Thread: Global Warming
View Single Post
Old 08-30-2011, 08:25 AM   #17
Talon87's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,548
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Hmm, that looks suspiciously like the Hockey Stick Graph, which I just finished proving as a fraud.
Don't twist the facts. The black line is the most extreme, the one you'd be quickest to label as the Hockey Stick, yet it was done by the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre and had nothing to do with either Michael Mann or Penn State. The aquamarine line, which as I already explained is the most conservative one of the data sets (as it suggests a very extreme apex for the Medieval Warm Period and a less impressive apex for modern times versus what others of the graphs depict), also had nothing to do with Michael Mann or Penn State and also, even as the most conservative of the trends there, depicts modern peak temperatures being within 0.1°C of the apex temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period. Claiming that these studies used Mann's data is ridiculous. The entire point behind these ten different studies is that each used its own data sets. Even Mann, who as you point out appears several times in this chart, produced different data sets for different papers. No one graph "builds upon," as you seem to be implying, the foundation of Mann's hockey stick data set, whether that data set be valid or hogwash.

"Unfortunately none of your sources are web sources so"
You have a lot of nerve, you know that!? You post a link to a politically-motivated pundit's website and you have the gall to turn around and tell me, "Eh, you cited the actual papers Wikipedia used to produce this graph -- but since I don't have access to those journals, they don't count for shit"? I may as well throw that right back in your face: "the site you linked earlier lists over 20 different sources but since Rangeet and T-Dos don't have ready access to them your site's claims are all make-believe." Not very appealing or convincing a rebuttal, is it? Let's discuss facts, please.

And the actual data only reaches to 2000, while the projection of that data (which projection is at best an educated guess), only reaches to 2004, so there's no data on whether temperatures have leveled out, or continued their "dramatic upward spike" since then.
You do realize that one centimeter on that x-axis corresponds to 200 years, don't you? You wouldn't even be able to tell the difference between 2000 and 2011, dude. Not without busting out the fine-tooth comb. The graph is meant to illustrate changes over multiple decades or even centuries, not changes within a decade. What's more, changes within a decade are arguably inconsequential to both the planet and the species versus changes in the long run. If in the last three years we'd seen average global cooling, but if in the last twenty years we had seen runaway global warming, would you suddenly advocate changing our climate policy because we were "out of the woods" or even more extremely "we were wrong all along"? I sure wouldn't. I would say "keep doing what we've been doing because it seems to be working" and I would say give it 20+ years before drawing any permanent conclusions. You're way too hasty to form conclusions based on only a few years' worth of data. Very unscientific. Larger data set = better data set, always.

As for the Wegman Report, that's as contentious as Mann's research data you are so quick to discount! You're using the black kettle to disprove the pot's own whiteness! In the Nature article "Copy and Paste" (Nature 473 (7348 ): 419–420. 2011. doi:10.1038/473419b. PMID 21614031), they discuss how Wegman et al plagiarized a good number of other authors' works. And when I say "plagiarized," I mean both the less obvious but still childishly stupid "thinly disguised paraphrases" as well as the blatantly obvious and just downright retarded "text lifted word for word from other sources." Does that invalidate his claims? Not necessarily. Plagiarism is its own beast, and it need not have any say necessarily in whether mathematical proofs made by a statistician are true or false. But if you're going to try and use Wegman to call into question Mann's credentials, I'm going to have to LOLWUT at you and ask if you really accept that Wegman is the moral paragon you seem to be implying he is. As you put it yourself, "If he faked one thing, why is he allowed to preside over the crisis that was originally brought up from his faked work?" If that argument applies to Mann, then it most definitely also applies to Wegman. You can't be choosy, dude, like a Christian choice-picking which Old Testament claims are to be taken literally and which are to be taken metaphorically. It's all or none, dude. Either both sources are unreliable or else neither of them is: and both for the reason of lack of academic integrity.

Last edited by Talon87; 08-30-2011 at 08:27 AM.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote