The Instigator
RoyLatham
Pro (for)
Winning
47 Points
The Contender
InfraRedEd
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

The global warming hockey stick is bad science

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 9 votes the winner is...
RoyLatham
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,052 times Debate No: 7934
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (99)
Votes (9)

 

RoyLatham

Pro

The global warming hockey stick is a graph of global temperature over time. It was produced by a scientist named Mann, who first published it in a scientific journal in the mid-nineties. He modified and included it in the 2000 report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is called a hockey stick because it shows very little variation of climate for the past thousand years until the 20th century, when temperatures soared. That makes the graph look like a hockey stick on its side, with the blade upward.

The resolution claims that the curve is bogus. "Bad science" means that the curve does not correctly depict the climate of the past thousand years, and that the hockey stick was a result of errors in the methods in deriving the curve.

This debate is not about whether global warming exists or whether human produced CO2 is causing significant global warming. The debate is not about whether Mann et al deliberately fudged the data. (I think he was honest, and that the errors were a product of the confirmation fallacy.) The debate is solely whether the hockey stick accurately reflects climate data.

The IPCC report of 1990 had an entirely different graph of climate history. That graph showed a Medieval Warm Period (MWP), warmer than the present and lasting to about 1300, followed by the Little Ice Age, a period much colder than the present lasting through the early 1800's. Both disappeared in the hockey stick. The graphs are shown here: http://www.john-daly.com... -- scroll down to find the hockey stick.

How did they disappear? Scientists, led by Ross McKitrick, a professor at the University of Guelph in Canada, spent enormous effort trying to reconstruct Mann's work to find out. Mann refused to supply his data or the computer program that he used to process the data. Under intense pressure, enough of the data was revealed and enough information about the algorithms was revealed to allow reconstructing and analyzing the methodology. The actual software has never been released.

The details of the analysis are provided in full in a thirty page article by scientist Ross McKitrick, "The Mann et al Northern Hemisphere 'Hockey Stick': A Tale of Due Diligence." published in the book "Shattered Consensus" edited by Patrick Michaels. A good summary by a scientist who believes in human-caused global warming is from the MIT magazine Technology Review: http://technologyreview.com...

The basic errors in the hockey stick derivation are:

1. Mann used an algorithm that normalized past data based upon the data of the last 78 years. This algorithm was tested by putting pure noise into the algorithm. Noise is fake data that just bounces around with no trends. When processed through the Mann algorithm, a hockey stick is produced. It makes hockey sticks out of nothing.

2. Mann used a method called "component analysis" as part of his method. When the raw climate data is put into a standard off-the-shelf computer program that does component analysis, the MWP and Little Ice Age reappear as they were in the 1990 IPCC report.

3. A variety of different types of data were used as inputs to Mann's analysis. The data are various proxies for temperature, like tree ring growth. Most of the data does not show a hockey stick, but one data set from the rings of trees growing at high altitudes did show a hockey stick. The literature says that high altitude tree data has unusual characteristics and should not be used as a temperature proxy. Mann not only included it, but weighted it 380 times more highly than other data.

4. There were errors in the method of filling in missing data.

Mann's line of defense was that he didn't have the time to reveal his data or computer programs, and that no matter what critics did to reconstruct his work, they were not doing it right. Pressure mounted, and ultimately the National Science Foundation was asked to investigate the matter. They came back with an obfuscated report that seemed to confirm the criticisms, but at the same time didn't say the hockey stick was wrong.

The matter was finally referred by Congress to a panel of statistical experts experienced in the processing of climate data. They determined unambiguously that the critics were correct, and that the hockey stick was invalid.

The IPCC is primarily a political organization, so they felt no obligation to set the record straight. However, even politicians have to worry about saving face. The latest IPCC report covers a variety of analyses of past climate data, including the scientifically verifiable one.

Separately, other studies and data has been produced relevant to the hockey stick. Paleoclimatologists have been building climate reconstructions at various points around the globe. These use tree rings, pollen in sediment layers, coral growth and other proxies for temperature. more than 350 such studies have been completed, and they prove beyond doubt that both the MWP and the Little Ice Age not only existed, but were worldwide.

By 2003, the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics concluded:

"... the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American" continents. http://www.cfa.harvard.edu...

The hockey stick was used as the basis of claiming that there is a clear trend: temperatures are soaring exponentially, and because it was allegedly unprecedented, we should expect that to continue. So have they continued to soar exponentially since the late 90s? No, actually they have been trending downward since then. http://www.factsandarts.com... So if there is some miracle explanation that says it was correctly derived, we know for certain that using it to predict future climate trends, which was its sole purpose in the IPCC report, is bad science.

The resolution is affirmed.

**General conditions: (Perhaps I am taking this debate thing too seriously, but I have my own concept of fun.) Do not accept this debate challenge if you are interested in pressing a really creative lawyerly approach, like debating what the meaning of "is" is or interpreting the resolution in a way contrary to common sense. Legitimate semantic arguments are fine. If you think the resolution is unclear, ask in the Comments. Do not accept the challenge if you know nothing about the subject and don't plan to research it.
InfraRedEd

Con

Here it is: Our homework.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Mann's research has been duplicated

http://www.ucar.edu...

MM05 was not about any mathematical error.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:ig7aXxydRw8J:www.realclimate.org/dummies.pdf+hockey+stick+controversy&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

but about whether the bristlecone pines should have been included. How did they get "weighed 380 times?" What characteristics did they have that made it inadvisable to include them? (My opponent's position, not the IPCC)

Past reconstruction has problems

http://www.realclimate.org...

"A scientist named Mann"

http://en.wikipedia.org...(scientist)

"Bad science" from a Lead Author on the "Observed Climate Variability and Change" chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Report (2001). He has been organizing committee chair for the National Academy of Sciences ‘Frontiers of Science' and has served as a committee member or advisor for other National Academy of Sciences panels. He served as editor for the Journal of Climate and has been a member of numerous international and U.S. scientific advisory panels and steering groups. Dr. Mann has been the recipient of several fellowships and prizes, including selection as one of the 50 leading visionaries in Science and Technology by Scientific American, the outstanding scientific publication award of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and recognition by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) for notable citation of his refereed scientific research. Mann is one of several climate scientists who contribute to the RealClimate blog.

The IPCC is a UN outfit. I need to know what my opponent means by "political" so as not to include himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

My opponent does not believe global warming exists.

It's pretty obvious my opponent has some, shall we say, questionable source material. Where on Earth is he getting this garbage? Why don't I just debate them?

Here's some background:
http://www.technologyreview.com...
http://www.technologyreview.com...

Honesty and reliability in scientific research.

It's certainly an issue. Research fabricated.

http://blogs.consumerreports.org...

In fact Big Pharma http://www.BigBug.info... virtually owns our educational system.

Debate protocol: First a good topic is selected. This has not been done.

The Instigator takes a position on that topic and posts his opening argument, which includes why he is arguing as he is by making explicit the values he feels he is upholding, for example to win debates. A 40-1-2 record.

The contender takes a position that disagrees with that of the other guy, and often posits different values, for example do you want good debates or not? They take turns promoting their own views and trashing the other guy's.

Modern debating protocol is designed to allow a maximum of creativity, and allows me to question my opponent's values and criteria with respect to his position which includes his selection of the topic and restrictions he seems to think he is entitled to place on the debate, and the implicit assertion that this is a good topic and that these restrictons are good ones. It's normally not done in oral debates because why waste your precious three minutes of debating time trashing your judge but in this case hey I have three days.

Why on Earth would anyone wany to debate this question? Normally in a debating tournament the topics are chosen with great care to reflect relevant social issues and to provide an enjoyable and meaningful debate for everyone. That is not the case here. The topic was chosen with great care to win debates with biased restrictions on the topic and to make it look like something was actually proven.

We need to up the ante in this here side show.

China and Japan have jointly declared war on the US but stipulated that it must be fought with chopsticks.

Iceland has declared that the next World Cup must be played at the South Pole.

I would like to know where the idea originated that a participant in a contest could dictate how the contest would be conducted and decided. My opponent's position, stated very clearly in his opening argument, is that the debate should be restricted as he demands. Opening argument. Well I disagree. Global warming and dishonest scientific research are social issues.

But the kicker is the implicit statement that any thesis which supports an inaccurate hypothesis or has errors in the derivation of the data is "bad science." This is very clearly his opinion and is implied by his opening argument. We will be spending some time on this one. And, yes, define "bad science." Define "is?" Great idea. Define "is."

When you start a debate there is a box for debate parameters and one for opening argrment. Anything in the opening argrment box is opening argument and subject to debate.

The rules of debating are also clear. I must take a position that disagrees with my opponent. But I cannot do that until he has posited what value there is in so restricting the debate to the accuracy of the hockey stick graph as he demands. This he has not done. He must support this opinion. Why does he want to restrict the debate to such a narrow topic? He needs to posit some values that this would uphold, besides winning debates, and criteria for selecting a good debate topic, and show how these criteria support those values and how the topic meets those criteria. What I intend to do is to show that restricting the debate to the accuracy of the hockey stick graph as he demands is not a good idea. I need to contention against his values and for mine. How can I do this if he has not stated any?

In layman's terms, who cares?

My disagreement is leaning toward the form of some statement about oversight of scientific research. I look forward to a stimulating debate.
Debate Round No. 1
RoyLatham

Pro

I provided four specific reasons why the global warming hockey stick calculation was bad science: 1. The algorithm makes noise into a hockey stick, 2. A standard PC analysis program does not produce a hockey stick, 3. Tree ring data was misused, and 4. There were errors in filling in missing data. Separately, I provided independent arguments that it was clear that the two chief conclusions the hockey stick was meant to support were false: 5. The MWP and Little Ice are independently confirmed as existing, 6. The hockey stick predicts exponential temperature rise from the late 90's when in fact temperatures have fallen. Every claim I made was supported by a qualified Ph.D. climate scientists with traceable references. Pro never addressed points 2, 4, and 6. Therefore they stand.

Pro provides a reference to a Wikipedia article regarding the hockey stick, but he does say what, if anything, the article is supposed to address. Wikipedia is an unattributed source that reflects whatever it is the last person modifying the article wants to say. There is interesting material there, but it's not my job to try to find what it that Con thinks supports his case. Overall, there is as much or more in the article supporting my position than Con's.

One controversy poorly treated in the Wikipedia article is worth discussing. The question of whether or not Mann applied the correct procedures in processing the data input to the hockey stick algorithms is definitely a question to be judged by experts in statistics, not by climate scientists. It is purely a mathematical process, there is no knowledge of the physics of the atmosphere required. Moreover, the procedures are extremely difficult. Social scientists, for example, frequently go astray in applying statistical techniques to data. That is why despite Mann's protest that McKitrick was only an "economist," (incorrect, it was statistics) that in fact McKitrick had greater relevant expertise than Mann. The panel brought in by Congress consisted of experts in statistics, not climate. The original reviewers of the Mann hockey stick paper published in the 90s were asked if they had checked the statistical algorithms Mann had used. They replied that they did not, and moreover that they did not feel qualified to do so, since they were climate scientists and not statisticians.

The general problem with scientists using statistical algorithms is that there are lots of adjustments possible to correct for inconsistencies and anomalies in the data. This leads scientists to keep didling until they get the answer they expect, then they quit, believing they finally "got it right."

Con claims that someone has duplicated Mann's results. Yes, indeed, the reference shows that somebody wrote a program that makes hockey sticks. I could too. That doesn't bear upon any of the six issues I raised.

Con claims that MM05, a paper written by McKitrick in 2005 was not about math error. That is correct, I did not reference that paper at all. The MM05 paper was about the tree ring data, the third of the six arguments I made. Con asks what the specific problem was.

"Almost all of the ... series selected for overweighting [by Mann] were of a single type and from a single researcher, Donald Graybill. The series were high-altitude bristlecone pine tree-ring chronologies, many of which had been studied by Graybill and Sherwood Idso as possible examples of CO2 fertilization of tree growth, following a similar study by Lamarche et al. on Sheep Mountain. The sites were selected for "cambial dieback," that is, the bark had died around the circumference of the tree. ... They related that the anomalous twentieth century growth was unrelated to the temperature from nearby weather stations." McKitrick in Michaels, op cit, p 41

In other words, the data was supposed to be a proxy for temperature, but a comparison to measured temperature showed it was invalid. On Mann's realclimate.org website, the overweighting is acknowledged, but defended as a standard practice.

Con's only reference for the contention that "past reconstruction has problems" is Mann's realclimate.org website, which is essentially a blog supporting global warming crisis. Of course its true that past reconstruction has problems, that's why the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics surveyed 250 separate reconstructions to conclude unambiguously that the MWP and Little Ice Age existed, and therefore the hockey stick is wrong. If there is larger study by a more prestigious organization that shows the contrary, then Con should present it.

Con cites Mann's credentials as being a bona fide climate scientist. I agree. All of my sources have credentials every bit as good as Mann's. So therefore some well-credentialed scientist is wrong about this particular issue. That means that we must look at the specific points of contention. I claim that Wikipedia and realclimate.org cannot be viewed with nearly the credibility of M.I.T. or Harvard.

"The IPCC is a UN outfit. I need to know what my opponent means by "political" so as not to include himself." I do not understand why noting that the IPCC is UN organization does anything but support the fact that it is political. That is what the UN does. In any case, the IPCC membership is about two-thirds government functionaries, and about a third are climate scientists. None of the IPCC reports or results are subject to the peer review process. The key IPCC report summary for decision makers is written independently of the technical sections prepared by scientists. The scientists are directed to produce results that support the summary. The final IPCC report is not voted upon by the participating scientists. Many of the scientific contributors object vehemently to the conclusions of the report, but it is nonetheless issued with all their names.

As an example, the expert on hurricanes refused to conclude that global warming was the cause of increased hurricane activity. Some one higher up in the organization changed the section without permission to conform to the desired conclusion that global warming was responsible.

I don't understand why Con seems to care whether or not I am "political." I am happy to be political if that makes Con happy. I am not arguing based upon my own authority. I am citing data and the opinions of qualified experts.

Con asserts, "My opponent does not believe global warming exists." I will claim authority on the issue of whether or not I believe global warming exists. I do believe that global warming exists, and I have indicated that in my profile on this site ever since I've been using the site.

Con states, "It's pretty obvious my opponent has some, shall we say, questionable source material. Where on Earth is he getting this garbage? Why don't I just debate them?" This is a curious remark. I cited Michaels (Prof of environmental sciences University of Virginia), McKitrick (Univ. of Guelph), Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (Harvard Univ, Cambridge MA), and Technology Review (published by M.I.T., Cambridge, MA). I also cited climate data in an article by Jarl R. Ahlbeck, D.Sc. and lecturer at Abo Akademi University, Finland. The McKitrick article provides 42 references to the scientific literature. What makes them Questionable? Is it anything other than that he doesn't agree? Why does Con think unsigned wikipedia articles and a blog are more reliable?

The rest of Con's statements are completely irrelevant. I think he doesn't like my attempt to put conditions on the debate, like knowing something about the subject. Obviously my intent was to scare off debaters who aren't serious about the subject, but it's also obviously unenforceable. He should address the subject in comments; it is poor conduct in the debate.

The resolution is affirmed.
InfraRedEd

Con

The hockey stick does not predict exponential temperature rise.

How can you believe temperature are rising and falling at the same time?

Traceable references mean nothing.

PhD means nothing.

Harvard
http://www.nytimes.com...
means nothing

Arguments are not true of false depending on who made them

or what their academic credentials are.

or what their traceable references are.

or whether they are writing for Wikipedia or the New England Journal of Medicine

In fact it often takes many years for things to sort themselves out.

According to my opponent's line of reasoning:

The question of whether or not

The question of whether or not Mann applied the correct procedures in processing the data input to the hockey stick algorithms is definitely a question to be judged by experts in statistics, not by climate scientists

is therefore a question to be judged by those as expert or more expert than those expert enough to judge

whether or not Mann applied the correct procedures in processing the data input to the hockey stick algorithms

since they have to be at least as smart.

Once again, this is a logical consequence of my opponent's line of thought, not mine.

My argument has already stated that measuring expertness of a scientist is folly

Measuring expertness of a scientist according to what field they are in is worse than folly.

Apparently my opponent feels there is a systemic problem with statistical computer programs.

Then that is the situation that needs to be addressed.

But my opponent is not addressing it.

My opponent is addressing cambial dieback

and temperature proxies

and CO2 fertilization of tree growth

and high-altitude bristlecone pine tree-ring chronologies

And Donald Graybill and Sherwood Idso

and whether
the anomalous twentieth century growth was unrelated to the temperature from nearby weather stations.
or not.

My opponent is:

Pro Global Warming
Except for the cooling part.

Against gay marriage.

Pro Border "Fence" Wall
http://narcosphere.narconews.com...

Pro Tobacco Rights

Pro War on Terrorism

Pro Waterboarding
http://www.newser.com...

Pro WTO

Why don't we debate these topics?

What does it add up to?

Even Fox News Syndrome cannot account for such confusion.

My opponent has suffered a blow to the head.

Recently, since this debate topic represents a sharp departure from previous debates.

There is only one person in the world who uses the term "confirmation fallacy" but if I understand it it means that just because you have a lot of dead dinosaurs does not mean there are no live ones because studying the past is not relevant to predicting the future.

I need to know more about this cooling trend.

If I understand my opponent's position correctly: It is bad science to use statistical programs unless you are a statistician because no one else can understand them, and in fact only statisticians should be allowed to publish at all because what field does not use statistical analysis?

On and on but you get the idea.

It would be difficult to find a position more ludicrous.

We must look to psychiatry for the answer.

Why has the entire world gone nuts over a non-issue?

Ad Hominem?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It's the tactic nutcases use. Republican nutcases especially.

http://www.factcheck.org...

The rules again.

http://wiki.idebate.org...

First the Instigator takes a position and elaborates.

Then, and this is crucial: The negative debater must disagree with the resolution's statement.

not necessarily oppose in its entirety

as is commonly supposed

but disagree.

This is a good rule.

My position, then is that it is better to address the problem than to seek to place blame.

And academic credentials are not as important as

I'll finish that one later.

This is clearly a disagreemennt.

It should not be difficult to assert superior values

than my opponent

once he posits any.

and it is a good application of the "disagreement" rule.

It motivates the Instigator to exercise a little more care in selecting topics.

and makes for better and more relevant debates.

and is a good solution to mutual irrelevance.

Of course it is better to address any problem than to seek to place blame but let's not go overboard all at once.

After all my opponent is so set on restricting the scope of the debate.

Let's just go with

It is better to address

whatever systemic problem it is that gives rise to cases

similar to the single case my opponent is describing

than to seek to place blame for that single case.

God agrees.
Debate Round No. 2
RoyLatham

Pro

In this round, Con has not responded to any of the six points of my case that establish that the global warming hockey stick is bad science. Instead he has arguments that scientific expertise means nothing, and then a litany of personal attacks against me. I will comment on his arguments relative to expertise. The personal attacks are too silly to respond to; for the purposes of a debate I could be a computer program or the personification of evil, it doesn't matter. All that matters is the evidence and reasoning presented in the debate.

There are at least two ways to identify bad science. One way is to identify what went wrong in producing the science. Another way is to prove that the claimed theory does not agree with observed reality. I pointed out errors in the derivation of the hockey stick in arguments 1 through 4. I presented disagreement with observed reality in 5 and 6. In both cases, it is important to establish that the evidence is credible. Therefore I used credible sources who support each of the arguments I made. I did not really solely or even predominantly upon expert opinion about the overall credibility of the hockey stick. For example, the hockey stick claims the MWP and the Little Ice Age did not exist; the Harvard-Smithsonian survey says it does. The Harvard-Smithsonian study carries considerable weight be of the integrity of the institution, much more than, for example, an assertion of an unsigned blog post.

Contradiction my reality is sufficient to prove bad science. Back in the 1880s scientists studying aeronautics said that according to then-current theory that bumblebees cannot fly. They knew perfectly well that bees did fly, so their statement was an admission that the theory was wrong. They didn't know why it was wrong, but it was nonetheless proof that it was wrong. (Turns out that modeling the change of shape of the insect wings during flapping is critical.) Similarly, the hockey stick says the MWP did not exist. It did exist, so therefore the hockey stick is bad science. We don't need to know why it is bad, although we do. The hockey stick was intended to prove temperatures were rising exponentially. That hasn't happened, so therefore it is bad science.

Turning to Con's specific arguments:

Con asks "How can you believe temperature are rising and falling at the same time?" There is no question that there has been a general warming trend of the earths climate since the end of the Little Ice Age around the mid-1800's. That is evident in the Hadley data http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk... There are quite a few ups and downs around the general upward trend. This is contrary to the hockey stick claim, which is that there was no significant warming until recently when temperatures supposedly took off exponentially, and was predicted to keep climbing unimpeded. However, looking at the data after the hockey stick graph ended in 2000, it's clear that in the past few years the trend is slightly downward. Thus temperature is in a long term upward trend, but is not behaving at all like the hockey stick.

The hockey stick is contrary to CO2 global warming math models. The CO2 models predict that if CO2 increases exponentially, then temperature will rise linearly. There is no theory that predicts a hockey stick curve, and indeed none is observed.

Con claims, "Traceable references mean nothing. ... PhD means nothing." If so, then every bit of science is bad, since it is all based upon journal articles written and reviewed by credentialed scientists. If all science is bad, then the resolution is affirmed.

Con claims "Harvard means ... nothing" and cites as proof an article about a scandal involving one guy in the medical school having a conflict of interest in cholesterol drugs. This is irrelevant to the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics that comprehensively verified the existence of the MWP. It provides no grounds to doubt the study results.

Con agrees that experts in statistical methods are the ones who can appropriately judge whether Mann's methods were correct. Therefore the Congressional panel of experts in statistical methods provided that definitive judgment on Mann's derivation of the hockey stick. The panel said that Mann erred and the critics were correct.

Con asserts, "Apparently my opponent feels there is a systemic problem with statistical computer programs." No, there is no problem with the computer programs. If a person hits his thumb with a hammer, the problem is not with the hammer. The problem is with users outside of the field of statistics sometimes applying the programs correctly. Better training in statistical methods would treat the problem, but alternatively the use use of consulting experts on the data analysis team would solve it. Note that when the climate data was fed into an unmodified Principle Component software package, the hockey stick disappeared and the MWP reappeared. What was required was to not modify the software.

Con does not deny the problem with the bristlecone pine tree ring data, but says that I should not bring it up if I'm going to discuss the data analysis errors. There is nothing inappropriate in pointing out multiple errors of different types.

Con then launches into a personal attack against me, claiming "My opponent has suffered a blow to the head." Among the unbelievable things I did, according to Con, was my agreement with Barack Obama on the gay marriage issue. Seems reasonable to me. I cite Con for bad conduct in his personal attacks.

Con states, "If I understand my opponent's position correctly: It is bad science to use statistical programs unless you are a statistician because no one else can understand them, and in fact only statisticians should be allowed to publish at all because what field does not use statistical analysis?" I never said anything remotely similar to what Con asserts. I said Mann made a mistake in the processing of his climate data, and we know that he made a mistake because it was discovered by an expert statistician (McKitrick) and mistake was verified by an expert panel of statisticians. I commented that making a mistake in complex statistical analysis is not particularly surprising, because it is difficult. the climate scientists who originally refereed Mann's paper agreed it was difficult, saying they did not feel qualified to check the analysis.

Then Con rambles incoherently, making more personal attacks. Again, this is bad conduct.

Throughout the debate, Pro provided never addressed points 2, 4, and 6. He asked what the error was in the tree ring data (point 3) and I explained that it was shown not be a proxy for temperature as Mann assumed. He had no counter argument. Point 1, that inputting noise to Mann's algorithm produced a hockey stick was questioned, but never refuted by counter evidence. Con agreed that statistical experts were the one qualified to judge Mann's analysis, they did so and found that Mann erred. Finally, regarding point 5, there are now over 250 climate reconstruction establishing that the MWP and Little Ice Age did exist, contrary to the hockey stick. con merely asserts it is controversial. It isn't.

For these reason, the resolution is affirmed.
InfraRedEd

Con

My opponent has been plagiarizing "Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming" by

Patrick Michaels
http://en.wikipedia.org...
who seems to have a few ethical problems of his own.

And while I'm at it I might as well take a swipe at statisticians as well. Known as actuaries and organized into the Casualty Actuarial Society and the Actuarial Society of America, they are nailing down their standards so that Einstein would have to go back to school. Couple that with an accounting degree and you will have plastic surgeons complaining that they do all the work and take all the risks and don't get paid as much. Many insurance company executives are actuaries.

"cambian"

http://en.allexperts.com...
http://news.surfwax.com...

The "Cooling trend" was due to the eruption of Mt Pinatubo.

Why has my opponent not brought up the closing of the Soviet weather stations? We need the original paper and supporting documentation and that book he read.

It's time once again to remind our audience how ridiculous my opponent's definition is of "bad science." Results are all that count, he claims. Correct conclusion=good science.

Let me offer my own. Bad science is irresponsible media coverage of science.

Looks like a good site:

http://www.badscience.net...

Statistics as bad science

http://www.badscience.net...

A new offensive.

Books

http://www.amazon.com...

I haven't read it but it certainly is all the rage.

TV

http://www.channel4.com...

http://www.badscience.net...

My opponent is suporting his case with arguments about who said what about Mann's paper and what their qualifications are.

The only way we can answer the question is to examine the original paper in its original context.

This includes the grant proposal and supporting documents, and the historical situation.

How much was paid for this research? Well that's how much research one can expect. The Wikipedia article does prove something. It proves how much effort has been wasted on a ridiculous assertion.

My opponent's position: The Hockey Stick Is Bad Science.

My position: It is better to address

whatever systemic problem it is that gives rise to cases

similar to the single case my opponent is describing

than to seek to place blame for that single case.

Academic dishonesty
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Now we each take turns supporting our own position and trashing the other guy's.

My opponent has not responded to my position.

My response to his position and supporting arguments is:

We cannot resolve the question be studying what people said about the paper. we have to look at the paper itself. This has not been done.
Debate Round No. 3
99 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
The reason for confidence in the Hockey Stick was that every factor affecting climate had been accounted for in climate models, or so supporters claimed. Thus the predictions were surely reliable. Whoops. HadCRU, of climategate fame for e-mail expression of desires to punch out dissenters and for wanting to ensure no dissent would be published, has just announced that there has been no global warming at all for the past 16 years. http://www.opposingviews.com...
Posted by InfraRedEd 4 years ago
InfraRedEd
Check out
The Hockey Stick and Climate Wars:
Dispatches from the Front Lines
by Michael E Mann
Columbia University Press
New York 2012
Posted by InfraRedEd 5 years ago
InfraRedEd
Yes He is one of eleven contributors.
The Sci Am article is quite specific.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Mann runs the blog realclimate.org that has been providing endless defense of his stuff. The other side is Steve McIntyre's claimateaudit.org.
Posted by InfraRedEd 5 years ago
InfraRedEd
Michael Mann responds to His critics in this month's Scientific American (March, p. 72).
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Wikipedia is usually accurate because on most things there is no pressure to conform to a politically correct viewpoint. For example, if you want to know what an "akebia" is, Wikipedia is spot on. The same applies to everything from dark matter to population statistics. The problem with Wikipedia arises when there is some politically correct viewpoint as with the Hockey Stick controversy. I doubt that is even 1% of all the entries. Even in issues where political correctness comes into play, sometimes Wikipedia comes through with a balanced article. The article on intelligence differences between men and women is an example of political correctness ignored. It isn't that there are small errors in most articles, the problem is that a small percentage of the articles are wholly biased.

The Hockey Stick purported to show that for the past thousand years nothing has produced a trend in climate except anthropogenic global warming. As a consequence, the prediction was confidently made in 2000 that if nothing was done the earth would be toast by 2010. Since CO2 was the only factor at work, nothing could stop it. There was slight cooling in the past decade, so the only question left is why the theory was wrong.
Posted by InfraRedEd 5 years ago
InfraRedEd
How accurate is Wikipedia? http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com...
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
At http://www.john-daly.com... the first graph is being misrepresented.

1. It stops at 1975, just before anthropogenic global warming kicked in.
2. It was originally intended as a diagram for descriptive purposes, and was not meant to be an actual representation of data.
3. New data acquired after 1990 led to some minor changes in the temperature record. Though not particularly significant, this was still a factor.
Posted by Biggbrother 8 years ago
Biggbrother
yeah
it has a little to do with it but it is mainly deforestation. items like this would direct everyone in the right direction instead of adding weight to the anchor.
greenland right
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
To my knowledge there isn't any scientist who thinks that the Greenland ice cap will. The IPCC is clearly on record saying that the overall land ice mass is stable. Antarctica is slightly increasing, Greenland is slightly decreasing. I don't think there is a chance that the IPCC is a pawn of Exxon/Mobile. The IPCC reflects the opinions of those who adamantly believe in CO2-caused global warming, not skeptics.

However, if you like, send me a challenge claiming that it is likely the Greenland ice cap will melt significantly in the next hundred years and make an affirmative case. I'd like to debate that.

The melting of the ice cap on Kilimanjaro is due to local deforestation, not global warming. Continental glaciers are receding due to global warming, however.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by kevsext 8 years ago
kevsext
RoyLathamInfraRedEdTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by animea 8 years ago
animea
RoyLathamInfraRedEdTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by crackofdawn_Jr 8 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
RoyLathamInfraRedEdTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
RoyLathamInfraRedEdTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
RoyLathamInfraRedEdTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by CP 8 years ago
CP
RoyLathamInfraRedEdTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
RoyLathamInfraRedEdTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by PervRat 8 years ago
PervRat
RoyLathamInfraRedEdTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
RoyLathamInfraRedEdTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70