An Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore is Phony

[TCO]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Also, I recommend reading Collapse by Jared Diamond to everyone that doubts humans can **** up their environment. He doesn't really talk about global warming and the like, but talks about how different societies in the past did stupid things or smart things and subsequently collapsed or prospered.

You know Easter Island used to have trees, until they cut them all down? This was particularly bad for a civilization that depended on wood for tools, boats, etc. In hindsight, it looks really stupid, but the book examines the circumstances under which really stupid things like this can happen.

Diamond is a lightweight.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


So you trust someone from the mining industry to give you good climate data? The guy has an undergrad degree in math, and no graduate degree, yet claims to poke holes in stuff real scientists say.

He won a nationwide award in math as an undergrad. Had an offer for a scholarship with Samuelson (Nobel prize winner), but had to support a family. If you read that site and RC, the math and logic content is far higher on CA than on RC. He has no problem doing proofs in linear algebra and the like. Go ahead and check it out...he can bring it a lot better then you can or then his opps can. Kittyhorse agrees. And Kitty could butt**** your cherry ass with a Bessel function

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ramo




This can also be shown in a study by published in Science (by Naomi Orsekes) that searched through ISI for abstracts that mentioned "global climate change," analyzed a large random sample, and as she put it,

http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm

[TCO]

Ramo, "plausible" is a very ambiguous phrase. Could mean "possible". Could mean likely. If you read the entire report, AND I HAVE. You will see several places where they emphasize that they are setting the record straight to a LOWER level of confidence in reconstructions older then 400 years. They even say that the uncertainty is so much that they can't even estimate the uncertainty bars!

[DinoDoc]

Your link needs to loose the "g" for it to work TCO.

[TCO]

Wegman is the real deal. A Hotelling quality stats guy. He checke M&M and Mann and found M&M critiques on target and found Mann's work fundamentally flawed and NOT EVEN WRITTEN CLEARLY ENOUGH to describe the method so it could be replicated. Quite clearly the paleos have been off inventing their own math and not validating methods in the real stat literature and been found wanting. Just try to talking to some of them. They are not the brightest bulbs. Lot of second raters.

[Ramo]

TCO, note that the title of the message in your link: the letter that Science refused to publish. This guy was peer-reviewed and rejected, while Oreskes was peer-reviewed and validated.

Check out this site:

http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser/

Regarding Mann, I'll take another look at the paper later but I really see no reason not to trust the experts on this. Nonlinear systems, Feigenbaum numbers, turbulence, etc. are cool. Hell, that's what I'm gonna study. But this is minutiae.

[TCO]

Ramo, I'm aware that he did not get published. I have published 9 peer-reviewed publications. I value the system very much. Still, why not read the paper and think for yourself? Sure, be skeptical. But don't put your brain on hold. This is the net. Read and think.

How about the comments on Steve McIntyre's math ability? Do you accept my point or need more documentation?

[TCO]

Here is an interesting exchange. Ritson miscalculates and Mike Mann is asked about it 3 times. Twice, he just denies it (without checking). Finally after the 3rd time, he checks and finds that the miscalc did occur (first differncing). He still won't admit it though and has the most opaque, ambigious "clarification" I've ever seen. Instead of saying first differencing WAS DONE, he says, "it is as it was written". Something that could be interpretred any which way. The guy is really a peice of work.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/how-red-are-my-proxies/

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=680

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Lamberts a complete lightweight who get his ass handed to him any time he dares tangle one on one with the CA heavies.

[TCO]

Agreed.

[Ramo]

Dunno how much of a heavy-weight Lambert needs to be in addressing the validity of Peiser's (who's an anthropologist) study. If you look at the 34 abstracts he cited, a lot of them simply do not reject the idea of a significant human contribution to global warming or are not from peer-reviewed scientific journals. Extremely sloppy work on Peiser's part, and I don't much wonder why it got rejected by Science.

As for the McIntrye's stats issues in Mann's study, I'll take a good look soon as I have time to, but again I don't see any real point in second guessing the climate modelling consensus. Particularly since this material isn't exactly the forefront of theory in nonlinear dynamics (which I find interesting), rather is boring minutiae.

[TCO]

Lambert can comment on whatever he wants to, I guess. When he gets into the climateaudit arena, he never gets into any of the technical discussion. (I do.)

I guess it was Galis, who doubted Steve M.'s math ability. He's got plenty...

[TCO]

Oreskes was sloppy too, I guess Ramo...

[TCO]

BTW, Nature is pretty politicized on the GW front. They have taken an editorial stance in favor of it. And refused publication for instance to Steve M.'s paper (later accepted by GRL...quite a decent peer reviewed journal) despite that Steve M.'s paper was valid (as per both NAS and Wegman reviews), that it corrected one of their premier papers, was newsworthy, etc. Even people who are pro-GW have said this. Hans von Storch (head of a German climate institute and very well known and pro-GW) has said this in testimony and articles Also, check out James Annan, who is more your political slant then mine, hates oil companies, etc. If you want, I can give cites.