Re: [asa] Letters to Sam Harris a "Maladjusted Misotheist"

From: Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue Dec 05 2006 - 11:47:59 EST

At 05:33 PM 12/4/2006, Pim van Meurs wrote:
><http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19225804.300-climate-change-sceptics-lose-vital-argument.html>http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19225804.300-climate-change-sceptics-lose-vital-argument.html
>
>Another small victory for science was reported in the New
>Scientist <quote> .. The "hockey stick" graph, which shows a rapid
>rise in world temperatures over recent decades, has .." [snip] ~ Pim

@ Not only do you drag red herrings, you grasp at straws, too.

[1] "...Hence, the famous "hockey stick" graph purporting to show
climate over the past 1000 years, as a continuous, flat,
millennium-long bungalow with a skyscraper tacked on for the 20th
century. This graph was almost laughably fraudulent, not least
because it used a formula that would generate a hockey stick shape no
matter what data you input, even completely random, trendless,
arbitrary computer-generated data. Yet such is the power of the
eco-lobby that this fraud became the centrepiece of UN reports on
global warming. If it's happening, why is it necessary to lie about
it?
........" Con't..here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1555298/posts

[2] Climate Change Sceptics Lose Vital Argument
New Scientist ^ | 11-29-2006 | Zeeya Merali
Posted on 11/29/2006 5:23:37 PM EST by blam
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1746047/posts

[snip] Comments excerpted [numbers are hot links]:

<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1746047/posts?page=4#4>4
How is the argument lost? Just because they have some sketchy proof
that supports their argument, hardly settles it. The radical climate
change 'scientists' tend to brush off any criticism with the
flimsiest of proof.

<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1746047/posts?page=5#5>5
The HS graph has been thoroughly debunked numerous times by
legitimate climatologists, who weren't attacking it just because it
didn't reflect the little ice age, but because its whole methodology
is wrong. The equations the researcher used to produce the "Hockey
stick" do so no matter what data points are used.

Including when you take the data from the middle and put it at the
end and further randomly shuffle its sequence.

The equations the researcher used to produce the "Hockey stick" do so
no matter what data points are used. The HS graph has been thoroughly
debunked numerous times by legitimate climatologists, who weren't
attacking it just because it didn't reflect the little ice age, but
because its whole methodology is wrong.

<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1746047/posts?page=12#12>12
My understanding is that there is a critical error in the computation
the computer uses to create the climate model and that even when its
developer was informed of th error, he continued to promote it.

Even more than that, the datasets used were selected by computer
processing that searched for a pattern, then used in unbalanced ways
to prove the pattern. (Bristlecone/foxtail data that gives them 390
times the weight as other data sets that he claims also show the same
thing, but which when removed so no hockeystick pattern).

An NAS study noted that some of the important proxy studies that were
used also have apparently no record of how they were collected or
where from, and the original data from which the proxy sequences were
derived were not archived, so no checks can be made for their accuracy either.

A consistant theme that has been discovered is that the "peer review"
in climate science studies has never involved checking the math. When
MacIntyre and McKitrick asked to see the information that was
forwarded by various "peer-reviewed" journals, more than one editor
claimed that no one had *ever* asked for the data so that the math
could be checked (citing various times they'd been editor, including
some over 20 years), or to determine if the processes described in
the paper were in fact what duplicable. Who "checks the math"?
Basically just associates of Mann and Jones.

<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1746047/posts?page=15#15>15
I want to see a year by year (or better) plot of CO2 concentration vs
absolute temperature and the amount of correlation between the two.
This is what the current argument amounts to, but the data are never
shown. They could even try some data time shifting in case there is a
lag between the high CO2 and the high temps. Of course if the temps
lead the CO2, well they have a lot of 'splainin' to do.

~ Janice

----- Original Message ----
>From: Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
>Sent: Monday, December 4, 2006 10:54:05 AM
[snip]

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Dec 5 11:48:23 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 05 2006 - 11:48:23 EST