# Climatologist Dr. Michael Mann completely vindicated...again. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 23, 2011, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724 "2011-08-23T00:17:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/201 "2011-08-30T02:55:44Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > First off, this is absurd; both sides call it climate change. > > Among skeptics that do look at the science, not so by a good chunk of the most irrational denialist sites. Well, there you go, then: since I use the term “climate change”, I must be among the skeptics that do look at the science. > [@](#): > > If you had not been influenced by them, then you would had said “We \*\*also \*\*call it climate change”, you said “we call it climate change **now** ” Why? I do call it “climate change” now. I don’t _ **also** _ call it climate change; I _ **only** _ call it climate change. It would be inaccurate of me to say “also”. > [@](#): > > And we come to yet another denialist shibboleth, a search of the keywords regarding the UN report (and everyone should notice how after complaining a lot about citations, you do not have one here) shows a member of the UN team being quoted on the apparent cooling. See, this is what we call a teachable moment. I’ve repeatedly requested something easy from you (a “good enough” falsification criterion to follow up your “not good enough” pronouncements), and you’ve refused to reply; you’re now – well, you’re not actually requesting a cite, but I’m so danged obliging that I’ll supply the cite you’re _ **almost** _ asking for. [http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press\_releases/pr\_906\_en.html](http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_906_en.html) Spells out that global temperature in '99 was cooler than '98 – and so was '00, and so was '01, and so was '02, and so was '03, and so was '04, and so was '06, and so was '07, and so was '08, and so was '09 – and that '05 and '10 indicated no statistically significant difference between global temperatures from '98, instead falling within the margin of uncertainty. Unsurprisingly, I call that “climate change”. > [@](#): > > So, yeah, I have to say that is good evidence that you are at least aware on why you did not posted a link to your sources, you are aware that those cites would not fly. I didn’t post a link because one hadn’t been requested. I’ve now posted it though you still haven’t actually requested one. You’ve still refused to post a reply to my request despite being asked, point-blank and repeatedly; I have to say it’s good evidence that you’re plenty aware of why you refuse to post a falsification criterion: you know it won’t fly. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/202 "2011-08-30T03:07:46Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Why? I do call it “climate change” now. I don’t _ **also** _ call it climate change; I _ **only** _ call it climate change. It would be inaccurate of me to say “also”. Glad to see you admit it. Scientists use both therms, it has been a meme among denialists that there was a change when none has taken place. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > [Greening It Alone – Foreign Policy](http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/01/greening_it_alone?page=0,0) > See, this is what we call a teachable moment. I’ve repeatedly requested something easy from you (a “good enough” falsification criterion to follow up your “not good enough” pronouncements), and you’ve refused to reply; you’re now – well, you’re not actually requesting a cite, but I’m so danged obliging that I’ll supply the cite you’re _ **almost** _ asking for. > > [http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press\_releases/pr\_906\_en.html](http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_906_en.html) > > Spells out that global temperature in '99 was cooler than '98 – and so was '00, and so was '01, and so was '02, and so was '03, and so was '04, and so was '06, and so was '07, and so was '08, and so was '09 – and that '05 and '10 indicated no statistically significant difference between global temperatures from '98, instead falling within the margin of uncertainty. Unsurprisingly, I call that “climate change”. If you had paid attention, the link was not needed, the content was mentioned in the last link I made. Nowhere does it say global cooling, and we already know that “significant” does not mean much when only a few years are considered, instead the conclusion is : > [@](#): > > “The 2010 data confirm the Earth’s significant long-term warming trend,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “The ten warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998.” > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I didn’t post a link because one hadn’t been requested. I’ve now posted it though you still haven’t actually requested one. You’ve still refused to post a reply to my request despite being asked, point-blank and repeatedly; I have to say it’s good evidence that you’re plenty aware of why you refuse to post a falsification criterion: you know it won’t fly. There was no cooling all over, you got caught by the spin from denier blogs, as mentioned before, your premise is flawed, when the big picture is taken into account all the organizations that even Bob Carter used to make his sorry point still report the long term warming trend. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/203 "2011-08-30T03:18:52Z")
And then when one looks again at the most recent interview with the head of the UN climate center: > [@](#): > > MICHEL JARRAUD: The latest decade is the warmest on record. So year after year this trend is confirmed, actually it’s being strengthened year after year. > > MEREDITH GRIFFITHS: Last year also saw Arctic Sea ice recede to its lowest level. > > Mr Jarraud says these new statistics should silence those who don’t believe that greenhouse gases are changing the world’s climate. The point that I made remains, what you are looking is not cooling but noise that was expected also on the way of a continuing warming trend. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/204 "2011-08-30T10:22:10Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > It’s a flaming waste of money that could have been invested in something that accomplished it’s intended purpose. No it’s certainly not. Argument already addressed in a previous post. > [@](#): > > That’s it in a nutshell. There is no emergency. New York is not going underwater anytime soon. Al Gore is a complete buffoon Argument already also addressed in previous post. There is an emergency and it has nothing to do with Al Gore or New York being submerged. You can leave the personal attacks on Al Gore aside as well. His arguments make a heck of a lot more sense than some of the denialist rubbish being thrown around in this thread, but you will notice I am not using him. > [@](#): > > We have much larger fish to fry right now. If the world economy isn’t put back on track there will be ZERO money to front future needs including global warming/climate change dejure. False, although you are far from alone in holding this common misconception. In fact, things are the other way around. Renewable energy industries will be in the trillion-dollar scale in the near future. In a world full of uncertainty and turmoil, they are one of the few growth spots, in fact they are just about \*guaranteed \*economic growth spots, since they grow regardless of economic turmoil. Indeed, potentially \*because \*of economic turmoil, given the idiotic pricing of oil. In California, which is one of the greener states, green jobs (meaning clean electricity or pollution reduction) have grown three times faster than other types of jobs. In 2007-2008, with the economy shrinking pitifully and a recession, California green jobs grew by 5%. Very interesting [report here](http://www.next10.org/next10/publications/pdf/2011_Many_Shades_of_Green_FINAL.pdf). The global trend is similarly encouraging. See how government spending, regulation and policies - far from depressing the economy or causing difficulties - actually helped the green industry come out of the 2009 economic crisis substantially better off than almost any other sector ([Clean Edge report](http://www.cleanedge.com/reports/pdf/Trends2009.pdf), page 1-4). > [@](#): > > If we don’t have the money maintain the natural technology progression then we’re screwed because there is nothing that the United States can do if the rest of the world is still living under a bush. Our industries could shit pure oxygen and rainbows and it wouldn’t matter if India, China and all the 3rd world countries are still cranking out co2. Funny thing about China: it is already the world leader in carbon alternative investment. Number 1 in green technology, and adding 100,000 green jobs a year. Germany - one of the cloudiest countries in the world - is number 2 and a leader in solar power. The US risks being overtaken by Japan and Spain while the asinine arguments of climate change deniers and pollution sceptics continue to get infinitely more exposure than they deserve. China, which in toto pollutes quite a lot (but nowhere near as much per capita as the US) obviously understands the problem and has a firm grasp of the solution and of the **economic opportunity**. In the US, on the other hand, there is a unique and perverted political climate that seems to preclude any applications of the common sense you alluded to earlier. No, in the US a truly concerning number of people dress up in fancy costume, spout demonstrably false silliness, call proponents of green technology insulting names, launch smear campaigns against their president, and make it their religion to deny science (not necessarily all at once, lest you think I am picking only on the misinformed Tea Partiers). So much for common sense. If you want to see common sense look to China, and note that **countries provide incentives for the industries they want to develop.** It doesn’t matter whether you like it or agree with it, that is simply the way things are. In the US there is a serious scarcity of such policies at the national level and that is part of the problem, because it is left up to individual states to set their targets and foster green economic development. Some states do so, others can only be described as lamentable and drag the whole country backwards. What this means is that the United States has \*already \*lost its competitive edge in this industry and is lagging behind leaders, like China. Not to dwell on the Chinese but consider this: in 2003 China had next to nothing in terms of solar power, but the government took a long look around and came up with a brilliant idea. China decided to make solar power modules a national policy priority. In a few years they went from zero to more than 50% of **global** market share, _creating significant wealth and jobs_. From something that was invented in the US! Now, if you’re thinking, “why the hell didn’t the US do that?” then you’re starting to see the other side of the argument. All those jobs - hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs sorely needed to support the middle class - could have been created in the US if only there had been a common-sensible national policy (and willingness to set aside denialist bullshit) to invest in new technologies. Even technologies which you insist are not yet ready for the prime time. India is also taking renewable energy seriously. “Although a relative newcomer to the wind industry compared with Denmark or the US, domestic policy support for wind power has led India to become the country with the fifth largest installed wind power capacity in the world.” ([source](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_India)). You can also consider that India, with its staggering poverty, chaos, backwardness and corruption, still somehow manages to have [10.63%](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_India) of its energy needs met by renewable energy sources. The share for the US is a bit higher at [11.14%](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_States). So let’s not use this feeble developing nations finger-pointing argument please. Virtually all countries need to make serious improvements in renewable energy use and pollution reduction; the question here is who is going to lead, who is going to follow, and who is going to lag behind. You seem to think that developing countries will be the ones lagging behind. That is not a safe assumption. Remember that the leaders of the green pack - far from being pioneers sacrificing themselves in the name of environmental friendliness - are also going to be the ones reaping the highest share of the economic benefits of a new developing industry (as China has already done with solar panels). The laggards, who think they are playing it safe and slow and conservative, will find that the leaders have snatched up all the cake and there are only crumbs left on which to subside. In the long term, the safe conservative approach is a very poor strategy - with the lowest yield. > [@](#): > > We are on track for major breakthroughs whether you care to admit it or not. If they go down in flames because the economy tanks then THAT will be the real problem. You again miss the foundation of the problem. Let me restate it in the briefest possible way. Major breakthroughs in technology by themselves are nearly useless if they do not serve an adequate market. What you need is all the below: - early adopter support then the development of economies of scale - technology development throughout - some kind of history or experience in the industry to achieve lower costs and higher quality - government policy to push new tech These are also all the reasons I already applied to your example of the Volt. New products are always a huge gamble. For every iPhone (the telecom version of Athena) there are countless failures, because you do not just need great technology, _you need consumers to buy into the technology_. Failure is usually not due to the technology _itself_ but to other factors like lack of market readiness, which is why markets and consumers have to be trailblazed - prospected, as it were (and that is why the iPhone was a phenomenal success in spite of its Athena-like origin: because Steve Jobs has the uncanny ability to know what consumers want). I hope that’s all clearer. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/205 "2011-08-30T12:47:57Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Glad to see you admit it. Scientists use both therms, it has been a meme among denialists that there was a change when none has taken place. It may well be that scientists use both; I’m not a scientist, and so merely use “climate change”. It may well be that denialists say there was a change; I’m neither a denialist nor a scientist, and so don’t insist there was a change by scientists. > [@](#): > > Nowhere does it say global cooling, and we already know that “significant” does not mean much when only a few years are considered, Your preconceptions are getting in the way of your reading comprehension. In that linked cite, the UN’s World Meteorological Organization was using “significant” to consider the difference in global temperature between any two years, even on the shortest of timetables: the issue was whether any warming or cooling was within the margin of uncertainty, as measured in thousandths of a degree. Their finding was that (a) since '98, _ **no** _ years have been warmer by that “significant” margin, and that (b) a variety of years – '99 and '00 and '01 and '02 and '03 and '04 and '06 and '07 and '08 and '09 – _ **have** _ been cooler by a “significant” margin. > [@](#): > > There was no cooling all over, you got caught by the spin from denier blogs I didn’t get it from denier blogs; I got those facts on global temperature for each aforementioned year, and on the aforementioned thousandths-of-a-degree margin of uncertainty to boot, straight from the UN’s authoritative voice on weather: the WMO itself. > [@](#): > > as mentioned before, your premise is flawed, when the big picture is taken into account all the organizations that even Bob Carter used to make his sorry point still report the long term warming trend. As mentioned before, that’s precisely why I’m requesting a falsification criterion that _ **does** _ take the big picture into account for scientists. As mentioned before, you’re apparently incapable of giving one. > [@](#): > > The point that I made remains, what you are looking is not cooling but noise that was expected also on the way of a continuing warming trend. The point I made remains: saying that results thus far aren’t good enough to falsify it is _ **worthless** _ without spelling out what hypothetical results _ **would** _ be unexpected enough to get the job done. Why do you keep doing your level best to supply half an argument? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/206 "2011-08-30T14:03:57Z")
Posting a correction: > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > the issue was whether any warming or cooling was within the margin of uncertainty, as measured in thousandths of a degree. All apologies: _ **hundredths** _ of a degree, not thousandths. My mistake. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/207 "2011-08-30T14:57:53Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > It may well be that scientists use both; I’m not a scientist, and so merely use “climate change”. It may well be that denialists say there was a change; I’m neither a denialist nor a scientist, and so don’t insist there was a change by scientists. The point was that your sources are deniers, and you just absorbed their spin, as you like to say it is teachable moment. as I said before, demand better from your sources. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Your preconceptions are getting in the way of your reading comprehension. In that linked cite, the UN’s World Meteorological Organization was using “significant” to consider the difference in global temperature between any two years, even on the shortest of timetables: the issue was whether any warming or cooling was within the margin of uncertainty, as measured in thousandths of a degree. Their finding was that (a) since '98, _ **no** _ years have been warmer by that “significant” margin, and that (b) a variety of years – '99 and '00 and '01 and '02 and '03 and '04 and '06 and '07 and '08 and '09 – _ **have** _ been cooler by a “significant” margin. The context (and the reason why a direct quote was avoided) was that they are comparing then to 1998 saying basically that it is silly to say it is cooling, when 2 years on the hottest decade recorded were as hot as 1998. Point being that we should had seen less of those years if it was cooling. The reading compression point is silly as the report and the secretary continue to say unequivocally that it is still a warming trend. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I didn’t get it from denier blogs; I got those facts on global temperature for each aforementioned year, and on the aforementioned thousandths-of-a-degree margin of uncertainty to boot, straight from the UN’s authoritative voice on weather: the WMO itself. The voice that tells you that we are in a warming trend and those who don’t believe that greenhouse gases are changing the world’s climate should quiet down? I’m convinced. 🙂 > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > As mentioned before, that’s precisely why I’m requesting a falsification criterion that _ **does** _ take the big picture into account for scientists. As mentioned before, you’re apparently incapable of giving one. Already quoted and cited, Barry Brickmore from BYU explained how one can not ignore that the cooling should be more dramatic if Human CO2 was not a driver on the current warming. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > The point I made remains: saying that results thus far aren’t good enough to falsify it is _ **worthless** _ without spelling out what hypothetical results _ **would** _ be unexpected enough to get the job done. Why do you keep doing your level best to supply half an argument? This remains a baseless accusation, Besides quoting Brickmore I did before told you what I could think would be the scenario where this AGW warming could be discredited, you have even acknowledged it. It just so happens that I have learned more and it is clear that \*\*Matt \*\*is correct, it is not that simple, and so it is silly to demand that the theory of AGW would be affected much by this line of JAQs. Continuing like you are doing here shows that my point that you are “just asking questions” is valid one, and it shows you are not debating in good faith. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/208 "2011-08-30T16:03:47Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The point was that your sources are deniers, and you just absorbed their spin Have I cited any source other than the UN’s World Meteorological Organization? > [@](#): > > The context (and the reason why a direct quote was avoided) was that they are comparing then to 1998 saying basically that it is silly to say it is cooling, when 2 years on the hottest decade recorded were as hot as 1998. Point being that we should had seen less of those years if it was cooling. The reading compression point is silly as the report and the secretary continue to say unequivocally that it is still a warming trend. I didn’t cite that source for its conclusions; I cited it for its facts. Look, swap in SDMB-friendly terms if it helps remove your preconceptions. Imagine a white supremacist claims a minority ethnic group isn’t as intelligent as his own. Imagine I ask what would falsify that claim, and the white supremacist (a) first names a test the minority passes, and then (b) says passing his named test wouldn’t satisfy scientists; he refuses to spell out what _ **would** _ satisfy scientists. Further imagine I find something like unto an official white supremacist website which notes 13 studies on the ethnic groups in question; 3 tests put both groups within the same margin of error, and the other 10 had the minority group scoring significantly _ **higher.** _ To complete the analogy, imagine the following conclusion: a statistical tie on 3, and a higher score on 10, means the minority is – not as intelligent. I’d cite that site for its facts, not its conclusions. And I’d expect the white supremacist to ignore the facts and repeat the conclusions, all while of course still refusing to spell out the requested falsification criterion. You meet expectations. > [@](#): > > This remains a baseless accusation, Besides quoting Brickmore I did before told you what I could think would be the scenario where this AGW warming could be discredited, you have even acknowledged it. I acknowledged it as surely as you acknowledged that (a) what you’re now calling a “humor him” bet had already come to pass, and (b) wasn’t a good enough falsification criterion for scientists – which is why I’ve since been asking what _ **would** _ be good enough. > [@](#): > > It just so happens that I have learned more and it is clear that \*\*Matt \*\*is correct, it is not that simple, and so it is silly to demand that the theory of AGW would be affected much by this line of JAQs. You do half of the work by saying you’ve now learned more and it’s not that simple – and then drop the second half by refusing to say what less-simple solution will suffice. You explain that it’s silly to demand the theory be affected by X, and then refuse to spell out a Y. > [@](#): > > That’s why, if it’s not that simple So give the complex answer. > [@](#): > > it shows you are not debating in good faith. When you say X ain’t enough and refuse to explain what Y would suffice, you’re not debating at all. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/209 "2011-08-30T17:36:25Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > … global temperature in '99 was cooler than '98 – and so was '00, and so was '01, and so was '02, and so was '03, and so was '04, and so was '06, and so was '07, and so was '08, and so was '09 … Studying the sort of signal, with various cyclic, trending, and noisy contributants, that one sees in the temperature record is an interesting exercise. I’ve done work in the fields of signal analysis and pattern recognition, yet I confess I have no better way to comprehend this data than to stare at a graph, using simple common sense and intuition. In round figures, one sees a 1°C rise over the past 40 years. Is that significant? Sure seems like it, but then again the starting-point is handpicked: if one replaced “past 40 years” with “past 70 years” the aggregate rise would be less. One good approach is to average over long periods. One needn’t even submit temperature records to a statistics package: the Earth itself has processes (e.g. glacier and ice-pack melting) that do a “low-pass filtering” of temperature. A reasonable conclusion is that CO[sub]2[/sub] and other greenhouse gases have increased, that this implies temperature rise, and that the expected rise is occurring. Do you dispute that, Waldo? Now 1998 was an unusually warm year. As such, its record may not be surpassed for some time, even if we’re in a long-term warming trend. Surely that’s not hard to understand – even without experience in studying noisy signals, one can understand this by looking at a graph with intuition and an open mind. Given this fact, the phrasing "global temperature in '99 was cooler than '98 – and so was '00, and so was '01, and so was '02, and so was '03, and so was '04, and so was '06, and so was '07, and so was '08, and so was '09 " seems peculiarly pedantic and anti-intellectual. Almost twenty months ago, shortly after joining SDMB, I tried to help you, Waldo, in [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11980127&postcount=92). Your response to that post told me what I needed to know about you. You ignored the educational part of the post, found a phrase that you could use to support a Know-Nothing posture and went on. Maybe I’ll revisit this matter with you after another 20 months. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/210 "2011-08-30T18:07:13Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > A reasonable conclusion is that CO[sub]2[/sub] and other greenhouse gases have increased, that this implies temperature rise, and that the expected rise is occurring. Do you dispute that, Waldo? I don’t, but I don’t want to rest on it either. I want to know what “rise” is “expected”, so that we can then revise our conclusions if the unexpected occurs instead. > [@](#): > > Now 1998 was an unusually warm year. As such, its record may not be surpassed for some time, even if we’re in a long-term warming trend. Surely that’s not hard to understand I agree, but, again, I want to know what specific expectation a general “for some time” is standing in for. > [@](#): > > Given this fact, the phrasing "global temperature in '99 was cooler than '98 – and so was '00, and so was '01, and so was '02, and so was '03, and so was '04, and so was '06, and so was '07, and so was '08, and so was '09 " seems peculiarly pedantic and anti-intellectual. Again, I’m not happy with it either – but I use it only until I’m given a falsifiable prediction that’s less pedantic and anti-intellectual to look at. > [@](#): > > Almost twenty months ago, shortly after joining SDMB, I tried to help you, Waldo, in [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11980127&postcount=92). Your response to that post told me what I needed to know about you. You ignored the educational part of the post, found a phrase that you could use to support a Know-Nothing posture and went on. That linked post notably contained no falsifiable predictions, despite the nested quote it copy-and-pasted asking about falsification; we can now come back to it twenty months later, we could come back to it twenty _ **years** _ later, and we’d still have no way of knowing whether the warming you anticipate had shown up as expected or had unexpectedly failed to materialize. We could come back to it twenty years after that, and twenty years after _ **that,** _ and no amount of cooling – or anything else – would disprove it. Your response told me everything I needed to know about you as well, I’m afraid. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/211 "2011-08-30T19:19:07Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I agree, but, again, I want to know what specific expectation a general “for some time” is standing in for. It sounds like you think some one has an answer of the form “15 years without the 1998 record being broken would not falsify AGW, but 16 years would.” If you do find a “scientist” with a claim like that, I’d suggest you run as fast as you can in the opposite direction. 😃 > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Your response told me everything I needed to know about you as well, I’m afraid. You’ve latched on to the one concept that “science is about falsifiability” and lost contact with other forms of common sense. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/212 "2011-08-30T19:35:21Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > It sounds like you think some one has an answer of the form “15 years without the 1998 record being broken would not falsify AGW, but 16 years would.” No, that’s not quite it. I mean, sure, if that’s the only prediction I’m given then I’ll go with it, I guess – but I want to hear the falsifiable prediction, no matter how complex and If-X-But-Not-Y-Unless-Z it gets. What, precisely, is the falsifiable claim? I’m perfectly willing to hear one that goes way beyond “16 years would”. > [@](#): > > You’ve latched on to the one concept that “science is about falsifiability” and lost contact with other forms of common sense. I make it a starting point when evaluating scientific claims: _how can it hypothetically be falsified?_ That doesn’t mean I also make it the end-point; I merely think it’s the first question we should ask whenever any such proposition is advanced. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/213 "2011-08-30T21:06:58Z")
Hello, Waldo. Let us consider the hypothesis that the warming trend of the last 35 years is statistically insignificant, and ask what it would take to falsify that hypothesis. Using either of these datasets: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land\_ocean.90S.90N.df\_1901-2000mean.dat ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land.90S.90N.df\_1901-2000mean.dat (which were the first such tables I could find Googling) we see that every year since 1976 was warmer than 1976. Or, to use the diction you find clearer, global temperature in '77 was warmer than '76 – and so was '78, and so was '79, and so was '80, and so was '81, and so was '82, and so was '83, and so was '84,and so was '85,and so was '86,and so was '87, and so was '88, and so was '89, and so was '90, and so was '91, and so was '92, and so was '93, and so was '94, and so was '95, and so was '96, and so was '97, and so was '98, and so was '99, and so was '00,and so was '01, and so was '02, and so was '03, and so was '04, and so was '05, and so was '06, and so was '07, and so was '08, and so was '09, and so was '10. How many more years of this will it take to falsify your hypothesis? Please note that I do not endorse this argument. But I do wonder how you will answer it, given that it seems to mimic your argument. Global climate change is an interesting topic about which intelligent people can ask intelligent questions. Some debate, however, strikes me as substandard. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/214 "2011-08-30T21:28:17Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > How many more years of this will it take to falsify your hypothesis? But that’s just it: if, say, another poster were advancing a global cooling proposition, I’d be asking the same questions that I’m asking here, and for the same reasons. And if he refused to supply a falsification criteria he believed would satisfy scientists – why, then, yes, at that point, I probably _ **would** _ lay out the argument you’re now putting in my mouth, following the signature diction with: _we’ve seen all these years when it hasn’t been getting cooler; you don’t think that’s enough; what, then, would be enough?_ I believe that should be the starting point for evaluating claims about cooling, because I believe it should be the starting point for evaluating claims about warming – but I’m not the one making _ **either** _ prediction about the future; I’m hypothesizing neither cooling nor warming; I’m merely asking those who make predictions to name their terms. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2011, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/215 "2011-08-31T02:39:16Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Have I cited any source other than the UN’s World Meteorological Organization? It was cited poorly, nowhere do they said it was cooling, they compared 1998, 2005 and 2010 to make the point that the temperature for the decade remains the highest on record. The position of the UN is that the warming trend is still here with us. And that you relied on was not an official report, this one was: [http://www.wmo.int/pages/publications/showcase/documents/1074\_en.pdf](http://www.wmo.int/pages/publications/showcase/documents/1074_en.pdf) You said “my support was the UN’s report by the World Meteorological Organization: global average temperature indicates cooling after '98 followed by precisely no statistically significant warming past that '98 mark during all the fluctuations that followed”? It remains a cherry picked date, made to confuse people and you do continue doing your damnest to tell others to ignore the past, because you know that every single organization of renown, and even the UN said later that: "The latest decade is the warmest on record. So year after year this trend is confirmed, actually it’s being strengthened year after year. Mr Jarraud says these new statistics should silence those who don’t believe that greenhouse gases are changing the world’s climate. " Unless you can produce a cite that has a member of the UN team declaring that it is cooling since 1998, your point has no basis or support from the recognized UN, CRU or NASA experts. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I didn’t cite that source for its conclusions; I cited it for its facts. [sniping the insulting - I met the expectations of looking at information like a racist would do - point from Waldo] Sorry, this is your opinion, the facts are that they compared 1998, 2005 and 2010 to make the point that they were the warmest on record. Making the decade the warmest on record, making the trend a warming one since the time the sun and other forcings became overwhelmed by the CO2 man-made one. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I acknowledged it as surely as you acknowledged that (a) what you’re now calling a “humor him” bet had already come to pass, and (b) wasn’t a good enough falsification criterion for scientists – which is why I’ve since been asking what _ **would** _ be good enough. (a) is once again baseless, (b) as the early canard of “it has not significantly warmed since 1995” was a failure, the trend that many critics of the deniers see is that the years will be moved with the only goal to continue to confuse people. And you are demonstrating that. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > You do half of the work by saying you’ve now learned more and it’s not that simple – and then drop the second half by refusing to say what less-simple solution will suffice. You explain that it’s silly to demand the theory be affected by X, and then refuse to spell out a Y. > > So give the complex answer. > > When you say X ain’t enough and refuse to explain what Y would suffice, you’re not debating at all. What everyone can see is that you ignored post #179, what is more damming, is that you then proceded to claim on the next post that I was not giving any… by removing this from the quote you made of me on your post 191: "[http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/...lar-variation/](http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/...lar-variation/) (Monkton makes the same basic point here in 2010 that there is cooling by declaring there has been cooling on the last 8 years on)" It is very easy to claim that I offered no long explanation of why your point is silly when you cut the link and the quote from your post. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2011, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/216 "2011-08-31T03:00:52Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Now 1998 was an unusually warm year. As such, its record may not be surpassed for some time, even if we’re in a long-term warming trend. Surely that’s not hard to understand – even without experience in studying noisy signals, one can understand this by looking at a graph with intuition and an open mind. Given this fact, the phrasing "global temperature in '99 was cooler than '98 – and so was '00, and so was '01, and so was '02, and so was '03, and so was '04, and so was '06, and so was '07, and so was '08, and so was '09 " seems peculiarly pedantic and anti-intellectual. Indeed, even a few years ago independent statisticians looked at the data and declared that there is no truth to the claim that there was been cooling. > [@](#): > > (AP) Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard about it from a provocative new book. > > Only one problem: It’s not true, according to an analysis of the numbers done by several independent statisticians for The Associated Press. > > The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It’s been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather’s normal ups and downs? > > In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time. > > “If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect,” said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina. > [@](#): > > The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA’s climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend. > > “The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record,” said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. “Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming.” > > The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA’s year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. > > Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880. > > **Saying there’s a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.** > [@](#): > > “To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous,” said Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2011, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/217 "2011-08-31T03:21:04Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > It was cited poorly, nowhere do they said it was cooling, they compared 1998, 2005 and 2010 to make the point that the temperature for the decade remains the highest on record. Let me get this straight: you read the part where those three years were ranked together as _ **warmest** _ by dint of all being within the statistically insignificant margin of uncertainty, and you’re genuinely incapable of realizing that by definition every other year in question is _ **cooler,** _ by a margin that by definition _ **is** _ statistically significant? That’s just – strange. > [@](#): > > Unless you can produce a cite that has a member of the UN team declaring that it is cooling since 1998, your point has no basis or support from the recognized UN, CRU or NASA experts. If you can’t read it right, I can’t help you. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I acknowledged it as surely as you acknowledged that (a) what you’re now calling a “humor him” bet had already come to pass, and (b) wasn’t a good enough falsification criterion for scientists – which is why I’ve since been asking what would be good enough. > > (a) is once again baseless, How is (a) baseless? Here’s the quote: “As I said many times before what it counts is what scientists said. What I said was just a ‘humor him’ ‘bet’”. > [@](#): > > (b) as the early canard of “it has not significantly warmed since 1995” was a failure, the trend that many critics of the deniers see is that the years will be moved with the only goal to continue to confuse people. And you are demonstrating that. You’re perfectly demonstrating a one-man trend by refusing to name a falsification criterion that would be good enough for scientists. I keep referring to '98 for the simple reason that no statistically significant warming has taken place as a matter of global temperature since that date, but would _ **immediately** _ supply a different argument if you were capable of supplying a replacement falsification criterion. > [@](#): > > It remains a cherry picked date, made to confuse people It’s cherry-picked because global temperature hasn’t increased since that date. Ask me how long I’ve been married and I’ll refer you back to the date I got married: not three years before, not two years after, but right when I stopped being single. Ask me how long we’ve had a woman on the Supreme Court and I’ll do likewise. And, again, give me a better criterion and I’ll use it instead. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > You do half of the work by saying you’ve now learned more and it’s not that simple – and then drop the second half by refusing to say what less-simple solution will suffice. You explain that it’s silly to demand the theory be affected by X, and then refuse to spell out a Y. > > > > So give the complex answer. > > > > When you say X ain’t enough and refuse to explain what Y would suffice, you’re not debating at all. > > What everyone can see is that you ignored post #179, what is more damming, is that you then proceded to claim on the next post that I was not giving any… by removing this from the quote you made of me on your post 191: > > "[http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/...lar-variation/](http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/...lar-variation/) > > (Monkton makes the same basic point here in 2010 that there is cooling by declaring there has been cooling on the last 8 years on)" > > It is very easy to claim that I offered no long explanation of why your point is silly when you cut the link and the quote from your post. I didn’t claim you offered no such explanation. I claimed then, and claim now, that you’re not supplying a falsification criterion that suffices. The link and the quote don’t offer such a falsification criterion, and I have no idea why you’re acting like I cut 'em so as to claim you didn’t offer an explanation; I cut 'em because they _ **didn’t offer that criterion.** _ You just now copy-and-pasted me requesting that falsification criterion in four different ways only to act like I’d requested something else altogether. Again: if you can’t read it right, I can’t help you. For, with any luck, the last time: _ **what falsification criterion would be good enough?** _ ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2011, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/218 "2011-08-31T04:03:43Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Let me get this straight: you read the part where those three years were ranked together as _ **warmest** _ by dint of all being within the statistically insignificant margin of uncertainty, and you’re genuinely incapable of realizing that by definition every other year in question is _ **cooler,** _ by a margin that by definition _ **is** _ statistically significant? > > That’s just – strange. Cite for them being cooler by a statistically significant margin? Of course you just put yourself against the wall since you are ignoring the years before 1998. So it is strange to say what you say here. I don’t think you have any good site to support what you just said here. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > If you can’t read it right, I can’t help you. Yeah, we know you can not find any, yet I can find many of the makers of the report saying unequivocally that it is warming and nowhere saying that it is cooling, unless it is to put down the deniers, and even statisticians are telling you that it is a very misleading point to make. BTW I did miss the link to the cite on my previous post to the statisticians telling you that: [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/26/tech/main5423035.shtml](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/26/tech/main5423035.shtml) > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > How is (a) baseless? Here’s the quote: “As I said many times before what it counts is what scientists said. What I said was just a ‘humor him’ ‘bet’”. And I stand by that, there is a lot that I have learned, but if you want to still use that bet be my guest. (Making once again your (a) point baseless, hey I’m easy!). After all it is clear that I have said that my opinions do not amount to much as I defer to the information coming from the scientists and experts. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > You’re perfectly demonstrating a one-man trend by refusing to name a falsification criterion that would be good enough for scientists. I keep referring to '98 for the simple reason that no statistically significant warming has taken place as a matter of global temperature since that date, but would _ **immediately** _ supply a different argument if you were capable of supplying a replacement falsification criterion. Your point was based on misleading information from denier sites, this is because not even the word cooling appears in the UN report. The only way you got that was from the misinformation made by Carter and others. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > It’s cherry-picked because global temperature hasn’t increased since that date. Ask me how long I’ve been married and I’ll refer you back to the date I got married: not three years before, not two years after, but right when I stopped being single. Ask me how long we’ve had a woman on the Supreme Court and I’ll do likewise. And, again, give me a better criterion and I’ll use it instead. > [@](#): > > Saying there’s a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I didn’t claim you offered no such explanation. I claimed then, and claim now, that you’re not supplying a falsification criterion that suffices. The link and the quote don’t offer such a falsification criterion, and I have no idea why you’re acting like I cut 'em so as to claim you didn’t offer an explanation; I cut 'em because they _ **didn’t offer that criterion.** _ You just now copy-and-pasted me requesting that falsification criterion in four different ways only to act like I’d requested something else altogether. > > Again: if you can’t read it right, I can’t help you. > > For, with any luck, the last time: _ **what falsification criterion would be good enough?** _ The point was the graph, when one removes the human influences, the natural forcings then should be making an overall temperature that is about .6 C less than the current temperatures. It is not only time what is needed to dismiss the theory, the cooling that should had been observed needed to be more dramatic than your imagined cooling. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2011, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/219 "2011-08-31T04:29:10Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Cite for them being cooler by a statistically significant margin? Good heavens, man: the cite spelled out that '98 and '05 and '10 were _ **warmer** _ than the rest of 'em, right? Which means the rest of 'em were _ **cooler?** _ And that '98 and '05 and '10 were ranked together by dint of falling within the same statistically insignificant margin, which means the others _ **aren’t** _ within that statistically insignificant margin? Is this really too difficult for you? > [@](#): > > Yeah, we know you can not find any Just keep telling yourself that. Do you at least realize the cite specifies which three are warmer than the rest, even if you can’t thereby deduce that the rest are cooler than those three? Do you at least realize that three were lumped together because they’re statistically indistinguishable, even if you can’t thereby deduce why the rest weren’t likewise lumped in with 'em? > [@](#): > > Your point was based on misleading information from denier sites, this is because not even the word cooling appears in the UN report. The only way you got that was from the misinformation made by Carter and others. That’s absurd. Even leaving aside whether I got “cooling” by merely noting what the opposite of “warming” is, the cite you just posted in #216 is a fine middleman that cuts out the need for a “denier site” to learn the word: _The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It’s been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005._ > [@](#): > > And I stand by that, there is a lot that I have learned, but if you want to still use that bet be my guest. (Making once again your (a) point baseless, hey I’m easy!). After all it is clear that I have said that my opinions do not amount to much as I defer to the information coming from the scientists and experts. I don’t merely want you to defer to the _ **information** _ coming from the scientists and experts. I want you to defer to the _ **falsification criteria** _ coming from the scientists and experts. If you’ve learned a lot since placing the “bet” such that you think a different falsification criterion would be appropriate, then name it; if you don’t, I’ll then – and only then – want to still use your prior “bet” as my sole guidepost. > [@](#): > > The point was the graph, when one removes the human influences, the natural forcings then should be making an overall temperature that is about .6 C less than the current temperatures. It is not only time what is needed to dismiss the theory, the cooling that should had been observed needed to be more dramatic than your imagined cooling. I’m asking you what hypothetical evidence could falsify it, and you’re replying that it hasn’t yet been falsified by the evidence. Those are opposite sides of different coins. Don’t explain why current data isn’t good enough to falsify it; tell me what future data would be good enough to falsify it. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2011, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/220 "2011-08-31T04:53:54Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Good heavens, man: the cite spelled out that '98 and '05 and '10 were _ **warmer** _ than the rest of 'em, right? Which means the rest of 'em were _ **cooler?** _ And that '98 and '05 and '10 were ranked together by dint of falling within the same statistically insignificant margin, which means the others _ **aren’t** _ within that statistically insignificant margin? > > Is this really too difficult for you? As the statisticians said, that does not fly, so yeah, you need a cite that does say that it was sadistically significant. Otherwise you indeed have no support whatsoever. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Just keep telling yourself that. Do you at least realize the cite specifies which three are warmer than the rest, even if you can’t thereby deduce that the rest are cooler than those three? Do you at least realize that three were lumped together because they’re statistically indistinguishable, even if you can’t thereby deduce why the rest weren’t likewise lumped in with 'em? Cites for your opinion here having any support whatsoever. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > That’s absurd. Even leaving aside whether I got “cooling” by merely noting what the opposite of “warming” is, the cite you just posted in #216 is a fine middleman that cuts out the need for a “denier site” to learn the word: _The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It’s been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005._ And of course you need to cut the quote there because it continues saying that: > [@](#): > > … So is this a longer climate trend or just weather’s normal ups and downs? > > In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time. So now we now why the word “might” was there, it was to make the setup that it might not, and they made clear that it was not. (You really need to look at the definition of rhetorical) > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I don’t merely want you to defer to the _ **information** _ coming from the scientists and experts. I want you to defer to the _ **falsification criteria** _ coming from the scientists and experts. If you’ve learned a lot since placing the “bet” such that you think a different falsification criterion would be appropriate, then name it; if you don’t, I’ll then – and only then – want to still use your prior “bet” as my sole guidepost. Suit yourself, as a new resident of nowhere land I don’t need to worry. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I’m asking you what hypothetical evidence could falsify it, and you’re replying that it hasn’t yet been falsified by the evidence. Those are opposite sides of different coins. Don’t explain why current data isn’t good enough to falsify it; tell me what future data would be good enough to falsify it. Moot point as you still do not have any support whatsoever for your complaint. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724.md?page=12)