The great thing about the Air Vent is that the readers here value reality above the argument itself. Drewski left a little gem for us “‘ignorant bloggers”.
Loud and wrong are two traits one should endeavor to disassociate with the greatest vigor. In the spirit of possible incorrectness by myself, I’ve replicated his comment as a head post such that he might defend his words.
drewski said
Ignorant bloggers continue to believe that the ‘hockey stick’ was somehow incorrect. The McIntyre study focused on computer code and others say Mann didn’t include the Medieval Warm Period. The facts are that when the original hockey stick was shown, there wasn’t much solid info on the MWP so it wasn’t included as it wasn’t reliable (damn scientists trying to reliable). Since then over 10 — repeat MORE THAN 10 — independent studies compiled by unrelated teams of scientists using different methodologies and different computer code with the latest MWP information have attempted to recreate the last 1 to 2 thousand years of temperature and guess what? THE HOCKEY STICK LIVES — and sometimes the graphs are even MORE DRAMATIC.
Kind of blows all your arguments out of the water doesn’t it? Do us all a favor and get educated or, at least, show us some PROPER study somewhere by some qualified person that CO2 is not a Green House Gas or that or that the planet’s climate systems are immune to its heating properties. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE “My Kingdom for a Sceptic’s study.”
SCEPTICS = So Called Experts Perpetually Talking In Circles
Whatever the ladies tell you, blogging is cool!
the Air Vent 
drewski (b. October 10, 2010- )
Ouch.
Maybe we should start sentence by sentence and ask him what he meant to say:
“The McIntyre study focused on computer code and others say Mann didn’t include the Medieval Warm Period.”
1. the hockey stick graph is a figure that is drawn as the result of applying and algorithm to data, drewski.
2. That means you have three ways to critique it.
A. look at the data he used to see what he INCLUDED, what he EXCLUDED and what he “massaged”
That is always step one.
B. look at the code used to modify the data into a final result.
1. you look for errors
2. you look for hidden assumptions in the methods
3. you look for bias
4. you test the robustness of the method
C. you look at any post processing of the results for “presentation” Chartsmanship
So, here are the questions/ which McIntyre study are you refering to and do you have any problem with him doing A B and C
You could also ask for verification that the “independent” teams were actually independent.
He falls on that first simple test.
Now there actually have been independent teams of statisticans that have shown that Mann and his “independent” buddies do not know how to do their statistics correctly.
But perhaps that does not matter in studies that are wholly dependent on accurate statistical analysis?
On further reflection, it would seem that it does matter – greatly.
The so called findings of Mann and his budies can therefore be safely ignored.
Game over.
Buy Drewski a brewski! WE ARE NOT WORTHY… WE ARE NOT WORTHY…
I breathlessly await his next pronouncement.
I have popcorn and beer ready 🙂
“The facts are that when the original hockey stick was shown, there wasn’t much solid info on the MWP so it wasn’t included as it wasn’t reliable.”
What an extraordinary thing to say. We have known about the MWP since its contemporary inhabitants wrote about the time, recording the weather the amount of sea ice, built dwellings and castyles and cghurches and barns that reflected the conditions of the time, grew crops that reflected the conditions, built empires that required roads and irigation to reflect the climate of the times. Since tyhat time many very immunenmt peoploe (far more in n umber than climate sciemtists) have shownb where tree lines were, what type of trees grew there, what crops were planted.
So when SDr MNann came along we knew full well what the MWP was like and didnt need histrory rewring on the base of some vari dubious proxies. Dr Man was a very new phd when the hockeyt strich was plucked from obscurty to becomne a poster child of the IPCC. It needed another decade of work before being unvelied. Bear
Drewski said;
“The facts are that when the original hockey stick was shown, there wasn’t much solid info on the MWP so it wasn’t included as it wasn’t reliable.”
What an extraordinary thing to say. We have known about the MWP since its contemporary inhabitants wrote about the times they were living through, recording the weather, the amount of sea ice, built dwellings and castles and churches and barns that reflected the conditions of the time, grew crops that reflected the circumstances, built empires that required roads and irrigation to reflect the climate of the times.
Since that time many very imminent people (far more in number and scientific rigour than a few climate scientists) have shown where tree lines were, what type of trees grew there, what crops were planted, how people were nourished and how civilisations were affected as the climate changed.
So when Dr Mann came along we knew full well what the MWP was like and didn’t need history rewritinng on the basis of some dubious proxies. Dr Man was a very new phd when the hockey stick was plucked from obscurty to become a poster child of the IPCC and he was made a lead author so it couldnt be removed by those more knowlegable than he.
In reality the stick needed another decade of work before being unvelied. Bearing in mind the spaghetti graphs have evolved from the stick don’t you think in another ten years we will be laughing at those as well?
Come on Jeff, I think you were bored and invented drewski as your alter ego to tease us 🙂
Tonyb
Jeff
please delete post #6 -it escaped before it was finished
tonyb
“sometimes the graphs are even MORE DRAMATIC” – let him tell us which one is closest to the truth then.
For the benefit of we, the ignorant masses, could Drewski please list the “more than 10” independant studies?
I understand UEA is famous for its creative writing courses.
Thanks for the morning chuckle (bold mine):
They didn’t include that “info” by choice? How the hell did they do that???
There have been multiple peer-reviewed studies (a lot more than 10) that run counter to the hockey-stick results. Possibly, drewski over his “brewskis” can check them all out and report back.
http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-history/
If ignorance is bliss, this guy is in heaven. About the only things he got right are McIntyre and Mann’s names.
Gosh, Drewski makes me feel that same feeling I had when my children were in kindergarten and they told me I didn’t understand something. Except for the part where I smiled, patted them on the head and told them I loved them.
Stan,
When my kindergarten aged daughter told me I was wrong about something, she generally was right. Nuts.
Ignorance rears it’s ugly head in many places. I think it important to treat it all the same, from whatever (political) quarter it arrives.
“independent studies compiled by unrelated teams of scientists”
This is just an outrageously false claim. In point of fact all the studies which have been cited by HS supporters as “independent” are from scientists within a small clique that can be tied directly to MBH, use the same sort of methods, and even those that do not do either of those, virtually every study uses largely the same underlying datasets.
This claim of “independence” is just not true in any sense of the word.
Stan and J Ferg,
Not sure about kindergarten, but when my children were teenagers they were certain I was an idiot.
Equally when they got to 25, they were amazed by how much I had learned in the intervening timespan.
It will matter not one whit what anybody says in successful rebuttal to any of Drewski’s comment. No matter how vapid his claims, no matter how paltry his points, his critical thinking is impaired by layer upon layer of thought reform imposed upon himself willingly (or not) over years and years of this AGW self hypnotic debacle. Is it not truly amazing how the human mind is capable of rational thought in 99% of its pursuits and yet in that one remaining percent the mind can be completely and utterly blinded. And all it takes for any one of us to do this is that we take an idea and decide to firmly hold it as an incontrovertible truth. Once a person suspends the principles of critical thinking for any particular idea, then that person behaves as a zealot. A fixed idea metastasizes within a persons mind until it becomes an immovable point of reference around which all other externalities must conform and comply. In many cases, such fixed beliefs remain permanent in the individual’s mind no matter how compelling the arguments in opposition to the held “truth” might be. If I were to ignore the science completely and only judge the truth of AGW based upon the manner in which the opponents or adherents make their arguments – I would come down on the side of the skeptics because they remain far more open to the idea of human activity actually causing climate change. By doing so the skeptics demonstrate that they remain open to opposing points of view. What seems to have escaped the attention of the AGW adherents, is that by suspending their own skeptical thinking, they have ceased to apply the scientific method. And as such, they act and sound more like zealots than scientists. Whereas, the skeptics remain – well, skeptics! Of course, none of this will register on Drewski.
Chuckles,
My theory is that I’ve gotten better at emulating intelligence over the years. I still can’t fool my daughter, though.
My children taught me to be skeptical of myself over and over and over again. We should all be children – so sure of ourselves and yet so wrong so often and blissfully unaware of it – until we are adults and know that we are just children.
MikeH
hear hear. Be skeptical of oneself first.
What’s this guy been drinkin’/smokin’?
Drewski is going to remain in his blissful, ignorant state, no matter what we say to him.
Just don’t anyone give him a red button.
Hal
At least it wasn’t written in all caps.
Ye gads. How many errors can a man pack into two paragraphs?
Ignorant bloggers – While Drewski has (obviously inadvertently) failed to include his personal credentials and level of knowledge in climate science, I feel rather confident in asserting that many of those “ignorant bloggers” know far more than he about this issue.
continue to believe that the ‘hockey stick’ was somehow incorrect. – not “somehow”; the reasons are quite specifically delineated by McIntyre and McKitrick.
The McIntyre study focused on computer code – actually it focused on algorithms, the difference may seem subtle when dealing with computer work but it is quite important. You can have proper algorithms which are not properly implemented by code; you can also have code which properly implements the wrong algorithm.
and others say Mann didn’t include the Medieval Warm Period. – no, the fact that his results did not show the MWP was one of the things that initially tipped people off that there might be problems in Mann’s work.
The facts are that when the original hockey stick was shown, there wasn’t much solid info on the MWP – this one has been adequately covered in previous comments.
so it wasn’t included – the only way to not include the MWP would be to remove all tree ring data from that time period. That, obviously, was not what was done.
as it wasn’t reliable (damn scientists trying to reliable). – a historical period can be neither reliable nor unreliable. Data related to that period can be considered reliable or unreliable for a given purpose, but AFAIK no tree ring data used or excluded by Mann covered only the MWP. Also, a historical record might be reliable or unreliable – but that kind of information does not constitute data of a type usable by Mann in his analysis.
Since then over 10 — repeat MORE THAN 10 — independent studies compiled by unrelated teams of scientists using different methodologies and different computer code – rather than be pedantic and list these four errors separately, I’ll list them together since they’re all related – specifically because the teams are not even close to being “unrelated”. They work in coordination (sometimes tightly, sometimes loosely), meaning studies are not independent and algorithms and methodologies get shared. Sure the code is probably different, but that’s irrelevant if the algorithms are the same.
with the latest MWP information – repeat of above errors regarding “inclusion” of the MWP.
have attempted to recreate the last 1 to 2 thousand years of temperature and guess what? THE HOCKEY STICK LIVES — and sometimes the graphs are even MORE DRAMATIC. – this is less an “error” and more an irrelevancy – since the studies are in no real sense “independent” they would be expected to agree with each other. In fact, if they differ substantially in how DRAMATIC they are, that inability for related studies to agree could be considered an indictment in itself.
Kind of blows all your arguments out of the water doesn’t it? – No.
Do us all a favor and get educated – see error #1.
or, at least, show us some PROPER study somewhere by some qualified person – two which are also connected. Though the nature of the “error” is speculative, as Drewski has failed to define what he means by “PROPER” or “qualified” (another inadvertent omission, I’m sure), based on experience with alarmists the definitions are likely to be circular (i.e., studies can’t be proper if they show improper results, or if they aren’t published in certain journals which won’t include studies that get “wrong” results; being a skeptic by itself makes one unqualified).
that CO2 is not a Green House Gas or that or that the planet’s climate systems are immune to its heating properties. – both errors because (1) virtually no one (even among skeptics) claims either of those things to be true – the argument is primarily over how other factors impact climate – and (2) they are totally irrelevant to Mann’s work.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE “My Kingdom for a Sceptic’s study.” – this is either disingenuous (assuming your definitions of “proper” and “qualified” do indeed eliminate skeptics’ studies by circular reasoning) or simple laziness (there are many, many skeptical studies easily findable by anyone with even rudimentary Googling skills, or some time to link-surf from Jeff’s site and other skeptical blogs).
Drewski – you really need to spend a few weeks or months finding out what skeptics actually think (and, for that matter, what your fellow alarmists actually think and have done), as well as what is actually being debated in these controversies, before utterly embarassing yourself like this. I will, however, grant that your acronym – even though totally inaccurate – is quite funny.
Fools like drewski pop up all the time, some even with PhD’s in some field or other. For some reason, there is a mindset in the world that ignores facts, does not think critically, and deserts logical processes.
It seems to be a political/emotional thing, and the liberal mind is hard-wired to NOT think, only react.
I can’t think of any other reason for such an ignorant set of statements as drewski’s.
I can understand the money motive in supporting AGW, but the incoherent and wildly incorrect statements of uneducated people like drewski in matters of science are beyond preposterous.
@ 28
“I can’t think of any other reason for such an ignorant set of statements as drewski’s”
I suspect that it can happen when somebody dropped out from high school after lunch on the first day in grade 9
I don’t think there is a “teachable moment” with drewski, since he has obviously either taken no time to look at what McIntyre’s writings were about (statistical methods and data for the most part). For him to blather about computer code shows his ignorance. He also is ignorant of a number of “skeptical” studies and analysis such as this site produces. His incoherent ramblings about the MWP and it’s relationship to the hockey stick, and the assumption that MORE DRAMATIC recreations support the hockey stick (which means they are even less able to reproduce the MWP) also shows a disregard for reality over fanatical faith.
I was concerned when I first read about the CAGW studies and the IPCCC, but once I looked at the skeptical sites I realized that there was orders of magnitude more politics than science involved. He hasn’t and probably won’t grasp that.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE “My Kingdom for a Sceptic’s study.”
I like the list of 800 peer reviewed papers that are at some level skeptical of catastrophic global warming:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
I know that volume doesn’t guarantee validity, but this seems to meet the requirements for “a study”.
I thought the MWP appears in the Greenland Ice Core data. As does the Roman and Minoan Warming. And they are all warmer than today.
This guy’s a hoot. I’m reaching for the popcorn . . .
More seriously, though, it is pretty sad to see someone who is this far out in left field. If anyone knows Drewski personally, please help him get some professional help. Sad.
I think this could be fun.
picked the stupidest comment of the week and let every flog the feeble minded
Mosh #34
Somebody needs to invent virtual stocks then we could fling virtual tomatoes 🙂
tonyb
Huh. I always thought that the Medieval chroniclers knew what they were doing when they wrote the Domesday Book. After all, it was used as the basis of taxation for William the Conqueror’s England, but it included all these vinyards. Didn’t they all know that it was too cold for the vinyards?
Stupid Medieval Chroniclers!
And it’s very strange that retreating alpine glaciers are uncovering portions of Medieval villages. Don’t the glaciers know that it wasn’t warm in the Middle Ages, so they couldn’t have covered up the villages?
Stupid glaciers!
Boy, I’m glad that Drew was able to put us right with 8 or 8 computer simulations. Bet you’re awesome at World of Warcraft, d00d!
Poor Drewski. He is in over is head but he never left the kiddie pool.
And assaulting skepticism, a fundamental building block of science, means he should never ever try to leave the kiddie pool.
It’s a post normal thing, re-write history, trash pure science, you know it’s right – “cos the means always justify the ends” – or was it Pol Pot?
Drewsiknator –
You want studies?
From CO2science,org…
Medieval Warm Period Project
Read ’em all.
You have some, we have some. The science isn’t settled if we have more than you have.
We don’t have to show yours are all wrong. We only have to show that ours EXIST. For you to prove your point, you have to prove ALL of ours are wrong.
I didn’t even have to work up a sweat.
Have fun.
Drewskinator? Jeez that sounds nasty…
@28
“I can’t think of any other reason for such an ignorant set of statements as drewski’s”
Hey! He read every one of their studies listed at RC, and not ONE of them showed an MWP. I think it has something to do with denial… (can we use that term here?…LOL) RC = ostriches with their heads in the sand, at least re the good old MWP. Don’t show them reality – their heads might explode.
“…The facts are that when the original hockey stick was shown, there wasn’t much solid info on the MWP so it wasn’t included as it wasn’t reliable (damn scientists trying to reliable)…”
The original Hockey Stick paper was posted in year 1998.
I knew back in the mid 1970’s that there was a climate time frame called the Medieval Warm period(damn that pesky written history!).
LOL