Weather Channel Owner Suing Al Gore For Fraud....

[BrianH]

This is the claim that was made by TopGunna.

1st claim: The IPCC found flaws in Mann's work.

2nd claim: It was significant enough to drop the graph from their 2007 report.


You have provided no evidence to indicate Mann's work was dropped by the IPCC for serious flaws.

What you have done, what is apparent, is you have taken conjecture written by climate skeptics as gospel.

Show me the official report authored by the IPCC outlining the mistakes made by Mann. Then show me that Mann's work and graph - or anything like it - does not appear at all because of the purposeful removal of his work by the IPCC.

I do not know where you came up with the claim that Mann, his work and the hockey stick graph was somehow dropped from the fourth assessment of the IPCC for "significant flaws".

Until then what you have done is obvious. Repeated a distorted claim made climate skeptics with no basis on evidence - only conjecture.

There is an obvious way to find a resolution to your claim. Write Dr.Mann and write the IPCC explain who you are and the purpose of your email/letter, and get a definitive answer straight from the horse's mouth.

So again, find me the evidence straight from the IPCC or shut the hell up.

Why don't you look at the IPCC link that PLP provided, the links I provided that also link to the IPCC report, as well as the vid that Angel Heart provided that states that the Mann- graph is not found in the 2007 4th IPCC report? You're dancing in cirlces now by claiming that there's not efficient evidence to prove this while your completely ignoring the fact that you were chastizing us for even claiming that it is true. You were shortly on a crusade to prove that they didn't, but it seems you haven't posted any proof for that claim. So now your only defense is to desparately attack us "liars." This discredits your entire argument by proving you fail to acknowledge factual things, and are one many self-proclaimed scientist that "see" evidence for desired results, it also shows you for the hack that you are...

 

[TopGunna]

Ugh. You are either putting words in my mouth, or I wasn't simple enough in my post. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

1st claim: The IPCC found flaws in Mann's work.

I did not mean for you to interpret it this way. The IPCC did not find the flaws. The flaws were found in an external statistical analysis. Hope this is clear now.

2nd claim: It was significant enough to drop the graph from their 2007 report.

The graph is NOT in the 2007 report! I provided the link to it. You're clinging to the fact that it's on page 34 - I would LOVE for you to provide a link to this supposed report, but you haven't!

You have provided no evidence to indicate Mann's work was dropped by the IPCC for serious flaws....Show me the official report authored by the IPCC outlining the mistakes made by Mann.

I never meant to imply that the IPCC came out and discredited its own work, nor should any rational person expect them to do that. "Uh, we made a mistake 6 years ago, but we got it right, so keep believing us!"

More compelling to me is the fact that the hockey stick graph is NO WHERE in the 4th assessment. It was the centerpiece of the 2001 assessment! I don't know for sure why it was omitted, but my guess is the IPCC is aware of the criticisms and realizes the study is far from bulletproof.

I hope that helps simpler brains to comprehend my message. Lastly, please provide a link to the 4th IPCC report that still predominantly features the hockey stick - you know, on page 34. I'll be looking forward to reading it.

 

[Canis]

I just looked at both reports briefly. The graph from Mann's paper is on pg. 34 of the Third IPCC report. It's under section Q9 and is Figure SPM-10b - Variations of the Earth's surface temperature: years 1000 - 2100.

However, if you pay attention to the graph and look at the variations in mean temperature from 1850 to 2000 you'll see it go from approx. -0.5 degrees C in 1850 to approx. 0.4 degrees C in 2000.

Open the Fourth IPCC report and go to the top graph in Fig. 1.1 on page 31. It's a graph of variations in mean surface temperature from 1850 to 2000. Around 1850 it's at approx. -0.5 degrees C and in 2000 it's at approx. 0.5 degrees C.

Although Mann's work may not have been used for the Fourth IPCC Report, it looks like Mann's results were in no way dicredited by the research panel. The top graph of Fgure 1.1 looks like a cut out and enlarged section of the "hockey stick." In fact, they both have the same little hump around 1940.

I'm just comparing two graphs and they both look similar to me. I could be wrong.

Also, Figure 2.3 looks to have several "hockey stick" looking graphs. So, my question is, why is Figure SPM-10b in the Third IPCC Report is considered a "hockey stick" and other J-shaped curves seen elsewhere are not?

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

I just looked at both reports briefly. The graph from Mann's paper is on pg. 34 of the Third IPCC report. It's under section Q9 and is Figure SPM-10b - Variations of the Earth's surface temperature: years 1000 - 2100.

However, if you pay attention to the graph and look at the variations in mean temperature from 1850 to 2000 you'll see it go from approx. -0.5 degrees C in 1850 to approx. 0.4 degrees C in 2000.

Open the Fourth IPCC report and go to the top graph in Fig. 1.1 on page 31. It's a graph of variations in mean surface temperature from 1850 to 2000. Around 1850 it's at approx. -0.5 degrees C and in 2000 it's at approx. 0.5 degrees C.

Although Mann's work may not have been used for the Fourth IPCC Report, it looks like Mann's results were in no way dicredited by the research panel. The top graph of Fgure 1.1 looks like a cut out and enlarged section of the "hockey stick." In fact, they both have the same little hump around 1940.

I'm just comparing two graphs and they both look similar to me. I could be wrong.

Also, Figure 2.3 looks to have several "hockey stick" looking graphs. So, my question is, why is Figure SPM-10b in the Third IPCC Report is considered a "hockey stick" and other J-shaped curves seen elsewhere are not?

Of course they are the same graphs. In fact, even if one takes Mann's 'hockey stick' graph out of the picture, there still remains other independent lines of evidence complete with graphs with the same results.

TopGunna and Brian made the mistake every lazy amateur global warming skeptic does - take the word of a less than credible or non-scientific source as gospel and claim they have discredited over 2000 lines of independent evidence in "one fell swoop," as Brian put it earlier.

In this case, it was a political editorial printed by the Wall Street Journal over a year ago.

TopGunna made a very serious charge "the IPCC found the flaws in Mann's work significant enough to drop the graph from their 2007 report," which he is now backtracking from as no evidence exists to solidify or strengthen this claim.

They rehash the same old debunked arguments they do not realize have been floating around the net for some time now.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Ugh. You are either putting words in my mouth,

I did not mean for you to interpret it this way.

I did not put any words in your mouth. You made the claim. I used your words.

I direct you to post #146

Posted by TopGunna
the IPCC found the flaws in Mann's work significant enough to drop the graph from their 2007 report.

Those are your words and no one else's.

You said the IPCC found flaws in Mann's work "significant enough" to drop the graph from the 2007 report.

Of course, it is totally untrue.

Take back the claim and save yourself a little dignity.

 

[TopGunna]

YOU are the one confusing the 2001 report with the 2007 report. Page 34 - hahahaha!

They (the IPCC) found the flaws (as pointed out by M&M) significant enough that it affected their decision to include the chart in the 2007 report. The IPCC did not state this verbally - rather, their actions (omitting the graph from the 2007 report, WHICH DID HAPPEN) is what contrues their uncertainty.

I'm not going to battle semantics here. I know the message I'm trying to convey. You can dance around and show how it can be interpreted different ways, but any sensible person knows what I meant.

The real irony is that you're pointing to semantics to discredit my overall message, yet you hold that statistical shortcomings in the Mann Hockey stick construction don't discredit his message whatsoever.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

They (the IPCC) found the flaws (as pointed out by M&M) significant enough that it affected their decision to include the chart in the 2007 report.

The IPCC did not state this verbally - rather, their actions (omitting the graph from the 2007 report, WHICH DID HAPPEN) is what contrues their uncertainty.


statistical shortcomings in the Mann Hockey stick construction don't discredit his message whatsoever.

You have not provided any evidence the IPCC found flaws 'significant enough' to remove the chart. What have you done is offer a reason for the graph's alleged omission (by you) that sounds more like personal opinion than a valid argument based on concrete evidence.

Like the other poster (Canis) said, other charts that look exactly like the Mann graph with the same results appear in the fourth assessment.

You are nothing more than a political idealogue trying to force opinion and personal feelings into a scientific debate.

You have made two serious claims which you have only backed up with opinion and conjecture.

This is not a current issue or a political topic. It remains a scientific topic no matter how hard you try to politicize the issue via editorials from the Wall Street Journal.

By the way, there are no 'statistical shortcomings' in the graph. That is another lie. The hockey stick has been defended by the National Academy of Sciences, Nature, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and the American Meteorological Society.

Mann's critics are TopGunna, BrianH and two Canadians (M&M) with no climate science credentials - one who works for the mining industry and other who is an economist. Their criticism of Mann has been debunked by leading professionals in the field. It was sloppy, it was riddled with mistakes and it was exposed as such via a peer-reviewed journal authored by working climate scientists and published in a scientific journal.

Get real and save yourself the embarrassment.

 

[TopGunna]

Well, I'm not a mind reader, so obviously I cannot absolutely tell you why it was omitted from the 2007 report.

"Alleged" omission? Fact = it IS missing from the 2007 report, for whatever reason. You keep pointing to its inclusion in the OLD document!

Rather than telling me I'm wrong, why don't you enlighten me and tell me the true reason there are zero references to Mann in the 2007 report.

Or, you could again point to pages in a 2001 publication, and then accuse me of referencing outdated information.

"You are nothing more than a political idealogue trying to force opinion and personal feelings into a scientific debate."

That sounds more like your conjecture/opinion of me, than something you can prove, doesn't it?

Hypocrisy sure is fun!

 

[BrianH]

You have not provided any evidence the IPCC found flaws 'significant enough' to remove the chart. What have you done is offer a reason for the graph's alleged omission (by you) that sounds more like personal opinion than a valid argument based on concrete evidence.

Like the other poster (Canis) said, other charts that look exactly like the Mann graph with the same results appear in the fourth assessment.

You are nothing more than a political idealogue trying to force opinion and personal feelings into a scientific debate.

You have made two serious claims which you have only backed up with opinion and conjecture.

This is not a current issue or a political topic. It remains a scientific topic no matter how hard you try to politicize the issue via editorials from the Wall Street Journal.

By the way, there are no 'statistical shortcomings' in the graph. That is another lie. The hockey stick has been defended by the National Academy of Sciences, Nature, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and the American Meteorological Society.

Mann's critics are TopGunna, BrianH and two Canadians (M&M) with no climate science credentials - one who works for the mining industry and other who is an economist. Their criticism of Mann has been debunked by leading professionals in the field. It was sloppy, it was riddled with mistakes and it was exposed as such via a peer-reviewed journal authored by working climate scientists and published in a scientific journal.

Get real and save yourself the embarrassment.

Homes, you're spent; you mind as well hit the showers. The only way you're keeping up this debate is by claiming that our claim is false, and not providing any proof that it is so. TopGunna, myself, and Angel heart have provided links, (as well as the actual IPCC report itself) and proof that it is omitted in the 2007 report. You fail to see that it's true, which shows your extreme bias on the issue. The mann-hockey stick graph is not there, nor cited numerous times as you claim.

You have run into a brick-wall, so you're back-tracking and trying to by yourself time until you can find something else to attempt to distract us with. You are wrong...it is as simple as that.

 

[BrianH]

You have not provided any evidence the IPCC found flaws 'significant enough' to remove the chart. What have you done is offer a reason for the graph's alleged omission (by you) that sounds more like personal opinion than a valid argument based on concrete evidence.

Like the other poster (Canis) said, other charts that look exactly like the Mann graph with the same results appear in the fourth assessment.

You are nothing more than a political idealogue trying to force opinion and personal feelings into a scientific debate.

You have made two serious claims which you have only backed up with opinion and conjecture.

This is not a current issue or a political topic. It remains a scientific topic no matter how hard you try to politicize the issue via editorials from the Wall Street Journal.

By the way, there are no 'statistical shortcomings' in the graph. That is another lie. The hockey stick has been defended by the National Academy of Sciences, Nature, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and the American Meteorological Society.

Mann's critics are TopGunna, BrianH and two Canadians (M&M) with no climate science credentials - one who works for the mining industry and other who is an economist. Their criticism of Mann has been debunked by leading professionals in the field. It was sloppy, it was riddled with mistakes and it was exposed as such via a peer-reviewed journal authored by working climate scientists and published in a scientific journal.

Get real and save yourself the embarrassment.

[ame]http://youtube.com/watch?v=zfafW_3oJ3Q&feature=related[/ame]

Watch this Artard...
Former President of the National Academy Sciences resigned and fought to have his name taken off of the report. He says many other scientists were unable to do so despite their criticism of the report. Many of their names make up you're 2,000 names. Watch this....all the way through. Your bias is rearing it's ugly head.

 

[BrianH]

The Good Shephard......here boy....come one....(whistle) .

Where'd you go?

Oh there you are --------->

 

[rayboyusmc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

 

[Zoomie1980]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

What global warming?

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

 

[Yurt]

i bet you gore wishes now he finished more than his 1L year and got that ol' law degree

 

[marsanges]

... looks good.

about a year ago I came across reports that people had turned to micromodeling i. e. applying the hopefully good medium to long term climate models to the very short range of a few years at most, to generate global trend forecasts that actually could be tested (within a single research grant period). That struck me as clever. Anyway what I understood last summer was that people at the Hadley Center had forecast that there would be a global temperature drop for two years (i. e. 2008 and 2009) and that after that there would be a sharp increase, the phrase that stuck with me was that after that each year - for a several year period - would have about 50% chance to be the hottest year on record (i. e. topping 2007 and laters). So, from your link and its sublinks (and other stuff) I get the impression that the data coming in begin to bear out this shortrange forecast.

That I would find interesting - actually significant support for having faith in the GC climate models that much of the global warming projection is based upon - they seem to hold up so far. But thats my own personal spin.

I would have to try and look up the original link to those forecasters, not sure if I can find it back, but the citations in your link and its references - if you take away the spin - seem to say about the same.

we all will get to see it anyway, that is one of the good things about natural sciences, you (or I) can opine about it as much as we want but that doesnt change reality one bit. Regardless, seems these micromodelers have done good work.

 

[marsanges]

.. that was easier than I thought.

Unfortunately its in Science which I don't have here. Here's the abstract :

=======================
Science 10 August 2007:
Vol. 317. no. 5839, pp. 796 - 799
DOI: 10.1126/science.1139540
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports
Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model
Doug M. Smith,* Stephen Cusack, Andrew W. Colman, Chris K. Folland, Glen R. Harris, James M. Murphy
Previous climate model projections of climate change accounted for external forcing from natural and anthropogenic sources but did not attempt to predict internally generated natural variability. We present a new modeling system that predicts both internal variability and externally forced changes and hence forecasts surface temperature with substantially improved skill throughout a decade, both globally and in many regions. Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.

Met office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, Ex1 3PB, UK.

================

That's what's going on, the current cold spell actually appears nicely in line with Global Warming modeling. At climateprogress.org they have a nice figure out of that article. The system doesnt allow me to post the direct link because it seems to think I might be a troll (this being only my third post here ever). I must excuse to everyone for my html illiteracy. When I was young I painted my graphs with a pen on millimeter paper that was good enough.

 

[JimH52]

...I've been waiting for this to happen...I'm not a global warming believer...I do believe that the globe may be warming, but I don't think we've spread up the process as much as people suggest that we do. Natural Climate Cycle.
--One volcano eruption puts more dangerous gases into the atmospher then humans ever thought about doing.

So the title of the Thread is a Lie. Therefore, you are a LIAR as defined by administrators on this board.

 

[BrianH]

So the title of the Thread is a Lie. Therefore, you are a LIAR as defined by administrators on this board.

What are you talking about. The Thread title wasn't a lie. It was the title of an article dumbass. I didn't say I agreed with the motives, but I said it would be interesting to see what evidence arises if the lawsuit ever took hold. Now, my assumption that a volcano puts more CO2 into the air than humans may have been wrong (which I've admitted to). Then again, my statement about Volcanoes wasn't the title now was it. Learn to read Jim. You're going to have to do better than that.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

.
--One volcano eruption puts more dangerous gases into the atmospher then humans ever thought about doing.

As far as greenhouse gases, no it doesn't. Sorry, you're just flat out wrong. Don't know where you got that. You probably just made it up.

 

[BrianH]

As far as greenhouse gases, no it doesn't. Sorry, you're just flat out wrong. Don't know where you got that. You probably just made it up.

YOU'RE BEHIND IN THE THREAD DUDE........READ ALL OF IT BEFORE YOU POST REPLIES, SOME OF IT IS ALREADY ADDRESSED....such as the VOLCANOES....