Jon Stewart Rips Right-Wingers A New One

    When Unarmed Blacks Are Killed By Cops

    No Wrongdoing With Benghazi

    Right-Wingers Fuel Racism And Paranoia

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Putting DEBUNKED In All Caps Doesn't Debunk

Thomas Lindaman states:

The Leftist blogger who hates me and yet copies almost everything I do repeated a statement he's made in a previous blog of his that Dr. Michael Mann's "hockey stick graph" hasn't been debunked. In doing so, he's gone all in on this notion, hoping that no one would call him on it. Mr. Leftist Blogger, consider yourself called out.

And when did I say I was hoping nobody would call me out, you liar? I ask you to do it all the time!

First, we go to Technology Review, published by MIT. The following link explores Dr. Mann's "hockey stick graph" and how two Canadian scientists, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, discovered a fundamental flaw in Mann's calculations. http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/?a=f Now, I'll admit I'm no scientist,

So? That never stopped deniers before.

but to me if there's a fundamental flaw in one's calculations, it tends to discredit the findings just a tad. The Technology Review link also has other great information on the "hockey stick graph" phenomenon. And from what I hear, those MIT folks are pretty good with the numbers.

Funny, that same Richard Muller issue was brought up in the very article I linked to yesterday. You're welcome.

To that, I give you this: Muller's report is a gross mischaracterization of the statistical methods used by Mann. According to Mcintyer's analysis, Mann should have applied the same standard deviation weight factors used for temperature estimates dating back two centuries to data collected within the last two centuries. He would be correct if the same methods, sampling techniques and accuracies applied to all the data, but they clearly do not. Mann split the sample according to analysis technique, with widening error bars into the past necessitated by extractions from the sampling norm. A Monte Carlo simulation of data weighted in this manner will always put the most weight on the most recent data, but it will not necessarily generate a "hockey stick", even though their is a probability that it will if the total range of potential varience is use in the random generater, rather than the much tighter deviations in the most local population. What McIntyre has done is the equvalent of taking today's Dow Numbers, which run around 10,000, and backward-predicted the stock market past 1960 (when the Dow was at 100), and then said, if you take todays market and do a Monte Carlo simulation, there is a 90% probablility the market was at minus 9,900 in 1920. A correct Monte Carlo simulation would only use year-to-year temperature variences that are somewhat consistent with current trends, just like Mann imposed. This would not produce the 'throttling effect' McIntyres crude estimates exaggerate. In any case the principle component vectors are only marginally more important than the statistical annual mean, and the fact that the mean over the last five years is more than six sigma above the historic average, and the slope of this curve is steeper than any historic or projected slope trend in the prehistoric period should leave us no doubt I can continue to grow tomatoes at 5000 ft, unheard of at this latitude a mere two decades ago.

And speaking of our friends to the north, Canada Free Press ran an interesting piece about the "hockey stick graph" and some of the "science" that surrounded it. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3021

Ah, yes. Written by Dr. Ball. The guy that claims to have a climatology PhD, when his degree was in historical geography. Yes, Muller himself refers back to that article to support his own claims.

By the way, Muller is also not a climatologist.

Funny thing. Seems Dr. Mann has been rather vocal about McIntyre and McKitrick's findings being wrong, but he didn't release much of his raw data so that they could try to reproduce Mann's findings. It was only after he was called out by Congress (and with sufficient support from people on his side of the argument) that he released more of the data. Seems to me that's a big red flag that something may be amiss with Dr. Mann's findings.

Much of the data couldn't be released at that time because it wasn't their data to release. With the data being released now, has there been any evidence of falsifying that data?

McIntyre is a statistician, McKitrick is an economics professor. Can't you guys gather up any climatologists?

You do realize that there are other climatologists using research by working on past temperature proxies, and their estimates are the same as Mann's. Are they in on the conspiracy?

There's no "bombshell," sorry. There's a reason why Nature rejected their article. And no, it's not because Nature is in on the conspiracy.

Of course, there's always the International Climate Science Coalition,

The ICSC? Bwahahaha:


Funny, don't see a climatologist on that staff. But there's always Dr. Ball, right?

who published the following article in October 2009. http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content &view=article&catid=14:text&id=232:rossmckitrick-02-10-09 Pay particular attention to the graphs titled "The Rise and Fall of Climate Data." Using a larger number of trees than what was used in relation to the "hockey stick graph", scientists found something quite different than Dr. Mann used in his initial research: the planet DIDN'T get warmer when he said it did.


Mann's own response to this is rather funny. I'm posting this one just for the lulz:


Three difference sources, all using scientific methods to find the flaws in the "hockey stick graph." I'd say that pretty much proves Mr. Leftist Blogger wrong yet again when he said it's never been debunked. So, to borrow something from his blog that seems so appropriate here, it looks like he was... [WRONG]

Nope, not wrong. Do you even know what "debunked" means? There has to be "bunk" to begin with before it can be "debunked". And you guys still haven't answered my question of how 97% of climatologists can all be in on a conspiracy, and what they would ALL have to gain.

And onto another subject:

Wow! One of my readers response! I guess that blows the Anti-Ace's "hypothesis" about my blog out of the water. Man, it must just suck being so wrong all the time.

Yay for you! And it only took six months! Yeah, what a bummer for me! Guess you showed me! Darn...

Hmm... hold the phone here. The anonymous commenter is referring to you as "Ace", which is a moniker you never use on your blog. "Ace" is what you use in the AOL right-wing chatroom "The Podium."

Let's see here... I never refer to you as "Ace" on my blog, either. You never link up to my blog, anyway. So how could the commenter know any specifics about my blog? And the comment just happened to appear the day after I pointed out that you don't get any comments. After six months.

Hmm... Yep, you had to go into the AOL chatroom and link up to this blog, asking for some support.

Anyway, here's what the commenter had to say:

Anonymous: It sure would be nice if the "Anti-Ace" had the cajones to alter his own blog so people could respond to his garbage 'facts', alas.......he isn't man enough.

LOL Thanks, Mr. Anonymous. At least I have an email. Not to mention the fact that every one of you Podium regs have been called out for a face-to-face, and you've all backed down. I ALWAYS link directly back to Lindaman when I respond to a Lindaman posting. Lindaman is more than capable of responding, he's the brightest of your Podium bunch. How sad is that? And don't talk about cajones, considering this blog wouldn't have even been made if Lindaman hadn't backed down from face-to-face challenges since he was scared.

The blog isn't for you AOL Podium toothless hicks to spam. You guys are too busy arguing over birth certificates and claiming Saddam was a socialist.

I actually like "Anti-Ace." Why not go all the way and call me "Bizarro Ace"?

Good job, Ace! Keep pecking away at the little pecker.

Nice try. You've fulfilled your typical conservative (and Podium) duty of saying a lot with nothing to back it up.

I have 97% of climatologists on my side. You've got a handful of cranks and some hillbillies in an AOL chatroom, where "sand nigger" is their most popular word pairing. Peck at that. Or are you brave souls just too busy not enlisting?