scientists are worried about a surprisingly cold ‘blob’ in the North Atlantic Ocean

[Moviefan-2]

So you are confirming that the 'hockey stick chart' was based on existing research....

More or less.

Let's put aside the fact that the hockey stick graph that was used in the IPCC's 2001 report eliminated the "divergence problem" with tree ring data that didn't conform with existing temperature readings -- particularly Briffa's tree-ring data, that showed the planet getting cooler when the actual thermometer readings clearly showed it had gotten warmer.

After Mann was able to "hide the decline," the graph he produced was more or less aligned with the 1 degree C increase over the past 135 years. So, sure, putting aside "Mike's Nature trick" and the fraudulent splicing together of two completely different data sets, that post-1880 part of the graph aligned with already known temperature data.

Now all you need to do is look at research that is more current then the 1990 chart you posted to confirm that the rest of Mann's findings have also been confirmed.
Multiple times.

Bullshit.

The first 900 years of the graph, based on the biased algorithm and the improper cherry-picking of unreliable bristlecone data, has no basis in reality. The straight downward slope created by Bradley, Hughes and Mann has been thoroughly discredited and is not supported by real-world evidence.

Don't take my word for it. Here's what Phil Jones -- one of Mann's closest allies -- said to Mann in an email on May 6, 1999:

"Keith [Briffa] didn't mention in his Science piece but both of us think that you're on very dodgy ground with this long-term decline in temperatures on the thousand-year timescale."

Indeed. "Very dodgy" is an understatement.

Climate researchers on all sides of the debate have trashed Mann's research. To cite another example, Tom Wigley -- another AGW champion -- said the following in an Oct. 21, 2004 email to Jones:

"I have just read the M&M [McIntyre and McKitrick] stuff criticizing MBH [Mann, Bradley and Hughes]. A lot of it seems valid to me.

"At the very least MBH is a sloppy piece of work - an opinion I have held for some time."

There are hundreds more to choose from, but let's just go with one more -- a quote from the late Harold Lewis, one of the American Physical Society's most distinguished members, in his Oct. 6, 2010, resignation letter from the APS over the "global warming scam" conducted by the likes of Mann and Jones (who were named in his letter):

"It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist."

Scientists have concluded the hockey stick is fraudulent. That's why there is no mention of it at all in the IPCC's most recent report. And why not a single scientist anywhere on the planet filed an amicus brief supporting Mann in his current legal fight with pundit Mark Steyn and others.

---

The fact remains that what FAST posted simply confirmed what researchers knew -- from the recorded temperature data -- well before the hockey stick was ever published.

FAST's statement was not a confirmation of the hockey stick, and there was nothing in FAST's post supporting the outrageous claims made by Mann and the hockey stick champions, such as the baseless assertion that current temperatures are the warmest of the past 1,000 years (a claim that has subsequently been dropped by most climate researchers).

You can choose for yourself whether you want to believe the fairy-tale claims in the hockey stick graph.

It doesn't matter. It is a fact that you lied about FAST's beliefs. He never posted anything supporting those fairy-tale claims. You should admit that you lied and apologize.

 

[Frankfooter]

Hal Lewis?
That 87 doddy old fool who took denier money?

Not much of a source, but then you never have any real sources, just kooks.

However, a string of subsequent studies by a number of scientific groups from around the world have all yielded essentially the same result. Most recently, a paper published in the journal Nature Geoscience this week — co-authored by 78 experts from 60 scientific institutions from around the world — found yet another hockey stick. Their temperature reconstruction shows a slow slide into a future ice age ending abruptly with a sharp rise in temperatures in the 19th and 20th centuries. Recent global surface temperatures are probably the warmest in the past 1,400 years.

http://www.livescience.com/29068-hockey-stick-climate.html

Most Comprehensive Paleoclimate Reconstruction Confirms Hockey Stick

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...climate-reconstruction-confirms-hockey-stick/

I'd go on, but what's the point.
You can't tell the difference between legit science and bullshit.

 

[basketcase]

Page 28 of the Summary for Policy Makers in the IPCC's 1990 report:....

To paraphrase Homer Simpson, everyone knows science reached perfection in 1990.:crazy:

For some reason, the stupid scientists kept on working for the past 25 years though.

 

[bishop]

The graph is based on what was new research into historical data at the time, research continues.
Would you be happy if doctors were allowed to discover cancer existed but allowed to do any new research into curing it?

You can extend that line of thinking to every historical event, we can on a monthly or yearly basis reinvestigate WW2 and certainly with each rewriting of WW2 more and more will be added and perhaps some parts removed. But no matter how much you investigate the main points of WW2 are still there and apparent, so maybe the battle of stalingrad involves 10,000,001 men rather than 10,000,000, big deal.

The historical data in graph 7.1(c) is based on tree ring data, this is what I am assuming, has there been new breath throughs in tree ring technology in the last 25 years, I am sure there has. I am sure there are better computer models and methods to infer temperature from tree ring data, and I am sure they applied that to the chart 7.1(c) of the 1990 IPCC report, we do not hear about it because the most likely case is that you get only a small incremental difference than the results of 25 years ago. I mean if new tree ring methods totally change our previous conceptions, it will be front page news and someone will get a noble.

Do you on a month or yearly basis demand we re carbon date every fossil and archeological discovery, Because you refuse to accept last year's or last month's carbon dating results?

If we are talking about cutting edge shit, like cancer research or quantum computers or just computers in general, then up to date retesting and reevaluation of existing results is not optional but indeed crucial.

 

[Moviefan-2]

To paraphrase Homer Simpson, everyone knows science reached perfection in 1990.:crazy:

Man, you're dumb.

If you read the post, you know that we were looking for an example that pre-dates the first hockey stick graph from 1998.

Are you seriously telling us that you don't know whether 1990 came before or after 1998?

Seriously???

 

[Frankfooter]

You can extend that line of thinking to every historical event, we can on a monthly or yearly basis reinvestigate WW2 and certainly with each rewriting of WW2 more and more will be added and perhaps some parts removed. But no matter how much you investigate the main points of WW2 are still there and apparent, so maybe the battle of stalingrad involves 10,000,001 men rather than 10,000,000, big deal.

The historical data in graph 7.1(c) is based on tree ring data, this is what I am assuming, has there been new breath throughs in tree ring technology in the last 25 years, I am sure there has. I am sure there are better computer models and methods to infer temperature from tree ring data, and I am sure they applied that to the chart 7.1(c) of the 1990 IPCC report, we do not hear about it because the most likely case is that you get only a small incremental difference than the results of 25 years ago. I mean if new tree ring methods totally change our previous conceptions, it will be front page news and someone will get a noble.

Do you on a month or yearly basis demand we re carbon date every fossil and archeological discovery, Because you refuse to accept last year's or last month's carbon dating results?

If we are talking about cutting edge shit, like cancer research or quantum computers or just computers in general, then up to date retesting and reevaluation of existing results is not optional but indeed crucial.

Your post makes no sense.

Investigations into climate history have made leaps and bounds over the last 25 years.
Yet the serious and real research has confirmed the hockey stick graph, and the one mislabelled chart from 1990 has been replaced by better data.

Moviefans claims are based off of falsifying the results of one chart and refusing to use the more recent and better versions because they contradict his claims.

 

[Frankfooter]

Man, you're dumb.

If you read the post, you know that we were looking for an example that pre-dates the first hockey stick graph from 1998.

Are you seriously telling us that you don't know whether 1990 came before or after 1998?

Seriously???

If that is your goal, then your false use of a chart from 1990 is even more dishonest.
Big surprise.

 

[Moviefan-2]

If that is your goal, then your false use of a chart from 1990 is even more dishonest.

OMG! You think it's "dishonest" to say that 1990 came before 1998?

Are you and Basketcase competing for Retard of the Year?

 

[bishop]

Your post makes no sense.

Investigations into climate history have made leaps and bounds over the last 25 years.
Yet the serious and real research has confirmed the hockey stick graph, and the one mislabelled chart from 1990 has been replaced by better data.

Moviefans claims are based off of falsifying the results of one chart and refusing to use the more recent and better versions because they contradict his claims.

Ok please tell me the new insights and the new leaps and bounds that has been gained by reanalyzing historical data for climate over the past 25 years. Give me something tangible and not your usual because someone smarter than you believes it then it must be true, because based on what I see everyone is smarter than you.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Moviefans claims are based off of falsifying the results of one chart and refusing to use the more recent and better versions because they contradict his claims.

Is that so?

Would you like to settle our bet? We'll see whether or not the data "contradict" my claims. :thumb:

 

[Frankfooter]

OMG! You think it's "dishonest" to say that 1990 came before 1998?

Are you and Basketcase competing for Retard of the Year?

My mistake, read the second date as 1988 for some reason.
I'll just stick to calling you dishonest for misusing a graph, including posting a link to it from a site that explains exactly how dishonest your use was.

 

[Frankfooter]

Ok please tell me the new insights and the new leaps and bounds that has been gained by reanalyzing historical data for climate over the past 25 years. Give me something tangible and not your usual because someone smarter than you believes it then it must be true, because based on what I see everyone is smarter than you.

You can read the full history of the graph, including the shoddy work done in the attacks on it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

And this wiki link lists the works that have supported Mann's findings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years

Feel free to read some of those papers and learn a bit more.

 

[Moviefan-2]

My mistake, read the second date as 1988 for some reason.

I'm glad to see that you recognize that 1990 came before 1998.

We'll see whether or not Basketcase comes to the same conclusion.

 

[Frankfooter]

Is that so?

Would you like to settle our bet? We'll see whether or not the data "contradict" my claims. :thumb:

Our bet runs to the end of this year.
If you'd like to settle now using the average of NOAA and NASA's published temperatures for 2015 to date, I'd be happy.
Otherwise we should wait until the end of the year.

 

[Moviefan-2]

If you'd like to settle now using the average of NOAA and NASA's published temperatures for 2015 to date, I'd be happy.

LOL. This now marks the fifth time I've caught you trying to replace the bet with the NOAA numbers.

Looks like somebody knows he's losing. So much for all that rubbish about how the charts "contradict" my claims.

 

[Frankfooter]

LOL. This now marks the fifth time I've caught you trying to replace the bet with the NOAA numbers.

Looks like somebody knows he's losing. So much for all that rubbish about how the charts "contradict" my claims.

Losing?
You are the one who wants to settle early because you know you are going to lose by the end of the year.
NASA's findings are that we are 0.82ºC year to date (I seem to recall), and the bet was that it will be 0.83º by the end of the year.
NOAA says 0.84ºC.
You just want to settle now because you know you'll lose by the end of the year.

And you are going to have to admit that the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly accurate.

 

[bishop]

You can read the full history of the graph, including the shoddy work done in the attacks on it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

And this wiki link lists the works that have supported Mann's findings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years

Feel free to read some of those papers and learn a bit more.

Is that the way it works? I ask for logic and reasoning and you point me to a wikipedia page and tell me to read all that sh*t. I myself do not pull that shit, and if I were to pull that sh*t I would have the decency to say, look at paragraph x or line x on page so and so. Why don't you just ask me to google for evidence supporting your view and read each and every link?

You remind me an awful TA I had, we students would go up to him and describe a problem with our circuit, he would make a circle with his finger that covered the whole circuit and say "the problem is somewhere in there".

 

[Frankfooter]

Is that the way it works? I ask for logic and reasoning and you point me to a wikipedia page and tell me to read all that sh*t. I myself do not pull that shit, and if I were to pull that sh*t I would have the decency to say, look at paragraph x or line x on page so and so. Why don't you just ask me to google for evidence supporting your view and read each and every link?

You remind me an awful TA I had, we students would go up to him and describe a problem with our circuit, he would make a circle with his finger that covered the whole circuit and say "the problem is somewhere in there".

You asked me this:

Ok please tell me the new insights and the new leaps and bounds that has been gained by reanalyzing historical data for climate over the past 25 years.

I gave you a page with a list of recent works supporting Michael Mann's work and the hockey stick graph.
Now, since you appear to be a bad student, unwilling to actually do any independent research and you requested 'what new insights', I'll give you one, with a coles note, 'simple enough for those with Dunning Kruger' type explanation.

Mann's work was based off of tree rings originally, I recall.
Independent investigations of ice cores, done since Mann's work, have also confirmed his findings:

In fact, independent evidence, from ice cores and sea sediments for instance, suggest the last time the planet approached this degree of warmth was during the interglacial period preceding the last ice age over 100,000 years ago. It might even be hotter now than it has been for at least a million years.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/

So there you have one easy to read example and a list of other, independent research that back up Mann's findings.

 

[bishop]

That graph, you do not see the problem with that graph? Well I guess how could you because the problem with that graph is only apparent to anyone who has the even slightest ability to think logically and with reason, and you have already confessed that you solely rely on others to do your thinking for you.

Go ask someone smarter than you, if you have a pet maybe ask him/her.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Losing?
You are the one who wants to settle early because you know you are going to lose by the end of the year.
NASA's findings are that we are 0.82ºC year to date (I seem to recall), and the bet was that it will be 0.83º by the end of the year.
NOAA says 0.84ºC.
You just want to settle now because you know you'll lose by the end of the year.

And you are going to have to admit that the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly accurate.

That's the clucking sound of a chicken. But you can't hide forever.