AGW As A Campaign Issue

Now now now I dont think any of us here actually believes that any warmmonger knows that any continuous function an be modeled with a polynomial of nth order. That would actually mean that they have some modicum of education in math which we all know isn't possible.

 

See you have not actually DONE that

Meanwhile someone actually HAS

http://www.politicalforum.com/envir...perature-record-really-incredibly-robust.html

 

Sorry did not see this reply earlier

We choose a moderator to overview the evidence

We can also decide before hand what constitutes manipulation and lies

Bet is still up there

 

If you had done actual research instead of lifting junk off a blog, you would have discovered that co-author Huston McCullough (Loehle's statistician-in-tow) rightly criticizes this graph for not weighting its data to reduce random error. And of course I'm shocked, shocked, that our resident statistical know-it-all, oops I meant to say expert, didn't notice this utter lack of statistical expertise in either Loehle 2007 or Loehle & McCullough 2008 when he read them. If he ever did.

Lucky for us, McCullough provides us with a weighted average from the very same data. And the enhanced, low-noise version looks a wee bit different than the crap you might find on Roy's blog and then rush to post here:



Now let's compare that curve to the conventional paleo reconstructions found in IPCC AR4, including Mann:



Looks a lot like a hockey stick to me.

Oddly enough (or rather ... totally to be expected?) a number of problems with Loehle 2007, including the lack of weighting and an incorrect procedure for setting anomaly zero points, were pointed out to Loehle on ClimateAudit, and although he promised to fix those problems, he didn't.

So let's recap: Loehle 2007 had big problems, including statistical problems. The nice folks at CA (a skeptical website!) pointed them out. Loehle promised to fix the problems and he roped in an economist with statistical experience (McCollugh) to help him out. But when he finally published his correction, the only thing he fixed are the data issues (which were pointed out at RealClimate) while ignoring the statistical issues that his friends on the skeptical side complained out. Heck, McCullough even computed the weighted averages and gave him the frickin' answer! and Loehle still left it out of the main paper, relegating it instead to the supplemental info, where most people wouldn't think to look. Even worse, Loehle has eliminated McCullough's SI from the version of Loehle & McCullough he posts on his own website. Disgraceful.

Why?

And the answer is, of course, that the correct, weighted graph shows clearly that the MWP wasn't as warm as it is today. And Loehle can't stand the truth. Some people might call that a "classic deception".

As just shown: You are, for one.

Number of times Windigo has called SkepticalScience liars: between 1 and 1000.
Number of actual lies Windigo has found on SkepticalScience and posted here to prove he's not deluded: between zero and zero.

And after the (non-expert) Craig Loehle disaster, who can blame them?

 

Yes, let's test the model's hindcast to the real data. Let's start with your own favorite model: Scafetta.



Ooops.

 

Thank you for this masterly summation PB and it shows why none of the denialists on this site will take up the challenge of proving who has the most misleading data - denialist sites or "warmest" sites

You are also correct about the unfounded allegations - something the denialists in particular are very good at. As soon as something starts to look too threatening i.e. Sceptical Science, then the mud, no lets be honest, the poo flinging starts

 

Yes, let's try that. Raw data: GISS global temps, monthly, 1880-2011. Result:



Gee, according to your model that will "accurately predict" temperatures any time in the past, we were in the middle of an Ice Age back in 1850. And Earth was at absolute zero in 1780! Which means the American Revolution never really happened and is a left-wing hoax! And Dinosaurs never really roamed the earth so evolution is wrong too!!!!!

This is the kind of model only idiots could love.

Let me clue you in, FUD. Doing statistics, math, and curve-fitting in no way relieves you of the obligation of doing science. If you think global temperatures are following a sixth-order polynomial, you need to tell us WHY global temps are following a sixth-order polynomial: what real world, verifiable processes are actually operating on the Earth to make it behave that way.

If you can't do that, you're not doing science, you're just mathturbating.

But if you can do that -- if you can show how greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb and emit infrared, and how that affects global temperature, and how that triggers actual feedbacks based on known real-world effects like water vapor and albedo -- then, and only then, you might be a climatologist.

 

More arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Completely off-topic.

If Obama runs using AGW (with its concomitant taxation and regulation) and lose - even by a narrow margin - the issue is forever attached to him and his unacceptability become AGW's unacceptability.

Does the AGW crowd feel comfortable hitched to a sick horse?

 

More arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Completely off-topic.

If Obama runs using AGW (with its concomitant taxation and regulation) and lose - even by a narrow margin - the issue is forever attached to him and his unacceptability become AGW's unacceptability.

Does the AGW crowd feel comfortable hitched to a sick horse?

 

So if Romney runs as a climate change do-nothing and loses, does that mean climate denial is a permanent loser issue for politicians?

 

Nah! AGW still has all those unacceptable taxes and regulations...and the UN.

 

Why are carbon taxes unacceptable?

 

You ran the chart beyond the data on the X coordinate, hence the curve-fit program went asymptotic looking for the data you did not supply. Truncate the x axis to fit the data spread. I am sorry I did not put that in the instructions. I assumed any highschooler would have know to do that, but you did not. I didn't say turn on your computer and open excel either but you did figure that out....how long did it take????

I think you underestimate the caliber of the people who look at this thread....you continue to embarrass yourself assuming they are extremely ignorant by posting "cheap shots"......

 

A model that cannot predict, and cannot even retrodict, is nothing but useless garbage. As I said before: you're not doing science.

Here's the difference: a real scientist would develop a model using actual, honest-to-god real world climate forcings and get a better fit to the data, using fewer parameters, that your curve-fitting exercise. And that real model would actually predict temperature, which your curve-fitting exercise does not. And do you know why? Because a real model is based on real science.

When someone's "model" is crap, it doesn't take very long to prove it.

 

Why are carbon taxes unacceptable?

Because they are taxes and American are of the opinion they are overtaxed already.

If it is a tax of any sort for any reason, it is unacceptable.

 

A revenue-neutral tax doesn't tax to any greater degree than the current system. It just changes the source, not the amount. Try again. Why is a carbon tax unacceptable?

So you're an anarchist then?