@BrianK

Quote:

Quote: but rather that never has the politician been correct and the scientific community wrong Well not true. One example of the above is where the religion, Islam, and the scientific community were both correct and on the same page.

Well, sure, but that's not what I said. Certainly, theology, politics and the scientific community have been "both correct and on the same page".

What I said, is never has politics challenged the scientific community and proven the community wrong. Maybe there has been a case where politicians have taught scientists something about their own field of research, but I can't recall such an incident. And what you cited doesn't constitute that either.

Last edited by jingof on 18-Mar-2009 at 02:57 AM.
Last edited by jingof on 18-Mar-2009 at 02:55 AM.

_________________
Vic-20, C-64, C-128
Amiga 1000, 3000
AmigaOne X1000

@jingof

Quote:

What!? You don't "believe in anything". Are you related to Bill Clinton? Do you know what the meaning of "is is"? Anyway, what do you think is the difference between a "belief" and a "conviction"?

I am fortunate enough to enjoy the French way of life and I am afraid I rank between 100 and 150 in this progressive quizz, depending on the day/mood. So my responses are: 'no', 'no', and 'you don't need evidences or facts to believe, but you need them to be convinced'.

Quote:

Anyway, nice attempt at deflecting and avoiding a difficult question you can't answer.

You also are teleconnected to my mind in addition to play with semantic?

Quote:

Unless you are a climatologist, all you have is your "belief" because you lack the qualifications to extol it as anything more.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim? Because if you don't, no wonder why CO² is a well mixed gas with so much arm wavings...

Quote:

It is not *my own* judgement.

I used 'you' as an undefined term. Just replace 'you' by 'one' and we are done then.

Quote:

Do you really think that of 3,146 scientists surveyed, the UIC can manipulate 90% of those scientists into communicating something they don't intend?

Surveyors have to choose them in a way or another, directly or indirectly before the survey. And yes, given the corrupted 'climate' in Science, it is really easy to think that a survey can be 'directed' in the wanted direction. See the last example of the congress in Copenhagen. So no, I am all but unconvinced by a survey.

Quote:

You're missing the point. The point is, you can't site "scientific consensus" when it suits you and dismiss scientific consensus when it doesn't. This is a context-neutral point, so don't tell me I'm quoting you out of context or generalizing.

There is no 'scientific consensus' of any kind and in any way you can twist my view/word with, so that is illogical to write 'when it suits [me]': it has and will not because of the premise. I guess we can discuss the ridiculous politicization of the Vostok ice cores data to death without any useful result in the end. You have you view I respect, I have mine.

Quote:

Besides, how do you know it is "widely accepted by the whole scientific community"? I mean, you are they one calling all surveys into question right!

Referees agreed the papers to be published long ago and AFAIK there is no paper refuting them. These data are a cooperative effort of many international scientific institutions (including sceptical Russian scientists). Below is an extensive list of publications related if you want to search further for a refutation:

Petit, J.R., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. Barkov, J.-M. Barnola, I. Basile, M. Benders, J. Chappellaz, M. Davis, G. Delayque, M. Delmotte, V.M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand, V.Y. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, L. Pépin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzman, and M. Stievenard. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436.
Petit, J.R., I. Basile, A. Leruyuet, D. Raynaud, C. Lorius, J. Jouzel, M. Stievenard, V.Y. Lipenkov, N.I. Barkov, B.B. Kudryashov, M. Davis, E. Saltzman, and V. Kotlyakov. 1997. Four climate cycles in Vostok ice core. Nature 387: 359-360.
Brook, E.J., Kurz, M.D., Curtice, J., and Cowburn, S., 2000, Accretion of Interplantary Dust in Polar Ice, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 27, No. 19, p. 3145.
C. Lorius, J. Jouzel, C. Ritz, L. Merlivat, N. I. Barkov, Y. S. Korotkevitch and V. M. Kotlyakov, A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice, Nature, 316, 1985, 591-596.
J. Jouzel, C. Lorius, J. R. Petit, C. Genthon, N. I. Barkov, V. M. Kotlyakov and V. M. Petrov, Vostok ice core: a continuous isotope temperature record over the last climatic cycle (160,000 years), Nature, 329, 1987, 402-408.
J. R. Petit, L. Mounier, J. Jouzel, Y. Korotkevitch, V. Kotlyakov and C. Lorius, Paleoclimatological implications of the Vostok core dust record, Nature, 343, 1990, 56-58.
C. Ritz. Un modele thermo-mecanique d'evolution pour le bassin glaciaire Antarctique Vostok-Glacier Byrd: sensibilite aux valeurs des parametres mal connus (Univ. de Grenoble, 1992).
T. Sowers, M. Bender, L. D. Labeyrie, J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, D. Martinson and Y. S. Korotkevich, 135 000 year Vostok - SPECMAP common temporal framework., Paleoceanogr., 8, 1993, p. 737-766.
J. Jouzel, N. I. Barkov, J. M. Barnola, M. Bender, J. Chappelaz, C. Genthon, V. M. Kotlyakov, V. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, J. R. Petit, D. Raynaud, G. Raisbeck, C. Ritz, T. Sowers, M. Stievenard, F. Yiou and P. Yiou, Extending the Vostok ice-core record of paleoclimate to the penultimate glacial period, Nature, 364, 1993, 407-412.
C. Waelbroeck, J. Jouzel, L. Labeyrie, C. Lorius, M. Labracherie, M. Stievenard and N. I. Barkov, Comparing the Vostok ice deuterium record and series from Southern Ocean core MD 88-770 over the last two glacial-interglacial cycles, Clim. Dyn., 12, 1995, 113 - 123.
J. Jouzel, C. Waelbroeck, B. Malaizé, M. Bender, J. R. Petit, N. I. Barkov, J. M. Barnola, T. King, V. M. Kotlyakov, V. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, D. Raynaud, C. Ritz and T. Sowers, Climatic interpretation of the recently extended Vostok ice records, Clim.Dyn., In press.
Ruddiman, W.F. and M.E. Raymo. 2003. A methane-based time scale for Vostok ice. Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 22, Issues 2-4, February 2003, Pages 141-155.
Shackleton, N.J.. 2000. The 100,000-year ice-age cycle identified and found to lag temperature, carbon dioxide, and orbital eccentricity. Science 289: 1897-1902.

Good luck. Btw a survey is not a scientific practice. You surely know that if you are/were a scientist.

Quote:

My underlying point is, being an Amiga enthusiast doesn't qualify *any* of us to be so damn convinced that we know better than scientists who've spent their careers researching the topic.

Ah, the usual appeal to authority argument. Sorry the data are available, I am able to understand them and the problems they are related to and I am in the end convinced or not. If you are not able to, fine, but do not generalize to make *your* point.

But,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

I am fortunate enough to enjoy the French way of life

Well, you have better wine - I'll give you that.

Quote:

[quote]Unless you are a climatologist, all you have is your "belief" because you lack the qualifications to extol it as anything more.[/quote Do you have any evidence to support your claim? Because if you don't, no wonder why CO² is a well mixed gas with so much arm wavings...

Do I have evidence to support what claim? That you are not a climatologist? I didn't claim that, nor do I seek to prove what you aren't. I did say that people are more likely to believe 90% of climatologists than the opinion of one laymen. And if you think that assertion requires proof, then.. well, what can I say. Some things should be self evident.

Quote:

Good luck. Btw a survey is not a scientific practice. You surely know that if you are/were a scientist

Not a scientist. Engineer actually. And yes, I know that a survey is not a scientific practice. But it is a manner of aggregating scientific analysis and findings. And is therefore very useful if done without bias.

Quote:

You have you view I respect, I have mine.

Likewise.

Quote:

Ah, the usual appeal to authority argument. Sorry the data are available, I am able to understand them and the problems they are related to and I am in the end convinced or not. If you are not able to, fine, but do not generalize to make *your* point.

Go for it man -- or women, or climatologist or whatever you are! Because I can't prove either way.

Personally, if I start researching climate theory, or string/membrane theory, or the mathematics of Black Holes.. I'm going to assume maybe Stephan Hawkins is a bit more knowledgeable on the subject than me and my "15 minutes" of research and would be less inclined to challenge him on the subject.

But hey, that's me.

Maybe you are smart enough to study climatology or string theory or Black Holes for a couple of weeks, and then correct the entire scientific community on their fallacies. If so, more power to ya.

Still, my point is, that would be rather hard to believe and most people wouldn't accept your "confidence" based upon your confidence.

Last edited by jingof on 18-Mar-2009 at 09:44 AM.

_________________
Vic-20, C-64, C-128
Amiga 1000, 3000
AmigaOne X1000

@jingof

Quote:

Well, sure, but that's not what I said. Certainly, theology, politics and the scientific community have been "both correct and on the same page". What I said, is never has politics challenged the scientific community and proven the community wrong. Maybe there has been a case where politicians have taught scientists something about their own field of research, but I can't recall such an incident. And what you cited doesn't constitute that either.

Yes thanks for that.

We don't expect politicans to be the driving force for new discovery. It's not really their role.

They have been right and scientists wrong. Though I agree this is fairly infrequent. Certain chemicals, DDT and asbestoes, were opposed by some politicans until we had better research on their true effects. Certain politicans oppose the use of nanotechnology until we better understand the influence they'll have on the environment and the human body. Many scientists are pushing forward believing that if those are problems we'll have a solution at some point.

@BrianK

Quote:

But you claimed 1%? Upping your factor 10 fold to now claim 10% is an improvement.

Twisting my words again. Reread more carefully. Perhaps you will see the light one day.

Quote:

Interesting to see you posting info from contributors to the IPCC congrats

Steve McIntyre, Richard Lindzen and Ross McKitrick to name a few were also IPCC contributors, so what? Mixing apples and oranges will just give you juice, not a scientific evidence.

Quote:

If you view the previous link from me and go to the Antarctic Sea Ice Extent you'll see approx. 1 std. deviation of increase for Antarctica.

That what the official press release I quoted tends to claim, what is your trouble with?

Quote:

We see this all the time. Your widely accepted Vostok Ice Core Show a close coorelation to CO2 and methane levels. Yet we see some anti-gws claim no such coorelation ever existed. Amazing how political.

Piling on a dead horse, mixing CH4 with temperature, de-personalization of the meaning and joining group to try to gain strength: a low level scientific and psychological approach ruining a chance to discuss.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @umisef ... Or is it that, once again, you choose to remain silent in front of the authority (in the formal meaning) on the matter? ...

As far as I'm concerned - there was a point where I stopped reading the lengthy contributions - they were too exhausting to read, to be honest...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Interesting

Quote:

Interesting wrote: @TMTisFree ... glad most are seeing the truth about the matter......its all about "funding". ...

Then you surely can tell me who funded the retreat of glaciers since 1850?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Niolator

Quote:

Niolator wrote: @Skyraker ... You people that live "near" the equator and has never had real winters with snow might not have noticed the change except for the frequent storms and flooding but here in the north we haven´t had a real winter for ten years (except for this one actually). ...

Yeah - I live in Cologne, which is a little bit more to the south than Sweden and I can confirm that a winter with snow that lasts at least a week has become the exception here during the last 5 decades.

When I was a child we had about 10 cm snow here in Cologne for at least two weeks or so every winter - and each end of a winter season I was looking forward to tobogganing in the next winter again.

From about 1967 (when I was 10) winters with snow became more and more rare over the years.

This winter was the first winter with roughly 15 cm snow for slightly over one week since 22 years!

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@jingof

Quote:

I did say that people are more likely to believe 90% of climatologists than the opinion of one laymen. And if you think that assertion requires proof, then.. well, what can I say. Some things should be self evident.

I agree that laymen are like sheep when dealing with scientific matters. I understand that. The only problem is that, for the moment, the laymen politicians are science funders and policy makers. And Joe the plumber does not care about Jim the scientist (not that he cares much about politicians broadly speaking): he elects Jack the politician who has the best charisma and who knowns what people want to hear, not Jim.

Quote:

But it is a manner of aggregating scientific analysis and findings.

Of course not. There are conferences, congresses, books and encyclopaediae for that.

Quote:

And is therefore very useful if done without bias.

How do you evaluate in which case the 'if' can be replaced with 'when'?

Quote:

Still, my point is, that would be rather hard to believe and most people wouldn't accept your "confidence" based upon your confidence.

I reassure you that my aim is not to convince anyone in the rather limited audience of this thread (or in any other forii I post in btw), because frankly, I don't care if USA or UK or AU or NZ are going to suffer because of wrong political policies based on failed ideology and Bad Science. Paraphrasing Niolator, I must give *scientific evidences* credit for being so stubborn though. No one honest need to believe in anything/anyone to be convinced by rational arguments.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @TMTisFree part 3 Depth (m) Age (delta D) Deu content (delta D) Temp. variation (°C) 3000 293502 -466.5 -5.22 ... 3310 422766 -436.6 0.23 It remains to be seen whether you are capable enough to plot the data. Btw if you need the CO² data to find the 800 year lag, just ask.

Why do you clog this thread with pages of stupid numbers?
A link to these figures for the interested would have been sufficiant.

You don't really believe yourself that actions like this are suited to increase the credibility of what you're trying to promote here, do you?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

As far as I'm concerned - there was a point where I stopped reading the lengthy contributions - they were too exhausting to read, to be honest...

Sure. But for example the 2006 Wegman's report debunking Mann's hockey stick is a real pleasure for the scientist's intellect because it dissects the statistical twists and turns that leads to this Bad Science. This does not avoid the IPCC to reuse Mann data again in the AR4 though.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

Why do you clog this thread with pages of stupid numbers? A link to these figures for the interested would have been sufficiant. You don't really believe yourself that actions like this are suited to increase the credibility of what you're trying to promote here, do you?

You have not followed the previous thread where nitpickers wanted the real data when I thought embedding a picture was enough. Now I give the full data you are not happy and request a picture: just go back to thread vol. 2. I also have the data on my disk for practical purpose, but frankly, I do not want to wast my bandwidth linking to them here. Is your last sentence a real question or an assertion from you?

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

Then you surely can tell me who funded the retreat of glaciers since 1850?

Not directed to me but as I can help.

When will you understand that a site that can be edited by anyone can not be trusted? Below is what Pr R. Pielke Sr has to say about this Wikipedia article:Quote:

The question has been raised as to why Climate Science is seeking evidence for regions without glacier retreat. It has already been mentioned that the impression that glaciers are retreating almost everywhere worldwide has been expressed in media reports (e.g. see). This web posting provides a clear reason why the summary of papers and other evidence on glacier retreat is needed, since the 2007 IPCC chapter on this subject (Chapter 4) does not completely report on this subject. The material on Wikipedia entitled “Retreat of glaciers since 1850″ makes it clear why this documentation is needed.

And: Quote:

The statement that the retreat since 1850 is rapid and worldwide leads a reader to assume this trend continues everywhere. It does not. They also write “since 1980 a significant global warming has led to glacier retreat becoming increasingly rapid and ubiquitous..”. This is the kind of inaccurate reporting that Climate Science is responding to on this theme of glacier retreat. Climate Science has so far documented the following examples of recent and current glacial advance or near stationary movement within the following regions:

Then you can go there to increase your knowledge. Perhaps you will find this is still many papers to read, but hey, you can not always complain and do nothing to avoid it.

A picture to illustrate:


Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

But for example the 2006 Wegman's report debunking Mann's hockey stick is a real pleasure for the scientist's intellect because it dissects the statistical twists and turns that leads to this Bad Science. This does not avoid the IPCC to reuse Mann data again in the AR4 though.

So the IPCC is bad -- not enough scientists run by an economist. So the IPCC is a bad --- political body.

OTOH we have a Republicans (political) funding their own statistican (not scienist) to crique a scientific report and this non-scientist polically funded work is acceptable?

When you make toast you always butter both sides don't you? Tell the truth!

National Academy of Sciences published a report defending the Mann and refuting Wegmann. Mann relooked at his work after Wegmann and others and incorporate the 'issues' into the handling. It appears you want the IPCC to take the criticism of Mann but ignore the criticism of the criticism.

Jelly on both sides too?

Last edited by BrianK on 18-Mar-2009 at 08:21 PM.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy Quote: Why do you clog this thread with pages of stupid numbers? A link to these figures for the interested would have been sufficiant. You don't really believe yourself that actions like this are suited to increase the credibility of what you're trying to promote here, do you? You have not followed the previous thread where nitpickers wanted the real data when I thought embedding a picture was enough. Now I give the full data you are not happy ...

Wouldn't it have been better to give a link or to send the figures to the "nitpickers" via PM?
Just a thought...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: ... Is your last sentence a real question or an assertion from you?

Was more a rhetorical question...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@BrianK

Quote:

So the IPCC is bad -- not enough scientists run by an economist. So the IPCC is a bad --- political body.

IPCC is bad in the sense that it pretends to represent honestly the state of the Science but fails to do so because it is a political body with a political agenda. Let see why:

The original Wegman report is here: Quote:

It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the [Mann] paper. We found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling.

Wegman's report was also discussed in the American Statistical Association newsletter here: Quote:

At the core of the controversy is an incorrect use by Mann et al. of principal components (PCs).

The 2006 NAS report by North is here and agrees with the Wegman's report:Quote:

Spurious Principal Components: McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) [actually McIntyre and McKitrick 2005a] demonstrated that under some conditions, the leading principal component can exhibit a spurious trendlike appearance, which could then lead to a spurious trend in the proxy-based reconstruction... A second area of criticism focuses on statistical validation and robustness. McIntyre and McKitrick (2003, 2005a,b) question the choice and application of statistical methods, notably principal component analysis; the metric used in the validation step of the reconstruction exercise; and the selection of proxies, especially the bristlecone pine data used in some of the original temperature reconstruction studies. These and other criticisms, explored briefly in the remainder of this chapter, raised concerns that led to new research and ongoing efforts to improve how surface temperature reconstructions are performed …. The more important aspect of this criticism is the issue of robustness with respect to the choice of proxies used in the reconstruction. For periods prior to the 16th century, the Mann et al. (1999) reconstruction that uses this particular principal component analysis technique is strongly dependent on data from the Great Basin region in the western United States. Such issues of robustness need to be taken into account in estimates of statistical uncertainties. STR Preprint,106-7). Regarding metrics used in the validation step in the reconstruction exercise, two issues have been raised (McIntyre and McKitrick 2003, 2005a,b). One is that the choice of "significance level" for the reduction of error (RE) validation statistic is not appropriate. The other is that different statistics, specifically the coefficient of efficiency (CE) and the squared correlation (r2), should have been used (the various validation statistics are discussed in Chapter 9). Some of these criticisms are more relevant than others, but taken together, they are an important aspect of a more general finding of this committee, which is that uncertainties of the published reconstructions have been underestimated. While "strip-bark" samples should be avoided for temperature reconstructions, attention should also be paid to the confounding effects of anthropogenic nitrogen deposition (Vitousek et al. 1997), since the nutrient conditions of the soil determine wood growth response to increased atmospheric CO2 (Kostiainen et al. 2004). (STR Preprint, 50).

NAS panelist Dr Wallace agreed that the NAS panel did not disagree with Wegman on common issues: Quote:

"In Mike's view, the two reports were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent."

At the July 19, 2006 House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearing, Mr Barton asked Dr North very precisely whether he disagreed with any Wegman's findings and North: Quote:

CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that. It looks like my time is expired, so I want to ask one more question. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman's report? DR. NORTH. No, we don't. We don't disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report. But again, just because the claims are made, doesn't mean they are false. CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that you can have the right conclusion and that it not be– DR. NORTH. It happens all the time in science. CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, and not be substantiated by what you purport to be the facts but have we established–we know that Dr. Wegman has said that Dr. Mann's methodology is incorrect. Do you agree with that? I mean, it doesn't mean Dr. Mann's conclusions are wrong, but we can stipulate now that we have–and if you want to ask your statistician expert from North Carolina that Dr. Mann's methodology cannot be documented and cannot be verified by independent review. DR. NORTH. Do you mind if he speaks? CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, if he would like to come to the microphone. MR. BLOOMFIELD. Thank you. Yes, Peter Bloomfield. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his coworkers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

In response to critic by Wahl and Ammann, Wegman replied (here (PDF 10MB)) citing Wahl and Ammann themselves: Quote:

"The comparison of the MBH reconstruction, derived from multi-proxy (particularly tree ring) data sources, with widespread bore-hole-based reconstructions is still at issue in the literature." Wahl and Ammann (2006, p.4 in the 24 February 2006 draft) In other words, the MBH reconstruction does not agree with other widely accepted methodologies for climate reconstruction. Wahl and Ammann [argue] that if one adds enough principal components back into the proxy, one obtains the hockey stick shape again. This is precisely the point of contention… A cardinal rule of statistical inference is that the method of analysis must be decided before looking at the data. The rules and strategy of analysis cannot be changed in order to obtain the desired result. Such a strategy carries no statistical integrity and cannot be used as a basis for drawing sound inferential conclusions.

And below is what the IPCC AR4 hypocritically wrote: Quote:

The McIntyre and McKitrick 2005a,b criticism [relating to the extraction of the dominant modes of variability present in a network of western North American tree ring chrono-logies, using Principal Components Analysis] may have some theoretical foundation, but Wahl and Amman (2006) also show that the impact on the amplitude of the final reconstruction is very small (~0.05°C).

A second example:
Wegman's response also shows that the 'independent' papers confirming Mann's study are in fact produced by a small clique gravitating around him. NAS 2006 confirmed Wegman with: Quote:

Because the data are so limited, different large-scale reconstructions are sometimes based on the same datasets, and thus cannot be considered as completely independent.

So no independent confirmation of Mann. Below is how IPCC 2007 twisted that: Quote:

As with the original TAR series, these new records are not entirely independent reconstructions inasmuch as there are some predictors (most often tree ring data and particularly in the early centuries) that are common between them, but in general, they represent some expansion in the length and geographical coverage of the previously available data.

So Mann's methods are flawed and his results subjected to heavy questioning and not independently confirmed, yet the IPCC used them as an icon.
Even the infamous Gavin Schmidt said in 2005 about paleo-reconstruction of temperature: Quote:

It is one of those odd ironies that the figure that everyone keeps talking about is actually the least important from the point of view of understanding climate responses to forcing.

Look, I am even citing a folk from UnRealclimate to make my point.


About the 2008 Mann's paper, his methodology is debunked here: Quote:

It is found that all reconstruction methods contain a large element of stochasticity, and it is not possible to compare the methods and draw conclusions from a single or a few realizations. This means that very different results can be obtained using the same reconstruction method on different surrogate fields. This might explain some of the recently published divergent results.

There are also many articles in ClimateAudit explaining the statistical flaws in Mann's paper but as this post is already long, you will have to search yourself the details.

In conclusion, your truth has a train late and final words for IPCC reports are not from scientists and therefore do not represent honestly the state of the Science.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

Wouldn't it have been better to give a link or to send the figures to the "nitpickers" via PM? Just a thought...

Probably. I could even find again the original link to these data if I would to. But as I save them on my site for further reference (in case) I have not bother to search for at that time. The interesting part is when will we have a replot from these data posted by one of the nitpicker...

Quote:

Was more a rhetorical question...

Ah. So I guess you have already replied to with the little smiley that follows it.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

This winter was the first winter with roughly 15 cm snow for slightly over one week since 22 years!

and what does this tell you?

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy ... Then you can go there to increase your knowledge. ...

Thanks for that link!
I went there to "increase my knowledge", but what I found was more suited to confirm what I already knew:

Quote:

30. Re #28: Bob, two glaciologists have posted here in the last couple of weeks to tell Roger [Pielke Sr.] that he’s wrong. It was water off a duck’s back. As far as “all glaciologists” goes, I think the NSIDC and WGMO pages are pretty good evidence. There are lots of areas of climate science where there’s disagreement and uncertainty about the trend, but glaciology isn’t one of them.

On the NSIDC page I found this:

Quote:

These repeat photographs (also known as "glacier pairs") are of special interest to scientists studying glaciers and climate. Glacier photographs taken from the same vantage point, but years apart in time, can reveal dramatic changes in the glacier terminus position, as a glacier either advances or retreats. Most glaciers around the world have retreated at unprecedented rates over the last century. These pairs of photographs can provide striking visual evidence of climate change.

On annother [http://nsidc.org/glims/glaciermelt/index.html]NSIDC page[/url] I found this:

Quote:

...at least one third of the observed sea level rise in the last 100 years has come from the melting of glaciers exclusive of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets. ... The critical link between glaciers and climate is the glacier mass balance. Mark Dyurgerov of INSTAAR has produced an updated global synthesis of existing mass balance data aimed at improving our understanding of glacier-climate interactions.

Some interesting info on glaciers can be found on the United Nations Environment Programme (DEWA/GRID-Europe) page, if you click on "6. Regional glacier changes - 6.5 Central Europe":

Quote:

... The front variations show a general trend of glacier retreat over the past 150 years with intermittent Alpine glacier re-advances in the 1890s, 1920s, and 1970–1980s (Patzelt 1985, Pelfini and Smiraglia 1988, Zemp et al. 2007b). The Alpine glacier cover is estimated to have diminished by about 35 per cent from 1850 to the 1970s and another 22 per cent by 2000 (Paul et al. 2004, Zemp et al. 2007b). Mass balance measurements show an accelerated ice loss after 1980 (Vincent 2002, Huss et al. 2008) culminating in an annual loss of 5 to 10 per cent of the remaining ice volume in the extraordinarily warm year of 2003 (Zemp et al. 2005). In the Caucasus, glacier retreat since the end of the LIA is also widespread, with a certain amount of mass gain in the late 1980s and the early years of the 21st century. The recent retreat was associated with an increase in debris cover and glacier lake development (Stokes et al. 2007). Since the first half of the 19th century, about two-thirds of the ice cover was lost in the Pyrenees with a marked glacier shrinking after 1980 (Chueca et al. 2005).

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: A picture to illustrate:

May I ask what/who the source behind the IP of the linked pics is?

I have doubts regarding their seriousity (especially the reconstruction of the view of the Roman times), since the famous mummy "Oetzi" has been conservated for 5300 years in the alps glacial ice.

If there really had been a period with no glaciers in the alps 2000 years ago, Ötzi would have benn rotten during this period.

His subsistence prooves that the alps had glaciers 2000 years ago.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Interesting

Quote:

Interesting wrote: @Dandy Quote: This winter was the first winter with roughly 15 cm snow for slightly over one week since 22 years! and what does this tell you?

It tells me that climate warmed since my childhood.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)