• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cherry Picking and AGW Advocacy

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Steve McIntyre only posts rarely now, but as this exposition shows his powers are undiminished. What he describes here is a sort of gerrymandering of data; it's politics rather than science. The charlatanry continues with PAGES 2017.

PAGES2017: New Cherry Pie

Jul 11, 2017 – 11:31 PM
Rosanne D’Arrigo once explained to an astounded National Academy of Sciences panel that you had to pick cherries if you wanted to make cherry pie – a practice followed by D’Arrigo and Jacoby who, for their reconstructions, selected tree ring chronologies which went the “right” way and discarded those that went the wrong way – a technique which will result in hockey sticks even from random red noise. Her statement caused a flurry of excitement among Climategate correspondents, but unfortunately the NAS panel didn’t address or explain the defects in this technique to the lignumphilous paleoclimate community.
My long-standing recommendation to the paleoclimate community has been to define a class of proxy using ex ante criteria e.g. treeline black spruce chronologies, Antarctic ice cores etc., but once the ex ante criterion is selected, use a “simple” method on all members of the class. The benefits of such a procedure seem obvious, but the protocol is stubbornly resisted by the paleoclimate community. The PAGES paleoclimate community have recently published a major compilation of climate series from the past millennium, but, unfortunately, their handling of data which goes the “wrong” way is risible. Continue reading →

The PAGES 2017 collation is a successor dataset to the PAGES 2013 collation, aspects of which I discussed a few years ago. Not included in my previous discussion was their North American tree ring collection, which stubbornly included the same stripbark bristlecone chronologies of Mann et al 1998-9, while claiming to be “independent”. In total, there were 146 North American tree ring series in PAGES2K (2013).
PAGES2K (2017) contains almost exactly the same number (150) of North American tree ring series, but, if you look at the second tab (Table S2) of its Supplementary Information – an excerpt of which is shown below, one series after another was rejected because it had a “negative relation to temperature” . . . .

As Rosanne D’Arrigo explained years ago, you have to pick cherries if you want to have cherry pie. Nothing has changed.
There are other points of interest in the PAGES 2017 proxies which I’ll try discuss if I have time, inclination and energy.
 
Steve McIntyre only posts rarely now, but as this exposition shows his powers are undiminished. What he describes here is a sort of gerrymandering of data; it's politics rather than science. The charlatanry continues with PAGES 2017.

PAGES2017: New Cherry Pie

Jul 11, 2017 – 11:31 PM
Rosanne D’Arrigo once explained to an astounded National Academy of Sciences panel that you had to pick cherries if you wanted to make cherry pie – a practice followed by D’Arrigo and Jacoby who, for their reconstructions, selected tree ring chronologies which went the “right” way and discarded those that went the wrong way – a technique which will result in hockey sticks even from random red noise. Her statement caused a flurry of excitement among Climategate correspondents, but unfortunately the NAS panel didn’t address or explain the defects in this technique to the lignumphilous paleoclimate community.
My long-standing recommendation to the paleoclimate community has been to define a class of proxy using ex ante criteria e.g. treeline black spruce chronologies, Antarctic ice cores etc., but once the ex ante criterion is selected, use a “simple” method on all members of the class. The benefits of such a procedure seem obvious, but the protocol is stubbornly resisted by the paleoclimate community. The PAGES paleoclimate community have recently published a major compilation of climate series from the past millennium, but, unfortunately, their handling of data which goes the “wrong” way is risible. Continue reading →

The PAGES 2017 collation is a successor dataset to the PAGES 2013 collation, aspects of which I discussed a few years ago. Not included in my previous discussion was their North American tree ring collection, which stubbornly included the same stripbark bristlecone chronologies of Mann et al 1998-9, while claiming to be “independent”. In total, there were 146 North American tree ring series in PAGES2K (2013).
PAGES2K (2017) contains almost exactly the same number (150) of North American tree ring series, but, if you look at the second tab (Table S2) of its Supplementary Information – an excerpt of which is shown below, one series after another was rejected because it had a “negative relation to temperature” . . . .

As Rosanne D’Arrigo explained years ago, you have to pick cherries if you want to have cherry pie. Nothing has changed.
There are other points of interest in the PAGES 2017 proxies which I’ll try discuss if I have time, inclination and energy.

WHOA!!!! ... "lignumphilous".

Wasn't McIntyre the one who originally blew the whistle on Mann's hockey stick way back when?
And for pretty much the same reasons I see him mention here.
 
WHOA!!!! ... "lignumphilous".

Wasn't McIntyre the one who originally blew the whistle on Mann's hockey stick way back when?
And for pretty much the same reasons I see him mention here.

Yes. SM busted MM. It wasn't exactly the same. In the MM case, SM (and statistician Ross McKittrick) showed MM didn't understand the principles of statistics math.
 
Yes. SM busted MM. It wasn't exactly the same. In the MM case, SM (and statistician Ross McKittrick) showed MM didn't understand the principles of statistics math.

Didn't they call attention to the actual temps spliced onto the proxies to form the blade and the cherry picked proxies that enabled the warm and cool periods to flatten out to form the handle?
 
Didn't they call attention to the actual temps spliced onto the proxies to form the blade and the cherry picked proxies that enabled the warm and cool periods to flatten out to form the handle?

A lot came out as the case progressed, but SM's initial irritation was MM's statistical tomfoolery. Best account is The Hockey Stick Illusion by A.W. Montford.
 
A lot came out as the case progressed, but SM's initial irritation was MM's statistical tomfoolery. Best account is The Hockey Stick Illusion by A.W. Montford.

I was going to mention you should expect someone to mention McIntyre isn't a climate scientist.

I have a dozen or so books on the subject but that's not one of them. They all touch on the fraudulent hockey stick.

I tell you, probably the best one on the subject of AGW is The Neglected Sun translated from German. Fantastic.
 
I was going to mention you should expect someone to mention McIntyre isn't a climate scientist.

I have a dozen or so books on the subject but that's not one of them. They all touch on the fraudulent hockey stick.

I tell you, probably the best one on the subject of AGW is The Neglected Sun translated from German. Fantastic.

There's a regular denial industry stealing money from the credulous. If it keeps them out of the trffic, I suppose it's got it's uses.
 
I was going to mention you should expect someone to mention McIntyre isn't a climate scientist.

I have a dozen or so books on the subject but that's not one of them. They all touch on the fraudulent hockey stick.

I tell you, probably the best one on the subject of AGW is The Neglected Sun translated from German. Fantastic.

Thanks. Authors are allies of Svensmark, IIRC.
 
Search engine deceit similar to cherry-picking.


[h=1]Caught Red-Handed: Google Search Suppresses Climate Realism[/h]Claims that Google Search improperly downranks some websites are frequent but not always correct, and they’re hard to prove even if they are. But the latest available (May 2017) Google Search Quality Evaluation General Guidelines provide conclusive proof of intentional, severe, and malicious suppression of climate realist views. A quote: “High quality information pages on…
Continue reading →
 
Search engine deceit similar to cherry-picking.


[h=1]Caught Red-Handed: Google Search Suppresses Climate Realism[/h]Claims that Google Search improperly downranks some websites are frequent but not always correct, and they’re hard to prove even if they are. But the latest available (May 2017) Google Search Quality Evaluation General Guidelines provide conclusive proof of intentional, severe, and malicious suppression of climate realist views. A quote: “High quality information pages on…
Continue reading →

That's why I hated it when Yahoo bought out Alta-Vista. It went to crap and then was removed.

That was a very fine search engine.
 
Another climate change denial entry by Jack. How many times have I said that? How many have you posted, Jack? Are you obsessed?

The IPCC assessment reports are the reason that 98% of climatologists support the AGW position. Attached. I would suggest starting with this document, Jack, and write something coherent about it.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

Drafting Authors:
Lisa V. Alexander (Australia), Simon K. Allen (Switzerland/New Zealand), Nathaniel L. Bindoff
(Australia), François-Marie Bréon (France), John A. Church (Australia), Ulrich Cubasch
(Germany), Seita Emori (Japan), Piers Forster (UK), Pierre Friedlingstein (UK/Belgium), Nathan
Gillett (Canada), Jonathan M. Gregory (UK), Dennis L. Hartmann (USA), Eystein Jansen
(Norway), Ben Kirtman (USA), Reto Knutti (Switzerland), Krishna Kumar Kanikicharla (India),
Peter Lemke (Germany), Jochem Marotzke (Germany), Valérie Masson-Delmotte (France),
Gerald A. Meehl (USA), Igor I. Mokhov (Russian Federation), Shilong Piao (China), Gian-Kasper
Plattner (Switzerland), Qin Dahe (China), Venkatachalam Ramaswamy (USA), David Randall
(USA), Monika Rhein (Germany), Maisa Rojas (Chile), Christopher Sabine (USA), Drew Shindell
(USA), Thomas F. Stocker (Switzerland), Lynne D. Talley (USA), David G. Vaughan (UK), ShangPing
Xie (USA)
Draft Contributing Authors:
Myles R. Allen (UK), Olivier Boucher (France), Don Chambers (USA), Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen
(Denmark), Philippe Ciais (France), Peter U. Clark (USA), Matthew Collins (UK), Josefino C.
Comiso (USA), Viviane Vasconcellos de Menezes (Australia/Brazil), Richard A. Feely (USA),
Thierry Fichefet (Belgium), Arlene M. Fiore (USA), Gregory Flato (Canada), Jan Fuglestvedt
(Norway), Gabriele Hegerl (UK/Germany), Paul J. Hezel (Belgium/USA), Gregory C. Johnson
(USA), Georg Kaser (Austria/Italy), Vladimir Kattsov (Russian Federation), John Kennedy (UK),
Albert M. G. Klein Tank (Netherlands), Corinne Le Quéré (UK), Gunnar Myhre (Norway), Timothy
Osborn (UK), Antony J. Payne (UK), Judith Perlwitz (USA), Scott Power (Australia), Michael
Prather (USA), Stephen R. Rintoul (Australia), Joeri Rogelj (Switzerland/Belgium), Matilde
Rusticucci (Argentina), Michael Schulz (Germany), Jan Sedláček (Switzerland), Peter A. Stott
(UK), Rowan Sutton (UK), Peter W. Thorne (USA/Norway/UK), Donald Wuebbles (USA)


Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have
warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the
concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.

...
Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes
in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and
in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for
human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been
the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.
 
Another climate change denial entry by Jack. How many times have I said that? How many have you posted, Jack? Are you obsessed?

The IPCC assessment reports are the reason that 98% of climatologists support the AGW position. Attached. I would suggest starting with this document, Jack, and write something coherent about it.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

Authors snipped

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have
warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the
concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.

...
Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes
in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and
in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for
human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been
the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

Now I agree with all of except for the last sentence, but even that is high due to post war aerosols and major land use changes. They dominate CO2.

Soot on ice...

Loss of natural evapotranspoiration... you know, storm sewers talking in the majority of rain water near most meteorological measuring sites, rather than it soaking inn the ground and having evaporation cooling...
 
Now I agree with all of except for the last sentence, but even that is high due to post war aerosols and major land use changes. They dominate CO2.

Soot on ice...

Loss of natural evapotranspoiration... you know, storm sewers talking in the majority of rain water near most meteorological measuring sites, rather than it soaking inn the ground and having evaporation cooling...

Yes, but these 50+ Climatologists are the experts, and you're not. Correct? I trust that they have adequately incorporated all the variables. If you read the IPCC details, they discuss the thoroughness and content of the individual studies that comprise the ultimate conclusions.
 
Yes, but these 50+ Climatologists are the experts, and you're not. Correct? I trust that they have adequately incorporated all the variables. If you read the IPCC details, they discuss the thoroughness and content of the individual studies that comprise the ultimate conclusions.

Dodging the thread topic.
 
[h=2]PAGES 2017: Arctic Lake Sediments[/h]Jul 22, 2017 – 1:58 PM
Arctic lake sediment series have been an important component of recent multiproxy studies. These series have been discussed on many occasions at Climate Audit (tag), mostly very critical. PAGES 2017 (and related Werner et al 2017) made some interesting changes to the Arctic lake sediment inventory of PAGES 2013, which I’ll discuss today. Continue reading →
 
[h=2]PAGES 2017: Arctic Lake Sediments[/h]Jul 22, 2017 – 1:58 PM
Arctic lake sediment series have been an important component of recent multiproxy studies. These series have been discussed on many occasions at Climate Audit (tag), mostly very critical. PAGES 2017 (and related Werner et al 2017) made some interesting changes to the Arctic lake sediment inventory of PAGES 2013, which I’ll discuss today. Continue reading →

Got a new Fake News organization, Jack? The fossil-fuel lobby is spending that big money, aren't they?
 
[h=2]Arctic Lake Sediments: Reply to JEG[/h]Jul 29, 2017 – 11:42 AM
Julien Emile-Geay (JEG) submitted a lengthy comment concluding with the tasteless observation that “Steve’s mental health issues are beyond PAGES’s scope. Perhaps the CA tip jar pay for some therapy?” – the sort of insult that is far too characteristic of activist climate science. JEG seems to have been in such a hurry to make this insult that he didn’t bother getting his facts right. . . .
 
If there is a bright shining center of integrity in the universe, it is very near Climate Audit.

Sure if one is a puppet to the fossil-fuel industry.
 
Sure if one is a puppet to the fossil-fuel industry.
At the bottom of every comment about oil companies being a part of some conspiracy to
taint the science of AGW, is the assumption that, If AGW is true, it will harm the oil companies.
Please consider that transport fuel is not a discretionary product for most people.
Transport is as much a necessity as is food, for most people.
People will pay for that fuel at almost any price.
If price alone were a large factor, Canadians would buy a lot less than Americans,
instead of the only 18% less per capita.
http://www.globalpetrolprices.com/articles/52/
The Price for gasoline in Canada is about $4.30 per gallon almost twice the US average.
 
At the bottom of every comment about oil companies being a part of some conspiracy to
taint the science of AGW, is the assumption that, If AGW is true, it will harm the oil companies.
Please consider that transport fuel is not a discretionary product for most people.
Transport is as much a necessity as is food, for most people.
People will pay for that fuel at almost any price.
If price alone were a large factor, Canadians would buy a lot less than Americans,
instead of the only 18% less per capita.
http://www.globalpetrolprices.com/articles/52/
The Price for gasoline in Canada is about $4.30 per gallon almost twice the US average.

What you say is true in today's world. However, if a large-scale move to electric cars occurs, it will bite into oil industry profit. And that concerns them.
 
Back
Top Bottom