The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Al Gore’s movie meets its match in Stockholm > Comments

Al Gore’s movie meets its match in Stockholm : Comments

By Bob Carter, published 13/10/2006

KTH meeting shows that dangerous global warming remains unproved.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 12
  9. 13
  10. 14
  11. All
Thank you Bob, even just for drawing attention to events that a layperson like myself would never read about in our popular media. No, Skellet, you continue to make the stuff up and the stuff-up! The "Hockey Stick" (be wary of catchy brand names in science), or at least what it claims to say about the last 1,000 years, has been found to be unverifiable in two recent reports, one convened by the American National Academy of Science. Sorry, haven't got a reference for you, but sniff around and you'll find it.
Posted by Richard Castles, Friday, 13 October 2006 4:39:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>As they say in science as well as in the garment industry; fashions come and fashions go.

Oh yeah, like Newton's Laws of Motion and those fashionable ideas like gravity and the Special Theory of Relativity.

You're an idiot.
Posted by mhar, Friday, 13 October 2006 4:48:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Richard,

Are you for real? I was quoting from the NAS report you claim finds Mann's "Hockey Stick" unverifiable! Please read for yourself rather than listen to gasbags like Bob.

So here, I quote - again!

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions".
Posted by skellett, Friday, 13 October 2006 4:49:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, Skellet, quite real. You might have continued the quote from the report summary. "The substantial uncertainties currently presented in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about AD 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion...Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that 'the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium'...Doesn't sound verified to me, 'verify' meaning to "establish the truth or correctness of", according to my dictionary.
Posted by Richard Castles, Friday, 13 October 2006 5:15:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If we are going to trade quotes from the NRC report “Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2000” lets start by having a proper link to the full paper.

http://www.house.gov/science/hot/climate%20dispute/NAS%20full%20report.pdf

Skellet was being economic with the actuality by quoting from that part of the report that summarise the research. Here are some of my selective quotes of what the NRC actually concluded.

From page 110
“Largescale temperature reconstructions should always be viewed as having a “murky” early period and a later period of relative clarity. The boundary between murkiness and clarity is not precise but is nominally around A.D. 1600.”
This says we know it warmer since the little ice age!

From page 107 discussing the hockey stick:
“Regarding metrics used in the validation step in the reconstruction exercise, two issues have been raised (McIntyre and McKitrick 2003, 2005a,b). One is that the choice of “significance level” for the reduction of error (RE) validation statistic is not appropriate. The other is that different statistics, specifically the coefficient of efficiency (CE) and the squared correlation (r2), should have been used (the various validation statistics are discussed in Chapter 9). Some of these criticisms are more relevant than others, but taken together, they are an important aspect of a more general finding of this committee, which is that uncertainties of the published reconstructions have been underestimated.”

The NRC committee were scientists who apart from one support the consensus. This is the way they tell us everything M & M said was right without being too unkind to Dr Mann. If you want to read a heavy duty peer reviewed report into the hockey stick and the quality of its wackey statistics group think and non disclosure you need this link:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
Posted by David H, Friday, 13 October 2006 5:48:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've stopped stressing about climate change ignorance. We're past the tipping point. The public is well aware that it's real, it's here, it's a profound threat, and the only denialists are a handful of industry shills protecting their precious pennies.
Posted by Sancho, Friday, 13 October 2006 7:17:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 12
  9. 13
  10. 14
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy