A Few Things Ill Considered

A layman's take on the science of Global Warming featuring a guide on How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

send this to... Digg it! | Technorati | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Furl | Spurl

The Turn of the Tide?

From Steve Milloy at JunkScience.com:
The State of California has filed a request in federal court to force auto makers to disclose all documents and communications between the companies and the so-called “climate skeptics.” California accuses the climate skeptics of playing a “major role in spreading disinformation about global warming.”

The "sceptics"under the gun?
In a pre-trial discovery motion, California and the environmental groups asked for:

All DOCUMENTS relating to both GLOBAL WARMING and to any of the following individuals: S. Fred Singer, James Glassman, David Legates, Richard Lindzen, Patrick J. Michaels, Thomas Gale Moore, Robert C. Balling, Jr., Sherwood B. Idso, Craig D. Idso, Keith E. Idso, Sallie Baliunas, Paul Reiter, Chris Homer [sic], Ross McKitrick, Julian Morris, Frederick Seitz, Willie Soon, and Steven Milloy, including but not limited to:

All DOCUMENTS relating to any communications between YOU and these individuals, and All DOCUMENTS relating to YOUR relationship (or the relationship of any automobile manufacturer or association of automobile manufacturers) with any of them, including but not limited to payments directly or indirectly from YOU or any other automobile manufacturer or association of automobile manufacturer to any of them.


Apparently some of the credit for this action goes to Ross Gelbspan and his book "The Heat is On".

I can't wait to see if those voices claiming Michael Mann should have been happy for the chance to defend himself from a witch-hunting congress will present the same view in this case.

Labels:

53 Comments:

  • At August 02, 2006 1:37 AM, Anonymous Steve Bloom said…

    Hmm, there seem to be a few names missing from that list, e.g. Roy Spencer, Bill Gray, Myron Ebell, Steve McIntyre. Can we infer that something is already known (or strongly suspected) about links between the automobole manufacturers and the particular set of folks named?

     
  • At August 02, 2006 2:59 AM, Blogger coby said…

    Not an unreasonable notion, Steve. This should be an interesting saga...

     
  • At August 02, 2006 12:12 PM, Blogger Dano said…

    Maybe we can get a Wegman report-type network analysis on this group.

    Best,

    D

     
  • At August 03, 2006 4:56 AM, Blogger Co2emissions said…

    *sings* Oh happy daaaaaaay!

    Let's hope it brings interesting results.

    btw (may not be off-topic) have you heard of these papers?:

    Ecological Modelling 171 (2004)
    Climate change: detection and attribution of trends from long-term geologic data
    Craig Loehle

    Mathematical Geology, Vol. 37, No. 2, February 2005
    Estimating Climatic Timeseries From Multi-Site Data Afflicted With Dating Error
    Craig Loehle

    Both peer-reviewed papers attempting to improve long time series temperature data analyses. May be of interest.

     
  • At August 12, 2006 7:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    An expose in the Globe and Mail about the "denialist" industry in Canada:

    http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html

    -Stephen Berg

     
  • At August 14, 2006 10:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    California is in a desperate legal attempt to silence and or smear any individual who does not adhere to their PC views. Legally, this request is a sham and a grotesque violation of the spirit, and the law of free speech.

    Free speech is not "disinformation"
    California, and judges will most certainly put an end to this blatant nonsense.

    Unless these demonized "skeptics" are charged with a crime, California doesn't have any legal legs to stand on.

    Paul G.

     
  • At August 15, 2006 9:16 AM, Blogger Heiko said…

    http://energyoutlook.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_energyoutlook_archive.html

    A discussion of the case, you'll find a comment by me too.

     
  • At August 17, 2006 10:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Paul G., you're such a hypocrite! Regarding this:

    "Unless these demonized "skeptics" are charged with a crime, California doesn't have any legal legs to stand on."

    Where the heck is your criticism of Barton and Inhofe, as well as other US Federal Government officials who basically called for the Inquisition all over again with respect to those who contributed to the "Hockey Stick" study?

    You can't suck and blow at the same time!

    -Stephen Berg

     
  • At August 17, 2006 6:23 PM, Blogger EliRabett said…

    I would refer Paul G to the tobacco litigation which tossed up a bunch of interesting information on his heros.

     
  • At August 17, 2006 9:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    That link was broke, try this one.

     
  • At August 18, 2006 1:07 AM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    As mentioned, California Power Policy is in a shambles, power generation is below requirements leading to dangerous blackouts and the few are trying a 'cover up'. Movies and Novels are NOT valid manifestos of public policy, nor a 'step' into Public Office and Mr Gore should take more notice of what is REAL, this is the 'inconvenient truth'...

    The 'process' of 'greenhouse warming' hasn't even the involved materials behaviour to support it, so the existence of 'warming opinion' is NOT linked to the reality within the environment. Climate has been 'warming' for the last 20,000 years and will continue to do so for some centuries longer with this process unaffected in any INDICATED & DIRECT manner by Human activity. It is also Common Knowledge, and thus commonly known, that there have been ~60 glacial advances within the last ~3 Million year 'Climate Period', outlined in part at http://hartlod.blogspot.com/ in the article 'Glaciers Reborn'.

    As for a supposed 'greenhouse warming', there is still needing to be shown a validly produced THEORY (opinion is NOT such a validation) for the production of the supposed 'greenhouse effect', made with actual attention to the materials involved and their ACTUAL and REAL properties. The Photons present within the Atmosphere are NOT produced within any process related to the 'temperature' of the materials presenting them and thus 'proxy concepts' also are invalid. Turbulent processes will alter residual Kinetic Energy within a System, this residual is presented within measures of Temperature and so 'observations' show short term fluctuations of 'temperature' un-associated to alteration of total Kinetic Energy induction.

    The POLITICAL play is attempting to AVOID notice of the inability of 'greenhouse theory' to describe the Real World whilst 'hiding' behind 'scenario creation', 'proxy fabrication' and 'movie/book' presentations. The vast majority regard "climate science" as more involved with the over-play of 'theatrics' and the overdone attempt to 'appear scientific' with a 'moral backbone'.

    Also, from museum.state.il.us :-
    [" If "ice age" is used to refer to long, generally cool, intervals during which glaciers advance and retreat, we are still in one today. Our modern climate represents a very short, warm period between glacial advances. "]

    Climate change is natural, with irregular progression, the LIE is in the attempts to overlay 'greenhouse opinion' and label such as 'science'. The PUBLIC will not listen to the 'environmental lie' being platformed in Movies/Novels. It is very easy to understand if one steps away from the 'greenhouse wagon' and looks back at that 'vehicle', it remains a POLITICAL platform where 'advocates in white coats' are STILL advocates.

    Your's,
    Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
    http://hartlod.blogspot.com/

     
  • At August 19, 2006 12:03 AM, Blogger caerbannog666 said…

    Regarding the criticisms of Mann and his "hockey-stick", here is an admittedly mathematically sloppy summary of the main issue with respect to Mann's work:

    The principal criticism of Mann's work focused on his method of centering the data prior to computing the singular-value decomposition (to obtain the principal components). Mann's critics claimed that they could easily obtain "hockey-stick" shaped leading principal components from data that consisted of nothing more than random noise if they used Mann's data-centering method. This is the basis of their claim that Mann's "hockey-stick" was just an artifact of his data-processing methodology, and was not actually present in the raw data.

    That claim that Mann's data centering convention could favor "hockey-stick" shapes actually true. Using Mann's data-centering method, band-limited ("red") noise often *will* produce a hockey-stick-shaped leading principal component.

    But what Mann's critics have ignored is that the shape of the leading principal component (PC) is not the only important factor. You must also look at the *magnitude* of the singular value (SV) associated with the leading principal component (in non-mathematical layman's terms, the "importance" of the leading PC).

    In sloppy non-mathematician-speak, the leading principal component itself can be considered equivalent to the "shape" of the data it represents, while its associated singular value specifies the "magnitude" (or significance, or importance) of that principal component. So a "hockey-stick" principal component with a large SV could be considered to be equivalent to a "big" hockey-stick. A "hockey stick" PC with a small associated SV would be considered equivalent to a "little" hockey stick.

    With Mann's "hockey-stick" data, the magnitude of the singular value associated with the leading PC was much greater than the magnitudes of the SV's associated with all the remaining PC's. IOW, Mann's hockey-stick was "big". However, the magnitudes of the singular values associated with "hockey-stick-shaped" leading PC's generated from random noise by Mann's critics were an order of magnitude or so less than Mann's leading PC singular value magnitudes. IOW, the "hockey-sticks" generated from random noise by Mann's critics were "little".

    So Mann's critics were actually comparing Mann's ("big") orange to their own "little" apples.

    The singular value (SV) magnitudes determine how "important" their associated principal components are with regard to data reconstructions. Large SV magnitudes mean that their associated PC's are significant. Small SV's mean that the associated PC's aren't significant (and can often be ignored in subsequent reconstructions). What Mann's critics have done is to generate "insignificant" hockey-sticks and claim that they are equivalent to Mann's "significant" hockey-stick. It's a completely bogus argument.

    To see what I mean, check out http://tinyurl.com/n8g6g, which points to a PDF copy of the "Wegman report" that contains this bogus hockey-stick criticism.

    In particular, look at the upper plot in figure 4.3. That is a plot of Mann's original "hockey stick". Make a mental note of the Y-axis range (-6 to +2 standard deviation units). Now look at figure 4.4, which contains an ensemble of "hockey-stick-shaped" leading principal components that Mann's critics generated from random noise.

    They look pretty similar to Mann's hockey-stick, don't they? They look like they do a pretty damning take-down of Mann's "hockey-stick", don't they? But take a closer look at the Y-axis scales. The random-noise "hockey-sticks" have a dynamic range something like two orders of magnitudes less than Mann's hockey-stick (something like 0.08-0.1 SD units instead of the 8 SD units for Mann's hockey stick).

    IOW, Mann's critics generated hockey-sticks about one hundred times smaller than Mann's hockey stick and tried to claim that they were equivalent to Mann's results! That is, they were trying to argue that 1 = 100!

    A stunt like that, unfortunately, works quite well when your audience consists of nothing but stupid Republican conservatives.

    August 18, 2006 11:04 PM
    ~
    "mann-hockey-stick-and-red-noise-hockey-stick.txt" 23

     
  • At August 19, 2006 8:34 AM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    It is noted still the political references made to 'place to sides' those 'scrutinising'. This is exactly the largest problem with 'climate opinion', it is bound in Politics and not SCIENCE. The actual issue with the 'hockey stick' is NOT in the 'mathematics' at all, that the 'mathematics' is the centre of rhetorical 'debate' is only as the 'sides' are ALL in the 'greenhouse wagon' and the 'theatre' is playing in sand at 'moving the line'.

    The real issue is that the effort to produce 'suitable data' left the 'experiment compromised, dropping data is not at all 'arbitrary' and it is that in an irregularly periodic process that is Natural Climate Oscillation there is NOT any 'bad points' unless the COLLECTION METHOD can be shown flawed as a minimum 'initial problem'. As such the effort to produce a smooth 'curve', demonstrative of a 'predetermined outlook', is WHY the 'hockey stick' is actually not needing notice, let alone the entire 'theatre' that reoccurs (in the SAME manner) every few years. It is an internal 'discursive pantomime' generally played out when pressure is being made upon the 'platform', almost as a physiological reaction to attempt 'confusion and obscuration'.

    That is possibly the POLITICAL background of the 'greenhouse platform' showing itself in its 'reactions' to scrutiny, but it is NOT 'science'. The 'greenhouse effect' is unable to be produced in reality as even the materials it involves do NOT support behavior as outlined BY the 'greenhouse theory'. Thus the 'greenhouse effect' is ONLY a 'production of opinion'. When the majority observe the 'greenhouse-wagon' theatre teetering along as it is, that small group 'aboard' persistently 'stops', disembarks, draws a 'line in the sand' and argues over where it should then be moved. That 'group' does this, reboards then continues to the next 'discussion stop' in an ongoing 'public theatre' with 'sides' of the 'discussion' filled from the 'passenger list' at each stop..

    Climate change is natural, with irregular progression, this is readily noticed from many sources and is common knowledge. The LIE is in the attempts to overlay the Natural progression with a 'greenhouse opinion' then attempt to 'label' such as 'science' and the ADVOCATES as 'scientists'. The PUBLIC is tiring of listening to the 'environmentalist propaganda' being platformed in various Movies/Novels, it IS near two decades 'old' now.

    This growing disinterest is being mirrored in the Political Arena which follows Public Interest trends. It is very easy to understand WHY the obvious censorship and monologous 'debating' is NOT aiding in production of needed remediation of actual problems, as if one steps away from the 'greenhouse wagon' and looks back at that 'vehicle', it remains a POLITICAL platform where 'advocates in white coats' are STILL advocates. This is itself a more important issue than the supposed 'greenhouse platform', as this 'Public Dissatisfaction' is producing within the PUBLIC ARENA an attitude that there is NOT any 'honest truth' expressed BY the 'environmental movement' and THIS is being seen in rather complacent attitudes to WHALING Policy on the International stage, as example and the need for various 'green lobbies' to 'market themselves to solicit donations.

    On top of this, the Public Policy 'creations' for Power Generation in 'California' are leading to under-generation as the 'alternative' promises 'fail to deliver'. The effort to AVOID scrutiny of this is ALSO apart of the 'theatre' yet the BLACKOUTS are now mentioned in News 'Lampoon/Comic' shows seen in International Media. Similar Policy is leading to a similar situation here in NSW (Australia), so scrutiny IS inescapable, as here in NSW the effort has been to streamline remuneration of compensation for 'blackout damage claims' with an effort to LIMIT the 'easy payout'. Thus 'blackouts' are (un)officially expected..

    At what point will the 'greenhouse platformers' realise that there is too much to hide by their reprised efforts? So the question I would ask 'caerbannog666' is WHY that identity even thinks that rehashing the SAME points that reoccur every few years is of ANY interest or assistance to the ENVIRONMENT when the "rhetoric is replaying'? There is NOT yet shown a VALID reason to even think there IS unnatural climate change, so why SHOULD the 'public' be at all interested, which is what is DRIVING the growing disinterest AND scrutiny of 'greenhouse politic opinion', in turn which has produced AGAIN the 'hockey stick debate' response form the 'greenhouse advocates'.

    In short, the 'hockey sticks' problems begin much before the 'mathematics' needs even be considered and it is the 'platform efforts' made to avoid this being noticed that is most obvious.

    Your's,
    Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
    http://hartlod.blogspot.com/

     
  • At August 20, 2006 4:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Wow thanks for the informative post Caerbannog666.

    I'll save that link

    -sam

     
  • At August 21, 2006 4:26 PM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    Anonymous 'Sam', what information did you perceive in the post from anonymous 'Caerbannog666'?
    There is nothing 'new' in the post from 'Caerbannog666' nor anything that could be 'informative'. There is not even reason to suppose that anonymous 'Sam' and 'Caerbannog666' are different individuals even...
    Which is the most basic point with the present attempts to 'pretend support' for the 'greenhouse platform' and also attempt to avoid SCIENCE by pretence of some supposed 'consensus' which is only platformed by 'anonymous internet identities' and very, very few proven unique and identifiably REAL people.
    Which brings us all back to my previous post...
    The 'greenhouse theory/effect' is unable to be produced and there is not any 'wide acknowledgement' of 'greenhouse climate control' unless you only look at the 'greenhouse-wagon' theatre teetering along as it is. It is infact Geoff that the 'opposition' you mention is only within a small group that draw a 'line in the sand' and argue over where it should then be moved. There is not either any need for 'astrophysicists' at all to 'come together' Geoff, consensus is NOT validation in SCIENCE. You simply need to LOOK at those planets in this Solar System that support life, which do not, the conditions on those planets and which have Dipoles. SCIENCE infact Geoff never ACCEPTED the 'greenhouse theory' or supposed 'effect' and it has ALWAYS been playing into POLITICAL platforming Geoff. So it is NOT needing 'competition' to permit 'greenhouse science' to be totally ignored even, it is built on opinion disassociated even from the known materials actual properties and misuses Energy to present a 'temperature' of the surrounding molecules.

    The problem (basically) is that those Photons that 'IrR energy') are NOT being produced due to any 'temperature' of the surrounding molecules and so aren't representative of 'blackbody' radiation. Infact the energy contained in the cascade of Photons existing within the bounds of the atmosphere presents that non-Kinetic Energy released from those materials after an initial (Quantum Photonic) interaction. These Photons have a separate existence to the molecules about them & don't present any indication of the Kinetic Energy (KE) of those surrounding molecules, whose KE is presented as the VELOCITY of the molecular unit and is measured in style as 'Temperature' (or as Pressure also). Infact the Energy of the Photons within the Cascade is that Energy NOT involved in any induction of KE, yet it is THIS energy that 'greenhouse science' attempts to cite as 'temperature' when using CO2 as a temperature proxy, and this methodology invalidates ALL other supposed 'greenhouse proxies' also.

    There is NOT any 'forcing factor' or valid theory even but to fit within the 3,000 character limit I would direct you to http://hartlod.blogspot.com/ for further outline.
    (Sorry about one of the 'comment strings' but a level of 'private mail' is being made that I think can be best dealt with by Public display and reply.)
    Climate change is natural, with irregular progression, the LIE is in the attempts to overlay 'greenhouse opinion' and label such as 'science'. The PUBLIC will not listen to the 'environmental lie' being platformed in Movies/Novels. It is very easy to understand if one steps away from the 'greenhouse wagon' and looks back at that 'vehicle', it remains a POLITICAL platform where 'advocates in white coats' are STILL advocates.

    Your's,
    Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com

     
  • At August 22, 2006 9:53 AM, Blogger caerbannog666 said…


    Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm) said...

    Anonymous 'Sam', what information did you perceive in the post from anonymous 'Caerbannog666'?

    (mucho rantings deleted....)




    Well, it's pretty clear that Mr. Anderson is a couple of eigenvectors short of a full-rank matrix!

     
  • At August 22, 2006 4:19 PM, Blogger Dano said…

    Bunny:

    Well, it's pretty clear that Mr. Anderson is a couple of eigenvectors short of a full-rank matrix!

    Come now. Using all caps is that indicator that your assertion is premature. Look closely at the caps. The caps negate any sort of inclusion in a network, so the comment is unbiased.

    Best,

    D

     
  • At August 22, 2006 4:39 PM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    So the 'answer' to my question 'caerbannog666', that question being:-
    ["Anonymous 'Sam', what information did you perceive in the post from anonymous 'Caerbannog666'?"]
    -:is infact none.
    This 'factoid' ("a single fact; a small and often [un]important bit of information") is derived from the concerted attempt to again attack the questioner, as seen in and produced within the 'response' from 'Caerbannog666'.

    There is the real situation that the 'green(house) minority' has diminishing Public interest due its incessant platforming of non-SCIENCE and the attachment of equally vapid demands for 'Wind Power' to replace Gas and Coal (which in REALITY is only creating the growing need and thus INTEREST in Uranium Fuelled power generation for wide spread use) and other platforming from 'alternate lobby interests'.
    One would need to be filled with 'belief and opinion' to even consider that 'greenhouse gases' have ANY part to play in a supposed 'warming', the GREENHOUSE THEORY is incapable of producing ANY real process in the REAL world with the real materials it involves. The 'greenhouse theory/effect' is unable to be produced so next let's look at the supposed 'wide acknowledgement of greenhouse climate control'.

    When 'you' can only 'look out' from the 'greenhouse-wagon' theatre (as it is teetering along) 'you miss' that the 'wide consensus' so often mentioned for 'greenhouse issues' is ONLY within the 'wagon theatre players'. That small group is only drawing a 'line in the sand' to then argue over as to 'where it should then be moved', and think that if this is done enough 'with gusto' then the PAUCITY within what 'the players' opinion will be less noticed.

    It is NOT needing even a 'competing theory' to permit 'greenhouse science' to be totally ignored even, it is built on opinion disassociated even from the known materials actual properties and misuses Energy to present a 'temperature' of the surrounding molecules. Basically the issue is that those Photons (that oft mentioned 'trapped IrR energy') is NOT being produced due to any 'temperature' of the surrounding molecules, so isn't representative of 'blackbody' radiation.

    The energy contained in the cascade of Photons existing within the bounds of the atmosphere presents that non-Kinetic Energy released from those materials after an initial (Quantum Photonic) interaction. These Photons have a separate existence to the molecules about them & don't present any indication of the Kinetic Energy (KE) of those surrounding molecules, whose KE is presented as the VELOCITY of the molecular unit and is measured in style as 'Temperature' (or as Pressure also). Infact the Energy of the Photons within the Cascade is that Energy NOT involved in any induction of KE, yet it is THIS energy that 'greenhouse science' attempts to cite as 'temperature' when using CO2 as a temperature proxy, and this methodology invalidates ALL other supposed 'greenhouse proxies' also.

    I would direct you to http://hartlod.blogspot.com/ for further outline. Climate change is natural, with irregular progression, the LIE is in the attempts to overlay 'greenhouse opinion' and label such as 'science'. The PUBLIC is not listen to the 'environmental lie', now having been platformed in Movies/Novels and also into the SECOND decade of such non-science.

    It is very easy to understand if one steps away from the 'greenhouse wagon' and looks back at that 'vehicle', it remains a POLITICAL platform where 'advocates in white coats' are STILL advocates. It is simply that there is not any REAL reason to worry a over non-existent, non-actual, non-possible 'GREENHOUSE effect' induced 'climate change', as is the 'short answer'...and with the additional 'appendix' that those 'alternate' sources (so often mentioned) of 'electricity generation' also only work 'in opinion' and do NOT present REAL alternatives to Gas and Coal (as of NOW). OPINION will NOT produce electricity NOR will it alter 'climate' and WE are tired of listening to 'greenhouse opinion', especially as it IS leading to wide spread use of Uranium fuel.

    Also, 'email addresses' are NOT validly used for 'real identification' unless that 'internet label' can be attached to an ISP account with 'bricks and mortar' account details whilst an 'alias' is ONLY ever just an alias, unless it also can be verified validly to 'bricks and mortar' details...

    Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm) <<=
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com <<==
    http://hartlod.blogspot.com/

     
  • At August 22, 2006 4:58 PM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    Anonymous 'Dano', the (repeated) inane and vapid attempt(s) to again produce criticism based solely on use of CAPS marks 'you' as being 'juvenile in attitude', as it has been repeatedly detailed that I post in PLAIN text.
    Also repeatedly detailed is that the use of CAPS is for emphasise, as some might use BOLD or ITALICS 'styles'. This is as not ALL the devices I use support full HTML or 'textual styles' within the editor (my MOBILE PHONE, as example).

    Perhaps 'Dano' you should spend more time looking into the REALITIES beneath the situations you 'opinion' on, and less attempting puerile attack on REAL people. To give the details AGAIN and produce a cessation in the blatant LIE production from a small number of propagandists, search (with a guest login) within:-
    http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/atmoss/falcon.application_start
    -: on the word ' Hartlod ' or use the TRADE MARK NUMBER, that being 955863. You can then take the address details from my registered TRADE MARK and place those into the Australian White Pages:-
    http://www.whitepages.com.au/wp/initResSearch.do?subscriberName=&state=&suburb=&street=
    -: and verify Name/Address details AND get my phone CONTACTS.

    This IS sufficient REAL identification for many Institutions, and is thus MORE than enough for 'you' 'jag', when it IS noticed that I DO use my REAL ISP (Telstra Bigpond) account email contacts. Perhaps if 'you all' searched in the CORRECT MANNER in the CORRECT PLACES with the CORRECT DETAILS ...and less 'opinion' as to what 'is correct'.

    Your's,
    Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm) <<==
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com <<==

     
  • At August 22, 2006 6:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    ==-Stephen Berg said:===========

    Paul G., you're such a hypocrite! Regarding this:

    "Unless these demonized "skeptics" are charged with a crime, California doesn't have any legal legs to stand on."

    Where the heck is your criticism of Barton and Inhofe, as well as other US Federal Government officials who basically called for the Inquisition all over again with respect to those who contributed to the "Hockey Stick" study?

    You can't suck and blow at the same time!
    ===================================

    The hypocrisy lies on your side Stephen. You change the subject when the dishonest (and likely illegal) tactics of some California environmentalists is brought to light.

    As for the Hockey Stick, it was finally properly peer reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences and found wanting. They chopped six hundred years off that ole Hockey Stick. That's not an "Inquisition", that's proper scientific review.

    - Paul G.

     
  • At August 22, 2006 8:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Re: "The hypocrisy lies on your side Stephen. You change the subject when the dishonest (and likely illegal) tactics of some California environmentalists is brought to light."

    Bulls***! If these tactics are "dishonest (and likely illegal)", then the tactics of Inhofe and Barton are the same! How on Earth can you say one is "dishonest (and likely illegal)" and the other isn't? That is hypocrisy at its highest order!

    As for your whining about the Hockey Stick, you're just upset because you didn't get your way.

    -Stephen Berg

     
  • At August 22, 2006 9:06 PM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    Actually, the compromise was as unsuitable as ever such will be in SCIENCE. The COMMITTEE formed was NOT the actual 'Academy', just a committee and formed from within the 'theatre players'. That small group still only drew a 'line in the sand', then 'argued' over as to 'where it should then be moved', and then altered a 'graph' to much 'Public made fanfare'. This was not either an "Inquisition", nor 'proper scientific review', it is a committee based compromise to attempt the maintenance of PRETENCE of 'science' within the 'greenhouse (science) theatre'.

    As has been mentioned the entire 'hockey stick' debacle is continued ONLY as a 'relax-point' to stem the need to answer REAL questions whilst avoiding those points the 'greenhouse players' would like to keep from notice. The entire method of production of the 'hockey-stick graph' is loaded with obvious predetermination and discussions of SCIENCE in relation to this 'experiment' ceased years ago once the methodology was scrutinised, thus the recurring 'current debate' is ONLY within the 'climate platform' as an attempt to present an 'APPEARANCE of climate-science at work'

    As to California, it is already well known that the Public policy made through Lobby efforts is now leading to insufficient power generation and common, persistent production of Blackout conditions (a step worse than Brown-out' conditions). Similar 'Public Policy is producing similar situations elsewhere. Rhetoric attempting to describe 'recycling' to include ANY reticulated use of water (as example) show how easy 'environmental lobby' is fabricating positions to prop up opinion even when REALITY is not supporting the existence being opinioned. This is EXACTLY the situation facing the 'greenhouse minority' and is exactly the situation the 'NAS Panel' is playing within, attempting to maintain 'policy opinion' when such policy is unattached to remediations of problems existent in REALITY. Now that those 'few hundred years' are 'gone' from the 'stick', one wonders how many MORE 'committee meetings' it will take to 'remove the rest'...

    The 'drop' into the present '3 million year' long period of recurring glaciations was sufficiently 'drastic' to 'reduce' bio-forms that evolved within the previous ~200 Million year 'Primary Peak' climate behavior. A slide at http://hartlod.blogspot.com/ shows the division of Primary Trough and Peak, the Trough outlined in 'green block' within which recurring glaciations occurred. The present 'short warming period', NOW being just after a Glaciation only 20,000 years into reversion, is infact just one of many that have existed tween the ~60 'glaciations' within this present ~3 million year long 'Primary Trough' climate behavior. 'Modern human history' is ONLY "a child's story" from/of the past 20,000 years with the greatest 'adverse effect', that of ~3 million years previous to 'NOW', having as one of it's 'children' that bio-form known now as 'Humanity'.

    It was neither an inquisition or 'scientific review' that 'NAS panel' but a committee looking for a 'scapegoat', the same effort that produces the 'greenhouse platform' with its 'expressed views' of corporate &/or government 'responsibility'. Climate change is natural, with irregular progression, the LIE is in the attempts to overlay 'greenhouse opinion' and label such as 'science'. The PUBLIC has wearied of the 'environmental lie' being platformed in Movies & Novels now into the SECOND decade of lobby-platforming of such non-science and scare-mongering.

    Your's,
    Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com

     
  • At August 22, 2006 11:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    ====-Stephen Berg said:=====

    Bulls***! If these tactics are "dishonest (and likely illegal)", then the tactics of Inhofe and Barton are the same! How on Earth can you say one is "dishonest (and likely illegal)" and the other isn't? That is hypocrisy at its highest order!

    As for your whining about the Hockey Stick, you're just upset because you didn't get your way.
    ===================================

    Let me get this straight.

    You are saying that the tactics of California environmentalists are as sleazy as Inhofe and Barton?

    I made no mention of Inhofe and Barton. You brought it up to deflect from the sleazy legal tactics of the California environmentalists in this case.

    You don't establish credibility by sinking to low ethical standards yourself.

    As for the Hockey Stick, spin it how you like; fact is, the NAS diminished it's credibility significantly.

    Paul G.

     
  • At August 23, 2006 4:23 AM, Blogger Lloyd Flack said…

    Not centering the principal components was a mistake. Fortunately it did not change the results of the analysis much.

    This was mostly because they used a large enough number of principal components to capture most of the variation. I can go into more detail of what I think happened if people are interested.

    What is more serious is the fact that Mann and others have continued to claim that this was a valid alternative analysis rather than a mistake which potentially could have invalidated much of their analysis. To me this looks like ego getting in the way of science.

     
  • At August 23, 2006 3:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    You are saying that the tactics of California environmentalists are as sleazy as Inhofe and Barton?

    I made no mention of Inhofe and Barton. You brought it up to deflect from the sleazy legal tactics of the California environmentalists in this case.

    You don't establish credibility by sinking to low ethical standards yourself.
    ====================================

    Paul G., these courageous Californians are trying their best to actually save the planet for once. Your friends (at least I suspect they're your friends) in the auto and fossil fuel industries are attempting to continue their Earth-destroying activities as is. It was about time that such an inquiry was launched!

    Your Hockey Stick-NAS comment is not true. What the NAS did was validate the latter half of the Hockey Stick, but said, without extra information or evidence, they could not validate the first half of the graph. They never discarded the graph nor called it fatally flawed. Your interpretation (as well as that of McIntyre, McKitrick, and most other "skeptics") of the NAS analysis is what's fatally flawed.

    -Stephen Berg

     
  • At August 23, 2006 7:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    ==Stephen Berg said:==============

    Paul G., these courageous Californians are trying their best to actually save the planet for once. Your friends (at least I suspect they're your friends) in the auto and fossil fuel industries are attempting to continue their Earth-destroying activities as is. It was about time that such an inquiry was launched!
    ===================================

    Paul G. responds:
    My "friends in the auto and fossil fuels industries"? Your suspicions are paranoia, or close to it Stephen.

    You are not asking for an "inquiry", you want an Inquisition against those who hold views diverse and different then your own. Thankfully our legal system has moved past the Dark Ages.

    =================================

    ==Stephen Berg said:==============

    Your Hockey Stick-NAS comment is not true. What the NAS did was validate the latter half of the Hockey Stick, but said, without extra information or evidence, they could not validate the first half of the graph. They never discarded the graph nor called it fatally flawed. Your interpretation (as well as that of McIntyre, McKitrick, and most other "skeptics") of the NAS analysis is what's fatally flawed.
    ===================================

    Paul G. responds:
    I read the NAS report Stephen, I suggest you do the same. Mann said that these times are the hottest in the last 1000 years. The NAS said no, emphatically.

    In the past 400, maybe, but then that means Mann's data only shows that things are warmer then they were during the Little Ice Age. Nothing new in that revelation.

     
  • At August 23, 2006 11:20 PM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    To quote:- ["This was mostly because they used a large enough number of principal components to capture most of the variation."]

    The attempt at 'discussion' seems only to produce 'filler' by 'cut and paste' of 'discussion' from another 'climate blog' and is itself (in the attempt) the best indication of HOW 'the few' abuse anonimity within the Internet so to platform 'nonsense opinionation' as 'scientific discussion' from a supposed' crowd'.

    The 'mistake' of the 'hockey stick production' was NOT 'involving' any 'centring on principle components', nor could such 'capture most of the variation' that was REAL, nor is any other 'science' needing involvement in 'discussion' of any supposed 'error'.

    The PAUCITY in the METHODOLOGY begins with the obvious OPINION that the PRINCIPLE COMPONENTS of the processes within the Natural Climate Oscillation(s) where known, when it was these that where needing to be determined and studied, and this is STILL the case.

    The PREDETERMINATION was in the OPINION that the 'principle components' where 'known' and that 'variation' was even explainable. The production of ongoing 'climate theatre' with regard to the 'hockey stick' is ONLY as it is needing to DEFEND the OPINIONATION of a supposed existence for a 'greenhouse process' to begin with.

    There is not any 'courage' in 'Californian environmentalism'. Just a large effort to SAY there is. The disassociation from REALITY within the 'Californian Environmental movement' is quite well fitted to the usual cliché of 'California'. Where else would ANYONE be opinioning on 'power generation' whilst 'brownouts' are building into 'blackouts', and still try to appear happy with their 'opinion'?

    It is not the NAS whose reputation is diminished, just the endless parade of 'climate committee science' that is slowly showing the PAUCITY in the 'science' it pretends to.

    Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com

     
  • At August 24, 2006 1:58 AM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    Whilst also 'temperature' is being mentioned, realise that the 'temperature' of a System is that Kinetic Energy residual within the materials constituting that System that is NOT directly involved in the production of the processes of Turbulence within that System. Thus, in a system where in the Mass of the materials contained is proportioned in the atmosphere at ~0.0000051x10^24 kilograms & oceans at ~0.0014x10^24 kilograms (*), then it need to be realised that alterations to Turbulence WILL release vast amounts of Kinetic Energy that can then be observed as a RISE or DECLINE in the measured 'temperature' of those (various) materials constituting the System.
    By altering not only the RATE of Kinetic Energy induction across the surface of the System, but WHERE that induction is produced also (especially in 'naturally incorrect' locations), that the DIFFERENTIALS of pressure/temperature produced are INCREASING the overall Turbulence with the System (especially within the 'gas' that is the Atmosphere) and this has been (and will continue to be) producing 'short term' fluctuations in median Temperature measures with the System. This has been escalating in observed effect over the past 400 years, particularly within the last 100 as this effect is CUMULATIVE and is linked to Human Population and the rematerialing that Population has, and will continue to, produce upon the Planetary Surface in its so far RAPID climb from 500 Million to over 6 Billion in those 400 years.

    The REALITY presented by the 'hockey stick' in notice of TEMPERATURE within even the past 1000 years was ONLY ever of REAL alterations to Turbulence, whilst the last 400 years includes known and REAL alterations to the System surface, and System 'Surface Median Temperatures' again within that period of Human population explosion and related alteration to the System Surface. It is the erroneous interpretation of what IS Kinetic Energy that still 'dogs greenhouse rhetoric' and makes concentration on, and opinionation involving of, Temperature (including the 'hockey stick') poorly correlated on 'climate alteration' as these generally involving of 'greenhouse warming' do NOT notice the lag produced from Turbulent Cooling in its reversion actually releasing 'stored' Kinetic Energy.

    This is all that has been happening, it is the reversion of "Turbulent Cooling" that has been lifting Climate OUT of the last glaciation, and is the reason FOR this current 'brief' warm period Climate is in. This current warm period is only one of many that have existed tween the ~60 'glaciation events' of the past ~3 Million years of the current Primary Trough of the overall Climate Oscillation. The release of Kinetic Energy from Turbulence is being slowed perhaps by Human produced surface alterations inducing greater and UNNATURAL differentials in temperature/pressure and so this 'warm period' might be extended by slowing its production, and current 'walking' of weather patterning could well be existent with that 'extended period' making DAMS (as representative of FIXED location infrastructure) redundant and making Human water production from Ocean DESALINATION near imperative for the continuance of Human Society (as it is) in MANY locations (including Australia).

    This 'extension', from 'unnaturally slowed/extended release' of Kinetic Energy 'stored' in 'Turbulent Cooling' could also prematurely 'lift' the overall Climate Oscillation from it's present 'Primary Trough' behavior by mimicking those naturally occurring situations that could otherwise do so. This will lead to a rise in Median Sea Level, with the elevation of that oscillation of relative Sea level 'then' maintaining 'high and low' points both much higher than that 'presently seen'. Please realise the difference tween fluctuations in temperature from short term fluctuations within processes of Turbulence (generally 'atmospheric') and the release of Kinetic Energy from the slow & longer term reversion of Turbulent Cooling and the attached release of Kinetic Energy from the Masses seen at * (above and principally Oceanic).

    There is NOT possible a 'greenhouse effect' as the 'greenhouse theory' describes when is noticed the REAL behavior of those materials involved, and grandiose production of opinion as either Novel or Movie will NOT prevent natural Climate Change, and this is ALL that is evident as progressing still. Certainly the 'hockey stick debacle' is of NO consequence to garnering ANY understanding of the REAL processes beneath natural Climate Alteration OR can it show any ALTERATION to those natural processes.

    Your's,
    Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
    http://hartlod.blogspot.com/

     
  • At August 24, 2006 10:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    caerbannog666 wrote,
    **********************
    Well, it's pretty clear that Mr. Anderson is a couple of eigenvectors short of a full-rank matrix!
    **********************

    I was under the impression that we were simply tuning him out...I was. I mostly responded because someone finally spelled out what the whole mess was in a simple manner. I 'get' it now.

    Anyway, I've been thinking about your Apples to Oranges comparison,, And I think I have a better one.

    The Hockey stick model is similar to pie making and the SV is the choice of filling. No matter what filling is selected, even random mystery pie fillings, you still mostly get something resembling a pie. The customer (in the form of truly deciding what the the SV should be) want an Apple Pie. What McIntyre and McItrik(sp?) want us to believe that Quiche Lorraine (or maybe a Combination Pizza) is equivalent to an Apple pie.

    -sam

     
  • At August 24, 2006 5:51 PM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    There is not any point 'Sam' in attempting to vilify or belittle myself. There is not either any SCIENCE in your 'hockey stick (model) discussion pantomimes'. The 'Temperature' of a System is that Kinetic Energy residual within the materials constituting that System that is NOT directly involved in the production of the processes of Turbulence within that System. Thus, in a system where in the Mass of the materials contained is proportioned in the atmosphere at ~0.0000051x10^24 kilograms & oceans at ~0.0014x10^24 kilograms (*), then it need to be realised that alterations to Turbulence WILL release vast amounts of Kinetic Energy that can then be observed as a RISE or DECLINE in the measured 'temperature' of those (various) materials constituting the System.
    By altering not only the RATE of Kinetic Energy induction across the surface of the System, but WHERE that induction is produced also (especially in 'naturally incorrect' locations), that the DIFFERENTIALS of pressure/temperature produced are INCREASING the overall Turbulence with the System (especially within the 'gas' that is the Atmosphere) and this has been (and will continue to be) producing 'short term' fluctuations in median Temperature measures with the System. This has been escalating in observed effect over the past 400 years, particularly within the last 100 as this effect is CUMULATIVE and is linked to Human Population and the rematerialing that Population has, and will continue to, produce upon the Planetary Surface in its so far RAPID climb from 500 Million to over 6 Billion in those 400 years.

    The REALITY presented by the 'hockey stick' in notice of TEMPERATURE within even the past 1000 years was ONLY ever of REAL alterations to Turbulence, whilst the last 400 years includes known and REAL alterations to the System surface, and System 'Surface Median Temperatures' again within that period of Human population explosion and related alteration to the System Surface. It is the erroneous interpretation of what IS Kinetic Energy that still 'dogs greenhouse rhetoric' and makes concentration on, and opinionation involving of, Temperature (including the 'hockey stick') poorly correlated on 'climate alteration' as these generally involving of 'greenhouse warming' do NOT notice the lag produced from Turbulent Cooling in its reversion actually releasing 'stored' Kinetic Energy.

    Alterations to the WORK being performed by the processes of Turbulence will ALTER the residual amounts of Kinetic Energy within a System and thus alter measures of 'temperature' of/within that System. The gases of the of the Atmosphere present more rapidly variation in Turbulent process whilst the Mass of the Oceanic Liquid is a more slowly reacting store of Kinetic Energy with regard to alterations of Turbulent processes needing to overcome the greater INERTIA of the Mass involved.

    Realise that there is still not any reason to even consider that there are separate and UNIQUE real individuals behind the 'Sam' and 'caerbannog666' 'internet labels' (as example) in their attempted 'tag teaming' to produce innuendo, belittlement and vilification of those presenting points 'they' prefer to not notice and/or 'keep unnoticed'. There is not any (valid) point in the 'pie rhetoric' as outlined by 'Sam' as the 'hockey stick' is not presenting even a 'REAL pie', so there isn't even 'REAL pie filling' to be considered. All that the 'pie customer' (mentioned by 'Sam') is being proffered from the 'hockey stick model' shop chorus is an empty bag filled with warm 'greenhouse vapours'.

    Your's,
    Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com

     
  • At August 24, 2006 9:09 PM, Blogger Future Geek said…

    Paul G. said:

    I read the NAS report Stephen, I suggest you do the same. Mann said that these times are the hottest in the last 1000 years. The NAS said no, emphatically.
    ===================================

    I copied this from the executive summary of the NAS report, Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the past 2000 Years:

    "It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries....less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from AD 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since AD 900....Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about AD 900...."

    snip

    "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on icecaps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2000 years. Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically diverse sites experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any other extended period from AD 900 onward."

    I don't see an emphatic no in there anywhere. Looks to me like they actually agreed with Mann's conclusions.

     
  • At August 24, 2006 10:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    ===future geek said:=====
    I don't see an emphatic no in there anywhere. Looks to me like they actually agreed with Mann's conclusions.
    =========================

    Here's a good quote from the NAS report:

    "Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al.(1999) that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millenium."

    Doesn't sound like agreement with Mann's conclusions to me.

    - Paul G.

     
  • At August 25, 2006 11:16 AM, Blogger coby said…

    Paul, "even less confidence"...less than what? Don't you think that is a rather essential bit of context to understanding the quote you have presented? It turns out that the context is that less confidence can be placed in conclusions about more distant past. IIRC, the passage was that they have high confidence about the last 400 years, less confidence about 800-400 yrs ago and "even less confidence" about 1000+ years ago.

    Now, for you to make a convincing point, you need to quantify the difference in the confidence level expressed by MBH for the MWP reconstruction vs that considered reasonable by the NAS. Do you even know how confident MBH and subsequently the IPCC were about the MWP reconstruction?

    As an interesting contrast, you appear to be 100% certain that the Hockey Stick is too flat. I would be interested in the data that provide for such confidence.

     
  • At August 25, 2006 2:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Coby, I will leave it to the scientists to quantify the difference in confidence levels.

    That it is warmer now then it was during the Little Ice Age is no surprise to anyone, but Mann claimed it is warmer now then the last 1000 years; and it is this claim which has been weakened by the "less confidence" comment.

    The best the NAS could say about Mann's reconstructions prior to the year 1600 is that they were "plausible". Scientifically, that seems to apply a low level of certainty.

    - Paul G.

     
  • At August 25, 2006 3:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    ****************
    "Doesn't sound like agreement with Mann's conclusions to me."
    ****************

    but it's not disagreement either. Suffice to say that was an odd period, and not much quality data can be had for that time period. Can we let it go now?

    -sam

     
  • At August 26, 2006 2:05 PM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    There is not any REAL issue relevant that is including any regard for 'citations' of 'statistical uncertainty' with mention of 'confidence levels' with relevance to the 'hockey stick' or 'recurring hockey stick debate', nor is there relevance in attempting to present those upon the 'greenhouse wagon' as 'the scientists'. The REAL issue with regard to 'the hockey stick' as well as far too much of what is presented as 'climate science' is in the opinion-centric attention to 'temperature reconstructions', erroneous in their 'fabricated production' with included methodology to produce 'a temperature proxy' that is NOT relating Kinetic Energy representative OF the 'temperature' of those materials present.

    Even if it CAN be said 'with a high level of confidence' that the "global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries" ALL that is being observed is the cumulative effect of the rematerialing OF the surface by Human activity and habitat production. This is being observed as a leading rise in median temperature of the Land Surface with a lagged (by ~15 to 20 years) and muted behavioural trend observed in the median Temperature of the Ocean Surface.

    Also the effort to produce 'temperature proxy' ignores the overall effect productions of Turbulent processes presents in short term fluctuation of REAL measure of 'temperature' as presenting a measure of the residual Kinetic Energy within a System. Again, the 'Temperature' of a System is that Kinetic Energy residual within the materials constituting that System that is NOT directly involved in the production of the processes of Turbulence within that System. Thus, in a system where in the Mass of the materials contained is proportioned in the atmosphere at ~0.0000051x10^24 kilograms & oceans at ~0.0014x10^24 kilograms (*), then it need to be realised that alterations to Turbulence WILL release (&/or 'uptake') vast amounts of Kinetic Energy that can then be observed as a RISE (or DECLINE) in the measured 'temperature' of those (various) materials present in and constituting that System. These effects produced/induced in the Atmosphere can readily produce fluctuations in measure of 'System Temperature' over a few Decades and even Centuries, whilst slower alterations to Turbulent Process in the liquid of the Ocean trend to produce fluctuation in measures of 'System Temperature' over multiple Centuries. The Interplay of these Atmospheric and Oceanic processes of Turbulence will produce a complex plot of overall Temperature Fluctuation independent of real Kinetic Induction from the Planetary (Land) Surface in interaction with Incident Photons, these presenting within the Visible and (lower) UV Spectrums.

    There is nothing to cite that the Natural Climate Oscillation is being altered by simplistic productions of 'temperature plots' no matter HOW MANY supposed proxies are proffered and there is no value at all in wasting more time on the 'hockey stick debacle', time to realise that the 'hockey plot' is not proffering any worthwhile information on ANY Real process, and its entire 'shape' was defined NOT by 'data' but by an attitude of predetermination within the group of 'experimenters'. The same attitude was demonstrated when two rather pretentious 'experiments' attempted to 'calculate the mass of the Universe' and upon realising two different 'answers' (surprise all round) the 'resolution' was to produce as ' the solution' a mythical substance that was undetectable, invisible, seemingly making available only Mass to explain the 'differences' in 'independent calculations'. More obviously there was an issue as to how Humanity could rightly claim to even calculate such a Mass (for the Universe) whilst making it's 'proclamation' from a 'fixed point with no field work' and so 'contrivance & inference' of 'dark matter' was the REALITY, and not a 'discovery of dark matter' was ever made.

    The entire effort to attempt 'sounding scientific' by discussion of the 'hockey stick' is no more different than those café conversations of 'dark matter', and present no more SCIENCE or valid 'statistical philosophy'.

    Your's,
    Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
    http://hartlod.blogspot.com/

     
  • At August 26, 2006 2:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    === sam said: =================

    Suffice to say that was an odd period, and not much quality data can be had for that time period. Can we let it go now?
    ===============================

    Poor quality data never stopped the enviros from bashing everyone over the head with the Hockey Stick graph for the last six years.

    Drop the graph, and sure, we can let it go. ;)

    - Paul G.

     
  • At August 26, 2006 6:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Trying to drop the graph is like trying to drop the Theory of Gravity. You can 'try' all you want.

    You can however refine it with better data and models, but that won't change the overall picture.

    And mentioning the antics of 'enviros' is just flamebaiting, it gets you nowhere wrt science. People have abused science for ages, but that has no bearing on the verity of what science finds.

    -sam

     
  • At August 26, 2006 7:05 PM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    'Sam' there is nothing IN the 'hockey stick' that is REAL. Gravity is observable, the Theory of Gravity is unrelated in kind or style to the 'hockey stick' production and the sooner the 'green(house) minority' realise that the 'hockey stick production' is well past the 'use-by date' as a defence from scrutiny, the sooner the remainder of 'greenhouse supposition' can be 'cleaned out'. But then that IS what is realised by the 'greenhouse platform', and it is that realisation which produces the 'greenhouse wagon' protection of the 'hockey stick' to begin with. The entire effort to attempt 'sounding scientific' by discussion of the 'hockey stick' is no more different than those café conversations of 'dark matter', and present no more SCIENCE or valid 'statistical philosophy'.

    As to the 'mentioned' ["antics of 'enviros'.."], it is readily seen from the viewpoint of the Green Majority that ["(a few) People have abused science for ages, but that has no bearing on the verity of what science finds"] as you would be trying still 'Sam' to pronounce that the 'greenhouse platform' is presenting SCIENCE perhaps, when 'the greenhouse platform' is not even presenting a VALID theory in the attempt to 'cite by opinion' an 'existence' for a supposed 'greenhouse effect', and 'effect' that CANNOT be produced by those materials actually present in Nature in the situation those materials exist in. So it is ONLY as an opinion that the 'greenhouse platform' can present the 'greenhouse effect' and that is not making such to be valid science 'Sam', nor is 'opinion' a validation of SCIENCE and never has opinion been such.

    To reprise:-
    -----
    There is nothing to cite that the Natural Climate Oscillation is being altered by simplistic productions of 'temperature plots' no matter HOW MANY supposed proxies are proffered and there is no value at all in wasting more time on the 'hockey stick debacle', time to realise that the 'hockey plot' is not proffering any worthwhile information on ANY Real process, and its entire 'shape' was defined NOT by 'data' but by an attitude of predetermination within the group of 'experimenters'. The same attitude was demonstrated when two rather pretentious 'experiments' attempted to 'calculate the mass of the Universe' and upon realising two different 'answers' (surprise all round) the 'resolution' was to produce as ' the solution' a mythical substance that was undetectable, invisible, seemingly making available only Mass to explain the 'differences' in 'independent calculations'. More obviously there was an issue as to how Humanity could rightly claim to even calculate such a Mass (for the Universe) whilst making it's 'proclamation' from a 'fixed point with no field work' and so 'contrivance & inference' of 'dark matter' was the REALITY, and not a 'discovery of dark matter' was ever made.
    -----

    The entire effort to attempt 'sounding scientific' by discussion of the 'hockey stick' is 'Sam' no more different than those café conversations of 'dark matter', and present no more SCIENCE or valid 'statistical philosophy'. There is NOTHING to relate ANY similarity for GRAVITY or 'the Theory of Gravity' to either the 'hockey stick' plot or 'greenhouse supposition', certainly any such link is NOT found in SCIENCE...

    Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com

     
  • At August 26, 2006 8:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    ===== sam said: ==========

    Trying to drop the graph is like trying to drop the Theory of Gravity. You can 'try' all you want.
    ==========================

    Ha. Hardly. The HS is now a shortened 400 year version; at least the verifiably credible part.

    Years 1000 to 1600 have been downgraded to merely "plausible". So absent much more solid data, this 600 year period of temperature reconstruction is speculative.

    What we are left with is that present temperatures are higher then during the Little Ice Age. But we knew that before Mann's temperature reconstruction.

    - Paul G.

     
  • At August 27, 2006 4:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Paul G., see these two threads on Coby's site which will destroy your agurments on the HS:

    http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/hockey-stick-is-broken.html

    http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html

    As for your rant:

    "Years 1000 to 1600 have been downgraded to merely "plausible". So absent much more solid data, this 600 year period of temperature reconstruction is speculative."

    My take on the meaning of "plausible" is that something is likely true, near the significance level, but not quite there yet. My take on the word "speculative" is that something is much less reliable.

    If you cannot distinguish the great difference in degree of certainty between the words "plausible" and "speculative", then maybe your should reconsider your argument.

    -Stephen Berg

     
  • At August 27, 2006 5:06 PM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    Neither of the 'threads' you 'cite' 'Stephen' destroy any discussion or points there in. Rather the display of attitude and lack of SCIENCE is however demonstrative the effort made to avoid NOTICE of the paucity of the DATA, the predetermination of the METHODOLOGY that does indeed remove ALL validity from the 'hockey stick'. The 'discussion' ceased when it was began to discuss these issues.
    The entire effort to attempt 'sounding scientific' by discussion of the 'hockey stick' is 'Sam' no more different than those café conversations of 'dark matter', and present no more SCIENCE or valid 'statistical philosophy'. There is NOTHING to relate ANY similarity for GRAVITY or 'the Theory of Gravity' to either the 'hockey stick' plot or 'greenhouse supposition', certainly any such link is NOT found in SCIENCE... My only post to that thread, and that thread (being titled 'hockey-stick-is-broken' last (it seems), is reprised here:-
    -----
    At April 25, 2006 2:38 AM, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm) said…

    It is of dubious value to even attempt to consider 'tree growth' in terms solely of 'temperature' and the quantity of refutation makes worthless the concept of doing such, regardless of tree/species numbers.
    When a 'modern' situation IS known, ALL the determinates of such would ALSO need to be validly defined for ANY period one attempted to produce such inference, regardless of 'when' such a period was.
    This has included soil structure, composition, humidity, global surface position, inter-flora 'species competition/symbiosis' (within a forest or other community, not all 'plants' are 'tress' i.e. have woody trunks) along with nutrient and water availability.
    In terms of any validatable measures (from suitable apparatus capable of 'reproducible measures'), this is limited to only the past 200 years.
    Too many unknowns produces too many assumptions..
    -----

    The same vapid attempt to produce a 'sound of science' is seen in the thread 'how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic' but again 'the discussion' is near a copy of the same-old attempts to prop up a pointless 'hockey stick' plot of temperature with attached supposition of 'climate change' platformed along side.

    To reprise:-
    -----
    There is nothing to cite that the Natural Climate Oscillation is being altered by simplistic productions of 'temperature plots' no matter HOW MANY supposed proxies are proffered and there is no value at all in wasting more time on the 'hockey stick debacle', time to realise that the 'hockey plot' is not proffering any worthwhile information on ANY Real process, and its entire 'shape' was defined NOT by 'data' but by an attitude of predetermination within the group of 'experimenters'. The same attitude was demonstrated when two rather pretentious 'experiments' attempted to 'calculate the mass of the Universe' and upon realising two different 'answers' (surprise all round) the 'resolution' was to produce as ' the solution' a mythical substance that was undetectable, invisible, seemingly making available only Mass to explain the 'differences' in 'independent calculations'. More obviously there was an issue as to how Humanity could rightly claim to even calculate such a Mass (for the Universe) whilst making it's 'proclamation' from a 'fixed point with no field work' and so 'contrivance & inference' of 'dark matter' was the REALITY, and not a 'discovery of dark matter' was ever made.
    -----

    The entire effort to attempt 'sounding scientific' by discussion of the 'hockey stick' is 'Sam' no more different than those café conversations of 'dark matter', and present no more SCIENCE or valid 'statistical philosophy'. There is NOTHING to relate ANY similarity for GRAVITY or 'the Theory of Gravity' to either the 'hockey stick' plot or 'greenhouse supposition', certainly any such link is NOT found in SCIENCE...

    There is NOT any valid reason to even attempt citation of TEMPERATURE as indicative of 'climate change'.

    Your's,
    Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
    http://hartlod.blogspot.com/

     
  • At August 27, 2006 6:38 PM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    As an aside whilst being quite 'confident' that Paul can defend 'himself' also, it needs to be stated (to stop the 'mudslinging') that if it cannot be distinguished the great difference tween the SCIENCE of the "Statistical Process" and 'linguistic degree of (un)certainty' as is 'mentioned' with the words "plausible" and "speculative", then maybe there should be re-consideration of argument that is based persistently within such 'linguistic play'.

    It is NOT enough to have 'a take' on the meaning of "plausible" or "speculative", is NOT that something is then 'likely true or near the significance level' or any other 'degree of statistical philosophese', but is relevant to overview of the usages within the 'green(minority)house platform' as it is being observed from 'outside the wagon' by the Green Majority:-

    Plausible (adj) (plau·si·ble)
    1) Persuasive; having a persuasive manner in speech or writing, often combined with an intention to deceive
    2) Believable and appearing likely to be true, usually in the absence of proof

    Speculative (adj) (spec·u·la·tive)
    1) based on conjecture or incomplete information
    2) given to forming conclusions or opinions that are not based on fact
    3) finance risky in nature but potentially profitable speculative investments

    There is NOT any level of 'truth' behind the 'hockey stick' and the 'language constructions' of the 'greenhouse platform' are NOT that of the relevant SCIENCES. The entirety of the 'fabrication' of the 'greenhouse platform' IS Political and has been since that 'greenhouse platform' was RUN away from its FAILURES in SCIENCE and into the Arena of Politics, where it remains TODAY still attempting to fabricate linguistics to veneer 'plausibility" in-place of SCIENCE within "speculative" 'greenhouse platforming' mannerisms...

    Your's,
    Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
    http://hartlod,blogspot.com/

     
  • At August 27, 2006 8:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    ==== Stephen Berg: =======
    Paul G., see these two threads on Coby's site which will destroy your agurments on the HS:

    http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/hockey-stick-is-broken.html

    http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html
    ==================================

    Stephen, your links are from February and March. The National Academey of Science report critiquing Mann's work came out July 6th.. Nothing is destroyed, but the 1000 year claim based on Mann's reconstruction is weakened.

    ===================================

    ==== Stephen Berg further said: ===

    As for your rant:

    "Years 1000 to 1600 have been downgraded to merely "plausible". So absent much more solid data, this 600 year period of temperature reconstruction is speculative."

    My take on the meaning of "plausible" is that something is likely true, near the significance level, but not quite there yet. My take on the word "speculative" is that something is much less reliable.

    If you cannot distinguish the great difference in degree of certainty between the words "plausible" and "speculative", then maybe your should reconsider your argument.
    ===================================

    Rant?

    You are being disingenuous Stephen.

    While plausible is indeed often speculative, plausible can not be confused with probable, which requires much more evidence.

    For example, my car won't start. Am I out of gas? Plausible. Is the car's battery dead? Also plausible. Has the starter seized up? Plausible too.

    All three plausibilities can not be "likely true". That is because inherent in the use of the word plausible is the possibility of other "plausible" explanations.

    Since Mann's temperature reconstructions before 1600 do not have sufficient evidence, that period has been downgraded to merely plausible. Absent further research, it remains a theory.

    - Paul G.

     
  • At August 27, 2006 11:05 PM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    Lacking valid SCIENCE 'temperature reconstruction' can only remain a concept, as a THEORY requires valid construction, which even the 'Greenhouse Theory' does NOT have, and it is NOT sufficient to cite 'validation' of that theory incorporated as the USE of such needs Theory also requires to REMAIN valid. Validity is NOT 'automatic' by simple 'citation'.

    There is NOT any attachment to Statistical Process of the words 'Plausible' or "Speculative', in any manner of use of SCIENCE nor then can such words be linked to 'confidence levels'. Mann's 'temperature CONCEPTS' are not at all related to Climate as Temperature is variable by processes NOT involved in any direct PRODUCTION of 'new or additional' Kinetic Induction within the System, and as such 'proxy fabrication' efforts attempting a link of "CO2" (or other 'material') variations are not EITHER able to indicate validly the TEMPERATURE of the System nor the 'variation trend' linked to induction of Kinetic Energy.

    There is NOT any level of 'truth' behind the 'hockey stick' and the 'language constructions' of the 'greenhouse platform' are NOT that of the relevant SCIENCES. The entirety of the 'fabrication' of the 'greenhouse platform' IS Political and has been since that 'greenhouse platform' was RUN away from its FAILURES in SCIENCE and into the Arena of Politics, where it remains TODAY still attempting to fabricate linguistics to veneer 'plausibility" in-place of SCIENCE within "speculative" 'greenhouse platforming' mannerisms...

    Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com

     
  • At August 29, 2006 12:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Deniers win one.

    See last item.

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/dear_tim_ball_sue_me.php

     
  • At August 29, 2006 12:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Deniers win one.

    See last item.

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/dear_tim_ball_sue_me.php

     
  • At August 29, 2006 12:38 AM, Blogger -Sam said…

    Your link not working Mr. Anon. Try using http://tinyurl.com/

     
  • At August 29, 2006 3:21 AM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    Just look at that weblog and do a simple search, the 'article' is easy to find. The use of the term 'denier' however is of much more interest, indicative of still the misconception that those who oppose 'greenhouse climate process supposition' are somehow denying climate change is occurring. The reality is that it is the supposed 'greenhouse effect' that is at fault, those trying to 'hide' the obvious flaws in 'greenhouse science' simply attempt pantomime, obscurantism and redirection. It is that Climate Change is occurring always, the LIE is in the attempt to overlay supposition of a 'greenhouse effect' and 'unnatural alterations' form such by 'Humanity'. The sooner the PLATFORM of 'greenhouse fear' is removed, the sooner real SCIENCE can again 'get on' with determination of the most major mystery needing attention.

    There is NOT possible for a 'greenhouse effect', as the 'greenhouse theory' describes, to exist whilst Temperature is NOT even a valid indicator of supposed UNNATURAL 'Climate Change'. When 'temperature' is mentioned, realise that the 'temperature' of a System is that Kinetic Energy residual within the materials constituting that System that is NOT directly involved in the production of the processes of Turbulence within that System. In a System where-in the Mass of the most involved materials contained is proportioned in kilogramsx10^24, then alterations to Turbulence within those materials WILL release (or uptake) vast amounts of Kinetic Energy, and that this will then be observed as a RISE (or DECLINE) in the measured 'temperature' of the System with NO NEED for alteration of the RATE of overall 'new' Kinetic Energy production. Interaction of Oceanic (slower) and Atmospheric (faster) process will see the style of variation of TEMPERATURE seen so far.

    Next notice the material in the link (with all thanks and notice to the author and references there in included):-
    http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/venus_mag/
    The Earth in it's orbit trails a small 'gas tail', this being retained by interactions of the Planetary Magnetic Field, Radiation and the upper edges of the Atmosphere. This 'Gas Tail' would be lost constantly, perhaps 'blown away' by the 'Solar Wind' or just left behind due to alteration of the velocity vector from the Earth's orbital motion if not for Gravity AND the Dipole 'plasma production'. The 'atmospheric density' of Venus can be explained by that now 'present' atmosphere being a production of the loss of the original 'atmosphere' as the Dipole field reduced to it's present 'practically nil' levels. The RAPIDITY of that 'field reduction', if sufficient, would create a 'surface pressure boil' increasing 'atmospheric density/mass' able to support higher store of kinetic energy. So a more Turbulent atmosphere would become warmer.
    Also it is that Venus is NOW potentially losing its Atmosphere (rate related to gravity well determinations) and the overall conditions are related to the 'loss' of that original 'dipole' with then relationship made of notice to which 'Planets' in this Solar System present 'Earth-like Dipoles'.

    The CONTINUANCE of 'life as we know it' is NOT in any study of a supposed 'greenhouse effect' or even other Planets and their Atmospheres. The notice needed in the general concern for 'Dipole flipping' is how LITTLE is known. Enough of this 'greenhouse nonscience'...the study needed to protect 'life as we know it' needing MORE 'Public notice/concern' is in the production & consistent persistence of the Planetary Dipole, in both it's processes of production AND continuance. After 20 years of 'greenhouse hype', enough IS enough.

    Your's,
    Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
    http://hartlod.blogspot.com/

     
  • At September 03, 2006 10:07 AM, Blogger -Sam said…

    Simple search?

    (about as far as I got reading your post anyway)

    simple search involving the words:
    scienceblogs deltoid tim ball

    http://tinyurl.com/lokm4

    the items on the first page to not descibe anyting complimentary at all to Tim Ball.

     
  • At September 03, 2006 4:11 PM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    'Sam' you need only go to the Deltoid weblog and search within that 'weblog', and I notice that the Deltoid 'weblog' is linked 'from this weblog'.

    Perhaps 'Sam' if YOU searched in the CORRECT MANNER in the CORRECT PLACES with the CORRECT DETAILS...
    As example to find my trademark, and to give those details 'here', search in
    http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/atmoss/falcon.application_start
    (within a guest login) on the word ' Hartlod ' or use the TRADEMARK NUMBER, that being 955863. You can take the address details presented by the TRADEMARK into the Australian White Pages:-
    http://www.whitepages.com.au/wp/initResSearch.do?subscriberName=&state=&suburb=&street=

    and thus verify Name/Address details AND gain phone CONTACTS. This IS sufficient REAL identification for many Institutions, when it IS also noticed that I DO use (one of) my actual ISP (Telstra Bigpond) account email contacts. Also, if you will USE 'Google' then try a search string of:-

    deltoid scienceblogs "tim ball"

    -:and notice the difference. There again seems little comprehension 'driving' your opinions "Sam"...just a desire to belittle others and make unnecessary demands.
    Perhaps you should read my posts more carefully 'Sam', you will learn something perhaps...

    Your's,
    Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
    http://hartlod.blogspot.com/

    In response to'Sam' saying:-
    "Simple search?.."

     
  • At September 03, 2006 8:27 PM, Blogger -Sam said…

    Okey, searching within Deltoid,
    'Dear Tim Ball' produced:
    http://tinyurl.com/mu7xw

    One article which isn't complimentary to Ball. The 'Last item', Tim Lambert's invitation to be sued by Tim Ball, cannot be logically taken as a win for the climate 'deniers', considering the nature of the rest of the article.

    Somehow I don't think Lambert will ever post things which help the cliamte change skeptics and/or deniers.

     
  • At September 04, 2006 1:24 AM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    There is no interest in 'articles' that are attacking individuals to begin with 'Sam', there is no SCIENCE in such generally and so little there in contained is made FOR discussion.
    There is also still 'your' obvious attempt still 'Sam' to partition 'argument' with 'denier/sceptic'. As you must have missed in my previous response to 'anonymous' and 'yourself' the erroneous allusion there in made, I reprise here for you 'Sam':-

    The use of the term 'denier' however is of much more interest, indicative of still the misconception that those who oppose 'greenhouse climate process supposition' are somehow denying climate change is occurring. The reality is that it is the supposed 'greenhouse effect' that is at fault, those trying to 'hide' the obvious flaws in 'greenhouse science' simply attempt pantomime, obscurantism and redirection. It is that Climate Change is occurring always, the LIE is in the attempt to overlay supposition of a 'greenhouse effect' and 'unnatural alterations' form such by 'Humanity'. The sooner the PLATFORM of 'greenhouse fear' is removed, the sooner real SCIENCE can again 'get on' with determination of the most major mystery needing attention.

    There is NOT possible for a 'greenhouse effect', as the 'greenhouse theory' describes, to exist whilst Temperature is NOT even a valid indicator of supposed UNNATURAL 'Climate Change'. When 'temperature' is mentioned, realise that the 'temperature' of a System is that Kinetic Energy residual within the materials constituting that System that is NOT directly involved in the production of the processes of Turbulence within that System. In a System where-in the Mass of the most involved materials contained is proportioned in kilogramsx10^24, then alterations to Turbulence within those materials WILL release (or uptake) vast amounts of Kinetic Energy, and that this will then be observed as a RISE (or DECLINE) in the measured 'temperature' of the System with NO NEED for alteration of the RATE of overall 'new' Kinetic Energy production. Interaction of Oceanic (slower) and Atmospheric (faster) process will see the style of variation of TEMPERATURE seen so far.

    Next notice the material in the link (with all thanks and notice to the author and references there in included):-
    http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/venus_mag/
    The Earth in it's orbit trails a small 'gas tail', this being retained by interactions of the Planetary Magnetic Field, Radiation and the upper edges of the Atmosphere. This 'Gas Tail' would be lost constantly, perhaps 'blown away' by the 'Solar Wind' or just left behind due to alteration of the velocity vector from the Earth's orbital motion if not for Gravity AND the Dipole 'plasma production'. The 'atmospheric density' of Venus can be explained by that now 'present' atmosphere being a production of the loss of the original 'atmosphere' as the Dipole field reduced to it's present 'practically nil' levels. The RAPIDITY of that 'field reduction', if sufficient, would create a 'surface pressure boil' increasing 'atmospheric density/mass' able to support higher store of kinetic energy. So a more Turbulent atmosphere would become warmer.
    Also it is that Venus is NOW potentially losing its Atmosphere (rate related to gravity well determinations) and the overall conditions are related to the 'loss' of that original 'dipole' with then relationship made of notice to which 'Planets' in this Solar System present 'Earth-like Dipoles'.

    The CONTINUANCE of 'life as we know it' is NOT in any study of a supposed 'greenhouse effect' or even other Planets and their Atmospheres. The notice needed in the general concern for 'Dipole flipping' is how LITTLE is known. Enough of this 'greenhouse nonscience'...the study needed to protect 'life as we know it' needing MORE 'Public notice/concern' is in the production & consistent persistence of the Planetary Dipole, in both it's processes of production AND continuance. After 20 years of 'greenhouse hype', enough IS enough.

    Your's,
    Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
    http://hartlod.blogspot.com/

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home