How can people criticize Mann and AGW 'alarmists' and then cite Spencer and Christy?

Question

We've seen a lot of criticism of Mann et. al and the 'hockey stick' recently. There is some debate as to whether their study employed good statistical methods or if its statistics were critically flawed. Wegeman - one of the main critics of Mann's methods - concluded "Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science." In other words, he thinks Mann's method was flawed, but agreed with the general result.

http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf

Interestingly, in that same newsletter there was a discussion of the Christy and Spencer satellite data. From page 4:

"John Christy and Roy Spencer, published a series of papers showing a slight cooling of temperatures in the troposphere, in contradiction to all physical theories of global warming...other groups started reanalyzing the raw satellite data...these studies had different conclusions from Christy and Spencer, that did show an increasing trend in the troposphere, consistent with the projections of climate models...the new analyses were largely correct, thus resolving an issue that had been at the center of scientific debates over global warming since the original Christy-Spencer papers."

So how can people criticize Mann for his possibly flawed statistical analysis (which nevertheless yielded largely correct results) and dismiss virtually all scientists and evidence supporting AGW, but then turn around and cite Spencer and/or Christy (whose statistical analysis of satellite data was completely wrong) as reason to be skeptical of AGW?

Answer 1

It's called blindly believing anybody who says what you want to hear and blindly rejecting anyone who says what you don't want to hear.

Answer 2

Easy, they aren't true skeptics.  True skeptics would not put Spencer & Christy at some higher level of credibility than Mann, since their error was obviously more significant than was Mann's.

Answer 3

Take one can of tomato soup and one box of Rice crispy cereal. Turn the box and can around so you can read the ingredients. Now you have a comprehensive study of Global warming.

Answer 4

Da Boss:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOFk3qVlE...

Answer 5

"So how can people criticize Mann for his possibly flawed statistical analysis (which nevertheless yielded largely correct results".  How can statistical analysis be flawed and yield correct results?

I suggest you read this article on the corruption of climate science.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2...

The fact remains that computer models demand troposphere warming two to three times that of ground temperatures.  Can you show me the studies that show such results?

Why are not temperatures in cites high up in the mountains rising at a faster rate than sea level cities?  Are the not closer to the tropospheree?

Answer 6

I think some of these people must be paid lobbyists for the oil companies and other high-pollution industries.  They seem to have nothing better to do with their time than to stay online all day and answer every question with "it's all a scam" and post inflammatory "questions" where they provide their own answers.

Answer 7

Science is always questioning the "latest" theory.... and either trying to prove it-- or disprove it.

Answer 8

Whilst it may be correct that Christy and Spencer showed good practice in statistically analyzing their data, the fact that their data could not be reproduced invalidates their findings.

The hockey stick was an early attempt at reconstructing the northern hemisphere temperature record for the past 1,000 years, it became an iconic image and yes it was flawed, however we have come on a long way since then. That is the nature of science.

In this particular case the inconsistency may be due to the fact that the methods are being analyzed by statisticians (rather then scientists), taking into account only statistical analysis techniques used and ignoring the reliability of the data.

Answer 9

Dana the central core of every argument or dissertation put forth by the alarmists is the same one put forth in the bible of the National Socialist New Left that clearly states a policy that denies the existence of 99.9% of humanities physical and material resources. This book called “The Limits to Growth” published and funded by group of billionaire elitists called the club of Rome makes the false assumption that we as a race have already discovered and are consuming every possible resource that is in existence and when we finish consuming them there will be no more forever.

This report was written by and funded by people with small minds and limited knowledge of the world and the solar system. It is a group of inbred blue blooded morons that because they have inherited great riches from their grandfathers and a staff to manage them for them they are like gods in their glory directing the fate of the whole planet and all that live on it. In all truth the world and its people would be much better off if all these blue blooded parasites would just stop breeding and die off like Darwin predicted they should.

Right over our heads in near space we have access to ten times the resources we can mine on the earth. And if we go past Mars to the asteroid belt and the moos and rings of Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune there we will be able to access a million times what we have on earth. In orbit around Saturn alone is up to 10 times the amount of water to be found on Earth in nice handy frozen chunks ready for transport. The asteroid that passed between the earth and moon a dew years back and scared the liberals out of their skins contained more high quality nickel iron than we have mined on earth since we discovered the use of it 3,000 years ago.

Alarmists deny the plenty that surrounds us in the new frontier and like their predecessors before Columbus deny the riches to be found out there just a step over our heads. But then it always has been the skeptics who deny the existence of limits that have explored new frontiers and opened things up so the cowardly can follow and steal it away from the productive.

The limits to growth of the head in the sand alarmists who would deny the human race its future of plenty so they can hog what’s here for themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_to_G...

A link about the future and the new frontier of plenty for all of humanity if they will only reach out and work for it.

http://www.nss.org/settlement/ColoniesIn...

How to reach this dream vote for any party except the democrats and the greens this year for all offices. Throw the Luddite bums out and maybe the world can be saved for future generations!

Answer 10

As I said in a question I asked, I just don't CARE. I'll be long dead before anything happens, and there's nothing I can do, so <shrugs>.

Answer 11

I can't actually answer for those who do this. I have cited both Christy and Spencer's papers, which is perfectly reasonable. I have also cited some of Mann's papers. Anyway, after the error in UAH satellite data was found, Spencer and Christy corrected the error. After Christy and Spencer found an error in RSS data, RSS corrected the error. That is the way it should work.

Mann even said, speaking of the methods used in MBH98 and MBH99:

"knowing what I know today, a decade later, I would not do the same."

This is a fairly good overview of the hockey stick controversy:

http://cce.890m.com/?page_id=18

I guess I don't know why you would discount either C&S or Mann.