Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[eclipsenow]

So, you're just going to ignore the fact that you've been saying this whole time that Marcott et al was upfront about the 20th century data not being robust, but I've just shown that, in fact, they were NOT up front about it and only said those things AFTER they had been exposed??

You're really showing how non-factual, non-reasonable, and non-scientific most of you guys are.

Like the way you want to quibble over this one particular study that an engineer says is invalid (instead of an actual specialist in the field!) when there are many other paleoclimate reconstructions you're just ignoring? Yeah, that's reasonable.

 

[Loudmouth]

Be more specific. I'm responding to a lot of things here, so I don't get what you're trying to get at here.

You seemed focused on the graph as if that graph was the whole purpose of the paper. It wasn't. It was just one data set out of many. The authors of the paper took the pertninent parts of the data to form their conclusions, and for the graph in question they excluded part of the graph because it was not statistically robust. All they were doing was showing all of the data in the graph.

 

[andypro7]

You seemed focused on the graph as if that graph was the whole purpose of the paper. It wasn't. It was just one data set out of many. The authors of the paper took the pertninent parts of the data to form their conclusions, and for the graph in question they excluded part of the graph because it was not statistically robust. All they were doing was showing all of the data in the graph.

Incorrect.

They collected data
They drew conclusions from the data
They graphed the data (ALL of the data)

Then...

REAL scientists checked their work
Found they had committed fraud
Showed that the data they used in the Science article was fraudulent

Then...

Marcott et al had to come out and respond to the real scientists
It is then that they admitted that the data was not 'robust'

The McIntyre article uses the original data that was graphed in the original publication in 'Science'. I signed up, went to the archives at 'Science', and checked.

And surprise, surprise, I couldn't find any mention of 'Science' retracting the false, misleading, fraudulent hockey stick that they published.

 

[rambot]

Incorrect.

They collected data
They drew conclusions from the data
They graphed the data (ALL of the data)

Then...

REAL scientists checked their work
Found they had committed fraud
Showed that the data they used in the Science article was fraudulent

Then...
Marcott et al had to come out and respond to the real scientists
It is then that they admitted that the data was not 'robust'

It was shown a few posts ago in the Loudmouth post, that the lack of robustness was mentioned IN THE CONCLUSION OF THE SAME PAPER.
Why would "real scientists" need to go in to show somethign that was already said? Perhaps to point out how it was bad.

"Faudulent" data suggests that they made EVERYTHING up; data that lacks robustness is not the same thing. Are you arguing that they FULLY made up ALL of their data?

 

[Loudmouth]

REAL scientists checked their work
Found they had committed fraud
Showed that the data they used in the Science article was fraudulent

What made the data fraudulent?

Marcott et al had to come out and respond to the real scientists
It is then that they admitted that the data was not 'robust'

So which is it? "Fraudulent" or "not statistically significant"? You do realize that those are two very different things, right?

And surprise, surprise, I couldn't find any mention of 'Science' retracting the false, misleading, fraudulent hockey stick that they published.

What makes it fraudulent?

 

[andypro7]

It was shown a few posts ago in the Loudmouth post, that the lack of robustness was mentioned IN THE CONCLUSION OF THE SAME PAPER.

Read what Marcott said afterwards. Read the Science article. Read all the gushing, amazing, "We've never seen this before!" quotes from Marcott when asked about the CONCLUSIONS.

"Faudulent" data suggests that they made EVERYTHING up; data that lacks robustness is not the same thing. Are you arguing that they FULLY made up ALL of their data?

Why would you capitalize 'EVERYTHING'? You're definition of fraudulent is incorrect. He doesn't have to change EVERYTHING to come to commit fraud, he only has to knowingly change a tiny bit if that tiny bit turns out to lead to an entirely different conclusion than if he had left everything unchanged.

Which is exactly what he did.

 

[andypro7]

So which is it? "Fraudulent" or "not statistically significant"? You do realize that those are two very different things, right?

It was fraudulent, he committed fraud
It was then discovered
Of course, since he's a climate 'scientist', he isn't going to come right out and say, "oops, I committed fraud", he's going to say, "uh, yea, the data just wasn't robust". (that's Mann 101)

I find it utterly amazing that you guys here in general are SO SURE that this paper wasn't a big fraud, but NONE OF YOU have even shown that you know what the main issue of fraud is.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why would you capitalize 'EVERYTHING'? You're definition of fraudulent is incorrect. He doesn't have to change EVERYTHING to come to commit fraud, he only has to knowingly change a tiny bit if that tiny bit turns out to lead to an entirely different conclusion than if he had left everything unchanged.

The bit that was changed WAS NOT USED AS PART OF THE CONCLUSIONS.

 

[Loudmouth]

It was fraudulent, he committed fraud

How was it fraudulent?

 

[andypro7]

The bit that was changed WAS NOT USED AS PART OF THE CONCLUSIONS.

First of all, I'm pretty sure you don't even know which bit was changed. Or how it was changed, or what it means. You just know that some warmist said it, so you believe it. Period.

But go ahead, tell me what bit was changed.

Here's the paper's conclusion:

“Global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years” and “Global temperature….. has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century.” A heat spike like this has never happened before, at least not in the last 11,300 years”

This official conclusion was drawn DIRECTLY from the fraud that was committed and then almost immediately exposed.

One COULD NOT draw a conclusion anything like the conclusion above by doing just a scientifically rigorous investigation of the data. That's what McIntyre (and subsequently many others) exposed

 

[Loudmouth]

First of all, I'm pretty sure you don't even know which bit was changed. Or how it was changed, or what it means. You just know that some warmist said it, so you believe it. Period.

The "hockey stick" you keep referencing was not part of their conclusions.

Here's the paper's conclusion:

“Global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years” and “Global temperature….. has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century.” A heat spike like this has never happened before, at least not in the last 11,300 years”

I am waiting for the part where they say that this conclusion is drawn from the graph that you claim is fraudulent, yet can't even show is fraudulent.

One COULD NOT draw a conclusion anything like the conclusion above by doing just a scientifically rigorous investigation of the data. That's what McIntyre (and subsequently many others) exposed

Where did McIntyre focus on anything but one graph? What about the rest of the data, such as the instrument measurements?

 

[andypro7]

The "hockey stick" you keep referencing was not part of their conclusions.

Yes it is. READ their conclusion. Then LOOK AT the graph THEY made with the data that led to their conclusion. Then LOOK at the hockey stick shape it makes at the end. The READ how they gleefully assert that it affirms Mann's hockey stick.

Other than that, spot on.


I am waiting for the part where they say that this conclusion is drawn from the graph that you claim is fraudulent, yet can't even show is fraudulent.

The graph is a representation of the data that they say leads to their conclusion. They made their conclusion as was shown before, then they graphed the data to illustrate their conclusions. BOTH their conclusion and the graph that represents their conclusions are wrong since they altered the data to get the conclusion, and subsequently the graph, that they wanted to get.



Where did McIntyre focus on anything but one graph? What about the rest of the data, such as the instrument measurements?

McIntyre's ENTIRE post focused on ALL THE DATA that was given by Marcott et al in order to come to their conclusions. The WHOLE FREAKIN POST.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes it is. READ their conclusion. Then LOOK AT the graph THEY made with the data that led to their conclusion.

Where does it say that the graph under question was used to reach their conclusions?

The graph is a representation of the data that they say leads to their conclusion.

Where do they say that?

McIntyre's ENTIRE post focused on ALL THE DATA that was given by Marcott et al in order to come to their conclusions. The WHOLE FREAKIN POST.

So why not discuss ALL OF THE DATA instead of one graph?

 

[andypro7]

Where does it say that the graph under question was used to reach their conclusions?
The graph was not used to reach the conclusions, it is a representation of their conclusions.



Where do they say that?
Science Mag Marcott et al March 2013



So why not discuss ALL OF THE DATA instead of one graph?
He does, you can't understand it

 

[Loudmouth]

The graph was not used to reach the conclusions, it is a representation of their conclusions.

Now we get to the source of your misunderstanding.

The graphs are a representation of a subset of the data, not the conclusions.

He does, you can't understand it

Then help me understand it.

Where does he discuss the rest of the data?

 

[andypro7]

Now we get to the source of your misunderstanding.

The graphs are a representation of a subset of the data, not the conclusions.

Incorrect, as it pertains to the lauded conclusions and fraud that was committed



Then help me understand it.

Where does he discuss the rest of the data?

Again, the WHOLE FREAKIN ARTICLE is about what's wrong with the MAIN data that led to the MAIN conclusion of Marcott.

 

[andypro7]

Then help me understand it.

I will try, here goes. I'm going to show you something with data and a conclusion, and you need to tell me SPECIFICALLY what is wrong with the conclusion.

Say someone owns 4 laundrymats, and each one makes money. 'Location C' makes a lot more money because it's in a much more urban setting. Below are each years profits at each location. The data for 2014 isn't in for 3 of the location:

Now, for 2012 and 2013 the owner averaged around 5K per laundrymat. But in 2014, the average is over 12000

The owner concludes that his business is WAY STRONGER than it's ever been

Is there anything wrong with his conclusion? Please be specific so that I know that you understand.

Also, was this conclusion reached scientifically, in your opinion?

 

[Loudmouth]

I will try, here goes. I'm going to show you something with data and a conclusion, and you need to tell me SPECIFICALLY what is wrong with the conclusion.

Say someone owns 4 laundrymats, and each one makes money. 'Location C' makes a lot more money because it's in a much more urban setting. Below are each years profits at each location. The data for 2014 isn't in for 3 of the location:

Now, for 2012 and 2013 the owner averaged around 5K per laundrymat. But in 2014, the average is over 12000

The owner concludes that his business is WAY STRONGER than it's ever been

Is there anything wrong with his conclusion? Please be specific so that I know that you understand.

There is something wrong with your portrayal. There is more than one graph and more than one data set in the paper.

 

[Loudmouth]

Incorrect, as it pertains to the lauded conclusions and fraud that was committed

No graph is ever a representation of the conclusion in any scientific paper. That's not how it works.

Again, the WHOLE FREAKIN ARTICLE is about what's wrong with the MAIN data that led to the MAIN conclusion of Marcott.

Then you shouldn't have much of a problem discussing it.

Where does McIntyre discuss the marriage of paleoclimate data and modern instrument measurements?

 

[andypro7]

There is something wrong with your portrayal. There is more than one graph and more than one data set in the paper.

UGH. Are you being intentionally obtuse:

Just focus on the one that led to THIS CONCLUSION:

“Global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years” and “Global temperature….. has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century.” A heat spike like this has never happened before, at least not in the last 11,300 years”


That conclusion can only be reached by the data in question.

Now, explain to me specifically what is wrong with my spreadsheet.