Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Remove all non-peer reviewed articles and all articles that, when reviewed by peers, were summarily cast out. What are you left with?andypro7 said:Repeat: Oh, by the way, as I said, there are THOUSANDS of these from all over the globe
andypro7 said:I don't think you understand this issue, allow me to explain. A few weeks before the 2004 election, Dan Rather and CBS came out with a fraudulent report about Bush and Vietnam. It was soon exposed as fraud. Rather's explanation was that even though THAT PARTICULAR REPORT was proven to be false, Rather still believed the SUBSTANCE of it. It's the same thing with the hockey stick. If 95% of climate scientists believed that Michael Mann's hockey stick is accurate, then they cease to be scientists. What you mean to say, like Dan Rather, is that they still believe the substance of what the fake, fraudulent hockey stick represents. Additionally climate scientists would not be in any position to determine whether the original hockey stick was accurate, since the issue WAS NOT the climate, but rather the phony, fake, fraudulent, lying STATISTICAL METHOD that was used to present the graph. McIntyre proved, after attempting to replicate Mann's fraud, that virtually ANY numbers you put into Mann's graph produced a hockey stick shape. That's ANY random numbers at all. Now, if you call that science, or if climate scientists call that science, then they and you have disqualified themselves to discuss science.
Remove all non-peer reviewed articles and all articles that, when reviewed by peers, were summarily cast out. What are you left with?
andypro7 said:Phil Jones, director of the CRU on papers that disagree with him: “…I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” But what are we left with? Only the peer reviewed work of over 1000 scientists from over 600 research institutions that show that the MWP was warmer than today, and that the hockey stick was a fraud. Yea, just that.
In other words, put up or don't talk. You aren't speaking science until you put up global, peer reviewed AND accepted scientific research.
Oh, right, so CO2science.org is peer-reviewed!
andypro7 said:Now, I accept your challenge. And when I'm done, you'll eat your own words GLOBAL: Interactive GLOBAL map of Medieval Warming Period http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Globe%204650x2847%20mit%20Graphen%20und%20Linien%20JPEG.jpg PEER REVIEWED: List of Scientists whose work is cited to produce MWP Project CO2 Science List of Research Institutions involved: CO2 Science The only thing left is 'accepted', which is probably what you'll have to rely on since it's ambiguous, and that's why you like it. You're likely going to say that it's not 'accepted'. And that will just prove that you refuse to accept global evidence and peer reviewed science. And that would make you a science denier.
When the peers review it and reject it, it's not accepted. And while the MWP USED to be accepted, it has since been refuted and put to the side to rest with the Bohr model of the atom.
However. I wasn't asking for proof of the MWP. I was asking for proof that the adjustments were unnecessary AND produced a hockey stick. From what I can see, your graph has not been released by any peer reviewed article about the adjustments. I can't even find it using google image search.
Are you referring to the idiotic idea that THOUSANDS (actually MILLIONS) of observations from all over the globe should be thrown away because weather stations change, andypro7?Repeat:
Oh, by the way, as I said, there are THOUSANDS of these from all over the globe
I do know you have no idea what the documented consensus that 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW exists means, andypro7.I don't think you understand this issue, allow me to explain. ...a bit of a conspiracy theory snipped....
Toronto businessman Stephen McIntyre downloaded datasets for MBH99, and obtained MBH98 datasets by request to Mann in April 2003.[83] At the suggestion of Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, editor of the social science journal Energy & Environment, McIntyre wrote an article with the assistance of University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick,[84][85] which Energy & Environment published on 27 October 2003.[86][87] The McIntyre & McKitrick 2003 paper (MM03) said that the Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1998 (MBH98) "hockey stick" shape was "primarily an artefact of poor data handling and use of obsolete proxy records."[88] Their criticism was comprehensively refuted by Wahl & Ammann 2007,[89] which showed errors in the methods used by McIntyre and McKitrick.[90]
I do think you do not know what science means, andypro7
IPCC Predicted Temps vs. Actual Temps:
The final failure of the climate change denier - dragging up the Climatic Research Unit email controversy as if they were totally ignorant about what the result was , andypro7Phil Jones, director of the CRU on papers that disagree with him: ...
Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests.[16] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[17]
Alleged exclusion of papers from IPCC report
In July 2004, referring to Climate Research having published a paper by "MM", thought to be Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels, and another paper by Eugenia Kalnay and Ming Cai, Jones emailed his colleagues saying, "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [TRENBERTH] and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" At that time, Jones and Kevin E. Trenberth were lead authors on a chapter in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Trenberth told the investigating journalist "I had no role in this whatsoever. I did not make and was not complicit in that statement of Phil's. I am a veteran of three other IPCC assessments. I am well aware that we do not keep any papers out, and none were kept out. We assessed everything [though] we cannot possibly refer to all literature... Both of the papers referred to were in fact cited and discussed in the IPCC." He also made a statement agreed with Jones, that "AR4 was the first time Jones was on the writing team of an IPCC assessment. The comment was naive and sent before he understood the process." Jones could have been expected to be aware of the rules as he had been a contributing author for more than ten years, but this was his first time as a lead author with a responsibility for content of the complete chapter.[44][49]
And once again you do not understand what the challenge is or what the MWP Project or CO2 Science are, andypro7.Now, I accept your challenge....
We know that they are a web site citing papers from the scientific literature abut the MWP. What is lacking is a list of papers about whether the MWP
* was global and
* was warmer than today's global temperatures.
andypro7: Insults and fantasies about old reports (1990) do not address:
The first image is an idiot comparing a linear rate of temperature increase with the observations. No one predicts that observed temperatures will increase linearly
...snipped irrelevant text...
Again:Again, ...]
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?