Michael Mann: Global Cryass
- Thread starter Oddball
- Start date
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Mann's graph has been backed up by fourteen more studies that showed that he was correct. The National Academy of Sciences study, while faulting his statistical methods, found that his graph was essentially correct.
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years
As usual Old Fraud you only use those reports that you find favourable...kind of like that Russian Scientist I pointed out.
Here is what the NAS actually had to say about your bum buddies graph.
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.
Here is what the NAS actually had to say about your bum buddies graph.
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.
Last edited:
Heat was much better.
gslack
Senior Member
- Mar 26, 2010
- 4,527
- 356
- 48
Remainder of story HERE.
The video, for all you music fans:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAlMomLvu_4]YouTube - Censoring The Decrease in Global Temperatures[/ame]
great post!
I was looking over other articles on that page you linked to. I found this statement....
" Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull volcano is dumping tons of Sulfur Dioxide into the atmosphere, but according to the local news this might be a good thing. Turns out scientists want to spray the skies with Sulfur Dioxide to stop global warming."
So being the rather anal retentive person I am I remembered hearing this before, and googled it.... Found this...
Can a Million Tons of Sulfur Dioxide Combat Climate Change?
The article talks about this guys idea to spray Sulfur Dioxide into the atmosphere to combat global warming.... Sulfur Dioxide sound familiar? yeah it should its the precursor to acid rain... And SO2 was the part of the first small level cap and trade arrangement to combat acid rain. See the problem yet? yeah the idiots want to go ahead and pump acid rain creating elements into the atmosphere that they capped years ago, in order to combat global warming..... unbelievable.... You just couldn't make this up, its too fantastical.
Economic Incentives = Environmental Gains - Fight Global Warming - Environmental Defense Fund
How Geoengineering Works: 5 Big Plans to Stop Global Warming - Popularmechanics.com
Lets review.....
1. A few years ago they passed a cap and trade on a small scale to fight SO2 (sulfur dioxide) emissions due to it causing acid rain. The scientists told them it was the cause and they had to stop it.
2. Today some of those scientists want to pump SO2 into the atmosphere to fight global warming. They even state SO2 creates acid rain and they figure its somehow not as big a threat as it was...... WOW!!!!
yeah this is the reality folks....
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
Trump’s “Real ID” Will Be Used to Mandate Vaccinations, “Stop Real ID” Campaign Launched ACTION PAGE HERE- Started by munkle
- Replies: 25
-
Latest Discussions
-
Trump Doesn't Know if He Has to Uphold the Constitution Because He's Not a Lawyer- Latest: NewsVine_Mariyam
-
Jasmine Crockett SNAPS After President Trump Dunks On Her During Meet The Press Interview- Latest: Sally_Sensation
-
