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.
Didn't the Democrats kill Science when they refused to build the World's Largest Particle Accelerator.Perhaps because the Earth is the lab. Why don't you have one single repeatable lab experiment to refute it?
^ Real science experiment replicating condition a nanosecond after the Big Bang
^ Ass hat Clown EnviroMarxists damaging the credibility of MIT with their fake, phony "Science"
LOLYou morons make me laugh. L. Ron Hubbard is more legitimate of a "scientist" than Micheal Mann is.
You're is a primitive religion that has nothing to do with science.
Obviously too is that L. Ron Hubbard ignores the English language.
Doctoral and postgraduate studies[edit]
Mann then attended Yale University, intending to obtain a PhD in physics, and received both an MS and an MPhil in physics in 1991. His interest was in theoretical condensed matter physics but he found himself being pushed towards detailed semiconductor work. He looked at course options with a wider topic area, and was enthused by PhD adviser Barry Saltzmanabout climate modelling and research. To try this out he spent the summer of 1991 assisting a postdoctoral researcher in simulating the period of peak Cretaceous warmth when carbon dioxide levels were high, but fossils indicated most warming at the poles, with little warming in the tropics. Mann then joined the Yale Department of Geology and Geophysics, obtaining an MPhil in geology and geophysics in 1993. His research focused on natural variability and climate oscillations. He worked with the seismologist Jeffrey Park, and their joint research adapted a statistical method developed for identifying seismological oscillations to find various periodicities in the instrumental temperature record, the longest being about 60 to 80 years. The paper Mann and Park published in December 1994 came to similar conclusions to a study developed in parallel using different methodology and published in January of that year, which found what was later called the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation.[6]
In 1994, Mann participated as a graduate student in the inaugural workshop of the National Center for Atmospheric Research's Geophysical Statistics Project aimed at encouraging active collaboration between statisticians, climatologists and atmospheric scientists. Leading statisticians participated, including Grace Wahba and Arthur P. Dempster.[7]
While still finishing his PhD research, Mann met UMass climate science professor Raymond S. Bradley and began research in collaboration with him and Park. Their research used paleoclimate proxy data from Bradley's previous work and methods Mann had developed with Park, to find oscillations in the longer proxy records. "Global Interdecadal and Century-Scale Climate Oscillations During the Past Five Centuries" was published by Nature in November 1995.[8]
Another study by Mann and Park raised a minor technical issue with a climate model about human influence on climate change: this was published in 1996. In the context of controversy over the IPCC Second Assessment Report the paper was praised by those opposed to action on climate change, and the conservative organisation Accuracy in Media claimed that it had not been publicised due to media bias. Mann defended his PhD thesis on A study of ocean-atmosphere interaction and low-frequency variability of the climate system in the spring of 1996,[9][10] and was awarded the Phillip M. Orville Prize for outstanding dissertation in the earth sciences in the following year. He was granted his PhD in geology and geophysics in 1998.[1]
Michael E. Mann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now you two may have a third grade certificate. Between you. Dr. Mann certainly appears to have a rather impressive academic record, one far more impressive than his detractors.
And I understand it's like I've just told you there's no Santa ClausTell you what, your fuckwad of a religion claims that carbon dioxide angers Gaia and she retaliates by warming the planet.
You're the only person here or anywhere who is babbling about Gaia. This may shock your religious sensibilities, but there is no Gaia. The earth isn't sentient. Contrary to your sacred cult beliefs, Gaia can't save us from warming because there is no Gaia.
And I understand it's like I've just told you there's no Santa Claus, so you'll probably need some time to recover from the shock.
So if true, we can set up a linear regression to show that R level of CO2 tracks to slope Y of warming. I can run a predictive ANOVA to show that at any given level of CO2 we will have a certain temperature within 3 standard deviations
What is R? What is the slope of Y?
It's roughly Final Temp Change = 4.1* ln([CO2]/[CO2_orig]). About 3C for a doubling of CO2.
Understand that's the final change, not the immediate change. It will take over a century for the full effect. That's why the earth has 0.5C more warming already locked in, even if we stopped increasing CO2 now. So it's not a simple linear line. I don't know why you thought "correlation" meant "linear function".
CO2 has risen steadily, temperature has not. There is no correlation at all. Temperature rises show utterly no connection to CO2.
Utterly delusional.
We have temperature increases over the last 400 years, which is fact.
You mean except when the times when temperature was going down, like from 1940 to 1970. Why does your "recovery from the little ice age" take so many pauses?
I thought it was SUV's?
Nice deflection. You're good at 'em. You have to be, since all the science contradicts you.
Again with causation when there isn't even correlation.
You're the one who was using a "correlation equals causation" argument with your "but it's a recovery from the LIA, therefore it has to be a natural cycle!" nonsense. I just showed how the real world debunked your claims. Debunking your C=C claim does not mean I made one.
It's no surprise you fail at logic, as all cultists fail at logic. They wouldn't be cultists if they were rational. It's a standard part of the cult dogma to teach the faithful some buzzwords that they don't understand but can parrot from memory, and to tell them that they're special unique little snowflakes who are the only ones on the planet possessing the wisdom to grasp the RealTruth.
and the earth is disproving your hypothesis, so time for a new one.Perhaps because the Earth is the lab. Why don't you have one single repeatable lab experiment to refute it?
again with the I have no evidence so you prove my opinion wrong theory alive and well still. Frank it is hilarious the lack of evidence they continuously admit to not having. It's amazing.Perhaps because the Earth is the lab. Why don't you have one single repeatable lab experiment to refute it?
It's your stupid theory, douchebag, EnviroMarxist Whackjob
and again, what evidence? you keep making that statement and we still haven't seen it. Just because it is six months later, doesn't mean repeating such nonsense makes it right today. So, feel free as I've always stated to post it up here. You just stated you didn't have any lab findings so how does one in a science field justify a hypothesis? you're the science guy, explain this to the class please.HA HA HA Ha ha... then thank goodness it's as well supported by evidence as it is.
I have the same problem with Crick, wild assertions he can not support. Like a giant cut/paste file he throws around like a winning poker hand?and again, what evidence? you keep making that statement and still haven't seen it. Just because it is six months later, doesn't mean repeating such nonsense makes it right today. So, feel free as I've always stated to post it up here. You just stated you didn't have any lab findings so how does one in a science field justify a hypothesis? you're the science guy, explain this to the class please.HA HA HA Ha ha... then thank goodness it's as well supported by evidence as it is.
You're the only person here or anywhere who is babbling about Gaia. This may shock your religious sensibilities, but there is no Gaia. The earth isn't sentient. Contrary to your sacred cult beliefs, Gaia can't save us from warming because there is no Gaia.
And I understand it's like I've just told you there's no Santa Claus, so you'll probably need some time to recover from the shock.
It's roughly Final Temp Change = 4.1* ln([CO2]/[CO2_orig]). About 3C for a doubling of CO2.
Understand that's the final change, not the immediate change. It will take over a century for the full effect. That's why the earth has 0.5C more warming already locked in, even if we stopped increasing CO2 now. So it's not a simple linear line. I don't know why you thought "correlation" meant "linear function".
Utterly delusional.
You mean except when the times when temperature was going down, like from 1940 to 1970. Why does your "recovery from the little ice age" take so many pauses?
Nice deflection. You're good at 'em. You have to be, since all the science contradicts you.
Again with causation when there isn't even correlation.
You're the one who was using a "correlation equals causation" argument with your "but it's a recovery from the LIA, therefore it has to be a natural cycle!" nonsense. I just showed how the real world debunked your claims. Debunking your C=C claim does not mean I made one.
It's no surprise you fail at logic, as all cultists fail at logic.
They wouldn't be cultists if they were rational. It's a standard part of the cult dogma to teach the faithful some buzzwords that they don't understand but can parrot from memory, and to tell them that they're special unique little snowflakes who are the only ones on the planet possessing the wisdom to grasp the RealTruth.
Perhaps because the Earth is the lab. Why don't you have one single repeatable lab experiment to refute it?
Didn't the Democrats kill Science when they refused to build the World's Largest Particle Accelerator.
Regression of temperature using your formula should have us at about 85 Fahrenheit, instead we have less than a 2 degree rise over 150 years, where CO2 levels have doubled.
Well that's convenient for your cult.
Ohhh look, open and outright fraud, how clever you Scientologists are. Say L. Ron, is the change in CO2 a 2% rise over the last 110 years?
For the above graph to be anything but outright fraud, that is what it would have to be, given that you have temperature and CO2 on the same slope.
Oh I know it's fraud, so do the rest of us.
You cultists are liars and cheats.
You're the only one claiming that there must be a linear relationship between CO2 and temp. Why do you hold such a bizarre belief? Is it something your religion commands of you?Regression of temperature using your formula should have us at about 85 Fahrenheit, instead we have less than a 2 degree rise over 150 years, where CO2 levels have doubled.
No. Not even close. You kind of suck at this.
Well that's convenient for your cult.
You're the only one claiming that there must be a linear relationship between CO2 and temp. Why do you hold such a bizarre belief? Is it something your religion commands of you?
The normal people, they understand that nature doesn't make things simple and linear just because you really wish it was that way.
Ohhh look, open and outright fraud, how clever you Scientologists are. Say L. Ron, is the change in CO2 a 2% rise over the last 110 years?
It's a 40% rise. And the temperature increase is consistent with that. If you didn't fail so hard at math, you could have figured that out.
For the above graph to be anything but outright fraud, that is what it would have to be, given that you have temperature and CO2 on the same slope.
That makes no sense. It's not worth the effort to attempt to figure out the workings of your very peculiar thought processes, so I'll move back to the point you're trying to evade.
You insanely declared there was no correlation. That graph clearly showed the correlation. As CO2 has gone up, temperature has gone up. That's pretty much the definition of "correlation", meaning it was really stupid of you to claim there was no correlation.
Oh I know it's fraud, so do the rest of us.
Yes, you certainly do proudly display the absolute certainty of a cult fanatic. No facts or evidence will be changing your mind, by golly!
You cultists are liars and cheats.
The Jonestown cultists had your same fringe cult attitude towards the outside world. Rather than suffer their fate, I suggest you not keep bitterly clinging to your tiny dying fringe cult. You need to slip off into the jungle before they roll out the koolaid vat.
No. Not even close. You kind of suck at this.
You're the only one claiming that there must be a linear relationship between CO2 and temp. Why do you hold such a bizarre belief? Is it something your religion commands of you?
The normal people, they understand that nature doesn't make things simple and linear just because you really wish it was that way.
It's a 40% rise. And the temperature increase is consistent with that. If you didn't fail so hard at math, you could have figured that out.
You insanely declared there was no correlation. That graph clearly showed the correlation. As CO2 has gone up, temperature has gone up. That's pretty much the definition of "correlation", meaning it was really stupid of you to claim there was no correlation.
Yes, you certainly do proudly display the absolute certainty of a cult fanatic. No facts or evidence will be changing your mind, by golly!
The Jonestown cultists had your same fringe cult attitude towards the outside world. Rather than suffer their fate, I suggest you not keep bitterly clinging to your tiny dying fringe cult. You need to slip off into the jungle before they roll out the koolaid vat.
so you're saying that if CO2 goes up then temp doesn't follow? Damn we agree.
one that starts with temperature increasing and CO2 following.so you're saying that if CO2 goes up then temp doesn't follow? Damn we agree.
Yet that absurd graph the Cult keeps posting shows a direct linear relationship.
Yeah, it's fraud, but it does purport a linear trend.
Ohhh look, open and outright fraud, how clever you Scientologists are. Say L. Ron, is the change in CO2 a 2% rise over the last 110 years?
It's a 40% rise. And the temperature increase is consistent with that. If you didn't fail so hard at math, you could have figured that out.
Exactly.. And the BASIC forcing relationship for CO2 is LOGARITHMIC. Which means that you need SUPER - linear accumulations of CO2 to get a LINEAR Temperature response. And when you do --- that a doubling will result in about a 1.1degC rise in temperature WITHOUT all the GW exaggerations and hype.
And -- within reasonable limits -- that's exactly what's been observed. NO accelerations of temperature rise, no runaway effects measured, no panic laden results. Just about 40% of a 1.1degC rise in your lifetime.
So much for the effort to scare us all with "correlations"..
Okay then cult boi.
You moron cultists claim not only correlation, but causation.
I recognize the fact that no such correlation exists.
Screaming how the whole world outside of your cult
I'm not sure which of your handlers advised you to try the "nuhn uhn YOOO" idiocy, but it ain't working for you, retard.
