Global Warming Skeptics

Full Version: David Appell,has problems with evidence
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Here from a few links showing that Mr. Appell continue to defend the indefensible:

David, you need to get OUT of the proven hockey stick delusion.

The Hockey Stick Collapses (2017)


Quote:A collection of 60 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in 2016 were displayed here last month in an article entitled, “The Hockey Stick Collapses: 60 New (2016) Scientific Papers Affirm Today’s Warming Isn’t Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable“.
Each paper from the 2016 collection cast doubt on claims of an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times.
Yes, some regions of the Earth have been warming in recent decades (i.e., the Arctic since the 1990s), or at some point in the last 100 years.  Some regions have been cooling for decades at a time (i.e., the Arctic during the 1950s to 1980s, the Southern Ocean since 1979).  And many regions have shown no significant net changes or trends in either direction relative to the last few hundred to thousands of years.

In other words, there is nothing historically unprecedented or remarkable about today’s climate when viewed in the context of natural variability.

And the scientific evidence continues to accumulate for 2017.  In just the first month of this year, there have already been at least 17 papers published in scientific journals once again documenting that modern warming is not global, unprecedented, or remarkable.  In fact, several of these papers indicate that we are still living through some of the coldest temperatures of the last 10,000 years (just above Little Ice Age levels), and that a large portion of the amplitude of the modern warming trend (if there is one depicted) was realized prior to the mid-20th century, or before the period when human CO2 emissions began to rise dramatically.

Needless to say, these papers do not support the position that human CO2 emissions are the primary drivers of climate.


His comments in the thread shows his evidence problems continues,actually he is delusional about it:


Quote:Another Gish Gallop.

We’re on to you.

Makes a STRAWMAN attempt,that was easily shot down.

Quote:PS: Writing “The Hockey Stick Collapses” is plain stupid — the hockey stick doesn’t make projections of the future, it reconstructs temperatures of the past, and it stops about 1970 due to the northern forest divergence problem.

Kenneth Richards,the author of the blog post replies:

Quote:Did someone claim the hockey stick “makes projections of the future”?

Do you believe it’s scientifically acceptable for Mann to have claimed his graph represented the entire Northern Hemisphere by using a few trees from North America?


You were taken apart about the global cooling evidence:

David Appell : The Global Cooling Denier


You were taken apart over the bogus Australian death threat claims too.

Paging David Appell and Nick Stokes again: time to fess up and apologize


In continued delusion over bogus hockey stick papers.

More Appell comedy gold

Ed Snack commented:

Quote:"David Appell, you appear to unfamiliar with statistics, completely unfamiliar. In fact the "stick" of the Hockey Stick is exactly what you would expect if a load of poorly correlated "proxies" are thrown together; the variances are random and thus a relatively straight line is produced. It has nothing to do with "physics" as such expect that you can attempt to draw a correlation, but, as I'm sure people have told you before, correlation is NOT causation. And especially not (as I'm sure your cognitive dissonance will chime in here and you will want to dispute this) with data that has been statistically manipulated first.

You have failed to understand Mann 1998 & 1999 completely. There is nothing surprising about the blade at all. They selected data that correlated to 20th century temperature records and weighted it by the degree of correlation. Using that method it is impossible not to have a rapid rise. The key is that these studies purported to show that this recent warming was "unprecedented". You are clueless about the intent of the study but claim to defend it ! And you cite Wahl & Amman in support, but W&A include the R2 statistic showing that almost the entire "stick" is statistically insignificant. You can argue whether RE is a reasonable yardstick, but having performed an R2 test, it is fraudulent to omit the result in a paper where it disagrees with the conclusion if you also cite it where it supports your conclusion. Mann did exactly that by citing R2 in support of his 1815 step. Why do you support fraud ?

And further, you continue to ignore another elephant in the room, on what basis can you claim that the Bristlecone Pine proxies that are essential to the Mann reconstructions are temperature proxies ? There's peer reviewed research (Gray & Idso) from 1993 "proving" that they are CO2 proxies, and nothing after that to refute that peer reviewed conclusion. The correlation of that proxy with LOCAL temperatures is not very high, in fact they are better correlated with local precipitation. Then there is a later far better controlled set of Bristlecone records, collected by Linah Ababneh that shows no such radical rise in ring widths. Conclusion, the Gray & Idso bristlecone proxies ARE NOT temperature proxies at all. If you wish to claim that they are correlated with some other temperature dependent measure, that must first be shown to exist.

Just for your education as you seem intent on remaining stunningly ignorant on the details, the Gray & Idso samples are probably neither CO2 or temperature proxies but are demonstrating a (probable) mechanical deformation related to the "strip-bark" phenomena. G&A appear to have preferentially sampled strip bark examples in the strip area and this shows anomalous results likely arising from the response of the trees to the strip bark process. The later and apparently more carefully collected Ababneh samples that do not include a high proportion of strip-bark trees has quite different properties. Ones that, BTW, are far better correlated with local conditions. It is also possible that the G&A data has been "unusually" detrended for growth effects, but I haven't looked at the details on this.
Has anyone done an in-depth investigation just to see what mr. Appell is receiving financially for all this pro-AGW writings of his?
(01-29-2017, 01:27 PM)John L Wrote: [ -> ]Has anyone done an in-depth investigation just to see what mr. Appell is receiving financially for all this pro-AGW writings of his?

Have no idea JL.

In this case,I don't think it matters that much anyway,since he is just plain messed up.Has been schooled by many over the years,he NEVER changes his loony tunes the whole time.
Another expose of David Appell, over at Watts Up With That?

David Appell denies he has any class

Anthony Watts

July 24,2011


Quote:Normally, I ignore David Appell who runs a blog called Quark Soup where he spends a good portion of his time hyperbloviating about things that make him upset. A lot of the time, that’s me and the readers of WUWT. I long ago decided he’s just not worth anyone’s serious consideration. The numbers he gets on his blog demonstrate that he just isn’t an effective communicator, which is sad, because his chosen profession is as a science writer. He lists several science magazine publications on his website. My policy to mostly ignore him changed recently with one over the top headline.

Lately Mr. Appell has been hitting WUWT comments with his favorite M.O., which is to write baiting missives and demand attention to his viewpoint, demand we agree with his viewpoint, and when we don’t, to keep pushing the same premise again and again, ignoring what anyone else says about it. Finally when he doesn’t get his way, he’ll run off to his blog and make a blog in the vein of faux outrage, telling the world how terrible we here at WUWT are. He’s done this about half a dozen times. I’m used to it. In fact, I even predicted it in comments. Like I said, normally I ignore him when he posts angry missives on QS, but I’ll make an exception, just this once.

What he did on Friday was a true thinking outside of the box demonstration that not only does he have no class, he has no scruples either; he brought my deceased mother into the debate.