31 of 33
31
Science, science, science.
Posted: 06 November 2017 08:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 451 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4181
Joined  2009-10-21
MikeYohe - 06 November 2017 08:17 AM
Lausten - 03 November 2017 07:12 AM

I might have missed a few details, but it’s hard to keep track of Mike. This page is a nice summary. CC raises specifics, Mike ignores every one of them.

Of course, I ignore them. I could insert a page about the best motorcycles to ride and that would be nice too. What the hell does that have to do with the Hockey Stick? The loss of time and money by consensual science? CC is treating you like a fool. Wake up old boy.

He responds to your objections about the chart, about Mann, about just about everything you’ve said. You just proved that you are ignoring them.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2017 08:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 452 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2209
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 03 November 2017 01:07 PM

-y2
Comment #442
That’s quite the summation.

MikeYohe - 03 November 2017 12:51 AM

Over a hundred billion has been spent and we really don’t have a lot to show for the tax dollars.

I’m curious why do you have such contemptuous disregard for this planet that provides your life support system?
Do you really believe life isn’t more than some TV show all facade and no substance?

I do notice the trillions this country spends for destroying things doesn’t bother you and your type in the least.  What twisted minds we have created in this crazy day and age.


Which side of you face are talking from today? You said you agree that Climate Science was done in 2010. Is that not correct? So, explain how spending billions and billions of dollars are OK on Climate Science, when you say the science is already complete? And you notice that trillions spent doesn’t bother me. How in the hell do you know what bothers me? Like I have said many times. You are always telling me and others what I think. And you are wrong most of the time.
 
Is the point you are trying to make that Mann and Gore changed the direction of Climate Science and wasted a couple of decades and billions of dollars and that is just fine with you because it is our governments system’s method to waste time and money. You’re not fooling me by claiming you care for the earth. Otherwise you would be backing factual science over consensual science. Isn’t according to your past consensual science, the water levels supposed to be at the Statue of Liberty’s knees today? Oh, that’s right, consensual science is able to change with the wind.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2017 09:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 453 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2209
Joined  2013-06-01
Lausten - 06 November 2017 08:47 AM
MikeYohe - 06 November 2017 08:17 AM
Lausten - 03 November 2017 07:12 AM

I might have missed a few details, but it’s hard to keep track of Mike. This page is a nice summary. CC raises specifics, Mike ignores every one of them.

Of course, I ignore them. I could insert a page about the best motorcycles to ride and that would be nice too. What the hell does that have to do with the Hockey Stick? The loss of time and money by consensual science? CC is treating you like a fool. Wake up old boy.

He responds to your objections about the chart, about Mann, about just about everything you’ve said. You just proved that you are ignoring them.

Which Mann chart are you talking about? The 98’ chart?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2017 10:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 454 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4181
Joined  2009-10-21
MikeYohe - 06 November 2017 09:00 AM

Which Mann chart are you talking about? The 98’ chart?

He explains why that is a stupid question

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2017 12:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 455 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2209
Joined  2013-06-01
Write4U - 05 November 2017 03:27 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 05 November 2017 12:20 AM
DougC.V2 - 04 November 2017 11:41 PM

“Never argue with a fool,

Who’s arguing?  I’m dissecting.  cheese

I believe this may be the cause of Mike’s confusion

Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 02 November 2017 02:59 PM

And Climate Change is causing the warming in Global Warming?{Nonsense! Global Warming is the driver of Climate Change, it does not work the other way around.  Man, you can’t even keep the most basic science straight but you feel you’re in a position to condemn serious experts.  rolleyes }

To a sloppy reader this may appear that you are arguing CC causes GW.  Mike doesn’t seem capable of reading more than the first sentence. But a question mark (I took the liberty of placing it in the quote) might have helped making it clear that the next sentence is your answer to the proposition.

Write4U, I understand what CC is saying. She has flipped 180 degrees on her argument. Before it was CO2 is the driving force. Now she is agreeing with me that Mother Nature (the sun) is the driving force. I was just pointing that out, so she could correct her point of view. There can be no Climate Change without mankind. Climate Change is new. It means Mankind’s effects on Mother Nature. We have gotten so bad that scientists are now measuring our effects. The levels of CO2 in the air for example. Therefore, Mother Nature cannot be the driver of Climate Change when Mankind is. For example, Mankind’s CO2 can and does cause Climate Change. Climate Change is a sub-category or Global Warming.
 
This is really quite simple if you stand back and look at it. We (the public) are not trying to fix the Global Warming problem. We couldn’t even if we wanted to. We are what ones’ calls “public support” and the ones that will end up footing the bill and end up being regulated by new laws.
 
Is there a problem? If so, what is the problem?
      Factual science:      Right now, we don’t know scientifically if there is a problem. And that is a fact.
      Consensual science:  Agrees that there is a heating problem.
 
Is there a heating problem?
  Factual science:      Not sure.
  Consensual science:  Yes, CO2 is causing too much (rapped) heating of the earth. The way I understand it is that, CO2 is causing the earth to be too hot. And even if the humans can handle a couple of degrees of warming, the rest of nature has never experienced the “rapped” heating and cannot adjust in time, therefore will be looking at extinction. Plus, we are looking at methane gas problems and the Atlantic Cooling and Warming Cycles stopping. 
 
Can we figure out if there is a problem or not?
  Factual science:      Yes, build computer models and data sets.
  Consensual science:  As of 2010 it has all been figured out. Need to stop CO2 output.
 
Is it really that simple?
  Factual science:      No. Even if the CO2 was the new main forcing of heat. We do not understand the earth’s thermostat.
  Consensual science:  Yes.
 
Why are we having to deal with consensual science anyway?
 
Because Gore grabbed the Hockey Stick graph and promoted CO2 and the ending of much of the life on earth.
 
Factual science works with real numbers. Those are hard to come by. So, the real numbers are really estimates that are due to change with new data.
 
Earth is now leaving the intermediate period between Global Warming and Global Cooling. This period is said to be the best weather of the 100K year weather cycle for mankind. Earth is in the warming lag that follows. But so far it is looking like this peek heating was mild do to where the sun is at in its eleven cycles.
 
The point being the consensual science has been mostly driven by money. Take the greed factor out and consensual science goes away. We were given numbers that the CO2 had to stay below or game over for trying to control the CO2 from causing all the items the alarmists preach about. We are not able to stay below that CO2 number. As this is consensual science, just change the CO2 number to a new CO2 number. And that is what has happened.
 
Commonly ask question. If it is not the CO2, wouldn’t the earth be a better and healthier place with less CO2 in the air? So, what’s it hurt to regulate the CO2?
 
Sounds good. We could agree to regulate the CO2 based upon our thinking. We would have consensual thinking regulations. But, it might be better to wait until the computer models are finished and get a factual scientific report on what is the best temperature and CO2 levels for mankind and the earth. As population keeps expanding we may have to make some adjustments.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2017 12:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 456 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2209
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 03 November 2017 08:46 AM
MikeYohe - 03 November 2017 01:26 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 02 November 2017 02:59 PM

And Climate Change is causing the warming in Global Warming.{Nonsense! Global Warming is the driver of Climate Change, it does not work the other way around.  Man, you can’t even keep the most basic science straight but you feel you’re in a position to condemn serious experts.  rolleyes }


OK, I will try and understand what you are claiming. You are saying that Global Warming is the driver of Climate Change (anthropogenic). So, you are now agreeing with Dr. Curry. Is that correct?

Mr. MikeYohe, why always the deceptive games?

You say you understand global warming, yet you’re constantly misrepresenting the understanding with scrambled confusion.
What’s Dr. Curry got to do with Global Warming driving Climate Change???
Why are you so focused on propping her up?

Then you toss an idiot line like “So, you are now agreeing with Dr. Curry.” at me.  What the fuk is up with that?  rolleyes

Show me a quote by Judith Curry, reference it so I can see it in its original form, then ask me if I agree with Ms. Curry,
but no - you go for the head fuk every time.

Thus I have the objective evidence to point out that you MikeYohe are an extremely devious, disingenuous and altogether dishonest player with no interest in actually understanding climate science fundamentals.  All your priorities are with political interests and winning battles by confusing the issues.

Dr. Curry is saying that weather heating includes everything. And the main driving force of everything heating up is the sun and not the CO2. The CO2 does cause heat, but it must follow the sun. And the reason the CO2 is not the main driver is the earth’s thermostat. 
 
Mann says the CO2 is the main driving heating force. Sure, there are other things involved, but they are of such little effect that they do not need to be included. Mankind has put so much CO2 in the air that it is now the main driving force of heating the earth. Put another way, Climate Change is the cause of the earth’s temperature rise.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2017 01:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 457 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2209
Joined  2013-06-01
Lausten - 06 November 2017 10:17 AM
MikeYohe - 06 November 2017 09:00 AM

Which Mann chart are you talking about? The 98’ chart?

He explains why that is a stupid question

I didn’t hear any talk about the Mann 98” Chart.  Are you talking about the YouTube that has the same chart in it that CC posted?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2017 01:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 458 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4181
Joined  2009-10-21
MikeYohe - 06 November 2017 01:13 PM
Lausten - 06 November 2017 10:17 AM
MikeYohe - 06 November 2017 09:00 AM

Which Mann chart are you talking about? The 98’ chart?

He explains why that is a stupid question

I didn’t hear any talk about the Mann 98” Chart.  Are you talking about the YouTube that has the same chart in it that CC posted?

No. I’m talking about how you ignore what’s said and bring up irrelevant crap.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2017 02:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 459 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2209
Joined  2013-06-01
Lausten - 06 November 2017 01:49 PM
MikeYohe - 06 November 2017 01:13 PM
Lausten - 06 November 2017 10:17 AM
MikeYohe - 06 November 2017 09:00 AM

Which Mann chart are you talking about? The 98’ chart?

He explains why that is a stupid question

I didn’t hear any talk about the Mann 98” Chart.  Are you talking about the YouTube that has the same chart in it that CC posted?

No. I’m talking about how you ignore what’s said and bring up irrelevant crap.

What you are calling irrelevant crap is what this posting is about. The Hockey Stick 98’ and the billions spent on science that a large number of our scientists were calling fraud. Now that a decade has gone by, we are just about back to where we were before Gore grabbed the Hockey Stick and promoted the CO2. Grab a one-thousand-year period out of a 90 thousand year warming period and say that there is now manmade CO2 in the air. And guess what, the temperature is now hotter than ever before. But to do that you remove past warming and cooling periods to make the weather constant for the last thousand years. Something like that should not be able to take place in the scientific environment. But it did and what was wrong was political and monetary forces overriding the science. And if we cannot recognize our faults then we will never be able to lead the world in climate science. We should just sit back and wait for China to take over and lead world in science, because our system is to corrupt.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2017 06:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 460 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1613
Joined  2016-12-24

Yeah, so it turns out you actually don’t know one graph from another either, no wonder you are confused.

One more time for the record.  You made up that narrative out of shear ignorance and too much blind hatred.
And of course you’ve yet to produce objective evidence to support your fantasy - well I can understand why you never produce anything close to objective evidence . . .  if only you possessed some scruples you might ask yourself WHY?

But no time to explain it again, although there is this for the serious among us who want to understand what’s really going on.

Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 31 October 2017 06:51 AM

Mikie the Contrarian what two events are missing?

hockey_stick.gif
(Figure 1)
https://www.skepticalscience.com/mann-fights-back.html

Libelous Accusations of Fraud
The accusations of fraud are of course entirely baseless, but stem from the “Mike’s Nature trick” email which was made public during the Climategate theft. 
“Mike’s Nature trick” referred to the technique of plotting recent instrumental temperature data along with historical reconstructed data. 
This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.  This graph is commonly known as the “hockey stick.”

There is of course nothing ‘fraudulent’ about plotting instrumental temperatures on the same graph as reconstructed temperatures. 
Both the instrumental (red) and reconstructed temperature (blue) are clearly labelled in Mann’s 1998 Nature article, the follow-up Mann et al. 1999,
and the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Northern Hemisphere mean temperature anomaly in °C (IPCC TAR).

There has been subsequent scientific debate regarding the statistical methods used in Mann et al. 1999.  It was after all a groundbreaking study - one of the first northern hemisphere millennial temperature reconstructions, so of course subsequent research has resulted in improved methodologies, even by Mann himself in Mann et al. 2008 (Figure 2).
NH_Temp_Reconstruction.gif
However, there is zero evidence that there was any fraudulent behavior whatsoever Mann et. al 1999, and in fact every subsequent millennial northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction has confirmed the general ‘hockey stick’ shape.  For example, see the summary of subsequent research on the subject in the 2007 IPCC report.

Additionally, every investigation into the Climategate emails found that the scientists whose emails were stolen, including Michael Mann, were not guilty of any wrongdoing.  Quite simply, any accusations of fraud are entirely without merit, and qualify as defamation and libel.

Sandusky Comparison Beyond the Pale
It should go without saying that comparing anyone - particularly an honest scientist - to a convicted serial child molester is simply reprehensible and should be universally condemned. ...  (therein lies another interesting story about the malicious nature of the alt-right contrarian machine.)

https://www.skepticalscience.com/mann-fights-back.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2017 06:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 461 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1613
Joined  2016-12-24

;kjbgp;khbm

Mike I wonder if you understand that the 98 graph became obsolete in short order, thanks to continued work and advancements on the daunting task.
But data a computational advances, I might add.

Mike, have you ever tried to imagine that scientists really are doing the best job they can with the data available and that they strive to understanding problems with their own work and how to resolve lingering questions?

Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries
Michael E. Mann*, Raymond S. Bradley* & Malcolm K. Hughes†
NATURE | VOL 392 | 23 APRIL 1998
Screen+Shot+NAture98+Hockey+stick+graph.png
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf

Spatially resolved global reconstructions of annual surface temperature patterns over the past six centuries are based on the multivariate calibration of widely distributed high-resolution proxy climate indicators. Time-dependent correlations of the reconstructions with time-series records representing changes in greenhouse-gas concentrations, solar irradiance, and volcanic aerosols suggest that each of these factors has contributed to the climate variability of the past 400 years, with greenhouse gases emerging as the dominant forcing during the twentieth century. Northern Hemisphere mean annual temperatures for three of the past eight years are warmer than any other year since (at least) AD 1400. 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2017 07:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 462 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7816
Joined  2009-02-26

Mike Yohe said;.
Write4U, I understand what CC is saying. She has flipped 180 degrees on her argument. Before it was CO2 is the driving force. Now she is agreeing with me that Mother Nature (the sun) is the driving force. I was just pointing that out, so she could correct her point of view. There can be no Climate Change without mankind. Climate Change is new. It means Mankind’s effects on Mother Nature. We have gotten so bad that scientists are now measuring our effects. The levels of CO2 in the air for example. Therefore, Mother Nature cannot be the driver of Climate Change when Mankind is. For example, Mankind’s CO2 can and does cause Climate Change. Climate Change is a sub-category or Global Warming.

Sorry, I can’t respond to that incomprehensible jumble.
OTOH, CC’s posits make perfect sense to me and I am in agreement. That’s all I can say at this time.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2017 09:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 463 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  130
Joined  2017-09-24
Lausten - 05 November 2017 06:33 PM

this site is not the IPCC or a college campus. We are a couple steps above above a sports bar. I have told people with science questions to go to science sites. Then I give my opinion. Anyone with credentials would think I was barely more qualified than Mike.

You might as well tell two peolpe on the bus to stop talking.

This site advertises itself as an extension of the campus.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/oncampus/

You wouldn’t know that from the utter garbage posted by one person on the most important issue of our time.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2017 10:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 464 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2209
Joined  2013-06-01
Write4U - 06 November 2017 07:36 PM

Mike Yohe said;.
Write4U, I understand what CC is saying. She has flipped 180 degrees on her argument. Before it was CO2 is the driving force. Now she is agreeing with me that Mother Nature (the sun) is the driving force. I was just pointing that out, so she could correct her point of view. There can be no Climate Change without mankind. Climate Change is new. It means Mankind’s effects on Mother Nature. We have gotten so bad that scientists are now measuring our effects. The levels of CO2 in the air for example. Therefore, Mother Nature cannot be the driver of Climate Change when Mankind is. For example, Mankind’s CO2 can and does cause Climate Change. Climate Change is a sub-category or Global Warming.

Sorry, I can’t respond to that incomprehensible jumble.
OTOH, CC’s posits make perfect sense to me and I am in agreement. That’s all I can say at this time.

Thanks for the update. We all have our levels of understanding.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2017 10:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 465 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2209
Joined  2013-06-01

Professor Ivar Giaever, PHD winner of the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics says, I was horrified by what I learned. Global warming has become a new religion – because you can’t discuss it, and that’s not right. Pseudoscience is a very strange thing, because in pseudoscience you begin with a hypothesis which is very appealing to you, and then you only look for things which confirm the hypothesis. You don’t look for other things. And so the question then… is global warming a pseudoscience?

Profile
 
 
   
31 of 33
31