U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 08-26-2019, 12:18 PM
 
Location: Central IL
15,303 posts, read 8,717,140 times
Reputation: 35873

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No worries... Mann will have yet another opportunity to provide his data, regressions, and calculations in his lawsuit against Mark Steyn. We'll see if Mann finally comes clean, or if he'd rather lose the third lawsuit out of three to avoid being exposed as a scamster.
...as if the entire case for climate change rests on THIS guy, and THIS case...you wish.

 
Old 08-26-2019, 12:25 PM
 
Location: USA
18,956 posts, read 9,239,808 times
Reputation: 14295
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
...as if the entire case for climate change rests on THIS guy, and THIS case...you wish.
Yet none of the so called experts can tell us what percentage of climate change is natural, and what percentage is cause by man. They also can't tell us what the money will be used to fix climate change, even though ALL their solutions involve tax, fees and surcharges on anything that touches fossil fuel which is.....what for it...…..EVERYTHING.

If natural climate change increases, will their "fixes" address that too, or just the man made portion? What is the man made portion, exactly? See above paragraph.
 
Old 08-26-2019, 01:00 PM
 
2,354 posts, read 682,941 times
Reputation: 1980
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post

Most of that graph uses tree ring data, around the 1960's the tree ring data diverges from the observed temperature and they don't know why. That is where the "hide the decline" comment is from, they are hiding this divergence by splicing on the observed temps. It's two sets of data represented as one contiguous set of data.



One can argue the observed temps are the most accurate but what does that say about the rest of the graph?
Two highly disparate data sets, one grafted upon the other for the primary purpose of producing a visually alarming graph. The fact that the first dataset completely omits the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age...well, we had to come up with something that looked like a hockey stick, right? We can't let historical and geological facts get in the way of the yarn we're trying to spin...
 
Old 08-26-2019, 01:22 PM
 
1,973 posts, read 499,649 times
Reputation: 1793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milton Miteybad View Post
Two highly disparate data sets, one grafted upon the other for the primary purpose of producing a visually alarming graph. The fact that the first dataset completely omits the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age...well, we had to come up with something that looked like a hockey stick, right? We can't let historical and geological facts get in the way of the yarn we're trying to spin...
Lol, scientists take all those things into account. Get those conspiracy theories out of your head, it's really pointless don't you think? Instead of denying the overwhelming evidence that is out there, why don't you guys come up with plans on how to tackle this issue?? Sticking your head in the sand, coming up with the same old denier talking points that have been debunked a million times is not helping your cause as more and more people are waking up the reality of man-made warming. I don't know how long you guys can keep up this charade. Maybe your all just old timers and can't comprehend such change, so you psychologically block it in your head with these conspiracy theories...I don't know, but it's really getting old. The world is changing, whether you accept it or not. At the very least, think about future generations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediev...Comparison.png
 
Old 08-26-2019, 01:41 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
20,378 posts, read 13,981,763 times
Reputation: 5247
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
What makes you think the Supreme Court of British Columbia is funded by the coal industry? Do you have any proof of that?

I think he meant Michael Mann was paid pay big coal to lose the lawsuit.
 
Old 08-26-2019, 01:48 PM
 
25 posts, read 4,774 times
Reputation: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjshae View Post
Here we go again. More coal industry-funded climate change denial.
I don't think the coal industry has any money to fund much of anything. Check their earnings. Pretty poor.
 
Old 08-26-2019, 02:31 PM
 
16,350 posts, read 9,204,379 times
Reputation: 6621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avondalist View Post
It's crazy that a researcher would refuse to divulge the methods and data behind their research, even when required by a court of law. Such a brazen flouting of scientific norms immediately discredits the researcher.
you know whats truly insane? in real science methods and data are given so peer review can in fact, review their peer....


in Climate Science, they don't give the data, they don't provide the methods and they only let "peers" who agree with them write reviews they call "peer review"




Michael Mann is father of Mann-made climate fraud.
 
Old 08-26-2019, 07:40 PM
 
Location: New York Area
16,335 posts, read 6,451,189 times
Reputation: 12587
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Mann knows he faked the data. Producing it in discovery will expose his scam, so he took the hit on losing the lawsuit he himself filed against Dr. Tim Ball and will have to reimburse Dr. Ball for all legal costs and expenses Ball incurred defending himself against Mann's allegations.

Breaking News: Dr Tim Ball Defeats Michael Mann’s Climate Lawsuit
I read the article. It isn't clear whether Mann was incompetent, very stupid or criminally dishonest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avondalist View Post
It's crazy that a researcher would refuse to divulge the methods and data behind their research, even when required by a court of law. Such a brazen flouting of scientific norms immediately discredits the researcher.
Similar to when Gore wouldn't debate Bjorn Lomborg.
 
Old 08-26-2019, 10:29 PM
 
Location: 15 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
25,480 posts, read 14,197,500 times
Reputation: 6576
Mann has ben debunked 1000 times...he is a fugazi
 
Old Yesterday, 03:01 AM
 
Location: New York Area
16,335 posts, read 6,451,189 times
Reputation: 12587
This was not the first time that Mann has been called out on his data. On June 23, 2005 the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent a letter to Michael E. Mann, then of the University of Virginia. Excerpts (from quotes from Congressional source so no copyright) below (link to source):

Quote:
Questions have been raised, according to a February 14, 2005 article in The Wall Street Journal, about the significance of methodological flaws and data errors in your studies of the historical record of temperatures and climate change. We understand that these studies of temperature proxy records (tree rings, ice cores, corals, etc.) formed the basis for a new finding in the 2001 United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR). This finding – that the increase in 20th century northern hemisphere temperatures is ‘likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years' and that the ‘1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year' – has since been referenced widely and has become a prominent feature of the public debate surrounding climate change policy." The letter goes on: "However, in recent peer-reviewed articles in Science, Geophysical Research Letters, and Energy & Environment, researchers question the results of this work." It then states: "The concerns surrounding these studies reflect upon the quality and transparency of federally funded research and of the IPCC review process – two matters of particular interest to the Committee."
Quote:

*****************

"In light of the Committee's jurisdiction over energy policy and certain environmental issues, the Committee must have full and accurate information when considering matters relating to climate change policy. We open this review because this dispute surrounding your studies bears directly on important questions about the federally funded work upon which climate studies rely and the quality and transparency of analyses used to support the IPCC assessment process. With the IPCC currently working to produce a fourth assessment report, addressing questions of quality and transparency in the process and underlying analyses supporting that assessment, both scientific and economic, are of utmost importance if Congress is eventually going to make policy decisions drawing from this work." At this point, the committee's letter asks for answers to eight far-ranging questions, including the private and public sources of Mann's research funding, location of his data, computer codes, his response to critical reviews of his work, including "Did you calculate the R2 statistic for the temperature reconstruction, particularly for the 15th Century proxy record calculations and what were the results?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top