jonesy
Guru
I assume you can provide evidence for that accusation?
What happened to global warming then?
- Thread starter Brandane
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I assume you can provide evidence for that accusation?
Are you thick? I've just admitted to being a dick on purpose yesterday, of course is farking ironic.
As it happens there is quite a lot of evidence out there, and Mann is ostracized by a significant portion of the climate science community, as it is well known that he has manipulated data. But I really do not feel that I have any need to do your reading for you on demand...
BigonaBianchi
Yes I can, Yes I am, Yes I did...Repeat.
- Location
- Iskele TRNC & Mordor UK
no sign of any warming here actually...gorgeous sunshiney day..blue skies and an arctic wind from hell.
The seagulls on the beach have all morphed into penguins and fatwomen in cars are wearing 35 layers and two woollen hats in hermatically sealed 4x4 ovens
The seagulls on the beach have all morphed into penguins and fatwomen in cars are wearing 35 layers and two woollen hats in hermatically sealed 4x4 ovens
Flying_Monkey
Recyclist
- Location
- Odawa
Some posters should be very careful of posting things that are not fair comment, but actually libel. I am saying this to remind you that this is Shaun's website and in English law, he is legally responsible for what is posted here (whether we agree with that law or not). So, if you have any respect for Shaun, you should not post such comments, which are in any case ad-hominem and not relevant to a discussion of the science.
Erm, no I'm not!! You are responsible for what you post here and any claim for libel will be directed towards you.
A court can instruct me to remove content that is shown to be libelous (or that is the subject of legal proceedings or is the basis of a claim for libel), but I am not legally responsible for everything that everyone posts.
Just thought I'd clear that up.
As you were ...
That's far from certain. He might - might - be liable if he leaves a defamatory post up here after he has been told that it is defamatory, but not until then.
I don't think we should give ourselves such airs. CycleChat is just one of zillions of chat forums and has about as much importance as arguing down the pub. Over in the CAD sand pit they all take it terribly seriously, but none of it actually matters.
Posts in Cafe should be governed by good manners, not the notion that we might get poked with a writ.
I can only guess that you are taking a pot shot at me.
As my comments were a way of answering your invitation to ... ehm, ''improve'' my ''airy'' understanding of the science by reading RC's crock of, at best tendentious, ''information'', I responded by stating that I had no respect for Mann and his cronies. I have serious doubt that even RC's fanbase would stoop so low as to sue a web site owner over random musings of anonymous posters, especially given that Mann was found to be less than truthful not by me, but by the Congressional Committee on Energy amd Commerce...
Still, thanks for the heads up... I shall weigh my lunchtime words more carefully
As to what is and isn't relevant to the science, in this massively politicised field, I shall make my own mind up, thank you.
Yellow Fang
Legendary Member
- Location
- Reading
Not according to this entry in Wikipedia. It says there were some shortcomings in his statistical methods but that they had little effect on the results. There have been a dozen reconstructions of climate over the past 1000 years and they mostly back up Mann's research.
Hm. I wonder if Wikipedia carries as much weight as Congressional hearings.
Seriously, that's why I don't read RC - because they are constantly twisting the whole temperature reconstruction record, and writing about it on Wiki
. Both Wegman (one of the most respected statisticians in the US), and North (a climatologist) reported under oath that Mann's methodology was wrong. Read their reports - they are freely available.
The fact that other studies come up with similar results to Mann's has little bearing on the fact that he (either knowingly or erroneously - let's be generous, he might have changed the statistical methodology halfway through his study by accident, and not because he wasn't getting the results he wanted) used the wrong statistical method to evaluate his study, fundamentally changing the findings. And subsequently denied this, which he continues to do...
Let me be 100% clear on this: I am not arguing that there is no anthropogenic climate change, but I am distancing myself from Mann, and the clique he moves in. They have done the whole field a huge disservice with their lies and shenanigans.
As to the specifics of the study - Mann looked at a number of samples of tree core data, and used the rings within as a proxy for historical temperature for periods before actual temperature records began. He then used a statistical methodology to graft the tree ring data to the temperature record, in a way that produced the now 'infamous' hockey-stick.
Out of the number of samples he used, only one displayed a significant hockey-stick shape, these were bristle cone pine trees. These trees are known to exhibit a strong growth reaction to increased CO2 percentages in the atmosphere. The statistical mis-manipulation applied by Mann skewed the importance of this one sample over all the others.
Oh yeah, and if FM or anyone else wants to sue me - PM me for my contact details. I'm up for it!
Seriously, that's why I don't read RC - because they are constantly twisting the whole temperature reconstruction record, and writing about it on Wiki
. Both Wegman (one of the most respected statisticians in the US), and North (a climatologist) reported under oath that Mann's methodology was wrong. Read their reports - they are freely available.The fact that other studies come up with similar results to Mann's has little bearing on the fact that he (either knowingly or erroneously - let's be generous, he might have changed the statistical methodology halfway through his study by accident, and not because he wasn't getting the results he wanted) used the wrong statistical method to evaluate his study, fundamentally changing the findings. And subsequently denied this, which he continues to do...
Let me be 100% clear on this: I am not arguing that there is no anthropogenic climate change, but I am distancing myself from Mann, and the clique he moves in. They have done the whole field a huge disservice with their lies and shenanigans.
As to the specifics of the study - Mann looked at a number of samples of tree core data, and used the rings within as a proxy for historical temperature for periods before actual temperature records began. He then used a statistical methodology to graft the tree ring data to the temperature record, in a way that produced the now 'infamous' hockey-stick.
Out of the number of samples he used, only one displayed a significant hockey-stick shape, these were bristle cone pine trees. These trees are known to exhibit a strong growth reaction to increased CO2 percentages in the atmosphere. The statistical mis-manipulation applied by Mann skewed the importance of this one sample over all the others.
Oh yeah, and if FM or anyone else wants to sue me - PM me for my contact details. I'm up for it!
Yeah, mostly by Wahl, Amman and other colleagues of Mann's. The guys working with borehole data have different findings.
Interestingly, Wahl, and Amman have just used different statistical methods for handling the same data Mann originally used. The whole tree-ring reconstruction industry is balancing on a mighty thin sample
Archie_tect
De Skieven Architek... aka Penfold + Horace
- Location
- Northumberland
Armchair science and quasi-legal opinion should only be taken as hearsay, especially resulting from on-line research... interesting but not binding!
Yellow Fang
Legendary Member
- Location
- Reading
I would say yes TBH.
There was an article in New Scientist a while back about the standard of scientific knowledge among American politicians. 96 out of a recent intake of 100 Republican representatives have said they do not believe in climate change or have sworn to resist legislature aimed at tackling it. Out of 535 representatives, only 2% had a science degree, while 222 were lawyers. The article said the democrats weren't perfect neither - some have insisted that cancer warnings be issued to people living near signal transmitters (or it may have been electricity transmission lines), despite there being no evidence for it. Not to mention those politicians who think creationism should be taught in school science lessons.
Wikipedia shouldn't be trusted on its own but there's nothing to stop you following up the sources.
slowmotion
Quite dreadful
- Location
- lost somewhere
Speaking of lawyers...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/26/first-look-at-michael-manns-uva-emails/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/26/first-look-at-michael-manns-uva-emails/
brokenflipflop
Veteran
- Location
- Worsley
God knows what's going down so don't worry about it and leave it in his hands.
Let's discuss things we can do something about......like bin men
Let's discuss things we can do something about......like bin men
