Zombie Steve and the Hockey Stick
As the hockey stick wars metastisize, Eli feels called upon to provide a perfect image. Please note that the Rabett reached into his pocket and paid for the image (by Christopher Doehling), but if any bunny wants a T shirt we shall see about licensing.
Posts
65 comments:
Eli, the only Hockey war that exist is the one in your mind. I think a lot of us could respect you if you weren't so inclined to defend the indefensible. Mann's defenders are becoming scarce. Come clean Eli, come clean and admit it when you are so obviously wrong.
Wanna buy a T shirt?
"Wanna buy a T shirt?" Yes, large. Emblazoned on the back - Eli is Mann Free
Subtitle mine:
Monsters of the broken hockey stick!
Mann Made Global Warming!
Ettiene
"Mann's defenders are becoming scarce."
And there we all were thinking the hockeystick was right there in the latest IPCC report: which would make Mann's "defenders" pretty much universal outside the world of faux scepticism.
Millicent, so you are one of the few. Simple question - do you believe the hockey stick is an artifact of short-centered PC's?
My last pseudo paper has a hockey stick shaped graph, but it was accidental. This controversy does give me an idea for something I'm going to write documenting my climate model results.
Some of the comments illustrate Eli's point perfectly.
For some people, it seems the past 15 years haven't happened, including all the temperature reconstructions by other groups, the National Academies Report and Figure 5.7 from IPCC AR5 WG1.
elspi
"do you believe the hockey stick is an artifact of short-centered PC's?"
I don't know about him, but as a mathematician, I don't believe the hockey stick is an artifact of short-centered PC's.
But then again I don't have shit for brains.
(Yes, that really is an effective way of telling if your brains have turned to shit.)
cool Image, but why is the post of the stick broken off? The denier want it warped not broken.
but maybe they just don;t want people to know the actual paleo history………..
Am I over thinking this?
Anonymous Troll: "Eli, the only Hockey war that exist is the one in your mind. I think a lot of us could respect you if you weren't so inclined to defend the indefensible. Mann's defenders are becoming scarce. Come clean Eli, come clean and admit it when you are so obviously wrong. "
Come clean, Eli: you pay AT to make jaw-dropping comments like that on RR, so the world can see just what kind of people the deniers are.
"Mann's defenders are becoming scarce."
You're confusing Michael Mann with Mark Steyn.
(Reposted w/corrections)
(29/9/14 1:24 PM)
Anonymous said...
Millicent, so you are one of the few. Simple question - do you believe the hockey stick is an artifact of short-centered PC's?
It most certainly isn't an artifact of short-centering -- see https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0pXYsr8qYS6dHB2dV96OHpGU0U&authuser=0
The code at the above link proves that you get the same answer whether you use short-centering or full-centering, provided that you process the output of the SVD algorithm properly.
Some of the anonymi above remind me of the old nonsense about young fossil pollen found in older strata. Even if true (even if Mann's analysis were faulty) it makes no difference to the evidence for the order of the fossil record (the recent temperature trend). A symbolic fight, lost before it began (except for the PR value amongst more innocent audiences, which, of course, is the point).
My understanding is that "short-centering" was actually a bona-fide bug. If you're computing a covariance matrix by simply multiplying the data with its own inverse, "short-centering" the data around the recent past will produce "fake covariance" of all series with the hockey-stickish series (with a negative sign, but that's irrelevant).
The actual PCs being computed are the same, but the 'hockey-stickish' ones now seem to explain much more of the variance - spuriously so.
Unfortunately the auditor-in-chief proceeded to introduce a bug of his own, by keeping the same number of PCs as Mann after full-centering the matrix, even though by then you need to include more PCs to capture sufficient variance. But of course when you do that the HS reappears.
The internet being what it is, decades of drama ensue.
Hey Bowers, how many amicus briefs were filed in support of Mann? Think your IQ - your shoe Size.
Meanwhile 350.org is funded by big oil and Mann is using Tobacco power to run his legal circus.
Fun times.
1
You'd think so illustrious a hockey team as The Alberta Anonymi would signed up for the Bean Pot
For those who prefer to live in the present, there is the PAGES 2k project, which produced a global hockey stick graph.
So our anonymous friend simply skips onto his next stupid denialist meme rather than even attempting a defence of his first stupid denialist meme. Pathetic: has he been given a list to quote from?
Lars Karlsson mentions the huge PAGES-2K Consortium project (2013) which involved over 80 authors and multiple institutions worldwide.
The millennial reconstruction produced by the P-2K Consortium was in excellent agreement with MBH99.
Discounting idiotic conspiracy theories that the 80-plus authors of P-2K falsified their results to hasten the advent of world socialism, this stands as a definitive validation of MBH99.
And that's it. Everything else is and always was a contrarian hit-job.
Eli's graphic is appropriately grotesque. Although these days I wonder about the appropriateness of the zombie comparison. Zombies are supposed to die when you shoot them in the head.
The zombies in fiction don't get reanimated by the fossil fuel industry every time they die.
Zombie
zom¦bie
A corpse said to be revived by witchcraft, especially in certain African and Caribbean religions.
In popular fiction a person or reanimated corpse that has been turned into a creature capable of movement but not of rational thought, which feeds on human flesh:
Example usages:
"a world overrun by zombies"
"a horde of mindless zombies seeking live humans to ingest"
Twenty-four comments and not a single mini-lecture about civility. Curious, no?
Just keep insisting that false is true, and of course the fake skeptics will salute, over and over and over. What a waste of energy.
I'm not sure why assertion is regarded as a successful argument; facts are much better, and the facts are all on Mann's side. Distinguished Professor of Meteorology, 46 pages of single spaced credibility, not to mention 9 investigations with no support for all the snipers whatsoever:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/about/cv/cv_pdf.pdf
Fernando, let us know when your papers are published. Until then, given your record, you lack credibility on this issue.
9 investigations of Mann? This is easy, liar.
Cannot wait for the outcome of the case, you know the case that was all about a defense of science and yet not a single amicus brief submitted to the court for Mann! When Mann loses he will be a discredited liar and fraud.
I'm guessing Bowers' shoe size is 10, I feeling charitable this morning.
1
Fernando
Do you agree that PAGES-2K Consortium (2013) validates MBH99?
Yes/No.
If not, please explain why in your response.
Thanks.
BBD, I am afraid that Fernando is not interested in constructively discussing this issue with you. His last comment makes this perfectly clear. Just consider his "contributions" as something that happens, something that you can not avoid, similar to what happens when it rains. Take and umbrella, there is nothing you can do about it. Just wait, and sunshine will come back (some day). Fernando will get tired of boring us.
Fernandito
"This is what the temperature was 700 years ago."
- "No, it's not"
"Yes, it is"
- "No, it's not"
"Yes, it is"
- "Prove it"
"You prove it"
- "No you prove it"
No you ...
Pages 2K says interesting things about the regionality of other reconstructions and raises the question about whether what Mann did in 1998 was, while not formally correct, useful in the Box sense.
The more I read Anobbytroll, the more I suspect he is Mark Steyn. I'm sure I've mentioned this before.
Susan, my papers are already published. I don´t like to plug my work, but since you asked, look up this:
A New Parameter to Predict Tornado Frequency Increase as a Function of Global Warming, Leanme, Abruzzo, et al
Unfortunately most of the work I do isn´t publishable. It´s highly technical work focused on processes we plan to use to improve energy efficiency. But that´s confidential.
In the 1990´s I did participate in a paper about Arctic port construction. But my role in that team was to run the system dynamics model. My model used climate inputs, but all I did was look over the climate guys´ shoulders to make sure they prepared the data so it could be used.
Susan Anderson -- "I'm not sure why assertion is regarded as a successful argument"
If someone repeats a lie often enough with unwavering conviction, it tends to gain credibility. The bigger the lie the better. Propaganda 101. PR 101, too.
BBD, you would have to give me the material for the PAGES reconstruction. PAGES seems to have a nice site, but all the links take me to pay walls. However, I do have a Sci Am subscription, and I read False Hope. I didn´t like it.
I don´t want to be controversial, nor upset the audience. When you guys get hostile I feel like a Habr Gidr leader running around in Mogadishu in 1993. So please relax, OK?
'A New Parameter to Predict Tornado Frequency Increase as a Function of Global Warming'. Fernando Leanme, Amedeo Abruzzo, and Stratos Limpsacus - Journal of Climate Science Peripatetics
"No hay comentarios"
Just another fekkin' facepalm day while monkeys sit in a tree hurling crap.
Fernando
PAGES-2K Consortium (2013)
Full paper.
@caerbannog (29/9/14 1:24 PM)
Appreciate the code snip.
Unstoppable rain. I did so, my work is sooooo technical (and probably so clever) that I can not publish it anywhere... Blah, Blah Blah..
Fernandito ... too much rainfall could drown us, please, give us a break.
Ron Broberg said...
@caerbannog (29/9/14 1:24 PM)
Appreciate the code snip.
Should clarify, for those who don't already know -- the code was written by Eugene Wahl and Caspar Ammann, and was released with their 2007 paper,
"Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures:
Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence
Anonymous J Bowers said...
The more I read Anobbytroll, the more I suspect he is Mark Steyn. I'm sure I've mentioned this before.
30/9/14 10:24 AM
Alas, no- as a stand up stand up comic, Mark Steyn often succeeds when he tries to be funny
elspi
"My understanding is that "short-centering" was actually a bona-fide bug."
Actually the problem was (and is) that nobody knows how to compute the error bars for the short-center PCA.
(If I wasn't so lazy, I would work it out myself.)
The best analogy is that you are driving in your 57 chevy and you turn the radio on and tune it until you think you clearly hear Elvis Presley singing "you ain't nothin but a hound dog".
The "Auditors" insist that it is just the microwave background radiation. The fact that they are dishonest and wrong doesn't mean that you can prove that it is Elvis Presley.
There is a way of tuning the radio so that you can be sure it is Elvis Presley, but the quality is worse.
As Justice Potter Stewart "I know obscenity (mathturbation) when I see it".
Why Nick Stokes (or anyone else) would subject himself to McIntyre, Jean S, Carrick, Steven Mosher and the rest of the pack of crazed, salivating, teeth-gnashing rabid dogs over at Climate Audit is something I'll never understand.
There is nothing to be gained by it and it is actually precisely what McIntyre craves. It's like fresh meat for the alpha male. It's how he gets validation that he is "important".
He can't get it in the scientific journals or anywhere else from scientists, so he gets it on his blog.
"It's how he gets validation that he is "important"."
At least he has not claimed to have received the Nobel Prize. Talk about a strong self need for validation lol!
1
"At least he has not claimed to have received the Nobel Prize."
Michael Mann was not alone in thinking the prize was shared. Once the IPCC issued a corrective to clarify things, he corrected himself. But at least he didn't accuse Keith Briffa of wrongdoing, then submitted evidence of this to the UK House of Commons inquiry in which he actually verified Keith Briffa's work and debunked himself, and then said he was too busy to inform the HoC committee he was wrong. Oh. Whoops. Cap'n Ahab ain't infallible.
Feel free to point us to Steve McIntyre's contribution to Nobel Prize winning science or the promotion of world peace. Thanks.
"Once the IPCC issued a corrective to clarify things, he corrected himself."
Uh nope. It was in his first complaint submitted to the court. And just the other day he was introduced as a recipient of the Nobel Prize and took no corrective action.
Mann lies, is a fraud and equals or even surpasses Steyn in the self promotion arena.
Keep licking his shoes though, by all means.
1
Ok then, feel free to point out to us Mark Steyn's Nobel prize winning contributions to science and world peace as well. Thanks in advance.
Thomas,
"But, but what about him mommy?"
lol
1
Is there a Dunning Kruger for bad jokes and lame comedy?
1 fails to realize that he did the very same thing ("But what about Mann?") when I mentioned that McIntyre was looking for validation.
Wrong Anony. I did not try to excuse McIntyre's behavior by pointing to Manns, nice try though.
For all the Mann lovers here, I have a question, and I'll keep it clean, what does Mann's shoes taste like?
1
I didn't say you tried to excuse.
Just that you tried to shift the focus (also implied by "but what about him?")
Shift the focus, uh back to Mann and not take Thomas's detour?
How do Mann's shoes taste anony?
1
One doesn't taste scientific papers, one reads them and then attempts to comprehend what is being said in a larger framework called science. Many have read Steve McIntyre's and Edward Wegman's criticisms of Michael Mann's science and found them to be flawed and even outright wrong, and they have not been subsequently supported by more current research. Michael Mann's work has been found to be very slightly flawed, but has stood the test of time and its minor statistical flaws subsequently been expanded upon by further research, contributing to science.
Anonymous 1 doesn't contribute to this process that we call science.
But you're good for noise.
Many have read them and found them to have merit. Michael Mann's only contribution to society is creating zombie followers who will lick his shoes as his only goal is to enrich himself and try to suppress and dissenting speech against him. What was Eli alluding to about Nazis?
1
Many have read them and found them to have merit
Yes, but have they committed their agreement to McIntyre and Wegman in print, in peer reviewed journals, using their real names?
Feel free to list them.
Why? Do you get to set all the rules of communication and the exchange of ideas? Even at the time fellow scientists were calling Mann's work crap. I know, I know it was "out of context".
If McIntyre is so wrong, where is your published paper outlining his errors? All talk and no scoreboard. Go back to your hating on military, go with your strengths. You would have been a good Nazi ironically enough. Your pure faith in those you have placed above you in status is remarkable.
Burn baby burn with that hate.
1
If McIntyre is so wrong, where is your published paper outlining his errors?
This is the standard reference :
Climatic Change (2007) 85:33–69, DOI 10.1007/s10584-006-9105-7, Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence, Eugene R. Wahl and Caspar M. Ammann, Received: 11 May 2005 / Accepted: 1 March 2006 / Published online: 31 August 2007
You can search that and get the pdf, so get right on it. This has been followed up by numerous peer reviewed papers and an almost infinite amount of insightful blog and gray literature analysis.
But you have your nonsense and your nonsense aficionados. Now if you will excuse me, your entertainment value has diminished and I have more important things to do now.
Why Nick Stokes (or anyone else) would subject himself to McIntyre, Jean S, Carrick, Steven Mosher and the rest of the pack of crazed, salivating, teeth-gnashing rabid dogs over at Climate Audit is something I'll never understand.
I've been mostly off the climate blogs for the last few years. I was shocked by the tone and responses on CA. Over-the-top defensive. Driven by fading relevance? :shrug: Less surprised that Stokes was banned on WUWT, if I read that correctly.
J Bowers, thanks for following up on that. Now I know what he's talking about, I can return to real published science. Tornado frequency is a pretty dodgy measure in any case.
Respect for a skilled hardworking intelligent scientist is only something to degrade with insult if you are choking on your bile.
Yes, I know about repetition making it true, my point was that the information is suspect when it has no independent support. I guess if all they've got is hate and repeating lies, we know all we need to know.
Eli, I couldn't resist recycling what little brain was left after Ethon ws through with it.
Eli, I couldn't resist recycling what little brain was left after Ethon ws through with it.
Russell Seitz --- Wasn't funny enuf to post twic2503
e.
It was pretty good tho.
Post a Comment