I DON’T think AGW is prooved, or the recons*, I do think that recons are broadly right, (think about it, Lamb’s recons would pretty much fit inside the SD’s of MBH…). I think now is probably as warm as any in the last 1000. I don’t, and can’t, KNOW that, as in proove it.

Again, what would ‘proove’ AGW to you? I’m pretty sure the answer is nothing. Closed minds and all that.

* for the picky here it’s a shorthand for reconstructions.

Brad, sheeshh, don’t you know the difference between “prove’ and “broadly right’? Indeed, are they the same word “across the water’?

Semantics, Peter. Your consistent line of argument amounts to the same thing, even if you hedge your bets by saying “broadly right”, rather than “proves.”

I salute you for attempting to knock down a house of cards, brick by brick.

Never salute anybody under the influence of mixed metaphors.

Just sayin’

I doubt that Peter has really read much of the literature on “recons.” I’m sure he doesn’t understand the statistics.

No, jae, I don’t understand much of it either (one year, undergraduate subject). Anyone reading my postings will know I’m skeptical of AGW, but I don’t post here on statistical issues – I leave those to the experts. I’m always ready to believe real scientists, with testable hypotheses, who are prepared to be proven wrong (even though they’d prefer to be proven right). The reason why I spend so much time on this site is two-fold.

First, the writings of Mann, et. al. have played an enormous part in the public and press face of AGW over the past 8-12 years. Despite Mann’s claims of having “moved on” from those studies Steve & Ross have criticised, he would be appalled if things had moved on from his own studies, in toto.

Despite my basic statistical education, my understanding of the most fundamental scientific principle – replicability – is the perfectly clear:-

No replication = supposition. Replication = proof [for the moment].

Everyone knows the consequences for Fleischmann and Pons of a non-replicable experiment. The fact that the Hockey Team can brazenly withhold their data, as if they were a pharmaceutical company, or an IT company, is absolutely astonosihing to me. This is NOT science, by any definition I’ve learned.

There are two “sciences” which come to mind, where a lack of replicability has been deemed acceptable, simply because we are only guessing – they are economics and meteorology.

Now, neither of these are considered to be “science” in the true sense of the word – their theories can no more reliably reproduce the past, than they can predict the future. They are, insofar as their prediction capacity is concerned, no more useful than horseracing or stockmarket software [are there any posters out there who will rise to support these notorious computerised models?]. Yet, the proponents of AGW deign to forecast our demise 100 years or more in the future, based on their computer modelling. IT DOESN”T MAKE SENSE!!

The second reason I spend so much time at this site is because I’m frustrated that the first reason hasn’t been enough to consign the likes of Mann to the rubbish bin of history. Think about it – Mann, et al. can’t tell you want it’s going to be like in 5 days, so how can they suggest knowledge over 100 years?? [I can't either, but then, I don't make predictions.]

It sounds ludicrous, doesn’t it? Yet, people continue to believe it and it seems to me that a significant part of the facade is the Hockey Stick (and its implications for the future). If people like Steve and Ross can prove the Hockey Stick to be a crock, the foundation of this particular house of cards becomes questionable. This is the key.

AGWer’s underestimate [or underplay] the importance of Mann, et al. to the issue – they have become the focal point of funding and attention – they have a profile which would make Greenpeace jealous!

Should Mann, et al be disproven, others might wonder about the reliability of climate models generally. Someone might mention that during the MWP, people farmed the Greenland ice sheet (wasn’t so icy then, was it?). Someone else might point out that the Earth has survived all sorts of problems during the past 4.5 billion years, yet we’re panicking over a 30 year “trend”. [Hmmm...4,500,000,000,000 vs. 30]. Despite the insanity of it all, it seems that the only way the media and various scientists will accept proxy modeling and other historical averaging methods as bunkum, is if people like Steve and Ross deconstruct every last argument. Given the paucity of their arguments, this is sad, but apparently necessary.

So, the second reason why I spend so much time here is that, despite the illogical nature of believing a few hundred years’ tree widths from our multi-billion year past can predict the future, it appears that the only way to convince scientific journal editors and the general public, is to prove every last statistical argument to be flawed.

If that is what it takes, that [sadly] is what it takes.

Steve and Ross, I salute you for attempting to knock down a house of cards, brick by brick.

Re #111. Brad, sheeshh, don’t you know the difference between ‘prove’ and ‘broadly right’? Indeed, are they the same word ‘across the water’?

Re proof. Simply put, you’ll never get it. If it’s 2C warmer by mid century, do I think you’ll accept it as ‘proof’? I do not. If Co2 reaches 450ppm by a similar time will you be concerned? I doubt it.

I doubt that Peter has really read much of the literature on “recons.” I’m sure he doesn’t understand the statistics.

No, jae, I don’t understand much of it either (one year, undergraduate subject). Anyone reading my postings will know I’m skeptical of AGW, but I don’t post here on statistical issues – I leave those to the experts. I’m always ready to believe real scientists, with testable hypotheses, who are prepared to be proven wrong (even though they’d prefer to be proven right). The reason why I spend so much time on this site is two-fold.

First, the writings of Mann, et. al. have played an enormous part in the public and press face of AGW over the past 8-12 years. Despite Mann’s claims of having “moved on” from those studies Steve & Ross have criticised, he would be appalled if things had moved on from his own studies, in toto.

Despite my basic statistical education, my understanding of the most fundamental scientific principle – replicability – is the perfectly clear:-

No replication = supposition. Replication = proof [for the moment].

Everyone knows the consequences for Fleischmann and Pons of a non-replicable experiment. The fact that the Hockey Team can brazenly withhold their data, as if they were a pharmaceutical company, or an IT company, is absolutely astonosihing to me. This is NOT science, by any definition I’ve learned.

There are two “sciences” I am aware of, where a lack of replicability has been deemed acceptable, simply because it is not possible – they are economics and meteorolgy.

Now, neither of these are considered to be “science” in the true sense of the word – their theories can no more reliably reproduce the past, than they can predict the future. They are, insofar as their prediction capacity is concerned, no more useful than horseracing or stockmarket software [are there any posters out there who will rise to support these notorious computerised models?]. Yet, the proponents of AGW deign to forecast our demise 100 years or more in the future, based on their computer modelling. IT DOESN”T MAKE SENSE!!

The second reason I spend so much time at this site is because I’m frustrated that the first reason hasn’t been enough to consign the likes of Mann to the rubbish bin of history. Think about it – they can’t tell you want it’s going to be like in 5 days (nor can Mann, just quietly), so how can they suggest knowledge over 100 years??

It sounds ludicrous, doesn’t it? Yet, people continue to believe it and it seems to me that a significant part of the facade is the Hockey Stick (and its implications for the future). If people like Steve and Ross can prove the Hockey Stick to be a crock, the foundation of this particular house of cards becomes questionable. THis is the key. People underestimate the importanc eof Mann, et al. to the issue – they are the focal point of funding and attention – they have a profile which would make Greenpeace jealous!

Should Mann, et al be disproven, others might wonder about the reliability of climate models generally. Someone might mention that during the MWP, people farmed the Greenland ice sheet (wasn’t so icy then, was it?). Someone else might point out that the Earth has survived all sorts of problems during the past 4.5 billion years, yet we’re panicking over a 25 year “trend”. Hmmm…4,500,000,000,000 vs. 25]. Despite the insanity of it all, it seems that the only way the media and various scientists will accept proxy modeling and other historical averaging methods as bunkom is if people like Steve and Ross deconstruct every last argument.

So, the second reason why I spend so much time here is that. Despite the illogical nature of believing our generational experiance can gauge a multi-billion year history, it seems to me the only way people will see sense is if evey single aspect of Mann and others is deconstructed and proven to be flawed.

Only once every pretence (in the eyes of scientists, first, and the public thereafter) that we are capable of predicting what might happen to our climate has been abandoned, will we really be able to prepare for the future.

That prepation will involve contingencies for: heat; rain; cold; snow; etc. In other words, about tommorrow’s eather forecast, by my local bureau!