Re: (OT) What Global Warming has in common with Marxism

Andre Jute <fiultra1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:6b0a7b35-298a-4d39-89ca-d547971ed786@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Jul 30, 3:24 am, William Asher <gcn...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Andre Jute <fiult...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:6886a52a-87b8-4223-8a3e-894f
e5985bd4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:



NAS Report agrees with the Wegman Report:
***
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions [about
the Mann papers] 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.
DR. BLOOMFIELD. Our committee reviewed the
methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers 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.
WALLACE: The two reports were complementary, and to
the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite
consistent.
***
Wegman totally condemned Mann, then the NAS Panel when asked
individually under oath totally agreed with Wegman. Conclusion: the
NAS Panel too found Mann incompetent.
****

This analysis, lifted from a right-wing newspaper,

This is a lie. Typical Marxist Method, once again, claiming a critic
is associated with one's enemies.

ignores the many
comments from North ...saying how the main conclusions of Mann et
al. have been verified, and were not erroneous.  

This is a lie. North merely said that other data he was aware of
tended to support Mann's claim that the 1990's were the hottest
decade. He said nothing as strong as "verified" or "not erroneous".
You're lying, Asher. Here is what North actually said:

Gerald North, National Academy of Scienca Panel on Mann:
"The committee finds it plausible that the northern hemisphere was
warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any
comparable period over the preceding millennium."

He goes on to define plausible:

"Our working definition of 'plausible' was that the assertion is
reasonable, or in other words there is not a convincing argument to
refute the assertion. We used this term to describe our assessment of
the statement that 'the last few decades of the 20th century were
warmer than any comparable period over the last millennium' because
none of the available evidence to date contradicts this assertion.

Holy shit! Even remembering that North was specifically appointed by
the NAS to vindicate Mann, to help him counter Wegman's devastating
condemnation of Mann, how can a scientist as distinguished as North
fail to understand that what isn't disproven is not in science the
same as proven? How could North have let this crap pass when trillions
of dollars was being spent on Global Warming policies?

North then goes even further and says the forecast that Mann attempted
was in his ocmmittee's view impossible to achieve:

"In our view it is not currently possible to perform a quantitative
evaluation of recent warmth relative to the past 1,000 years that
includes all of the inherent uncertainties associated with
reconstructing surface temperatures from proxy data."

And then comes the killer-punch. Not only has North already agreed
with Wegman that Mann's methods are incompetent and his result
meaningless, he now says it is impossible to invest any confidence in
Michael Mann:
"This precludes stronger statements of confidence, but it does not
mean that the assertion is false."

... but gives him the limp out -- because the NAS *did* send North to
save Mann's slack and disingenuous ass? -- of "but it does not mean
that the assertion is false."

That's a very long way from Asher's dishonest gloss on what actually
happened of "been verified, and were not erroneous."

How limp can "support" get without actually asking Mann to resign from
the NAS?

The warming in the last
half of the 20th century was anomolous by historical standards.
 That is
in the executive summary of the NAS report, in North's written
testimony,

This is a lie. I've already given the truth above, in North's own
words.

in Karl's written testimony.  Furthermore, von Storch points out that
t
he
analysis method doesn't matter, you get the "hockey stick" even if
you just average the datasets.  

Asher, you will never be a statistician. If any old calculation, no
matter how erroneous, gives you the same result, you have butkes, zero
significance.

In fact, it was later elegantly proven that if you fed red noise into
Mann's algorithm, it drew a hockey stick. A bit later it was proven
that you could feed Mann's algorithm any old random data -- and it
came out a Hockey Stick. Mann's method is designed to draw hockey
sticks from anything. That is not analysis, that is not science, that
is pure and simple cargo cultism, speak into the stick on the rope
long enough and one day plane will drop free goodies from the sky,
just when the last American soldiers left. And all the goodies will be
hockey sticks <g>.

If you believe in an algorithm which produces the same result whether
you feed it red noise, random data or tree ring proxies, you're not
connected to science in any way, Asher.

Wegman only comment on the statistical
analysis, not the overall conclusions.  But it seems like you are
incapable of really reading the testimonies objectively.  

I've shown Wegman's words to you. But you are incapable of reading
them. I show them to you again, in shorter form this time to spare
your short attention span:
"'Mann?s methods ... in that the proxies are centered on the mean of
the period 1902-1995.. giving it preference ... to produce a ?hockey
stick? shape.' That says that the data will produce a hockey stick
because Mann designed the algorithm that way. This was prophetic of
Wegman because, as we have seen above, any old crap fed into Mann's
crooked algorithm gives a hockey stick.

Everyone agrees
Mann et al. got some of the statistical details wrong, but what
skeptics like you cannot understand or accept is that it makes no
difference to the conclusions.  

Method Bad + Right Answer = Bad Science

In this case very, very bad science as the algorithm distinguishes
nothing and the result is contradicted by peer-reviewed articles from
over thirty other sciences.

Here is a figure you will readily ignore, but maybe
others would like to see:

http://www.realclimate.org/images/WA_RC_Figure1.jpg

Wegman condemned Amman and Wahl in the same terms as he condemned
Mann. Wegman, I remind you is a distinguished memher of the NAS, a
onetime chairman of the Statistic Committee, yet you claim the NAS
supports Mann!

with the underlying data for that figure available here:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/CODES_MBH.html

Substitute red noise and you'll get the same hockey stick. Substitute
the speed of slugs in Seattle across a footpath and you'll get the
same hockey stick.

Hocum pocum hockey stick, not science.

This shows the Mann et al. data from the late 90's analyzed as per
Wegman (actually McKittrick and McIntyre) and as done by Mann et al.
 It makes no difference, which is what North, Karl, von Storch all
pointed out in their testimony.  

I told you about the red noise probably three times before you wrote
this repetitive post, Asher. Can it be that you really do not
understand the dire significance of the fact that Mann's algorithm is
so crooked, it produces only hockey sticks, whatever the reality of
the data?

So you are arguing nonsense

Really? I'm the one quoting the very words of the authorities you
name. You are the one lying about what they said.

and your objections are a
form of denial.  

Laughing out loud. I'm not the one who's defending a Mann (pun
intended) who tried to pass of an algorithm that produces hockey
sticks from random data as science. You're the one who thinks Michael
Mann is holy and above reproach.

You don't want Mann et al. to be true so no amount of
logic or data I present will convince you.  

Asher, you're so dumb, you couldn't convince a cat to lick cream off a
saucer in front of its nose, never mind persuade me that a rotten
incompetent (or deliberate liar) like Mann is a scientist whose word
we should take for trillions of dollars in policy decision. For god's
sake, man, listen to yourself weaselling desperately as I stack up the
facts and the quotes.

[snipped some dumb smoke Asher tries to blow over the fact that he
long since lost this argument and has nothing left but pathetic lies]

--
Bill Asher

Unsigned out of contempt for a gullible fool


I did tell you that you wouldn't accept any arguments I provided as
proof. I also said you would never provide an answer as to what could be
wrong in the physics. In those assessments, I was completely correct. I
got those predictions correct because you are in denial, and are not able
to assimilate any information outside the sphere of what you want to be
true.

--
Bill Asher
.

Relevant Pages