Holy COW! Mann is not well regarded by readers of the Daily Kos!

[westwall]

Holy crap. According to the VAST MAJORITY of readers of the Daily Kos, Michael Mann is a fraud! And a large percentage feel he should be tossed out on his ass! There IS hope for liberals after all!


Michael Mann
did not choose to became a symbol
0%
14 votes

has been attacked in many of the same ways that the President and John Kerry were
0%
12 votes

Is an outstanding scientist and human being
0%
11 votes

all of the above
1%
57 votes

is distorting evidence to prove his point
71%
3060 votes

should be fired from the university
26%
1123 votes





Daily Kos: Michael Mann is a Modern Hero and we need to acknowledge that!

 

[IanC]

it shows a lot that even KOS readers wont defend Mann

 

[Old Rocks]

Doesn't change the fact that more than a dozen studies have confirmed his graph.

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

 

[westwall]

Doesn't change the fact that more than a dozen studies have confirmed his graph.

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

Of course they did. They used the same methodology. The only problem dear boy is when you use their method you can plug ANY number in and it allways shows warming. That would be considered a problem in a legit scientific study. We know however, that these clowns left the reservation a looong time ago.

And then of course there's this interesting little paper that casts a great deal of question on MAnns whole lifes work. It seems that his basic underlying hypothesis is...welll, how do I put this???? Useless? Yeah that might work.

Tree ring analysis allows reconstructing historical growth rates over long periods. Several studies have reported an increasing trend in ring widths, often attributed to growth stimulation by increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration. However, these trends may also have been caused by sampling biases. Here we describe two biases and evaluate their magnitude. (1) The slow-grower survivorship bias is caused by differences in tree longevity of fast- and slow-growing trees within a population. If fast-growing trees live shorter, they are underrepresented in the ancient portion of the tree ring data set. As a result, reconstructed growth rates in the distant past are biased toward slower growth. (2) The big-tree selection bias is caused by sampling only the biggest trees in a population. As a result, slow-growing small trees are underrepresented in recent times as they did not reach the minimum sample diameter. We constructed stochastic models to simulate growth trajectories based on a hypothetical species with lifetime constant growth rates and on observed tree ring data from the tropical tree Cedrela odorata. Tree growth rates used as input in our models were kept constant over time. By mimicking a standard tree ring sampling approach and selecting only big living trees, we show that both biases lead to apparent increases in historical growth rates. Increases for the slow-grower survivorship bias were relatively small and depended strongly on assumptions about tree mortality. The big-tree selection bias resulted in strong historical increases, with a doubling in growth rates over recent decades. A literature review suggests that historical growth increases reported in many tree ring studies may have been partially due to the big-tree sampling bias. We call for great caution in the interpretation of historical growth trends from tree ring analyses and recommend that such studies include individuals of all sizes.


http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2011GB004143.shtml

 

[IanC]

Doesn't change the fact that more than a dozen studies have confirmed his graph.

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

confirms??????

I read the SA article which was basically devoid of any information, so I googled it.

the actual method seems to be related to RegM (eg- temperatures are correlated up to several thousands of kilometers distant) but what really struck me was the blatant use of proxies that are known to have upturns at the end.

Once again, the Team has “moved on” so quickly that it takes some care keeping track of their movements. The criticisms in my most recent post apply to the still unpublished Tingley and Huybers 1200-year reconstruction at their website (that it uses Mann’s PC1, a second strip bark foxtail series, Yamal plus a van Engelen series that even the IPCC acknowledged could not be used as a “proxy”). This reconstruction (let’s call it TH2009) is a typical small subset reconstruction (14 series), in which the primary issue is data snooping – the re-use of data sets with known and even stereotyped properties

you never seem to even acknowledge the known deficiencies of many of the Hockey Team's favourite proxies, Old Rocks. why do you think you can get good conclusions out of faulty data?

 

[bripat9643]

Doesn't change the fact that more than a dozen studies have confirmed his graph.

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

You mean a dozen lying hacks have defended a fellow hack.

mathematics and Mann's utter lack of credible documentation confirm that Mann's hockey stick is a fraud.

 

[IanC]

Doesn't change the fact that more than a dozen studies have confirmed his graph.

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

You mean a dozen lying hacks have defended a fellow hack.

mathematics and Mann's utter lack of credible documentation confirm that Mann's hockey stick is a fraud.

you really are not far off in this matter. ordinarily I try to give (so called) scientists the benefit of the doubt but the shenanigans involved in trying to keep the Hockey Stick graph viable for inclusion in AR4 are truely dispicable. the continued resistance to making proxy raw data available should be bringing bellows of condemnation from general scientists. but instead we get.........silence.

 

[skookerasbil]

In the bigger picture, the Mann graph is basically irrelevant in 2012. At an absolute maximum, maybe 20% of the population cares about it, and of those not even 50% of that number cares so much as to support out electricity rates going up 100%.

 

[westwall]

Doesn't change the fact that more than a dozen studies have confirmed his graph.

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

confirms??????

I read the SA article which was basically devoid of any information, so I googled it.

the actual method seems to be related to RegM (eg- temperatures are correlated up to several thousands of kilometers distant) but what really struck me was the blatant use of proxies that are known to have upturns at the end.

Once again, the Team has “moved on” so quickly that it takes some care keeping track of their movements. The criticisms in my most recent post apply to the still unpublished Tingley and Huybers 1200-year reconstruction at their website (that it uses Mann’s PC1, a second strip bark foxtail series, Yamal plus a van Engelen series that even the IPCC acknowledged could not be used as a “proxy&#8221. This reconstruction (let’s call it TH2009) is a typical small subset reconstruction (14 series), in which the primary issue is data snooping – the re-use of data sets with known and even stereotyped properties

you never seem to even acknowledge the known deficiencies of many of the Hockey Team's favourite proxies, Old Rocks. why do you think you can get good conclusions out of faulty data?

A pre-conceived and desired result?

 

[freedombecki]

Doesn't change the fact that more than a dozen studies have confirmed his graph.

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

Odd you'd mention a dozen. A dozen news outlets jumped the gun on the Florida primary saying the loser was the winner before all the precints came in. Lawyers descended on Florida like cockroaches, and the outcome was, the loser lost three more times before the winner was declared by the Secretary of State.

The Fifth Column causes America a lot of grief when, instead of doing studied research, rely on emotional thinking rather than the math of the situation.

So if a dozen studies have confirmed someone's graph, why is there a controversy? Some didn't maybe, or the one-ups came from others seeking research funding?

Something's not right when there is too much hullabaloo over a "scientifically proven" theory lately. Just sayin'.

 

[saveliberty]

All I know is we have done an excellent job of showing the poor science used by Faithers these past three years.

 

[westwall]

All I know is we have done an excellent job of showing the poor science used by Faithers these past three years.

Well, they thought we were all stupid. Stupid people don't question anything.