age.

From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.
On the graphs showing exponential temperature growth:
The “hockey stick” was completely and thoroughly broken once and for all in 2006. Several years ago, two Canadian researchers tore apart the statistical foundation for the hockey stick. In 2006, both the National Academy of Sciences and an independent researcher further refuted the foundation of the “hockey stick.” http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697


On the definition of "Doom":

It is very simplistic to feign horror and say the one degree Fahrenheit temperature increase during the 20th century means we are all doomed. First of all, the one degree Fahrenheit rise coincided with the greatest advancement of living standards, life expectancy, food production and human health in the history of our planet. So it is hard to argue that the global warming we experienced in the 20th century was somehow negative or part of a catastrophic trend.


On computer models as "truth":

Earlier this year, the director of the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks Alaska, testified to Congress that highly publicized climate models showing a disappearing Arctic were nothing more than “science fiction.” In fact, after years of hearing about the computer generated scary scenarios about the future of our planet, I now believe that the greatest climate threat we face may be coming from alarmist computer models.


On the veracity of Enviro-predictions:

The history of the modern environmental movement is chock full of predictions of doom that never came true. We have all heard the dire predictions about the threat of overpopulation, resource scarcity, mass starvation, and the projected death of our oceans. None of these predictions came true, yet it never stopped the doomsayers from continuing to predict a dire environmental future. The more the eco-doomsayers’ predictions fail, the more the eco-doomsayers predict.


On the Kyoto "Solution":

The alarmists freely concede that the Kyoto Protocol, even if fully ratified and complied with, would not have any meaningful impact on global temperatures. And keep in mind that Kyoto is not even close to being complied with by many of the nations that ratified it, including 13 of the EU-15 nations that are not going to meet their emission reduction promises.

Many of the nations that ratified Kyoto are now realizing what I have been saying all along: The Kyoto Protocol is a lot of economic pain for no climate gain.


On environmentalists' concern for the world's empoverished people:

The Kyoto Protocol’s post 2012 agenda which mandates that the developing world be subjected to restrictions on greenhouse gases could have the potential to severely restrict development in regions of the world like Africa, Asia and South America -- where some of the Earth’s most energy-deprived people currently reside.

Expanding basic necessities like running water and electricity in the developing world are seen by many in the green movement as a threat to the planet’s health that must be avoided. Energy poverty equals a life of back-breaking poverty and premature death.

If we allow scientifically unfounded fears of global warming to influence policy makers to restrict future energy production and the creation of basic infrastructure in the developing world -- billions of people will continue to suffer.


On the real agenda:

French President Jacques Chirac provided the key clue as to why so many in the international community still revere the Kyoto Protocol, who in 2000 said Kyoto represents “the first component of an authentic global governance.”


On Time Magazine's "Expertise":

“[Those] who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weathermen have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.”

Before you think that this is just another example of the media promoting Vice President Gore’s movie, you need to know that the quote I just read you from Time Magazine was not a recent quote; it was from January 2, 1939.

Yes, in 1939. Nine years before Vice President Gore was born and over three decades before Time Magazine began hyping a coming ice age and almost five decades before they returned to hyping global warming.


On lies of omission:

On February 19th of this year, CBS News’s “60 Minutes” produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report, alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169.shtml

It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast, that he barely got off an ice-berg before it collapsed into the water.

“60 Minutes” failed to inform its viewers that a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showing that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass and that according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930’s than today.


On lies of omission (2):

  SNIP -more......http://uwfedsoc.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_archive.html

Nothing is as satisfying as the truth.

[The Night Owl]

You know, the other thing, the graph you posted eariler looks nothing like the graph in that PDF you posted to prove the hockey stick isn't dead.

Don't you find that interesting?

The one you posted looks like a hockey stick.  The one in the pdf looks like a bunch of random squiggles.  If I could get the picture out of the pdf I would post a comparison.  So they are saying if you take the hockey stick out of the graph, then the hockey stick isn't dead.

Interesting.  Don't you find that interesting?

The graph in the NAS report about its study of the hockey stick is a comparison of 10 temperature reconstructions including the Michael Mann reconstruction which was found to be based on some erroneous data.

I wonder why you posted the one with the hoaxed data?

Considering that corrections to data used in Michael Mann's temperature reconstruction did not even come close to significantly altering the reconstruction, what makes you think that Mann used erroneous data on purpose? If a scientist were to use erroneous data to alter the outcome of a climate reconstruction, he or she would use data which alters the reconstruction in a meaningful way. The erroneous data used in Mann's reconstruction did not alter the outcome of the reconstruction in a meaningful way.

[The Night Owl]

Remember, the useless, debunked, laughed-at, ridiculous "hockey stick" was created by leaving out vital known information in an effort to manifest a lie to further the cause of destroying capitalism (the USA).  Nothing more.  Nothing less.  Only an idiot would bring up the "hockey stick" in an otherwise intelligent conversation.  Every intelligent person knows about its origin.

Bizzare statement.

[Duke Nukum]

You know, the other thing, the graph you posted eariler looks nothing like the graph in that PDF you posted to prove the hockey stick isn't dead.

Don't you find that interesting?

The one you posted looks like a hockey stick.  The one in the pdf looks like a bunch of random squiggles.  If I could get the picture out of the pdf I would post a comparison.  So they are saying if you take the hockey stick out of the graph, then the hockey stick isn't dead.

Interesting.  Don't you find that interesting?

The graph in the NAS report about its study of the hockey stick is a comparison of 10 temperature reconstructions including the Michael Mann reconstruction which was found to be based on some erroneous data.

I wonder why you posted the one with the hoaxed data?

Considering that the erroneous data used in Michael Mann's temperature reconstruction did not even come close to significantly altering the reconstruction, what makes you think that the erroneous data was used on purpose?

I think he hoaxed it for the same reason scientists fake their data all the time.  Ego.  Political agendas. Fear. Because he felt he could get away with it.

[The Night Owl]

I think he hoaxed it for the same reason scientists fake their data all the time.  Ego.  Political agendas. Fear. Because he felt he could get away with it.

You don't need to remind me that you are a conspiracy theorist.

[Duke Nukum]

I think he hoaxed it for the same reason scientists fake their data all the time.  Ego.  Political agendas. Fear. Because he felt he could get away with it.

You don't need to remind me that you are a conspiracy theorist.

So scientists never hoax data?  It happens all the time.  It isn't a conspiracy theory.  It is an actual known problem in the academic community.  It has been known to be a problem for decades.

[Lord Undies]

I think he hoaxed it for the same reason scientists fake their data all the time.  Ego.  Political agendas. Fear. Because he felt he could get away with it.

You don't need to remind me that you are a conspiracy theorist.

So scientists never hoax data?  It happens all the time.  It isn't a conspiracy theory.  It is an actual known problem in the academic community.  It has been known to be a problem for decades.

And it is almost always to further some liberal agenda.  Imagine that.  A liberal telling lies?  Whoever heard of such a thing?

[Lauri]

I was listening to a scientist on Glenn Beck today...

Listening the Glenn Beck show was your first mistake. 

...stating that they have no computer models which give them accurate weather conditions *right now* nor do they have computer models or ways to know what weather will be like 50 years from now. He said the past 9 years had been unbelievably stable, weather wise, as compared to decades before.

To that end, try this little experiment. Find your local weather page and check it every few hours. Watch how it changes. Our local news station has already changed the icons on their weather page over four times this morning alone. I am watching it more today cause my husband is flying out at noon, so I'm curious. Over the weekend they were forecasting sun for today and tommorow. Now its raining (outside and on their website) ...

Your second mistake is assuming that climate and weather are the same thing. As I have pointed out many times, weather and climate are not the same thing. Weather is much more chaotic than climate and as such is much more difficult to predict than climate. 

first of all, who cares what talk show the scientist was on? he's correct in that NOBODY can predict or use computer models to predict climate OR weather issues day in day out, or years into the future.

I was kind of wondering about his comment.  If climatology is so good at predicting the far off future, how come they weren't predicting 1998 as the hottest year on record in 1978 when all the liberal news media was trying to scare us with The New Ice Age?

I actually found a quote from the guy who came up with the Hockey Stick Graph saying the only thing harder to predict than the climate is politicians when asked if the US would eventually sign Kyoto.

i do watch the weather sites a lot here.. its a fun little experiment to see how much it changes during a single afternoon. the first icon up is usually rain drops and clouds... occasionally they throw up a sun with a cloud (they are right either way on that one) and then if its snow, its a snowflake. i only watch it so much because my daughter wears a uniform to school and if she needs tights cause its cold, its my job to know it.

i would say they are wrong 9 times out of 10.

[Duke Nukum]

I think he hoaxed it for the same reason scientists fake their data all the time.  Ego.  Political agendas. Fear. Because he felt he could get away with it.

You don't need to remind me that you are a conspiracy theorist.

So scientists never hoax data?  It happens all the time.  It isn't a conspiracy theory.  It is an actual known problem in the academic community.  It has been known to be a problem for decades.

And it is almost always to further some liberal agenda.  Imagine that.  A liberal telling lies?  Whoever heard of such a thing?

I could never believe that unless it appeared in a peer review journal /TNO mode

[Lauri]

I think he hoaxed it for the same reason scientists fake their data all the time.  Ego.  Political agendas. Fear. Because he felt he could get away with it.

You don't need to remind me that you are a conspiracy theorist.

i'm not sure which page it was on, but in this thread I asked "how many millions of years does your graph go back?"

if your graph is just a few decades, or even a hundred years... that is no model of what the earth has gone thru, as far as temperature change.

care to answer that now?

[Lauri]

oh and one more question for ya TNO ... would you be for the Weather Channel founder and his host of colleagues suing Al Gore?

I think at least 52 million people on our side would. 

[The Night Owl]

i'm not sure which page it was on, but in this thread I asked "how many millions of years does your graph go back?"

if your graph is just a few decades, or even a hundred years... that is no model of what the earth has gone thru, as far as temperature change.

care to answer that now?

We don't need a temperature record going back millions of years to make accurate predictions about climate.

[Lord Undies]

oh and one more question for ya TNO ... would you be for the Weather Channel founder and his host of colleagues suing Al Gore?

I think at least 52 million people on our side would. 

I think it is a wonderful idea!  It could possibly bring all this hoax out into the light.  I wish many many lawsuits would be filed.  It would be great to see the perpetrators of this coordinated lie having to defend the indefensible in court.  It could set liberalism back about 100 years.