The global warming hockey stick is bad science

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.