What happened to global warming then?

[jonesy]

You know what? You're right. Mann is an upstanding pillar of the scientific community and we could all learn from him. There, happy?

Your point being? You were the one accusing someone of lying, you might have found a more convincing article in support of that claim than one that tells us that he was cleared of it.

 

[VamP]

The Wegman report is an odd document....quote]

You have become quite an expert all of a sudden haven't you?

It might come as a shock to you, but Mann never to this day made the method of his analysis available to anyone. McIntyre and McKitrick managed to reproduce about 80% of the work which they have publicly acknowledged.

Wegman's brief in these hearing was to provide an independent overview of the MM critique of MBH98, which is what he did, which is what you seem to think he shouldn't have done???

Sadly, your approach to this cause starts with the premise that Mann is right, and then you're looking for evidence to show it. The opposite of the scientific method. Like Mann.

edit: arrgh - editing FAIL! Soz.

 

[VamP]

Your point being? You were the one accusing someone of lying, you might have found a more convincing article in support of that claim than one that tells us that he was cleared of it.

Erm, no. There is a footnote to say that his University has cleared him in connection with some of the information that came to light in the email hacking. Which is a different thing entirely.

I have wasted quite enough of my day typing out my reasons for believing Mann to be a liar and a cheat. If you are still happy that he is not, then I think we will agree to disagree.

As I replied to you yesterday, I am not going to pander to your demands to provide you with things you can find for yourself. If you have any interest in doing so...

 

[jonesy]

Whatever. The onus is normally on the accuser to substantiate a claim of wrongdoing. The internet is full of accusations against all sorts of people. If it were so easy to find proof to support your claim you'd have cited it by now, but so far only an article that doesn't support it.

 

[VamP]

Whatever. The onus is normally on the accuser to substantiate a claim of wrongdoing. The internet is full of accusations against all sorts of people. If it were so easy to find proof to support your claim you'd have cited it by now, but so far only an article that doesn't support it.

You obviously have difficulty interpreting the written word. Here let me help you. Curry (as much of a member of the climate establishment as Mann) said:

'' but the hockey stick thing was exacerbated by Michael Mann’s behavior, trying to keep the data and all the information away from McIntyre, McKitrick, and other people who are skeptical of what they were doing. So we’ve just seen this blow up and blow up and blow up, and it culminated in the East Anglia hack and the e-mails that discredited those guys quite a bit. ''

and

''There are a lot of people with Ph.D.s in physics or chemistry who become interested in the climate change story, read the literature, and follow the blogs—and they’re unconvinced by our arguments. There are statisticians, like McIntyre, who have gotten interested in the climate change issue. McIntyre does not have a Ph.D. He does not have a university appointment. But he’s made an important contribution, starting with criticism of the hockey stick. There’s a Russian biophysicist I communicate with who is not a climate researcher, but she has good ideas. She should be encouraged to pursue them. If the argument is good, wherever it comes from, we should look at it.''



And you conclude that she doesn't think Mann is a liar and a cheat?? It was McIntyre's criticism of MBH98 that was the subject of the Congressional hearings I have been banging about all day.

And you seem to have missed the references I have been making to the Congressional hearings all day, if you think the Curry interview is the sum total of my evidence.

 

[Red Light]

Whatever. The onus is normally on the accuser to substantiate a claim of wrongdoing. The internet is full of accusations against all sorts of people. If it were so easy to find proof to support your claim you'd have cited it by now, but so far only an article that doesn't support it.

Do have any proof of that?

 

[User482]

Because the debate is so hugely politicised and polarised, it's quite rare for people to be openly critical of their peers. Read this interview with Judith Curry, and then google her to get an impression of how much crap she got for speaking her mind.

She is someone for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect BTW. Compare with the Mann interview in the same place.

Thanks for the response. Unfortunately, it doesn't really tell me why you think that Mann is a liar and a cheat. I'm also aware that McIntyre & McKitrick are hardy disinterested parties, and that their claims are widely disputed. I don't have the expertise to judge the merits of each side - if you do, maybe you could share your analysis?

So far, all you've shown us is that a climate scientist believes that Mann should've been more open with his data. I agree with her as it happens, but that's a long way from making Mann a liar and a cheat.

 

[jonesy]

Yes, but User482, somewhere on the internet is proof you are wrong, and it is your fault you haven't looked for it.

 

[Crackle]

Well, after a promising start, case unproven, I'm afraid VamP. I'm scoring it even. I've deducted points from Jonesy for bitterness and points off User482 for insincere supplication. And I thought Yellow Fang held his own.

 

[User482]

Yes, but User482, somewhere on the internet is proof you are wrong, and it is your fault you haven't looked for it.

I managed to find the Wegman report, which surprised me: I thought it had been retracted because of plagiarism...I also looked at the congressional hearings which were broadly supportive of Mann's findings.

VamP clearly knows more about the subject, otherwise he would never have made such strong claims - lets hope he shares them.

 

[VamP]

How many more times need I repeat that I believe Mann to have deliberately misrepresented data in MBH98, before you two accept that as my reason for thinking him a liar and a cheat? I have presented a number of reasons why I believe this. I don't see either User482 or jonesy presenting any reasons why they think that Mann was correct in his methodology, yet you both feel entitled to keep demanding that i present something 'more' convincing.

I wonder who the arbiter is for what constitutes convincing 'enough'? I am also quite curious that you feel entitled to have this spoon fed to you on demand. I would say that it's entirely up to you whether you want to educate yourself, and put in the pre-requisite effort, or whether you want to remain ignorant.

 

[threebikesmcginty]

Well, after a promising start, case unproven, I'm afraid VamP. I'm scoring it even. I've deducted points from Jonesy for bitterness and points off User482 for insincere supplication. And I thought Yellow Fang held his own.

How big is that bag of popcorn, crax?

 

[Crackle]

How big is that bag of popcorn, crax?

Finished it and the beer's a whine.....I mean wine.

 

[MacB]

How big is that bag of popcorn, crax?

don't let the fatboy near it

 

[threebikesmcginty]

don't let the fatboy near it

Don't worry kid - I'll hold you back.