You’re going to watch this eventually. You may as watch it here. Tolerate the first few minutes, it actually gets interesting after all the phony drama in the beginning.
Found by TJ Geezer who adds:
It’s a production intended to debunk global warming. Some on the blog will love it. It leans heavily on an assertion that CO2 levels historically lag temperature changes by 800 years. I haven’t been able to find anything outside of places like PrisonPlanet.com (agenda-heavy places, that is) to confirm that. If it’s true, though, it places some basic assumptions about the human contribution to global warming in doubt. In any case, it’s an interesting video. A thought-provoking addition to the dialog about global warming.
#24 — people should indeed read your suggestions since they represent amazing propaganda. This especially true with this posting here. First of all the whole piece is an ad hominem attack on the individuals. He says they are retired so they can’t know squat. He calls almost all of them “climate deniers” no matter what he thinks of them. This is, obviously, a Karl Rove -like repeated use of a moniker to get an emotional response. None of them are climate deniers. What is a climate denier? Someone who does not believe in climate?
The term is only used because is sounds like holocaust denier — a pejorative phrase. Most of these people DO in fact believe that there is climate change. That’s not what this is about. AND THIS IS WHY THESE PROMOTERS OF MAN-MADE CLIMATE CHANGE ARE SUSPECT. The more I see this sort of subtle propaganda, the more suspicious I get.
I think this post on a BBS caught this sneak attack here.
Sorry John but they are not ad homonym attacks in that link. They are pointing out that the information from those particular people could be tainted. That is more than relevant in an intellectual debate. The fact that one of them regularly receives money from a group that has it in their best interest to alleviate any discussion about global warming is quite suspect. They all have suspicious histories that make questioning their motives absolutely necessary.
Why is it that we always here about all these scientists that doubt MMGW but it is always the same few that keep being brought up like TIM Ball, Patrick Michaels and Richard Lindzen? Is it perhaps that there are really just a few that doubt it and they have a small pool to pull from. Isn’t it interesting that they also never produce any peer reviewed evidence to back up their case? THAT IS POOR SCIENCE and has no place in a scientific debate.
#35 — Instead of attacking the funding source for research, why don’t they attack the science? In the documentary, the claim was made that CO2 increases lagged global warming by 800 years. It seems to me that it would be easy for an expert studying ice cores to refute the claim were it false. Instead, the global warming crowd, such as yourself, attack the integrity of scientists. You use “peer review” to shout down any with contrarian research, yet the editors of journals, such as Science, control what gets published, hence peer reviewed. When two Canadians challenged the statistics used in fabricating the infamous Hockey Stick, Science refused to publish their paper. It didn’t matter that the Canadians were right; they were not climatologists, so their opinions didn’t matter. (Oh, and one of them was a retired geologist who use to work for a mining company, which in your world, invalidated every word he spoke.)
Personally, I don’t need you to tell me the difference between good science and bad science.
#36
“Instead of attacking the funding source for research, why don’t they attack the science?”
“It seems to me that it would be easy for an expert studying ice cores to refute the claim were it false. ”
Why don’t you look at the link in post #4 RealClimate’s response. Credibility? Have you ever heard of that word? There is nothing wrong with attacking the background and motives of people who make specific claims. Especially because the claims they make are blatantly false or misleading. THEY ARE NOT USING SCIENCE! They are playing 3 card Monty with the information and it insults those of use who know better.
“Instead, the global warming crowd, such as yourself, attack the integrity of scientists”
The question of their integrity became valid when the started accepting funds from oil, gas, and coal companies.
Not to mention they never show evidence that isn’t either non-scientific or ignores the process of scientific study all together.
“You use “peer review” to shout down any with contrarian research, yet the editors of journals, such as Science, control what gets published, hence peer reviewed”
Nice use of a right wing talking point. It is just too bad for you that it shows your lack of understanding of the whole scientific peer review process. Also, are you claiming a conspiracy?
“When two Canadians challenged the statistics used in fabricating the infamous Hockey Stick, Science refused to publish their paper”
So what. It was peer reviewed plenty!. They had a fucking hearing before the energy and commerce commission last July! Again, your right wing belief of what peer reviewed means is incorrect. Oh! and NO they were NOT right.
“Personally, I don’t need you to tell me the difference between good science and bad science. ”
Apparently you do! Because you show a lack of comprehension in regards to the topic.
J,
Well made points. Some people just can’t see the forest for the trees.
#37 — The source behind RealClimate.org is the same Mann, et. al. that published the hockey stick. Dr. Mann refused to share his data and his algorithms with either the Canadians or Dr. Wegman’s group that was tasked by the Energy and Commerce Committe to find out who was right. Dr. Wegman’s group found the statistics used by Mann, et. al. to be in error, agreeing with the Canadians’ conclusions.
The peer review process failed miserably with regards to Mann, et. al. and it took eight years of hard work by the Canadians and intervention
by Congress to correct the gross incompetence and arrogance by the climate community. To paraphrase Dr. Wegman, “Statisticians do not claim to be paleoclimatologists, but paleoclimatologists claim to be statisticians.”
It isn’t that Dr. Mann was wrong that bothers me, it is the way he refused to share his data and calculations, it is the way he attacked the credibility of his critics, it is the way he attacked the political motives of the committee chairman, it is the way he defended until the last his Hockey Stick, then when he lost, the way he trivialized the whole argument by saying it didn’t matter. Dr. Mann lacks credibility and, through his association, so does RealClimate.org.
And yes, J, there does appear to be a conspiracy. Furthermore, I refuse to yield to the likes of you control of my own eyes and intellect.
I don’t have time to play Wak-O-Mole with you. Lets just suffice with this. You don’t even understand the issue on which you are debating. You read a bias report about it or heard it on Fox News and now it is your religion. When you have an understanding of all the facts then maybe I will resume with you. You are also a hypocrite. Look at your own posts and discover why. You clearly haven’t looked at the data nor the McIntyre analysis(still in dispute) and compared it with Mann’s. If you had you would see it still doesn’t change the conclusions. So you are debating a red herring and making it the fulcrum of your argument. Typical of the undereducated and mis informed
#5 – Oddly, your stock has declined precipitously in my estimation. You appear to be saying, “My mind’s made up – don’t confuse me with the facts.”
#40 — Is ad hominem your only method of argument? You have no clue as to what I have read or studied. Yes, I did read McIntyre’s analysis. I also read Wegman’s report to the congressional committee. I have never seen Mann’s calculations or the algorithm he used to generate the hockey stick graph, which isn’t surprising since he only shares that information with his “peers.” But I have read on his website, RealClimate.org, Mann’s response to his critics. His arrogance is readily apparent, but his facts, data, and calculations remain elusive. Until I can actually see his work, I can only judge his competence through the analysis of others. And based upon the analysis I have studied, his response to criticism (ad hominem seems to be ingrained within the GW community), and unwillingness to share his methods, I give him no credibility as a scientist.
That Mann claims his work remains (largely) valid is part of his misinformation campaign. What made his ’98 report important was the hockey stick graph. That graph was central to the IPCC’s report issued five years ago and made headlines worldwide. That graph is what catapulted Mann to international fame. It is that graph that was refuted through the work of McIntyre and Wegman.
@ J – good posts.
And you’re right: Anyone with a brain SHOULD be able to see what the evidence indicates. Anyone with a sense of proportionality SHOULD be able to accept that following the money in this debate is hugely important in determining who’s data & judgement to trust. Anyone with a solid sense of self SHOULD be able to differentiate a personality (i.e Al Gore) from his message (lets take some common-sense steps). And you so rightly indicate one reason why that doesn’t happen – 33.3% of the people in this country are convinced this is part of their never-ending holy war, to save us from our birkenstock-wearing selves.
Dvorak though … he’s a special case. Take this video he’s posted for example. This is one of those things that will get some play, but it’ll be nowhere near as big as Dvorak predicts. “You’re going to watch this eventually” he says, as if I’d have ever known about it if I hadn’t stopped by dvorak.org today. Why? B/c he can’t imagine how anyone wouldn’t put the kind of time into finding reasons to poo-poo the whole ‘global warming thing’ as he does.
Still, I have a feeling Mr. Cranky Geek knows, at some rock-bottom level, full well who’s right & who’s wrong on this issue. He’s no dummy. His problem is that he just can’t stand the delivery, or the deliverer. I’m no psychologist, but someone like Gore seems to so completely rub JCD the wrong way (if you’ll notice, Gore bothers him so much that he brought the guy up out of the blue in post #23) that he goes out of his way to find ‘reasons’ why the whole she-bang he embodies must, MUST be a sucker’s bet. He’s positively self-reinforcing his own view about why it’s ok to loath this person he’s focused his emnity on.
From that perspective, almost anybody of sufficent national (or international) stature would get that type of response from John. He doesn’t like anyone telling HIM what to do, especially from a position on the moral high ground. And if the message that person conveys is in any way hopeful or positive too, well that’s just spice for Cranky John’s gristle.
I’ll bet if someone with a more anti-social vibe had made “An Inconvenient Truth”, someone like the ‘old’ Dennis Miller or the late great Bill Hicks, and made the central theme of their message “You’re all a bunch of saps! How could you all be so stupid?!”, for a curmudgeon like JCD that would be much more acceptable. He’d have lapped that shit up and become a CO2 reduction advocate.
Certainly this rather suspect ‘counter-movie’ would never have made it to his blog.
correction: “From that perspective, almost anybody of sufficent national (or international) stature would get that type of response from John. He doesn’t like anyone telling HIM what to do, especially from a position on the moral high ground. And if the message that person conveys is in any way hopeful or positive too, well that’s just spice for Cranky John’s gristle.”
should read “From that perspective, not just anybody of sufficent national (or international) stature would get that type of response from John. Yes, he doesn’t like anyone telling HIM what to do, especially from a position on the moral high ground. And if the message that person conveys is in any way hopeful or positive too, well that’s just spice for Cranky John’s gristle. But I’ll bet if someone with a more anti-social vibe had made “An Inconvenient Truth”, someone like the ‘old’ Dennis Miller or the late great Bill Hicks, and made the central theme of their message “You’re all a bunch of saps! How could you all be so stupid?!”, for a curmudgeon like JCD that would be much more acceptable. He’d have lapped that shit up and become a CO2 reduction advocate.”
To smith and Pedro
It is wonderful how both of you can look up data and aimlessly apply it out of context and show your complete lack of understanding of what you read. You both are under an illusion that you understand what you read. YOU DON”T So quit trying to extract bits of data out of context and use them to support your argument. It is insulting to those of us who bothered to get an education.
Pedro
Yes the caps on Mars are melting but it is not the same issue. You just see that information and assume it is what is happening here. Bad assumption. Unless you understood climatology you probably wouldn’t understand why. But I urge you to do more research and read about why it is not the same issue as it is here on earth.
SMITH
Since you have such a vast understanding of the issue Please tell me how McIntyre’s analysis differs from Mann’s and how that effects the conclusion that were drawn? What were the PCA methods used by McIntyre and how does it affect the over outcome of the data? These are easy questions and ALL of the information is out there to answer them. Here is a little harder question How would you normalize the original data?
Hockey stick graph. Once again it is a red herring. It is one among thousands of pieces of evidence that are part of the consensus of our part in global warming.
You don’t think I can tell what you have read but it is like a laser pointer every time you try to explain what you think you know. For instance the fact that you summarily dismiss the all the other evidence because you have issues with one scientist and the way he analyzed his data. An analysis btw that still comes to the same end conclusions as McIntyre’s.
As to the ad hominem attacks.
I fully admit to them. I call them like I see them. I think it is more than relevant to announce my lack of respect for your lack of knowledge.
J, does the 4th IPCC report have the hockey stick graph? It was in the 3rd report, but now it’s gone. Why did the scientists get rid of it?
MikeN
Do you also read palms?
My understanding is that the full report isn’t due out until May 2007. Why is it not in the summary? As I said before it is a red herring. It is one piece of information among 1000’s that is evidence of man’s contribution to global warming. It is not the bible! If they do leave it out my guess would be that it is because it is too controversial and is unnecessary to prove the issue.
How would I have normalized the data? Hmm, let’s see . . . tree ring widths are dependent upon rainfall, available nutrients, exposure to sun . . . oh yeah, and temperature. So how would I remove the impact of all other environmental factors so that I could draw conclusions about temperature? And then I have deal with different data sets from different studies, conducted by different researchers. Golly, I can’t even begin to speculate how to do this since I haven’t seen the data available to work with. And even if I had the data, I seriously doubt my two semesters of Probality & Statistics and graduate course in Design of Experiments gives me sufficient expertise to do this. So rather than repeat the mistake of Mann and his peer reviewers, I would need to consult an expert in statistics, someone like Dr. Wegman.
So go ahead and call me ignorant and stupid. But if you want to impress me with your own intelligence, then please show me the correct way to do this analysis. Complete with data and calculations. And if you would be so kind, include an explanation of your analysis so that my feeble mind will have some hope of grasping the details.
“I seriously doubt my two semesters of Probability & Statistics and graduate course in Design of Experiments gives me sufficient expertise to do this.”
(in hick voice) Yeah? and they didn’t learn you what the concept of normalizing data was. lol
FOR EXAMPLE
“Hmm, let’s see . . . tree ring widths are dependent upon rainfall, available nutrients, exposure to sun . . . oh yeah, and temperature.”
No no no. I mean Yes yes yes those things are true but have nothing to do with normalizing statistical data. I was looking for something more like “I would normalize for an average of zero to include the totality of the records” or “I would normalize in sub-intervals. Any of you audio buffs would probably understand the concept. I have to question your claims on your education because anyone who studied statistics at all should have understood my question and would have given the a proper answer. I knew that you didn’t know anything except what you picked up off the internet or talked about at your republican oil and gas club meeting and you proved this to be true. How long did you search the internet for that answer? Did you realize it didn’t make sense for what I was asking? What you were answering would be more along the lines of data extraction not normalization and it would be the wrong way for that too. The process is much much easier than that but you never studied such things so s’est la vie.
You ignored the easy questions but from your last post I now know you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what you are talking about and haven’t really seen any data. You admit to that. You are just running off at the mouth about what you think you know and it shows that you know nothing about global warming. You do hold beliefs about it just like you probably hold beliefs about politics and religion but your beliefs don’t constitute fact.
Did Dr. Mann make errors in his analysis? Well maybe. Regardless, it doesn’t change the conclusions drawn. Both analysis show the same end result. He is also one scientist among 1000’s that have gathered evidence in support of mans contribution to global warming. You are using one instance to bring question to the piles of data.
This whole issue is a red herring and you are chasing it like a Scandinavian chef.
I have no need to impress you I feel that you must either be enlightened or combated. Wow, that isn’t as medieval as it sounds. I hope
J, my degree is in Mathematics. Normalizing data, in its simplest form, has to do with transforming the data set so that it follows a standard normal distribution (Bell Curve). But assumptions have to be made in order to treat raw data in any particular way, and if any of those assumptions are wrong, then your analysis is wrong. Before the data can be normalized, it must first be examined for trends; for some link that allows the data to be collated and treated in a meaningful way. For example, what purpose is served in discussing normalization, when the data set could include US annual wheat production and Germany’s annual production of automobiles?
You say, “I would normalize for an average of zero to account for the totality of records,” then accuse me of “running off at the mouth?” Yes, I could have made such a statement (though I would have phrased it as fitting the data to a standard normal distribution), but I recognized your bait as a trap; for there is no way I could have responded without leaving me open for attack. How could I possibly state how I would “normalize” data I haven’t seen? But here is the little bit of knowledge you don’t want anyone else to know: You haven’t seen the data either!
Mann has made a mystery of his entire hockey stick analysis. He runs a web site (RealClimate.org), so why doesn’t he post all of his data and analysis for the world to see?
But being polite doesn’t seem to work with fools, so I will be blunt with you: Mann lied. He deliberately misused the data, he deliberately censored his data, and he deliberately manipulated the data to get his hockey stick. He knew the way he was using the bristlecone pine data was wrong, that the conclusions of the original researchers completely refuted his analysis, but he did it anyway. He knew exactly what he was doing, but did it to put forth his agenda.
That is why he doesn’t show his work. The guy should have been shunned by all of his peers for his — I can’t say shoddy work, because he knew exactly what he was doing — for his lying and the harm it does to science. But instead he is hailed as one of the foremost experts on global warming. Golly, I wonder why?
CO2 emission PROceded the warming, not lagged…thus implying that the CO2 increase was caused by the warming. I also was unable to find that kind of confirmation by Google alone.
The production was really bad. The first few minutes were zzzzzzzzzz and the audio background and the choice of video was bad.
\\// norbert
#52 Smith
“J, my degree is in Mathematics.”
you should get a refund#52 Smith
“J, my degree is in Mathematics.”
Yeah I have one of those too. You should get a refund.
“But assumptions have to be made in order to treat raw data in any particular way”
Probably one of the dumbest statements I have ever read.
“For example, what purpose is served in discussing normalization, when the data set could include US annual wheat production and Germany’s annual production of automobiles?”
Now you are just being down right silly.
“though I would have phrased it as fitting the data to a standard normal distribution”
Tomato – Tomato
“You haven’t seen the data either!”
Really? Where did you ever get that idea? I wouldn’t be so sure if I were you.
As to the rest of the nonsensical post you made I hope you have proof to back up your big claims because you my friend have committed a large amount of libel statements.
You seem fixated on this one man and his research. He and his research are a very small portion of the evidence of man’s contribution to global warming.
Don Quixote you should stop charging windmills they are not the ferocious giants they seem to be.
oh man, after watching this documentary NOW I believe that global warming is serious!
Honestly, I expected more convincent arguments against global change. If all the big-business men fund a documentary to attack global warming, hire some scientist, and that’s all they can do….. then man, honestly, NOW I believe that there are serious causes of concern!!!!
It is a common mistake to think Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth” is not pro-corporate. It is produced by a division of huge Paramount-VIACOM, it is guided by ‘Alliance for Climate Protection”, a subsidiary of Rockefeller Philanthropy, whose members include prominent officers of the Council on Foreign Relations, a policy propaganda front for BP and Shell.
There is huge money in regulating CO2 and trading emission credits, a business under heavy investment by BP-Shell, and the transnational investment banks. Now Gore’s propaganda has been endorsed by the Hollywood elite and been nominated by the Nobel foundation. It is far from any type of grass roots research film, rather it is official policy propaganda which will result in trillions of dollars of profit for the transnational oil companies.
Please listen to this interview to understand this better, and follow the links to the web page for documentation and references.
Video: Global Warming Money Scam
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1425249672931646464&q=%22global+warming+money+scam%22&hl=en
Tracking of Finance and Personnel documented also at:
http://www.geokarras.org
#56—It is a common mistake to think anything with corporate involvement is evil.
Its is a common mistake to confuse “A Convenient Truth” with CO2 trading emission credits.
Its a common mistake to confuse the FACT that CO2 causes global warming with the fact that other things do too.
Yes, lots of confusion around.
Ok so hears the thing are we causing global warming? Are we not? Doses global warming even exist?
Who cares the facts are we are in a warming trend some ice has melted and even if we stooped all “green house gas” emissions from cars cows and volcanoes(well need a lot of corks). Its too late to stop this trend. So what are we going to do about it…. bitch, point fingers? How about we start engineering the tech to save our world and protect low areas.
You know just a thought