Yet more evidence of AGW Lies

[westwall]

Once again for konradv




Marked Mann - IBD - Investors.com

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Once again for konradv




Marked Mann - IBD - Investors.com

Its actually more evidence of the persecution of scientists who have conclusions we don't like.

 

[westwall]

Once again for konradv




Marked Mann - IBD - Investors.com

Its actually more evidence of the persecution of scientists who have conclusions we don't like.

Spoken like a true cultist toober. For ten years the AGW fraudsters have been stifling real research and preventing the publication of sceptical papers for over a decade. Only a truly dishonest person could see what the Mann's, and Jones', et all have done and think that behavior is OK.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

He raised a ton of government money producing data that proved the tailors at the emperors wardrobe were making a mighty fine suit.

Was he being deliberately dishonest? It is an interesting question, as when the numbers he crunched are independently audited, things look very different.

It is the same as a highway contractor scamming 500,000 for a highway no one can use, but the connected want. It is the research grant version of the bridge to no where.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Once again for konradv




Marked Mann - IBD - Investors.com

Its actually more evidence of the persecution of scientists who have conclusions we don't like.

Spoken like a true cultist toober. For ten years the AGW fraudsters have been stifling real research and preventing the publication of sceptical papers for over a decade. Only a truly dishonest person could see what the Mann's, and Jones', et all have done and think that behavior is OK.

Oh whatever, no they haven't, that's just what you believe because right wing media hacks tell you to believe it. I doubt you could even explain what Mann did or didn't do.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

He raised a ton of government money producing data that proved the tailors at the emperors wardrobe were making a mighty fine suit.

Nice use of cliche but it doesn't actually mean anything.

Was he being deliberately dishonest? It is an interesting question, as when the numbers he crunched are independently audited, things look very different.

What did you audit them yourself? Have you even read the Mann paper and the MM paper claiming to debunk it? I'm betting .... no.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Mann graph has been verified many times. Even those that did not like his statistical methods, when they used theirs, they ended up with the same conclusion.

You people are real tinfoil hat material. The National Academy of Sciences has stated that there is scientific proof beyond a reasonable doubt that we are rapidly warming and changing the climate of the Earth. The policy statements of all the scientific societies in the world also state this.

If that AG from Virginia goes ahead with his witchhunt, I hope that Mann successfully sues him for everything that he has ever owned. This is a political tactic for purely political purposes.

Skeptical Real Climate Science

From the North report:

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically diverse sites experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward."

"The committee finds it plausible that the northern hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium."

"In practice, [Mann's PCA] method, though not recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature; reconstructions performed without using principal component analysis are qualitatively similar to the original curves presented by Mann et al."

 

[westwall]

He raised a ton of government money producing data that proved the tailors at the emperors wardrobe were making a mighty fine suit.

Nice use of cliche but it doesn't actually mean anything.

Was he being deliberately dishonest? It is an interesting question, as when the numbers he crunched are independently audited, things look very different.

What did you audit them yourself? Have you even read the Mann paper and the MM paper claiming to debunk it? I'm betting .... no.

Here you go toober, the NAS scientists who reviewed Mann's graph and what they think of it....

With their reputations thus disappearing faster than the snows of Kilimanjaro, the zealots have become hysterical. Mann attacks a prominent sceptic, Lawrence Solomon, for citing the scientists’ criticisms of the Antarctica study, and is in turn answered by Solomon -- an exchange reproduced in Canada’s Financial Post, for which Solomon writes, here and here. Mann repeatedly accuses Solomon of lying. In doing so, he has left himself dramatically exposed. Claiming that Solomon

repeatedly lies about my work

he cites as evidence of this that his ‘hockey stick’ study was

vindicated in a report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences

and seeks to back up this assertion by citing the way the media reported this study as

‘Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate’ (New York Times), ‘Backing for Hockey Stick Graph’ (BBC), and so on.

This is, to put it mildly, disingenuous. While it is certainly true that the media reported it in this sheep-like way -- thanks in part to the manner in which the NAS chose circumspectly to spin its own conclusions -- it is nevertheless the case that in every important particular the NAS actually agreed with the McIntyre/McKitrick criticisms. Far from vindicating the ‘hockey stick’ graph, the NAS said that although it found some of Mann’s work ‘plausible’, there were so many scientific uncertainties attached to it that it did not have great confidence in it. Thus it said that

Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions

and that they had downplayed the

uncertainties of the published reconstructions...Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.’

What Mann also does not say in his diatribe is that a subsequent House Energy and Commerce Committee report chaired by Edward Wegman totally destroyed the credibility of the ‘hockey stick’ study and devastatingly ripped apart Mann’s methodology as ‘bad mathematics’. Furthermore, when Gerald North, the chairman of the NAS panel -- which Mann claims ‘vindicated him’ – and panel member Peter Bloomfield were asked at the House Committee hearings whether or not they agreed with Wegman’s harsh criticisms, they said they did:
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

DR. BLOOMFIELD. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

WALLACE: ‘the two reports were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.’ (Am Stat Assoc.)

As Mark Twain might have put it, there are three kinds of lies -- lies, damned lies and global warming science.

 

[westwall]

The Mann graph has been verified many times. Even those that did not like his statistical methods, when they used theirs, they ended up with the same conclusion.

You people are real tinfoil hat material. The National Academy of Sciences has stated that there is scientific proof beyond a reasonable doubt that we are rapidly warming and changing the climate of the Earth. The policy statements of all the scientific societies in the world also state this.

If that AG from Virginia goes ahead with his witchhunt, I hope that Mann successfully sues him for everything that he has ever owned. This is a political tactic for purely political purposes.

Skeptical Real Climate Science

From the North report:

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically diverse sites experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward."

"The committee finds it plausible that the northern hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium."

"In practice, [Mann's PCA] method, though not recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature; reconstructions performed without using principal component analysis are qualitatively similar to the original curves presented by Mann et al."

Read the real NAS testimony above.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

As Mark Twain might have put it, there are three kinds of lies -- lies, damned lies and global warming science.

I don't know where you got that since you didn't link but I'm betting it wasn't published in any scientific journal.

 

[Old Rocks]

From the National Academy of Sciences. Unlike the loons you people like to quote, these are the brightest and best in their fields.

Mann is correct, as are these scientists. No two county AG with political ambitons, and no ethics, can change reality.


http://dels.nas.edu/resources/stati...ports-in-brief/Science_Report_Brief_Final.pdf

What is Known about Climate Change
Science has made enormous progress toward
understanding climate change. As a result, there is a
strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple
lines of research, documenting that Earth is warming.
Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is
largely caused by human activities, especially the
release of greenhouse gases through the burning of
fossil fuels. Global warming is closely associated
with other climate changes and impacts, including
rising sea levels, increases in intense rainfall events,
decreases in snow cover and sea ice, more frequent
and intense heat waves, increases in wildfires, longer
growing seasons, and ocean acidification.
Individually and collectively, these changes pose
risks for a wide range of human and environmental
systems. While much remains to be learned, the core
phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses
have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm
in the face of serious scientific debate and careful
evaluation of alternative explanations.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Pretty soon the hockey stick will become the Piltdown man of climate research. In a way, it already is, because it is standing in the way of more honest research that would be more productive.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Pretty soon the hockey stick will become the Piltdown man of climate research. In a way, it already is, because it is standing in the way of more honest research that would be more productive.

How is it "standing in the way"?

You haven't read the Mann or the MM paper, have you?

 

[Old Rocks]

The Mann graph has been verified many times. Even those that did not like his statistical methods, when they used theirs, they ended up with the same conclusion.

You people are real tinfoil hat material. The National Academy of Sciences has stated that there is scientific proof beyond a reasonable doubt that we are rapidly warming and changing the climate of the Earth. The policy statements of all the scientific societies in the world also state this.

If that AG from Virginia goes ahead with his witchhunt, I hope that Mann successfully sues him for everything that he has ever owned. This is a political tactic for purely political purposes.

Skeptical Real Climate Science

From the North report:

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically diverse sites experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward."

"The committee finds it plausible that the northern hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium."

"In practice, [Mann's PCA] method, though not recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature; reconstructions performed without using principal component analysis are qualitatively similar to the original curves presented by Mann et al."[/quote]




Read the real NAS testimony above.

Certainly.

 

[westwall]

From the National Academy of Sciences. Unlike the loons you people like to quote, these are the brightest and best in their fields.

Mann is correct, as are these scientists. No two county AG with political ambitons, and no ethics, can change reality.


http://dels.nas.edu/resources/stati...ports-in-brief/Science_Report_Brief_Final.pdf

What is Known about Climate Change
Science has made enormous progress toward
understanding climate change. As a result, there is a
strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple
lines of research, documenting that Earth is warming.
Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is
largely caused by human activities, especially the
release of greenhouse gases through the burning of
fossil fuels. Global warming is closely associated
with other climate changes and impacts, including
rising sea levels, increases in intense rainfall events,
decreases in snow cover and sea ice, more frequent
and intense heat waves, increases in wildfires, longer
growing seasons, and ocean acidification.
Individually and collectively, these changes pose
risks for a wide range of human and environmental
systems. While much remains to be learned, the core
phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses
have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm
in the face of serious scientific debate and careful
evaluation of alternative explanations.

You really are deficient aren't you. The report I posted IS from the NAS scientists who reviewed Mann's work and who Mann claimed vindicated him, only they didn't if you would actually bother to read something that ran counter to your cultist beliefs.

 

[konradv]

Once again for konradv Marked Mann - IBD - Investors.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Until you confront the issue of how CO2 can go up without there being consequent warming, you're NOT going to get any traction. I don't give a damn about your Mann article. I don't base my understanding on what anyone else says, but solely on the logic. Any other attempt to argue my position is merely distraction from the fact that neither science nor logic is on the deniers' side.

 

[Si modo]

Its actually more evidence of the persecution of scientists who have conclusions we don't like.

Spoken like a true cultist toober. For ten years the AGW fraudsters have been stifling real research and preventing the publication of sceptical papers for over a decade. Only a truly dishonest person could see what the Mann's, and Jones', et all have done and think that behavior is OK.

Oh whatever, no they haven't, that's just what you believe because right wing media hacks tell you to believe it. I doubt you could even explain what Mann did or didn't do.

Actually, it's what he knows based on the logic of scientific discovery.

Those without such basic knowledge soil science and are enemies of it.

Congrats.