AGW Believer AND Skeptic!!!

[konradv]

Penn State Global Warming Researcher Calls Self 'Skeptic'

Associated Press 03/28/2010 Pa. global warming researcher calls self 'skeptic' - Lebanon Daily News

ALLENTOWN, Pa.—A Penn State University climate scientist says he regrets that he did not immediately object when a colleague suggested deleting e-mails on global warming.
Meteorology professor Michael Mann told an Allentown newspaper that he answered the May 2008 e-mail from Phil Jones by saying he would contact another scientist. He says he did not say he would do any such thing or show any approval of the idea, but he now wishes he had gone farther. "I wish in retrospect I had told him, 'Hey, you shouldn't even be thinking about this,'" Mann told The Morning Call for a story Sunday. "I didn't think it was an appropriate request."

please review the rules for copyright compliance-del

 

[del]

he regrets getting caught.

 

[konradv]

Caught doing what?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I particularly enjoyed this part:

Mann also said some people who challenge global warming are not real skeptics "because their skepticism is one-sided.

"I would call them contrarians or, frankly in some cases, climate change deniers,"

Pot? Meet kettle! Skeptics aren't "one sided" son, I'll explain.

We WANT this research done! We WANT answers on if mankind's activities are affecting the climate. We DON'T want data bent, twisted and molded to fit an agenda and a predetermined outcome. We understand that REAL science starts with "I do not know" and proceeds from there.

AGW "science" starts with "we DO know" and then tries to build a fake case.

This rhetoric of "deniers" is an attempt to marginalize, to compare skeptics to holocaust deniers. How is that part of science?

How it hiding the data part of science, stonewalling FOIA requests? Hiding the decline, all that rot?

Which part of science do you not understand?

 

[gslack]

he regrets getting caught.

Agreed.... Mann the name sounds familiar.... Oh yeah the hockey stick graph!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[konradv]

How it hiding the data part of science, stonewalling FOIA requests? Hiding the decline, all that rot?
------------------------------

How is it part? It's a VERY IMPORTANT part. How can you tell if humans are having an effect, if you don't "hide" data from other sources? I guess it's the word. I would have preferred they used the term "subtracted out". That isn't an example of fraud, but everyday scientific practice. If the sun cycle is going through a cooling phase, you'd have to "hide the decline" in order to see what's left, presumably the effect of man, barring other possibilities.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

How it hiding the data part of science, stonewalling FOIA requests? Hiding the decline, all that rot?
------------------------------

How is it part? It's a VERY IMPORTANT part. How can you tell if humans are having an effect, if you don't "hide" data from other sources? I guess it's the word. I would have preferred they used the term "subtracted out". That isn't an example of fraud, but everyday scientific practice. If the sun cycle is going through a cooling phase, you'd have to "hide the decline" in order to see what's left, presumably the effect of man, barring other possibilities.

What an imbecile and fraud apologist.

 

[gslack]

How it hiding the data part of science, stonewalling FOIA requests? Hiding the decline, all that rot?
------------------------------

How is it part? It's a VERY IMPORTANT part. How can you tell if humans are having an effect, if you don't "hide" data from other sources? I guess it's the word. I would have preferred they used the term "subtracted out". That isn't an example of fraud, but everyday scientific practice. If the sun cycle is going through a cooling phase, you'd have to "hide the decline" in order to see what's left, presumably the effect of man, barring other possibilities.

WTH????

That is not scientific at all. You are showing a study designed to produce a predetermined outcome. That is not a scientific process. LOL, please give us more science lessons... This is too funny...

 

[editec]

I particularly enjoyed this part:

Mann also said some people who challenge global warming are not real skeptics "because their skepticism is one-sided.

"I would call them contrarians or, frankly in some cases, climate change deniers,"

Pot? Meet kettle! Skeptics aren't "one sided" son, I'll explain.

We WANT this research done! We WANT answers on if mankind's activities are affecting the climate. We DON'T want data bent, twisted and molded to fit an agenda and a predetermined outcome. We understand that REAL science starts with "I do not know" and proceeds from there.

AGW "science" starts with "we DO know" and then tries to build a fake case.

This rhetoric of "deniers" is an attempt to marginalize, to compare skeptics to holocaust deniers. How is that part of science?

How it hiding the data part of science, stonewalling FOIA requests? Hiding the decline, all that rot?

Which part of science do you not understand?

How do you know that, MM?

ARe you qualified to understand the science behind this debate?

I ask this because I KNOW I am not qualifed to judge who is being truthful or who is right, either.

How do you know these things with such certainty?

 

[del]

Caught doing what?

deleting emails to strengthen his case.

 

[del]

How it hiding the data part of science, stonewalling FOIA requests? Hiding the decline, all that rot?
------------------------------

How is it part? It's a VERY IMPORTANT part. How can you tell if humans are having an effect, if you don't "hide" data from other sources? I guess it's the word. I would have preferred they used the term "subtracted out". That isn't an example of fraud, but everyday scientific practice. If the sun cycle is going through a cooling phase, you'd have to "hide the decline" in order to see what's left, presumably the effect of man, barring other possibilities.

is pretzel logic your favorite album?

 

[gslack]

How it hiding the data part of science, stonewalling FOIA requests? Hiding the decline, all that rot?
------------------------------

How is it part? It's a VERY IMPORTANT part. How can you tell if humans are having an effect, if you don't "hide" data from other sources? I guess it's the word. I would have preferred they used the term "subtracted out". That isn't an example of fraud, but everyday scientific practice. If the sun cycle is going through a cooling phase, you'd have to "hide the decline" in order to see what's left, presumably the effect of man, barring other possibilities.

is pretzel logic your favorite album?

He's funny, kind of like a comedian but not.....

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I particularly enjoyed this part:

Mann also said some people who challenge global warming are not real skeptics "because their skepticism is one-sided.

"I would call them contrarians or, frankly in some cases, climate change deniers,"

Pot? Meet kettle! Skeptics aren't "one sided" son, I'll explain.

We WANT this research done! We WANT answers on if mankind's activities are affecting the climate. We DON'T want data bent, twisted and molded to fit an agenda and a predetermined outcome. We understand that REAL science starts with "I do not know" and proceeds from there.

AGW "science" starts with "we DO know" and then tries to build a fake case.

This rhetoric of "deniers" is an attempt to marginalize, to compare skeptics to holocaust deniers. How is that part of science?

How it hiding the data part of science, stonewalling FOIA requests? Hiding the decline, all that rot?

Which part of science do you not understand?

How do you know that, MM?

ARe you qualified to understand the science behind this debate?

I ask this because I KNOW I am not qualifed to judge who is being truthful or who is right, either.

How do you know these things with such certainty?

Did you trouble yourself to read the files? The emails leaked from EA?

EA says they are genuine. The "scientists" involved say they are genuine, and two have now come forward, admitted their malfeasance and fraud and apologized. One was removed from his post pending an investigation.

One journalist who was always pro-AGW now admits he was way over-zealous in his coverage, apologized and promised to be a skeptic from now on. Which is what journalists are supposed to be.

What "qualifications" do you believe someone should have, to analyze all of this?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

How it hiding the data part of science, stonewalling FOIA requests? Hiding the decline, all that rot?
------------------------------

How is it part? It's a VERY IMPORTANT part. How can you tell if humans are having an effect, if you don't "hide" data from other sources? I guess it's the word. I would have preferred they used the term "subtracted out". That isn't an example of fraud, but everyday scientific practice.

No doubt you would be okay with that in forensic science as well. You know, science that has to hold up in court?

Science is science. Data is to be SHARED, OPENLY. this is what peer review is all about.

Are you really this much of a stupid tool?

 

[Sinatra]

Mann is a complete idiot who has had it very easy for a very long time, generating millions in funding for his university who then ignored the merits of his manufactured and self-promoting "science".

And from Mann came legions of similar examples throughout university campuses.

Finally their kind are being more honestly questioned, and future funding is not being given out so easily.

And yet, like cockroaches, they will once again emerge from the darkness to begin again - with substantial support from the pro Big-Government Obamabots, and their deeply entrenched corporate interestes such as GE who has already invested tens of millions preparing for the billions in profits to be garnered off of the global warming scam...

 

[Old Rocks]

There have been at least fourteen studies done that supported Mann's Hockey Stick chart. Here is one of them;

Novel Analysis Confirms Climate "Hockey Stick" Graph: Scientific American

The “hockey stick” graph has been both a linchpin and target in the climate change debate. As a plot of average Northern Hemisphere temperature from two millennia ago to the present, it stays relatively flat until the 20th century, when it rises up sharply, like the blade of an upturned hockey stick. Warming skeptics have long decried how the temperatures were inferred, but a new reconstruction of the past 600 years, using an entirely different method, finds similar results and may help remove lingering doubts.

 

[gslack]

There have been at least fourteen studies done that supported Mann's Hockey Stick chart. Here is one of them;

Novel Analysis Confirms Climate "Hockey Stick" Graph: Scientific American

The “hockey stick” graph has been both a linchpin and target in the climate change debate. As a plot of average Northern Hemisphere temperature from two millennia ago to the present, it stays relatively flat until the 20th century, when it rises up sharply, like the blade of an upturned hockey stick. Warming skeptics have long decried how the temperatures were inferred, but a new reconstruction of the past 600 years, using an entirely different method, finds similar results and may help remove lingering doubts.

Nice weasel tactic of coming back and posting after every one left.....

Funny but mann himself was not so sure recently...

"In a letter to Nature on August 10, 2006, Bradley, Hughes and Mann pointed at the original title of their 1998 article: "Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations"[56][57] and pointed out "more widespread high-resolution data are needed before more confident conclusions can be reached and that the uncertainties were the point of the article."
Mann and his colleagues said that it was "hard to imagine how much more explicit" they could have been about the uncertainties surrounding their work and blaming "poor communication by others" for the "subsequent confusion." He has further suggested that the criticisms directed at his statistical methodology are purely political and add nothing new to the scientific debate.[58]"

Hockey stick controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

thats okay buddy cry its all make believe then try to defend it after the fact... Nice bit of scientific work pal..

 

[Si modo]

How it hiding the data part of science, stonewalling FOIA requests? Hiding the decline, all that rot?
------------------------------

How is it part? It's a VERY IMPORTANT part. How can you tell if humans are having an effect, if you don't "hide" data from other sources? I guess it's the word. I would have preferred they used the term "subtracted out". That isn't an example of fraud, but everyday scientific practice. If the sun cycle is going through a cooling phase, you'd have to "hide the decline" in order to see what's left, presumably the effect of man, barring other possibilities.

There is NOTHING scientific about that which is not falsifiable.

And you expect folks to take you seriously when you try to discuss science?

You are a fraud.

 

[Old Rocks]

Silly old Si! Calls others frauds for posting the real words of scientists, and then denies the science herself.

Come on, Si, post expicitly why AGW is incorrect. That is a challenge. And back it up with information from physicists as to why CO2 absorbtion bands are meaningless to the discussion. You might also inform us as to why the acidification of the ocean is not important. And why the melting of the worlds ice supply in the caps and glaciers means nothing. Or even why the increased emissions from the permafrost and Arctic Ocean clathrates have no meaning.

Come on scientist, show us some real science, something other than politically driven rhetoric. Something that sounds less like a dittohead, and something more like the scientist you claim to be.

 

[Old Rocks]

There have been at least fourteen studies done that supported Mann's Hockey Stick chart. Here is one of them;

Novel Analysis Confirms Climate "Hockey Stick" Graph: Scientific American

The “hockey stick” graph has been both a linchpin and target in the climate change debate. As a plot of average Northern Hemisphere temperature from two millennia ago to the present, it stays relatively flat until the 20th century, when it rises up sharply, like the blade of an upturned hockey stick. Warming skeptics have long decried how the temperatures were inferred, but a new reconstruction of the past 600 years, using an entirely different method, finds similar results and may help remove lingering doubts.

Nice weasel tactic of coming back and posting after every one left.....

Funny but mann himself was not so sure recently...

"In a letter to Nature on August 10, 2006, Bradley, Hughes and Mann pointed at the original title of their 1998 article: "Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations"[56][57] and pointed out "more widespread high-resolution data are needed before more confident conclusions can be reached and that the uncertainties were the point of the article."
Mann and his colleagues said that it was "hard to imagine how much more explicit" they could have been about the uncertainties surrounding their work and blaming "poor communication by others" for the "subsequent confusion." He has further suggested that the criticisms directed at his statistical methodology are purely political and add nothing new to the scientific debate.[58]"

Hockey stick controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

thats okay buddy cry its all make believe then try to defend it after the fact... Nice bit of scientific work pal..

Nice demonstration of your ignorance of scientific terminology, old boy.

The Mann hockey stick stands. Even those that did not like Mann's statistical methods, National Academy of Sciences, when they did it their way, came up with a very similiar graph.