How is it new? This is the reading I have been asking them to do from the start.
What happened to global warming then?
- Thread starter Brandane
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
How is it new? This is the reading I have been asking them to do from the start.
That is soooooo lame.
Figure of speech, artistic license, as an observer, that is.
jonesy
Guru
And what did we read? "I don't think there is anything dishonest about it or anything like that,"
You ask if I want to be Mann's defence, well so far you are doing a fine job of it yourself.
Archie_tect
De Skieven Architek... aka Penfold + Horace
- Location
- Northumberland
U
User482
Guest
Well, quite. It's curious that vamP doesn't think we read his material: even a cursory glance provides all the evidence necessary to refute his rather silly allegation.
lukesdad
Guest
I'm still trying to figure out if VamP agrees with the notion that Anthropogenic climate change is an inevitability or not
Yes climate change is real, and it's caused by human activity.
Linford
Guest
So to recap on this, if you all agree that it is happening - why the argument ?
It all started when FM pointed me to Real Climate (Mann's website) and suggested that I brush up my reading. I retorted, as a throw away line, that I had no time for Mann as he was a liar and cheat, and then the other two piled on.
The argument is not about climate change, it's about the specifics of one climate scientist, and his way of going about things. Ironically, despite jonesy's and User482's outrage at the way that I have been dismissive of Mann's science, they have resisted my invitation to debate the science, preferring to snipe from a distance because a ''cursory glance'' is enough to *know* that my allegations are ''silly''.
If I understand correctly, they *know* this, because I am a ''poor contrarian troll''.
The argument is not about climate change, it's about the specifics of one climate scientist, and his way of going about things. Ironically, despite jonesy's and User482's outrage at the way that I have been dismissive of Mann's science, they have resisted my invitation to debate the science, preferring to snipe from a distance because a ''cursory glance'' is enough to *know* that my allegations are ''silly''.
If I understand correctly, they *know* this, because I am a ''poor contrarian troll''.
Linford
Guest
I can fully empathise with your position - if you agree, then you are wrong, and if you disagree....you are still wrong. Seeing as two wrongs don't make a right, you have to be right - right
You really struggle with interpreting information don't you? Picture the scene: AR3 has just been published, resting squarely on MBH99 version of the MBH98 hockeystick. Dr. North, a natural ally of Mann, is speaking under oath before the US Congress, presenting a report that effectivelly says that the way Mann made his hockey stick could have been applied to the price of fish, and also given a hockey stick. He knows if he accuses Mann of cheating, then IPCC will suffer a serious set-back. So he draws the veil, by pointing out that other research has arrived at similar conclusions, and then he says ''It's not how I would have done it. I don't think there is anything dishonest about it or anything like that.'' He is damning Mann with faint praise. You can practically smell his embarassment and discomfort.
