Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ocean Acidification pHraud
- Thread starter IanC
- Start date
- Dec 18, 2013
- 136,659
- 28,000
- 2,180
The set he went to court for.To which data do you refer?
They're part of the conspiracy. If you brush them down you'll find white cat hairs.And, for the umpteenth time, allow me to ask why we hear NO complaints about these data adjustments from the thousands of climate scientists who use them, professionally, on a daily basis?
Ever hear of [Richard] Muller of Berkeley Earth, the sceptic who painstakingly went through the data and pronounced the published data to be correct?Ever hear of hide the decline?
The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis.
- Dec 18, 2013
- 136,659
- 28,000
- 2,180
It wasn't the raw set, go figure! Everyone gets the same results. Now let's get the raw data and then run it.Ever hear of [Richard] Muller of Berkeley Earth, the sceptic who painstakingly went through the data and pronounced the published data to be correct?Ever hear of hide the decline?
Michael Mann Responds to Misleading Filings in Climate Change Lawsuit - The Equation
jc, note the emboldened paragraph below beginning "As Dr Mann's response brief notes..."
Michael Mann Responds to Misleading Filings in Climate Change Lawsuit
Aaron Huertas, science communication officer
September 3, 2014
Two years ago, a Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) analyst said something incredibly nasty about Penn State University climate researcher Michael Mann:
“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science.”
Mark Steyn at the National Review passed on those comments in a blog post and added that Dr. Mann is “behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph…”
Dr. Mann subsequently sued both institutions and court filings have been flying back and forth ever since. Dr. Mann’s lawyers have just filed a response to scientific and legal claims from the National Review and CEI. As their new brief makes clear, any claim that Dr. Mann’s research is “fraudulent” is pure bunk.
The Serengeti strategy at work
In his book chronicling the attacks he’s faced, Dr. Mann compares climate contrarians’ strategy to the one used by predator animals he saw in Serengeti National Park in Tanzania. Rather than trying to take on all the world’s climate scientists, they pick out someone from the herd who they think they can attack effectively. He’s faced many over-the-top criticisms of his research—and his character—from the Wall Street Journal editorial board, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) and a whole host of front groups, political actors and online haters.
Why all the fuss? In the late 1990s, Dr. Mann and his colleagues found that much of world is warmer than it used to be. The key graph from their research looks like an upturned hockeystick, a nickname that stuck. At the time, it was groundbreaking work. It also blew a hole in a standard contrarian talking point: that it used to be warmer in the Middle Ages.
Fifteen years after Dr. Mann and colleagues published their initial research, climate contrarians are still attacking it as if it’s the keystone that holds up the entire edifice of climate science.
Climate science goes to court
The National Review’s last filing in this case devotes a section to rehashing whether or not research Dr. Mann’s original research is valid. They largely cite contrarian books, statements from Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), an article from the Telegraph newspaper and Congressional testimony from a contrarian climate scientist. Nothing in their brief substantiates an accusation of “fraud.”
CEI has done the same in some of its filings, though it takes a more sophisticated approach. CEI does more to dress up its accusations in the language of science, but their brief emphasizes typical scientific uncertainties and nitpicking while downplaying the fundamental soundness of the original hockeystick. Again, there’s no evidence of “fraud” in their brief.
What’s missing, of course, from all their briefs, are legitimate scientific citations rejecting or refuting Dr. Mann’s work. That’s because those don’t exist.
As Dr. Mann’s response brief notes, follow-up studies have “not only replicated Dr. Mann’s work using the same data and methods, but independently validated and extended his conclusions using other techniques, and using newer and more extensive datasets.”
Indeed, climate scientists have more hockeysticks than an NHL locker room:
That’s a lot of hockeysticks! From a 2008 Mann et al. paper. Graphic from Skeptical Science.
A 2013 study took a comprehensive look at so-called “paleoclimate reconstructions.” The result “looks like a twin” of the original hockeystick, according to researcher Stefan Rahmstorf. Graphic via ThinkProgress.
It’s fair to say that Dr. Mann’s original research is among the most scrutinized scientific papers of all time. If it were fraudulent – or even just wrong – we’d know by now.
Scientists take fraud and retractions very seriously. Look at the Andrew Wakefield case:The Lancet retracted his research on vaccines and autism and he was banned from practicing medicine. Or skim the great work over at Retraction Watch.
CEI and the National Review also pass on lame rehashings of emails that were stolen from climate scientists back in 2009. National Review’s brief largely ignores the investigations that cleared Dr. Mann and other scientists of the accusations climate contrarians lobbed at them. CEI’s brief cites these investigations, including one from the National Science Foundation (NSF), but tries to downplay them and question their credibility.
As Dr. Mann’s response brief notes, two universities and six government agencies examined the claims climate contrarians were making about the emails and rejected them. His brief cites the NSF’s conclusion that, “…no direct evidence has been presented that indicates [Dr. Mann] fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified the results.”
Again, no fraud.
Never the less, National Review’s Steyn has tripled-down on his initial accusations. In a recent post on the case, he called Mann “Doctor Fraudpants.” I suppose in some circles, that’s hilarious. But the humor of accusing a scientist of living a lie is lost on me.
Different worlds
I attended a hearing related to this case last June. It was disturbing to listen to lawyers for CEI and the National Review accuse Dr. Mann of conducting fraudulent research while he was sitting right there. I squirmed in my seat more than once and quietly shook my head at their presentations. It was clear that the lawyers didn’t understand the scientific research they were discussing. I felt like I had stepped way, way down a rabbit hole.
After the hearing concluded, one of the lawyers for the defendants walked up to Dr. Mann outside the court room and asked to shake his hand. He was aghast when Dr. Mann politely declined – as if the lawyer was the one who just had his honor and integrity insulted.
From the lawyers’ perspective, perhaps this was just another day at the office. But for Dr. Mann it was an affront to his character, ethics and work as a scientist.
Crossing the line with attacks on science
I’m not a libel lawyer or a First Amendment scholar. Unlike Dr. Mann’s detractors, I’m not so convinced of my own righteousness that I claim to have expertise on topics that are well outside my wheelhouse. I’m just a guy who loves science and appreciates everything scientists do to inform us about our world.
It’s worth noting that other judges have previously sided with Dr. Mann. Litigants in those cases, including Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, also did not have a leg to stand on when it came to accusing Dr. Mann of fraud.
Generally, courts and judges have shown respect for the weight of the evidence on a range of scientific issues, including climate, tobacco and asbestos. In this case, it’s abundantly clear to me that the attacks on Dr. Mann are the result of ideological thinking run amok, not any real dispute about the science. Steyn, National Review and CEI can argue against government policies all they want, but misrepresenting scientific research to make their case simply degrades public discourse.
Finally, comparing a scientist to a child molester and accusing him of fraud is ethically indefensible. Whether or not it is legally defensible remains to be seen, of course, but I’ll be watching this case closely.
Posted in: Science and Democracy, Science Communication Tags: attacks on scientists,competitive enterprise institute, Mark Styen, Michael Mann, National Review
jc, note the emboldened paragraph below beginning "As Dr Mann's response brief notes..."
Michael Mann Responds to Misleading Filings in Climate Change Lawsuit
Aaron Huertas, science communication officer
September 3, 2014
Two years ago, a Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) analyst said something incredibly nasty about Penn State University climate researcher Michael Mann:
“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science.”
Mark Steyn at the National Review passed on those comments in a blog post and added that Dr. Mann is “behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph…”
Dr. Mann subsequently sued both institutions and court filings have been flying back and forth ever since. Dr. Mann’s lawyers have just filed a response to scientific and legal claims from the National Review and CEI. As their new brief makes clear, any claim that Dr. Mann’s research is “fraudulent” is pure bunk.
The Serengeti strategy at work
In his book chronicling the attacks he’s faced, Dr. Mann compares climate contrarians’ strategy to the one used by predator animals he saw in Serengeti National Park in Tanzania. Rather than trying to take on all the world’s climate scientists, they pick out someone from the herd who they think they can attack effectively. He’s faced many over-the-top criticisms of his research—and his character—from the Wall Street Journal editorial board, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) and a whole host of front groups, political actors and online haters.
Why all the fuss? In the late 1990s, Dr. Mann and his colleagues found that much of world is warmer than it used to be. The key graph from their research looks like an upturned hockeystick, a nickname that stuck. At the time, it was groundbreaking work. It also blew a hole in a standard contrarian talking point: that it used to be warmer in the Middle Ages.
Fifteen years after Dr. Mann and colleagues published their initial research, climate contrarians are still attacking it as if it’s the keystone that holds up the entire edifice of climate science.
Climate science goes to court
The National Review’s last filing in this case devotes a section to rehashing whether or not research Dr. Mann’s original research is valid. They largely cite contrarian books, statements from Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), an article from the Telegraph newspaper and Congressional testimony from a contrarian climate scientist. Nothing in their brief substantiates an accusation of “fraud.”
CEI has done the same in some of its filings, though it takes a more sophisticated approach. CEI does more to dress up its accusations in the language of science, but their brief emphasizes typical scientific uncertainties and nitpicking while downplaying the fundamental soundness of the original hockeystick. Again, there’s no evidence of “fraud” in their brief.
What’s missing, of course, from all their briefs, are legitimate scientific citations rejecting or refuting Dr. Mann’s work. That’s because those don’t exist.
As Dr. Mann’s response brief notes, follow-up studies have “not only replicated Dr. Mann’s work using the same data and methods, but independently validated and extended his conclusions using other techniques, and using newer and more extensive datasets.”
Indeed, climate scientists have more hockeysticks than an NHL locker room:
That’s a lot of hockeysticks! From a 2008 Mann et al. paper. Graphic from Skeptical Science.
A 2013 study took a comprehensive look at so-called “paleoclimate reconstructions.” The result “looks like a twin” of the original hockeystick, according to researcher Stefan Rahmstorf. Graphic via ThinkProgress.
It’s fair to say that Dr. Mann’s original research is among the most scrutinized scientific papers of all time. If it were fraudulent – or even just wrong – we’d know by now.
Scientists take fraud and retractions very seriously. Look at the Andrew Wakefield case:The Lancet retracted his research on vaccines and autism and he was banned from practicing medicine. Or skim the great work over at Retraction Watch.
CEI and the National Review also pass on lame rehashings of emails that were stolen from climate scientists back in 2009. National Review’s brief largely ignores the investigations that cleared Dr. Mann and other scientists of the accusations climate contrarians lobbed at them. CEI’s brief cites these investigations, including one from the National Science Foundation (NSF), but tries to downplay them and question their credibility.
As Dr. Mann’s response brief notes, two universities and six government agencies examined the claims climate contrarians were making about the emails and rejected them. His brief cites the NSF’s conclusion that, “…no direct evidence has been presented that indicates [Dr. Mann] fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified the results.”
Again, no fraud.
Never the less, National Review’s Steyn has tripled-down on his initial accusations. In a recent post on the case, he called Mann “Doctor Fraudpants.” I suppose in some circles, that’s hilarious. But the humor of accusing a scientist of living a lie is lost on me.
Different worlds
I attended a hearing related to this case last June. It was disturbing to listen to lawyers for CEI and the National Review accuse Dr. Mann of conducting fraudulent research while he was sitting right there. I squirmed in my seat more than once and quietly shook my head at their presentations. It was clear that the lawyers didn’t understand the scientific research they were discussing. I felt like I had stepped way, way down a rabbit hole.
After the hearing concluded, one of the lawyers for the defendants walked up to Dr. Mann outside the court room and asked to shake his hand. He was aghast when Dr. Mann politely declined – as if the lawyer was the one who just had his honor and integrity insulted.
From the lawyers’ perspective, perhaps this was just another day at the office. But for Dr. Mann it was an affront to his character, ethics and work as a scientist.
Crossing the line with attacks on science
I’m not a libel lawyer or a First Amendment scholar. Unlike Dr. Mann’s detractors, I’m not so convinced of my own righteousness that I claim to have expertise on topics that are well outside my wheelhouse. I’m just a guy who loves science and appreciates everything scientists do to inform us about our world.
It’s worth noting that other judges have previously sided with Dr. Mann. Litigants in those cases, including Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, also did not have a leg to stand on when it came to accusing Dr. Mann of fraud.
Generally, courts and judges have shown respect for the weight of the evidence on a range of scientific issues, including climate, tobacco and asbestos. In this case, it’s abundantly clear to me that the attacks on Dr. Mann are the result of ideological thinking run amok, not any real dispute about the science. Steyn, National Review and CEI can argue against government policies all they want, but misrepresenting scientific research to make their case simply degrades public discourse.
Finally, comparing a scientist to a child molester and accusing him of fraud is ethically indefensible. Whether or not it is legally defensible remains to be seen, of course, but I’ll be watching this case closely.
Posted in: Science and Democracy, Science Communication Tags: attacks on scientists,competitive enterprise institute, Mark Styen, Michael Mann, National Review
jc...
From Hockey stick controversy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
[Stephen] McIntyre downloaded datasets for MBH99 from a ftp server, but could not locate the ftp site for MBH98 datasets and on 8 April wrote to Mann to request this information. Following email exchanges, Mann's assistant sent the information as text files around 23 April 2003.[89]
89) McIntyre 28 Oct. 2003 (blog).
From Hockey stick controversy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
[Stephen] McIntyre downloaded datasets for MBH99 from a ftp server, but could not locate the ftp site for MBH98 datasets and on 8 April wrote to Mann to request this information. Following email exchanges, Mann's assistant sent the information as text files around 23 April 2003.[89]
89) McIntyre 28 Oct. 2003 (blog).
- Dec 18, 2013
- 136,659
- 28,000
- 2,180
Yep, he isn't me and sir until you can show an experiment that CO2 is the cause I'm in. But alas you can't.Ever hear of [Richard] Muller of Berkeley Earth, the sceptic who painstakingly went through the data and pronounced the published data to be correct?Ever hear of hide the decline?
- Thread starter
- #157
jc...
From Hockey stick controversy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
[Stephen] McIntyre downloaded datasets for MBH99 from a ftp server, but could not locate the ftp site for MBH98 datasets and on 8 April wrote to Mann to request this information. Following email exchanges, Mann's assistant sent the information as text files around 23 April 2003.[89]
89) McIntyre 28 Oct. 2003 (blog).
And was all the data there in those files? No it wasn't. Did the Nature journal follow their written protocol and force Mann to release the data? No they did not.
I would recommend that people read both sides of these issues before they decide who is telling the truth.
- Thread starter
- #158
Ever hear of [Richard] Muller of Berkeley Earth, the sceptic who painstakingly went through the data and pronounced the published data to be correct?Ever hear of hide the decline?
Muller was never a skeptic or even a lukewarmer. there are dozens of his lectures available that show he was a solid proponent of the IPCC. his only excursion was to publically out Michael Mann as a fraud.
- Thread starter
- #160
hahahaha. I watched the three parts of McIntyre's video and while I was aware of all the topics that he spoke about it was nice to get the chronology refreshed. this speech was at a Heartland conference. at the end McIntyre spoke a bit about what his position was on climate change and the causes, which did not go over that well with the audience. I loved his quip about getting a standing ovation at the beginning and polite applause at the end. hahaha
Similar threads
- Replies
- 114
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 38
- Views
- 647
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 205
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 108
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 3
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8087
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-