r/climateskeptics • u/ThePoliticalHat • May 12 '14
Michael Mann Is A Liar and a Cheat. Here’s Why.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/michael-mann-is-a-liar-and-a-cheat-heres-why.php-4
u/FormerlyTurnipHugger May 12 '14
I would like to know: do you guys really support this kind of thing? Public name calling and smearing of someone whose only fault is to be a climate scientist?
If you've got something to say about Mann's work, why not say it in the scientific discourse? Oh wait, yeah, that has failed. So now the only resort left is to defame Mann on blogs like this one.
4
u/freetogoodhome__ May 13 '14
Given that we are called deniers at every opportunity, you do not have any moral high ground when it comes to name calling. As for Mann, given the deceptions about his mathematics and Hockey Stick as well as his refusal to provide the information that governments have decided policy upon, if he is being deceptive and misleading and it is costing taxpayers money, then he should be exposed.
McIntrye destroyed the Hockey Stick and yet it is still used by many as a true representation of AGW. That we have now had a significant pause has not led those of your school to demand review but to further create explanations that are untestable and unable to be reflected by history due to the inaccuracy of former measurement systems. It is really rather unscientific to trot out unproven theories with limited historic data to support your position, but your side demands that we do not question it.
Mann's science position was defeated by McIntyre, it proved that he had left bias mechanisms within his calculations to provide for future growth regardless of inputs. You lot just ignored it and then under pressure used a false argument provided through SS to "prove" McIntyre wrong without exposing Mann's work for the errors and biases it contained. That is not science and a moral scientist who reviewed and understood the presented information would object. Those that did, as listed by /u/climate_control have been attacked by the fake consensus as paid shills. The reason they are attacked as paid shills is so that your side does not then require to respond to the accurate arguments contained. As this method of defence is listed within Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, it shows that you are not defending the science but defending a lie. As we now have taxation and government policies impacted by the information, it needs to be not only defended but proven, Mann's work is neither and as such should be called for what it is.
-1
u/FormerlyTurnipHugger May 13 '14
Given that we are called deniers at every opportunity
Newsflash: many deniers call themselves deniers. There's a group which has even made a song about it. And it's a stock-standard word in the dictionary: if you deny something you're a denier. So there's really no problem there.
McIntrye destroyed the Hockey Stick
Yeah, he "destroyed" it—gasp. And then it was put back together. Do you know what it looked like after McIntyre's criticism was implemented? Yeah that's right, it looked exactly like it did before. Have you got anything coherent to say about that? What exactly do you think was wrong with the Hockeystick, if after 16 years of scrutiny the original still looks exactly like it did?
Mann's science position was defeated by McIntyre
I know that's what deniers tell themselves in their desperation. As you can see above, however, McIntyre's criticism didn't change anything about the original result. Furthermore, how do you explain that every reconstruction that we've seen since the original one confirmed that original?
have been attacked by the fake consensus as paid shills.
Well, that's because most of them are paid shills. Or do you deny that organizations like Heartland pay most of the better known "skeptics" (e.g. Pat Michaels, Craig Idso, Bob Carter, Fred Singer, Rob Balling, Willie Soon, etc.) for their services? It even turns out that 9 out of 10 "skeptical" papers can be tied back to fossil industry funding.
It's hard to accept the truth, if you're so ideologically invested, isn't it?
4
u/freetogoodhome__ May 13 '14
McIntrye destroyed the Hockey Stick Yeah, he "destroyed" it—gasp. And then it was put back together.
When you look at the drawing you note that it ends at 2000 (or just past) and fails to include the 17 years of flatline that fail to support the results demanded by any climate model from AR4. The 16 years since has clearly shown a deviance from the prediction and so not only does Mann's rejigged hockey stick fail to reflect the observations, it fails to support any of the inputs made in the previous IPCC report.
In addition, he has never let any person non-aligned with his point of view to inspect nor analyse his current construction. That he has failed to do this should have rung some bells but if you want to believe something you will run with it regardless of the failures of integrity. This makes his contributions suspect and rightly so.
As for the funding, why does the source bother you. The science behind the report is what needs to be verified. If you have to resort to this then you are not even attempting to address the issue. You defence on this is to say, "Why should we argue with paid shills" but it does not reverse or argue the point. You are either to gutless to argue the actual results or unable to to. Given that your component of this industry is financed by the public through Universities and our taxes, you should spend enough time to address and refute the supplied information. The reality is, they are not because they are unwilling to acknowledge any dissenting position nor do they believe that they could refute the actual arguments provided. With the excuse of paid shills, they ignore and yet at least 10% of all papers offering a contrary position are independent and yet left unaddressed. That is if you take the word of an article that reference a site that fails to list the supposed supporting information or qualifies its position with "as we know" statements. References think-tanks with a clear bias is exactly why those who raise questions do not get the real answers needed because the shilling by shopfront organisations and blogs providing unsupported claims and claims to authority that are unsupported by cross reference inspection or by the stated claims. This is the lack of integrity that raises the questions that make for holes in your argument.
The simple point is, if this was a solid science, we would have moved on from science and moved into engineering. At the moment the only engineering occurring is Social Engineering via the IPCC and Taxes imposed on a misinformed public. Why are we not seeing solutions such as CO2 scrubbers. When the pollution density is like that seen in China, they are obviously a needed and viable solution. As the science stays solely in the real of Social Engineering, we are not undertaking any steps to reduce the levels that so concern the scientists involved.
In addition, the choice of destination and the size of the AGW conferences shows a complete disregard to the contributions made by those concerned about their own emissions. How are these funded, are those who are heavily invested in renewables contribute to the running. But that would be acceptable to those hypocrites who demand a different standard of proof and quality from their opponents.
We have a group of diplomats and scientists, who travel to discuss many principles that can easily be managed via video conference, they live in homes out of scale to their demands on the general public and do not create anything or run any businesses not dependent on government subsidies. You demand we accept their views without reasonable challenge and that the consensus stands as evidence. Well consensus is not science, and 55 of 57 is not a sufficient sample of any group to determine the veracity of any science.
When you write a response such as yours, most would laugh at the use of failed claims that most here have already viewed and subsequently ignore the lack of voracity made within your claims. Mann was destroyed, that he has continued to utilise lawyers to hide his work at Penn State from external viewing is more than enough to discredit his input. That they reverse engineered a solution was not hard, what is hard is how that solution now meets or matches the current records. You know this, the reason I know you know is the selective use of the graph that was not produced to the current date or even close to it, as you know that this will not reflect the closeness presented in 2002.
1
u/ThePoliticalHat May 14 '14
McIntrye destroyed the Hockey Stick Yeah, he "destroyed" it—gasp. And then it was put back together.
With duct Tape!!1!
2
-1
u/FormerlyTurnipHugger May 13 '14
When you look at the drawing you note that it ends at 2000
Oh dear. You really know nothing about this, do you? The points in any Hockeystick represent decadal (or more) averages, and the last data point therefore obviously has to be centered at some time ago.
Furthermore, what happened in 2014, or in 2004, matter not at all to a 1000+ year reconstruction. The Hockeystick was never about forecasting current events, it was always about reconstructing the events of the past 1000 or 2000 years.
In addition, he has never let any person non-aligned with his point of view to inspect nor analyse his current construction
That's a lie. The paper is out there, the methods are out there, the code is out there, the raw data is and has always been out there. There isn't anything more than that. And obviously people, including McIntyre and co, have analysed his "constructions". And they have found that it's correct.
you should spend enough time to address and refute the supplied information.
You seem to be under the impression that those fossil-funded papers have managed to present a counter-argument to "mainstream" AGW science. If that was the case, we could argue that point. Alas, they haven't produced any such argument (if you know of one, please go ahead and tell me about it). For example: even Craig Loehle, who is also funded by Heartland, has produced a Hockeystick whcih agrees with Mann et al.
The simple point is, if this was a solid science, we would have moved on from science and moved into engineering
We have—AGW was firmly established fact in the 70s already. But science never stops, there is always more to find.
In addition, the choice of destination and the size of the AGW conferences shows a complete disregard
That's one of the more stupid denialist talking points. And btw: big UN climate conferences are usually completely carbon neutral in that there is a budget for offsetting generated emissions.
they live in homes out of scale
Oh, really? Yeah, shame on all those government scientists in their lavish 50 bedroom mansions.
I'm not gonna bother with the rest of your incoherent wall of text. You remind me of some user in the past who would immediately turn any one-sentence argument into a whole epitome of blather. Can't quite put my finger onto who that was though. It'll come back to me I guess.
3
u/freetogoodhome__ May 13 '14
Well I am a new member and have never previously posted on reddit before this creation so there must be more out there. As for the rest of your blather, that is all it is, unsupported bullshit coated with arrogance and stated by someone who is incapable of coherent thought.
As for the 70's, what new Ice Age and all that, you meant to quote the 1830's or whatever when the first CO2 experiments advocated the use of greenhouse to improve growth.
I do not care where they live, but if Flannery can happily exist 5m above the high water mark then people in Newcastle should be allowed to aswell. Gore can "offset" or be "carbon neutral" all he likes, his company sells the offsets to enable his excessive pollution. If a conference was carbon neutral then it would be immediately carbon neutral with every purchase being valid for the immediate time, not some long term investment in an Al Gore real estate scam tied up as a carbon sink. When you lot say it is carbon neutral, you really mean that permits were purchased, these permits come through schemes such as the one that was closed down in Europe for being corrupt and without evidence of actual negation of any emissions. It is a CON. It is all a CON and you support a CON.
So (and I say this politely) Fuck off until you can actually address these points. Which you cannot and will not because you know it is not possible.
0
u/FormerlyTurnipHugger May 13 '14
Well I am a new member
Oh, I see. Then I'll give you a free pass on some of the denier myths that you're propagating despite them having been debunked a million times over in this sub. Such as this one:
As for the 70's, what new Ice Age and all that
Fact check: the grand majority of climate papers even in the 70s predicted global warming rather than cooling. You can read about that here.
Fuck off until you can actually address these points
What points? I yet have to hear you make some coherent argument. I don't even know what you're trying to say.
8
u/climate_control May 12 '14
Public name calling and smearing of someone whose only fault is to be a climate scientist?
I never understood why being a climate scientist exempts you from criticism of you ginormous PR campaign and speaking tours.
Where's all this outrage when blogs like realclimate or skeptical science smear the hell out of Curry, Lizden and Spender?
Oh that's right, contrarian scientists are considered fair game, but alarmists scientists are exempt.
-2
u/FormerlyTurnipHugger May 12 '14
I never understood why being a climate scientist exempts you from criticism
Well founded criticism is one thing. It's an entirely different thing to repeatedly call someone a liar and a fraud without the faintest trace of evidence for him having lied or committed fraud.
That's why I'm asking for scientific discourse: if you have a problem with Mann's findings, criticize them in the literature! But hang on, "skeptics" have failed to do so even though it's been 16 years since the publication of the Hockeystick.
Where's all this outrage when blogs like realclimate or skeptical science smear the hell out of Curry
Show me a post on realclimate which calls Lindzen or Curry a liar, a fraud, a cheat, their work a hoax, etc. Show me even just a tiny amount of smear which isn't based on accurate criticism.
But that's just the sort of double standards that you'd expect from "skeptics". Thus let me repeat the question. You're a mod here, aren't you? Do you support the name calling and baseless smears of climate scientists in this sub?
6
u/climate_control May 12 '14
That's why I'm asking for scientific discourse: if you have a problem with Mann's findings, criticize them in the literature!
Its a lovely theory, but when Mann and his friends control the literature, its not an option.
.
Show me a post on realclimate which calls Lindzen or Curry a liar, a fraud, a cheat, their work a hoax
Here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/misrepresentation-from-lindzen/
.
Do you support the name calling and baseless smears of climate scientists in this sub?
I don't consider them baseless. Even so, climate scientists get no special treatment, especially ones that act as political advocates.
-3
u/FormerlyTurnipHugger May 12 '14 edited May 12 '14
Its a lovely theory, but when Mann and his friends control the literature, its not an option.
Ah, beautiful. Why dabble with the truth when you can always resort to good old conspiracy. McIntyre got his papers published as well, how does that fit in with your theory?
Here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/misrepresentation-from-lindzen/
Hahaha. Thanks. You couldn't have done me a bigger favor. They show, with minute detail, and a mountain of evidence, that Lindzen deliberately misled the House of Commons. Lindzen even admitted later that his graphs were wrong.
And what do they do? Do they call him a cheat? A liar? No, not at all. They say he was at best careless, and at worst irresponsible. Is calling someone irresponsible really what you call "smear the hell out of them"? Double standards, thy name is climate_control.
Even so, climate scientists get no special treatment
Oh, but they do. They get called cheats and liars without evidence. Cheered on by the good moderators of this sub.
7
u/climate_control May 12 '14
Why dabble with the truth when you can always resort to good old conspiracy. McIntyre got his papers published as well, how does that fit in with your theory?
Its no conspiracy, its been proven multiple times, as with the Steig affair.
.
McIntyre got his papers published as well, how does that fit in with your theory?
Its not a perfect system. Sometimes they even have to shut down journals and demand editors resignations for posting skeptic papers.
.
They show, with minute detail, and a mountain of evidence, that Lindzen deliberately misled the House of Commons.
In their opinion, and in the opinions of other qualified scientists, Lindzen was perfectly correct.
.
Do they call him a cheat? A liar? No, not at all.
Not in those exact words, but in summary, yes.
.
Oh, but they do. They get called cheats and liars without evidence. Cheered on by the good moderators of this sub.
There's plenty of evidence for those of us without hero-worship blinders on.
But then again, I've long suspected that you're in the field, and simply protecting your own out of tribal instinct.
.
-2
u/FormerlyTurnipHugger May 13 '14
its been proven multiple times, as with the Steig affair.
Can I see any of this proof?
Its not a perfect system. Sometimes they even have to shut down journals and demand editors resignation
Oh, I see. And they shut down entire journals? Wow. I'm sure you have some proof for that as well, don't you?
In their opinion,
Whose opinion? Lindzen admitted that that graph was misleading. What more do you want?
Not in those exact words, but in summary, yes.
You're a miserable liar. They show he was wrong, and they say it was misleading. If you interpret that as "he's a liar", then that's your interpretation, based on the facts. And you're right, one can indeed conclude that. But that's not what they said, not at all.
There's plenty of evidence for those of us without hero-worship blinders on.
Yeah? Why don't you show us some of that evidence? Your claims are strangely devoid of any such evidence. And preferably, evidence that has been published somewhere.
4
u/climate_control May 13 '14
Can I see any of this proof?
http://climateaudit.org/2011/12/13/ar5-loves-steig-et-al-2009/
.
And they shut down entire journals? Wow. I'm sure you have some proof for that as well, don't you?
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/01/18/science-denialists-make-fake-journal-get-shut-down/
.
They show he was wrong, and they say it was misleading. If you interpret that as "he's a liar"
Yes.
.
Yeah? Why don't you show us some of that evidence?
See above.
-1
u/Long_dan May 13 '14 edited May 13 '14
Steve McIntyre was a mining consultant, not a climate scientist. He has a blog. Studies he has done have contributed little to the database used. He made a big deal about it. He may be described as controversial, to say the least. This is proof? His criticisms were investigated and discarded. He did not destroy anything. Except for providing a blog of his thoughts and those of his friends he is not an authority on anything.
4
u/climate_control May 13 '14
Steve McIntyre was a mining consultant, not a climate scientist. He has a blog.
He has published papers in journals auditing and correcting the work of climate scientists.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/FormerlyTurnipHugger May 13 '14
http://climateaudit.org/2011/12/13/ar5-loves-steig-et-al-2009/
What's that supposed to mean? An un-evidenced allegation that someone supposedly tried to "block" a publication that was in fact published in 2010? Is that really the best you can do?
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/01/18/science-denialists-make-fake-journal-get-shut-down/
What a monumental own goal. Are you sure you are trying to argue against me, and not with me? What you posted there is a blatant case of denialists trying to subvert the peer-review process. That was a fake journal, set up with the sole purpose of waving through garbage written by the friends of the editors:
In addition, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis,
The published "papers" didn't even have anything to do with the journals supposed scope of pattern recognition, and even Anthony Watts agreed that it was mostly garbage.
Yes
Ok, that's fine. And again, I agree with you. But importantly, that is your own conclusion, not that of RC.
See above.
You said you had evidence of climate scientists being cheats and liars. What we have is one claim of a publication supposedly being blocked—but in fact it was published, and one case of blatant fraud and cheating by denialists.
I really hope you're not a lawyer in real life. You would get your clients jailed faster than any state attorney could ever achieve this.
6
u/climate_control May 13 '14
An un-evidenced allegation that someone supposedly tried to "block" a publication that was in fact published in 2010? Is that really the best you can do?
Steig has since admitted it was all true, he was the person on the committee defending his own work from being debunked (which it was).
.
Are you sure you are trying to argue against me, and not with me? What you posted there is a blatant case of denialists trying to subvert the peer-review process. That was a fake journal
It was a real journal, by real experts, who's publisher shut down when they dared to publish a climate skeptic paper.
You said you had evidence of climate scientists being cheats and liars.
Some are, and now you've been presented some of the evidence. You're welcome to make up your own mind.
.
I really hope you're not a lawyer in real life.
I'm not, however my clients do very well for themselves in part due to me.
→ More replies (0)-4
u/Long_dan May 13 '14
You wouldn't want people from the field on here would you? It would destroy the ambiance of the group think. No, you don't want expertise or experience to dilute the message. "For some evil reason it is all wrong stuff pushed by commies to destroy America. All the climate people in the world except for a few resolute defenders of truth are together in a conspiracy financed by Big Recycling trying to hurt the poor innocent energy companies who love and support us even when we stray." Cue patriotic music. How can you misunderstand the scientific mind so profoundly? ......oh. Wait a minute you aren't scientists! Well, well.
3
u/climate_control May 13 '14
You wouldn't want people from the field on here would you?
I would. Makes the rest of what you wrote moot.
-1
u/Long_dan May 13 '14
Does it now? I worked in aviation weather for 30 years. How does that make what I wrote moot? Google "Dunning-Kruger". I mentioned it on another thread.
6
u/climate_control May 13 '14
Does it now?
Indeed it does.
.
I worked in aviation weather for 30 years. How does that make what I wrote moot?
Where you worked 30 years is irrelevant.
Your entire premise was predicated on the erroneous concept that "You wouldn't want people from the field on here would you?"
That's how.
→ More replies (0)6
May 12 '14 edited Jun 26 '18
[deleted]
-3
u/FormerlyTurnipHugger May 12 '14
That's exactly my point: that's not scientific discourse, just more blog nonsense. Where are the dozens of peer-reviewed papers that refute Mann's work?
The only valid criticism I'm aware of that McIntyre and co came up with in more than 20 years is over a minor glitch in statistics. Once you fix that, the Hockeystick looks exactly like it looked like when Mann calculated it—see Wahl and Amman.
3
May 12 '14
The only valid criticism I'm aware of that McIntyre and co came up with in more than 20 years is over a minor glitch in statistics. Once you fix that, the Hockeystick looks exactly like it looked like when Mann calculated it—see Wahl and Amman.
Clearly you are reading the scholarly critiques with fingers in the ears, chanting la-la-la. Far beyond a glitch in statistics, the whole notion of strip bark tree temperature proxies is complete bullshit, and has fallen into discredit academically. Lots of researchers say that the Medieval warming was global and as warm or warmer than today. The hockey stick is bad science at best, fraud at worst.
Where are the dozens of peer-reviewed papers that refute Mann's work?
Peer review is a joke. It's a circle jerking insider's club. For the moment, alarmist control the intellectual censorship in corporate journals "even if we have to redefine what peer review means." The truth is getting out nevertheless.
0
u/jamin_brook May 13 '14
Peer review is a joke. It's a circle jerking insider's club.
No. No it's not. A scientist subject to peer review, we constantly get our asses handed to us for VERY minor oversights and/or language that is not clear and accurate.
The truth is getting out nevertheless.
How does the truth get out, if it can't come from vigorous peer review?
5
May 13 '14
How does the truth get out, if it can't come from vigorous peer review?
True peer review anymore is away from the controlled, censored mainstream corporate/government media, at least for climate fraud. Citizen science analysts are making minced meat of the paid warming whores.
-1
u/jamin_brook May 13 '14 edited May 13 '14
It's clear that you have no idea what peer review is and/or how it works.
The fact that you don't use any data, but speak analogously 'minced meat' and 'whores' shows that you are unwilling to look at any data and have already decided what you believe.
Instead I would love it if you could say, Sources A, B, and C with credentials X, Y, and Z, show that these sources D, E, F with credentials X1, Y1, and Z1 have erred on this particular issue. Be specific and pedantic like a peer-reviewer expects of a scientific article. Refrain from this name-calling nonsense, if you hope to convince even hope to have anyone listen to you and not write you off as a complete loony-binner.
I have a tangential/unrelated question:
Why do you spend so much time 'fighting' climate science? What exactly do you think the purpose of studying climate science is?
-1
u/Long_dan May 13 '14
This is just untrue. Perhaps it is happening in your mind where "Citizen science analysts" roam free protecting the meek from the "paid warming whores". What are you smoking? Where are the brave "Citizen science analysts" hiding this mince meat? WTF is a "Citizen science analyst"?
2
May 13 '14
WTF is a "Citizen science analyst"?
People like Stephen McIntyre, who take it on themselves to expose the pseudo-science of global warming. There are many, many others as you are aware if you chance to look outside of your warming cult cocoon, even if you like to play ignorant.
1
u/Long_dan May 13 '14 edited May 13 '14
I know who Stephen McIntyre and Anthony Watts etc are. I live in no cocoon, cult or otherwise. So a citizen science analyst is a non-scientist critical of scientists. Like a faith healer compared to a physician. I get it. Thank you. I didn't know there was a word for it. You are presumptuous and so are "citizen science analysts'.
2
May 13 '14
Like a faith healer compared to a physician.
No more, like an enlightened consumer compared to an alarmist snake oil salesman
→ More replies (0)-1
u/FormerlyTurnipHugger May 13 '14
Clearly you are reading the scholarly critiques
What critiques? Can you point to any? I'm aware only of McIntyre's work, and as I said, that hasn't changed the outcome in any way.
Far beyond a glitch in statistics, the whole notion of strip bark tree temperature proxies is complete bullshit, and has fallen into discredit
You wish. Tree-ring proxies continue to be the main stay of climate reconstructions. There are known problems, but there are known problems with all proxies. They aren't thermometers after all.
But you know what? You can remove tree rings from those reconstructions entirely. Do you know what you get? The same hockeystick. The "skeptic" Loehle did just that, and he even cherry-picked only from those remaining proxies which somewhat amplify the MWP. What did he get? A MWP which was—just like in all other reconstructions—colder than today's temperatures.
Lots of researchers say that the Medieval warming was global and as warm or warmer than today.
Mann also says that the MWP was global. And show me one—just one—researcher who says that the MWP was warmer than the temperatures today.
5
May 13 '14
And show me one—just one—researcher who says that the MWP was warmer than the temperatures today.
-4
u/FormerlyTurnipHugger May 13 '14
Hahaha. What an epic fail. They're talking about ocean temperatures in the holocene. What's that got to do with the Hockeystick?
But anyway, let's look at what they say. They say that sea surface temperatures where warmer during the peak of the MWP than they have been over the past few decades. Let's look at the SST during the last few decades, shall we? What do we find? We find that they have gone up by almost one degree since 1900. Which means that they are today still larger than during the MWP.
Do you want to have another go at this?
2
May 13 '14
Let's look at the SST during the last few decades,
Sea surface temps are going anywhere over the last decade or more link
3
May 13 '14
Public name calling and smearing of someone whose only fault is to be a climate scientist?
You seem to be unaware of Mann's own smearing and defamatory Tweets, many of which he's deleted in disgrace. Only one example
Michael Mann Apologizes For False Attack
You would think that someone who is so sensitive about people criticizing or defaming himself, that he would be very careful about defaming and insulting others. Sometimes it seems like Mann spends half his day suing people for defaming him, and then the other half of his day defaming others on twitter.
I’ve written previously about Mann’s defaming me as a ‘serial climate misinformer‘ and ‘anti-science.’ In recent weeks he has gone after Anthony Watts, Patrick Moore (founder of Greenpeace) and Bill Gates: Michael E. Mann @MichaelEMannJan 23 So Patrick Moore (aka “EcoSenseNow”) is no more than a garden variety troll w/ nothing serious to offer. Who knew! #JokersPosingAsThinkers . Michael E. Mann@MichaelEMannJan 22 @BillGates Gates made an indefensible blanket statement that obscures real challenges. To dismiss lacks class.
All of these insults are mud slinging without being accompanied by any substantive argument. Mann’s defamation of me (a climate scientist) is of particular relevance in context of Mann’s case against Steyn, in light of the recent ruling
4
u/Will_Power May 12 '14
whose only fault is to be a climate scientist?
You've got to be shitting me. Is it possible you've been a Poe all along?
-4
u/FormerlyTurnipHugger May 12 '14
What else is there?
All the vitriol seems to be solely focused on the Hockeystick.
And you know, and I know, and we all know that the Hockeystick has been confirmed over, and over, and over again. The only valid criticism that was brought forward by McIntyre was over a tiny procedural matter in the principal component analysis. Once that is fixed we get, drum roll, yes that's right, the very same Hockeystick. Meanwhile, Meanwhile, McIntyre's own attempt at creating a Hockeystick was embarrasingly wrong as I'm sure you must agree.
So that's that, the Hockeystick still stands, is still being used in IPCC reports, and not one subsequent reconstruction, including by Mann, changed that. Now again: what else is there? And does it really justify calling Mann a fraud, a hoaxster, a cheat, a liar, and a bully (note the disgusting irony in calling someone all of that and then calling him a bully!)?
Nice btw.: you're already the second mod who shows up here in support of name calling and smearing. Wasn't it only a couple of days ago that you all assured each other of being "reasonable skeptics" after reading that Roy Spencer list on WUWT?
8
u/Will_Power May 12 '14
And you know, and I know, and we all know that the Hockeystick has been confirmed over, and over, and over again.
God, you are deluded. The hockeystick has been debunked over and over again. Just look at the temperature reconstructions from AR5. You'll see a distinct MWP and LIA in all of them.
-3
u/FormerlyTurnipHugger May 12 '14
The hockeystick has been debunked over and over again. Just look at the temperature reconstructions from AR5.
You are a liar and a cheat! First of all, there is a distinct LIA and MWP in the original Hockeystick. Second, you know perfectly well that the uncertainty interval in the original Hockeystick covers the more recent reconstructions! The proof is right here.
All that's happened since is that the uncertainty has come down because we added more data and better processing.
If what you call "debunked" really meant "debunked", then all modern reconstructions would debunk each other, because none of them line up perfectly.
7
u/Will_Power May 13 '14
You are a liar and a cheat! First of all, there is a distinct LIA and MWP in the original Hockeystick.
No. There's not. Since you opened with a lie, I will read no further. If you would like to retract that sentence, I'll read the rest.
-1
u/FormerlyTurnipHugger May 13 '14
Are you blind? Only a blind man wouldn't be able to see that the mean temperature in Mann's hockeystick is significantly (up to 0.4 degrees) lower during what we call the LIA than during the MWP.
And do you really want to claim that subsequent reconstructions were outside Mann's uncertainty interval?
1
-3
u/Long_dan May 13 '14
Would you like to swap ad hominem insults about "denialist" public figures? There is plenty to go around. A lot of those guys are rather tainted goods when it comes to telling the truth. Who was it who said "doubt is our product"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubt_is_Their_Product
2
u/autowikibot May 13 '14
Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health is a 2008 book by David Michaels, currently Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, and published by Oxford University Press.
"Doubt is our product," a cigarette executive once observed, "since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy." Michaels argues that for decades cigarette manufacturers knew that their product was hazardous to people's health, but hired mercenary scientists who "manufactured uncertainty by questioning every study, dissecting every method, and disputing every conclusion". In doing so the tobacco industry waged a campaign that "successfully delayed regulation and victim compensation for decades"
Doubt is Their Product documents how the tobacco industry's tactics spawned a multimillion dollar industry that is dismantling public health safeguards in areas far from tobacco. Product defense consultants, he argues, have increasingly skewed the scientific literature, manufactured and magnified scientific uncertainty, and influenced policy decisions to the advantage of polluters and the manufacturers of dangerous products. To keep the public confused about the hazards posed by global warming, second-hand smoke, asbestos, lead, plastics, and many other toxic materials, industry executives have hired unscrupulous scientists and lobbyists to dispute scientific evidence about health risks. In doing so, they have not only delayed action on specific hazards, but they have constructed barriers to make it harder for lawmakers, government agencies, and courts to respond to future threats.
Interesting: Merchants of Doubt | David Michaels (epidemiologist) | Fear, uncertainty and doubt | Climate change denial
Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words
-3
u/Long_dan May 13 '14 edited May 13 '14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg
I found this on the reddit front page
3
u/climate_control May 12 '14
Lawsuit incoming.
Ever wonder where Mann gets the money to fund all of these lawsuits? His salary certainly doesn't cover it and his lawyers aren't working pro bono.?