Yet More Settled Science Shown to be Scientific Fraud

[bripat9643]

Not true. Michael Mann is still a tenured professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

Its kind of disgusting how those who commit fraud are protected by the political class...

The snowflakes believe Mann is entitled to manufacture fake data on the taxpayers dime, and he's not even required to cough up his emails.

LOL You simply repeat the 'Conservative' lie about Dr. Mann, and, of course, other room temperature IQ 'Conservatives' believe it. Dr. Mann's science has never been disproven, and in fact, more than a dozen independent studies, using different methods and proxies, have confirmed the Hockey Stick. For that reason, Dr. Mann is a scientist with international stature, while you are just a little finger boy on an internet message board. LOL

Wrong, bonehead. McIntyre and McKitrick disproved it mathematically. Mann is a mathematical ignoramus, and his algorithm turned even random noise into a hocky stick graph. The National Acadamy of Sciences agreed. None of the studies you refered to were "independent." Most of them just repeated the same mathematical errors man made and used the same bogus data he used.

Mann will go down in history as a fraud and a con artist.

The "hockey stick" has been verified over and over.

Yes, it has been verified to be pure bullshit.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There's no such thing as "settled science," bonehead.

In a colloquial sense, there certainly is. Feel free to jump off of your roof and see if you fall up.

In case you aren't aware of it, bonehead, Einstein's general theoy of relativity modified the law of gravity. Further modifications may come in the future. So not even the law of gravity is "settled science."

Modifying a theory is not to "unsettle" it. Even after Einstaine's modifications, the general science still remained, and Newton's laws were still useful. Yes, it is settled acience that microplastic pollution harms ecosystems. But you amd your fellow uneducated squawkers are all free to pool your resources and perform studies that attempt to show it does not. And....go!

 

[bripat9643]

There's no such thing as "settled science," bonehead.

In a colloquial sense, there certainly is. Feel free to jump off of your roof and see if you fall up.

In case you aren't aware of it, bonehead, Einstein's general theoy of relativity modified the law of gravity. Further modifications may come in the future. So not even the law of gravity is "settled science."

Modifying a theory is not to "unsettle" it. Even after Einstaine's modifications, the general science still remained, and Newton's laws were still useful. Yes, it is settled acience that microplastic pollution harms ecosystems. But you amd your fellow uneducated squawkers are all free to pool your resources and perform studies that attempt to show it does not. And....go!

I knew you were going to use that stupid weasel. What the fuck is "the general science?" The fact is that Newton's law of gravity is not mathematically correct. it serves for most uses, but gives incorrect results in high gravitational fields and at high velocities.

Again, there is no such thing as settled science, especially so when government paid shills are the ones saying it.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Not true. Michael Mann is still a tenured professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

Its kind of disgusting how those who commit fraud are protected by the political class...

The snowflakes believe Mann is entitled to manufacture fake data on the taxpayers dime, and he's not even required to cough up his emails.

LOL You simply repeat the 'Conservative' lie about Dr. Mann, and, of course, other room temperature IQ 'Conservatives' believe it. Dr. Mann's science has never been disproven, and in fact, more than a dozen independent studies, using different methods and proxies, have confirmed the Hockey Stick. For that reason, Dr. Mann is a scientist with international stature, while you are just a little finger boy on an internet message board. LOL

Wrong, bonehead. McIntyre and McKitrick disproved it mathematically. Mann is a mathematical ignoramus, and his algorithm turned even random noise into a hocky stick graph. The National Acadamy of Sciences agreed. None of the studies you refered to were "independent." Most of them just repeated the same mathematical errors man made and used the same bogus data he used.

Mann will go down in history as a fraud and a con artist.

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate Division on Earth and Life Studies

Copyright 2006 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Summary

Because widespread, reliable instrumental records are available only for the last 150 years or so, scientists estimate climatic conditions in the more distant past by analyzing proxy evidence from sources such as tree rings, corals, ocean and lake sediments, cave deposits, ice cores, boreholes, glaciers, and documentary evidence. For example, records of Alpine glacier length, some of which are derived from paintings and other documentary sources, have been used to reconstruct the time series of surface temperature variations in south-central Europe for the last several centuries. Studying past climates can help us put the 20th century warming into a broader context, better understand the climate system, and improve projections of future climate.

Starting in the late 1990s, scientists began combining proxy evidence from many different locations in an effort to estimate surface temperature changes averaged over broad geographic regions during the last few hundred to few thousand years. These large-scale surface temperature reconstructions have enabled researchers to estimate past temperature variations over the Northern Hemisphere or even the entire globe, often with time resolution as fine as decades or even individual years. This research, and especially the first of these reconstructions published in 1998 and 1999 by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes, attracted considerable attention because the authors concluded that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the late 20th century than at any other time during the past millennium. Controversy arose because many people interpreted this result as definitive evidence of anthropogenic causes of recent climate change, while others criticized the methodologies and data that were used.

In response to a request from Congress, this committee was assembled by the National Research Council to describe and assess the state of scientific efforts to reconstruct surface temperature records for the Earth over approximately the last 2,000 years and the implications of these efforts for our understanding of global climate change.
.....................................................................................................................................................

A second area of criticism focuses on statistical validation and robustness. McIntyre and McKitrick (2003, 2005a,b) question the choice and application of statistical methods, notably principal component analysis; the metric used in the validation step of the reconstruction exercise; and the selection of proxies, especially the bristlecone pine data used in some of the original temperature reconstruction studies. These and other criticisms, explored briefly in the remainder of this chapter, raised concerns that led to new research and ongoing efforts to improve how surface temperature reconstructions are performed.

As part of their statistical methods, Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions. A description of this effect is given in Chapter 9. In practice, this 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. (Crowley and Lowry 2000, Huybers 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Hegerl et al. 2006,

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NRCreport.pdf

While the authors of the 2006 report did not like his statistical methods, using their own methods, they came up with essentially the same graph. That make you and those like you that accuse Dr. Mann of fraud, liars. Instead of relying on the word of asshole deniars, why the hell don't you ignoramuses go to the paper by the National Academy of Sciences? It is there for the use of all citizens.

What a crock.
Tell me, what was the surface temperature of the Med Sea when Christ was born?
Mid Atlantic? South Pacific?

Total bullshit that mocks science.

 

[bripat9643]

There's no such thing as "settled science," bonehead.

In a colloquial sense, there certainly is. Feel free to jump off of your roof and see if you fall up.

In case you aren't aware of it, bonehead, Einstein's general theoy of relativity modified the law of gravity. Further modifications may come in the future. So not even the law of gravity is "settled science."

Modifying a theory is not to "unsettle" it. Even after Einstaine's modifications, the general science still remained, and Newton's laws were still useful. Yes, it is settled acience that microplastic pollution harms ecosystems. But you amd your fellow uneducated squawkers are all free to pool your resources and perform studies that attempt to show it does not. And....go!

You're engaging in semantics.

There's no such thing as "settled science," expecially in the case of environmental government shills.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Settled science" immediately identifieds the speaker as a scientific illiterate

 

[bripat9643]

"Settled science" immediately identifieds the speaker as a scientific illiterate

It would be more accurate to say use of the term idintifies a dumbass snowflake.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I knew you were going to use that stupid weasel. What the fuck is "the general science?"

The basic idea. Just as the basic ideas of evolutionary theory remain, even if the family tree of a species must be modified.

What you are suggesting is not the same ad modifying our view of gravity in extreme situations, like very high speeds or density. You were an idiot to imply it was anything like this, and you should probably stop talking about science, now.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There's no such thing as "settled science,"

Technically, correct. but again, you are invited to jump off of your roof and see if you fall down or up. Maybe, someday, if you try it enough times, you can "unsettle" the foundations of the science of gravity.

or maybe not.

 

[bripat9643]

There's no such thing as "settled science,"

Technically, correct. but again, you are invited to jump off of your roof and see if you fall down or up. Maybe, someday, if you try it enough times, you can "unsettle" the foundations of the science of gravity.

or maybe not.

All you prove is that you're a moron. No one would jump off their roof before Newton published the law of gravity, moron. Was it settled science then?

 

[bripat9643]

I knew you were going to use that stupid weasel. What the fuck is "the general science?"

The basic idea. Just as the basic ideas of evolutionary theory remain, even if the family tree of a species must be modified.

What you are suggesting is not the same ad modifying our view of gravity in extreme situations, like very high speeds or density. You were an idiot to imply it was anything like this, and you should probably stop talking about science, now.

You're using terms that mean nothing to a scientist.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Was it settled science then?

Obviously not, since we knew next to nothing about it. And, actually, plenty of people thought they could fly, and jumped to their deaths in religious rituals or trying to prove they were "gods". They were ignorant of the fact that gravity can't be affected with faith, or our minds. they were ignorant of the fact that our physical world follows certain deterministic laws, and so thought they could fly, or hold a flame to their skin without being burnt. Guess what happened? they got burnt.

So you can't even get your whiny snark right.

yes, certain things are so far past any rational debate that they are "settled". Scientists accept this. Scientists are not debating the shape of the earth. Scientists are no longer debating about whether or not our carbon emissions affect the climate, or about the truth of evolution as the origin of all species. but you are free to do so, right here in this message board. Enjoy.