Discussion:
No. 1 scientist who is accused of pretty much everything that you can possibly be accused of is Mike Mann
Add Reply
gordo
2018-11-05 20:18:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
“When it comes to climate denial, the No. 1 scientist who is accused
of pretty much everything that you can possibly be accused of is Mike
Mann, who is accused of single-handedly getting the world’s
governments to commit billions of dollars to this hoax,” Lewandowsky
says. “[It] is entirely consistent with what conspiracy theorists
always do, which is to say they identify a few people who are targets.
And then they say they are so powerful that everything in the world is
driven through these few.”

Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann is familiar with the
phenomenon, having been the subject of decades of attacks that reached
a critical point when climate scientists’ emails were hacked and
dumped on the web in 2009, feeding a media frenzy that gave undue
weight to conspiracy theories. Around that time he was named alongside
other experts on a neo-Nazi website, Stormfront.

“The same hatred and conspiratorial ideation that is that the center
of Trumpism also underlies the poisonous atmosphere that pervades the
public discourse when it come to the issue of climate change,” Mann
wrote in an email. He has described the harassment he faced in more
detail in his book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, explaining
an envelope of white powder he received and the flood of hate mail and
death threats charging him with orchestrating a global hoax.

NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt has also long been on the receiving
end of both anti-Semitic and climate change denier hate mail and
emails, sharing some of his experiences on his Twitter feed. Social
media has amplified and provided a platform for toxic harassment, but
“I’m not seeing a commensurate rise in climate denial,” he wrote in an
email. “If anything it’s the other way: the denialist positions in
prominent speakers are moving towards acceptance of the science — not
all the way of course — while still pushing back on solutions. And the
out-and-out denial is not getting the audience it did.”

This is part of a larger article
Tom Steyer and the link between hate groups and climate denial
https://grist.org/article/tom-steyer-trump-and-the-link-between-hate-groups-and-climate-denial/

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Kym Horsell
2018-11-05 20:30:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
“When it comes to climate denial, the No. 1 scientist who is accused
of pretty much everything that you can possibly be accused of is Mike
Mann, who is accused of single-handedly getting the world’s
governments to commit billions of dollars to this hoax,” Lewandowsky
says. “[It] is entirely consistent with what conspiracy theorists
always do, which is to say they identify a few people who are targets.
And then they say they are so powerful that everything in the world is
driven through these few.”
...
Speak of MM, I saw this nice piece from him explaining QRA:

<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/10/climate-change-and-extreme-summer-weather-events-the-future-is-still-in-our-hands/>

Takes a bit of mental organisation to write so clearly. ;)
Wally W.
2018-11-06 02:19:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gordo
“When it comes to climate denial, the No. 1 scientist who is accused
of pretty much everything that you can possibly be accused of is Mike
Mann,
What percentage of the accusations are false?
Catoni
2018-11-06 03:36:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
“When it comes to climate denial, the No. 1 scientist who is accused
of pretty much everything that you can possibly be accused of is Mike
Mann,
What percentage of the accusations are false?
I don't know......

.....but 97% of socialists/Democraps/Lieberals/commushits/Antifa support Michael *Hockey Schtick* Mann.
Bret Cahill
2018-11-06 05:05:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
“When it comes to climate denial, the No. 1 scientist who is accused
of pretty much everything that you can possibly be accused of is Mike
Mann,
What percentage of the accusations are false?
What % of your perdiktins of the Rapturecene were true?
Wally W.
2018-11-06 12:26:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Wally W.
Post by gordo
“When it comes to climate denial, the No. 1 scientist who is accused
of pretty much everything that you can possibly be accused of is Mike
Mann,
What percentage of the accusations are false?
What % of your perdiktins of the Rapturecene were true?
More nonsense from Mr. Context.
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-06 15:56:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 11/5/2018 12:18 PM, gordo wrote:

The number one thing Mann is accused of is bad science. In particular,
his massively-refuted hockey stick:

https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Unum
2018-11-07 23:49:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The number one thing Mann is accused of is bad science.  In particular, his
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Lieblog refuted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years

"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-08 01:06:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
The number one thing Mann is accused of is bad science.  In
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Lieblog refuted.
You need to actually read it, but first you have to have at least a
basic knowledge of the topic. Come back when you have an informed
opinion, son.
Unum
2018-11-08 04:51:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
The number one thing Mann is accused of is bad science.  In particular, his
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Lieblog refuted.
You need to actually read it, but first you have to have at least a basic
knowledge of the topic.  Come back when you have an informed opinion, son.
Yawn, chumpsky full of shit as usual. Come back when you can try to smear
all the corroborating studies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years

"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-08 07:24:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
The number one thing Mann is accused of is bad science.  In
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Lieblog refuted.
You need to actually read it, but first you have to have at least a
basic knowledge of the topic.  Come back when you have an informed
opinion, son.
Yawn, chumpsky full of shit as usual. Come back when you can try to smear
all the corroborating studies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
You missed this:

http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/22/200-non-hockey-stick-graphs-published-since-2017-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-warming/
Unum
2018-11-08 16:13:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Unum
The number one thing Mann is accused of is bad science.  In particular,
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Lieblog refuted.
You need to actually read it, but first you have to have at least a basic
knowledge of the topic.  Come back when you have an informed opinion, son.
Yawn, chumpsky full of shit as usual. Come back when you can try to smear
all the corroborating studies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/22/200-non-hockey-stick-graphs-published-since-2017-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-warming/
chumpsky had to resort to a different lieblog. Global warming ain't
happening? Hilarious!

If you actually look at the graphs you'll notice they don't bear any
resemblance to each other. That's because they are each specific to
one place and don't represent global climate.
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-08 17:15:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
If you actually look at the graphs you'll notice they don't bear any
resemblance to
Hockey sticks.
Unum
2018-11-08 18:22:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
If you actually look at the graphs you'll notice they don't bear any
resemblance to
Hockey sticks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years

"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
R Kym Horsell
2018-11-08 18:40:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
If you actually look at the graphs you'll notice they don't bear any
resemblance to
Hockey sticks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
I think chumpsky was underlining the pages2k database a few days back.

This contains the data from 765 studies that look at proxies
for mostly the period 1 ad through 2000 ad.
All of them show the start of a big change around 1850.
Each study usually contains a number of different proxies.
There are 2924 proxies in all.

But the kooks zero in on Mann "for some reason".

--
[From The Big Projection Scrapbook:]
Scapegoating is just a natural human defence mechanism for monumental failure.
-- Chom Noamsky, 28 Feb 2015
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-08 19:19:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by
... two-hunnert not-a-hockey-sticks!

http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/22/200-non-hockey-stick-graphs-published-since-2017-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-warming/
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-08 03:22:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
The number one thing Mann is accused of is bad science.  In
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Lieblog refuted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
Two-hunnert not-a-hockey-stick studies!

http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/22/200-non-hockey-stick-graphs-published-since-2017-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-warming/
gordo
2018-11-08 19:20:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
The number one thing Mann is accused of is bad science.  In
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Lieblog refuted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
Two-hunnert not-a-hockey-stick studies!
http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/22/200-non-hockey-stick-graphs-published-since-2017-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-warming/
Notrickzone... Unbelievable that you still post such rubbish.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
R Kym Horsell
2018-11-08 19:32:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gordo
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
The number one thing Mann is accused of is bad science. In
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Lieblog refuted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
Two-hunnert not-a-hockey-stick studies!
http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/22/200-non-hockey-stick-graphs-published-since-2017-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-warming/
Notrickzone... Unbelievable that you still post such rubbish.
It's one of those deals where 1/4 of them were made up by an intern
that no longer works there and they dont have a phone number
and the other 3/4 the author complains their paper had nuttin to do with the
period after 1800.
--
[T]he truth about renewables is like poking a rat with a stick... the
hissing, the gnashing of teeth.... it's not pretty.
-- Kim DOh DOh DOhbranski aka Chom aka E.T., 21 11 2014

We decided to combine our energy innovation study's best-case scenario
results with Hansen's climate model to see whether a 55 percent emission cut
by 2050 would bring the world back below that 350-ppm threshold. Our
calculations revealed otherwise. Even if every renewable energy technology
advanced as quickly as imagined and they were all applied globally,
atmospheric CO2 levels wouldn't just remain above 350 ppm; they would
continue to rise exponentially due to continued fossil fuel use. So our best-
case scenario, which was based on our most optimistic forecasts for
renewable energy, would still result in severe climate change, with all its
dire consequences: shifting climatic zones, freshwater shortages, eroding
coasts, and ocean acidification, among others. Our reckoning showed that
reversing the trend would require both radical technological advances in
cheap zero-carbon energy, as well as a method of extracting CO2 from the
atmosphere and sequestering the carbon.
-- Ross Koningstein & David Fork, IEEE Spectrum, 18 Nov 2014.
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-08 20:32:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gordo
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
The number one thing Mann is accused of is bad science.  In
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Lieblog refuted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
Two-hunnert not-a-hockey-stick studies!
http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/22/200-non-hockey-stick-graphs-published-since-2017-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-warming/
Notrickzone... Unbelievable that you still post such rubbish.
The article merely lists two-hunnert PEER-REVIEWED research papers,
published in reputable peer-review science journals.

When did you start calling peer-reviewed scientific literature rubbish?

Now go take a shot of Geritol and shut up.
Unum
2018-11-08 21:24:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gordo
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
The number one thing Mann is accused of is bad science.  In
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Lieblog refuted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
Two-hunnert not-a-hockey-stick studies!
http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/22/200-non-hockey-stick-graphs-published-since-2017-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-warming/
Notrickzone... Unbelievable that you still post such rubbish.
The article merely lists two-hunnert PEER-REVIEWED research papers, published
in reputable peer-review science journals.
When did you start calling peer-reviewed scientific literature rubbish?
Which ones claim to be representative of global climate for the
past 2000 years?
Now go take a shot of Geritol and shut up.
Aw, nasty personal remark means chumpsky loses.
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-08 22:40:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
The number one thing Mann is accused of is bad science.  In
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Lieblog refuted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
Two-hunnert not-a-hockey-stick studies!
http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/22/200-non-hockey-stick-graphs-published-since-2017-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-warming/
Notrickzone... Unbelievable that you still post such rubbish.
The article merely lists two-hunnert PEER-REVIEWED research papers,
published in reputable peer-review science journals.
When did you start calling peer-reviewed scientific literature rubbish?
Which ones claim to be representative of global climate for the
past 2000 years?
Which one of Mann's reconstructions was "representative of global
climate for the past 2000 years"?
Unum
2018-11-09 00:38:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
The number one thing Mann is accused of is bad science.  In
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Lieblog refuted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
Two-hunnert not-a-hockey-stick studies!
http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/22/200-non-hockey-stick-graphs-published-since-2017-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-warming/
Notrickzone... Unbelievable that you still post such rubbish.
The article merely lists two-hunnert PEER-REVIEWED research papers,
published in reputable peer-review science journals.
When did you start calling peer-reviewed scientific literature rubbish?
Which ones claim to be representative of global climate for the
past 2000 years?
Which one of Mann's reconstructions was "representative of global climate for
the past 2000 years"?
Mann's reconstructions represent about 1000 years, so okay, which ones
that the lieblog lists claim 1000 years of global climate? Keep running.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-09 01:21:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
The number one thing Mann is accused of is bad science.  In
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Lieblog refuted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and
combinations of
proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
Two-hunnert not-a-hockey-stick studies!
http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/22/200-non-hockey-stick-graphs-published-since-2017-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-warming/
Notrickzone... Unbelievable that you still post such rubbish.
The article merely lists two-hunnert PEER-REVIEWED research papers,
published in reputable peer-review science journals.
When did you start calling peer-reviewed scientific literature rubbish?
Which ones claim to be representative of global climate for the
past 2000 years?
Which one of Mann's reconstructions was "representative of global
climate for the past 2000 years"?
Mann's reconstructions represent about 1000 years, so okay, which ones
that the lieblog lists claim 1000 years of global climate? Keep running.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf
All covered here:

https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/

See the part where the PAGES tree ring networks that Mann relied upon
don't produce hockey sticks when bristlecone chronologies are are removed.

Let me know where McIntyre erred in his very detailed critique.
Unum
2018-11-09 05:42:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
The number one thing Mann is accused of is bad science.  In
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Lieblog refuted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
Two-hunnert not-a-hockey-stick studies!
http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/22/200-non-hockey-stick-graphs-published-since-2017-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-warming/
Notrickzone... Unbelievable that you still post such rubbish.
The article merely lists two-hunnert PEER-REVIEWED research papers,
published in reputable peer-review science journals.
When did you start calling peer-reviewed scientific literature rubbish?
Which ones claim to be representative of global climate for the
past 2000 years?
Which one of Mann's reconstructions was "representative of global climate
for the past 2000 years"?
Mann's reconstructions represent about 1000 years, so okay, which ones
that the lieblog lists claim 1000 years of global climate? Keep running.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
See the part where the PAGES tree ring networks that Mann relied upon don't
produce hockey sticks when bristlecone chronologies are are removed.
Actually, all I see is a claim by Steve McIntyre to that effect. No evidence
was provided that "the contribution from all other proxies was nothing more
than whitish noise".
Post by Chom Noamsky
Let me know where McIntyre erred in his very detailed critique.
McIntyre just made stuff up and posted it on his blog. He admits it.

"Maybe Graybill bristlecone chronologies are a reasonable temperature proxy.
I’m not convinced about this"
R Kym Horsell
2018-11-09 05:57:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
...
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
See the part where the PAGES tree ring networks that Mann relied upon don't
produce hockey sticks when bristlecone chronologies are are removed.
Actually, all I see is a claim by Steve McIntyre to that effect. No evidence
was provided that "the contribution from all other proxies was nothing more
than whitish noise".
Post by Chom Noamsky
Let me know where McIntyre erred in his very detailed critique.
McIntyre just made stuff up and posted it on his blog. He admits it.
"Maybe Graybill bristlecone chronologies are a reasonable temperature proxy.
I'm not convinced about this"
It's either an incompetent statement or a flat lie. Or a lil from col A & B.

When the pages2k project was put up I posted a bunch of things about
what the different types and regions showed.

As I said before, there are ~3000 proxy series in the collection so
you can imagine how many combinations you can average up.

No hillbilly can count past 10 so it's "very unlikely" any of them
has done any kind any kind of worthwhile check.

The only thing odd about the NAm region -- I mentioned it at the post --
was it tended to show a MWP and LIA that other regions did not.

All regions and proxy types that cover the period upto the 20th
cent (many of them e.g. go 1ad to 1000ad) otherwise show a growing increase
in temp-type proxies past the 19th cent.

Individual proxies can "look like white noise" to a hillbilly, but
averages of even small numbers will show the expected patterns. (Well, derrr).
I.e. they just "contain noise" (well, derr) not "are (exclusively) noise".
--
[Fruit flies ain hillbillies].
Even Fruit Flies Need a Moment to Think It Over
Boston.com, 22 May 2014 21:20Z
It is easy to think of fruit flies as tiny robots that simply respond
reflexively to their environment. But just like humans, they take time to
collect information and to deliberate when faced with a difficult choice,
according to a new study.
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-09 07:06:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 19:22:53 -0800, Chom Noamsky
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
The number one thing Mann is accused of is bad science.  In
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Lieblog refuted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and
combinations of
proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
Two-hunnert not-a-hockey-stick studies!
http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/22/200-non-hockey-stick-graphs-published-since-2017-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-warming/
Notrickzone... Unbelievable that you still post such rubbish.
The article merely lists two-hunnert PEER-REVIEWED research
papers, published in reputable peer-review science journals.
When did you start calling peer-reviewed scientific literature rubbish?
Which ones claim to be representative of global climate for the
past 2000 years?
Which one of Mann's reconstructions was "representative of global
climate for the past 2000 years"?
Mann's reconstructions represent about 1000 years, so okay, which ones
that the lieblog lists claim 1000 years of global climate? Keep running.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
See the part where the PAGES tree ring networks that Mann relied upon
don't produce hockey sticks when bristlecone chronologies are are removed.
Actually, all I see is a claim by Steve McIntyre to that effect. No evidence
was provided that "the contribution from all other proxies was nothing more
than whitish noise".
Missed this?

Loading Image...

And this?

Loading Image...

And this?

Loading Image...
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Let me know where McIntyre erred in his very detailed critique.
McIntyre just made stuff up and posted it on his blog. He admits it.
"Maybe Graybill bristlecone chronologies are a reasonable temperature proxy.
I’m not convinced about this"
What exactly did he make up?

"keep running boy!"
Unum
2018-11-09 15:42:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
The number one thing Mann is accused of is bad science.  In
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Lieblog refuted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of
proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft"
appears."
Two-hunnert not-a-hockey-stick studies!
http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/22/200-non-hockey-stick-graphs-published-since-2017-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-warming/
Notrickzone... Unbelievable that you still post such rubbish.
The article merely lists two-hunnert PEER-REVIEWED research papers,
published in reputable peer-review science journals.
When did you start calling peer-reviewed scientific literature rubbish?
Which ones claim to be representative of global climate for the
past 2000 years?
Which one of Mann's reconstructions was "representative of global climate
for the past 2000 years"?
Mann's reconstructions represent about 1000 years, so okay, which ones
that the lieblog lists claim 1000 years of global climate? Keep running.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
See the part where the PAGES tree ring networks that Mann relied upon don't
produce hockey sticks when bristlecone chronologies are are removed.
Actually, all I see is a claim by Steve McIntyre to that effect. No evidence
was provided that "the contribution from all other proxies was nothing more
than whitish noise".
Missed this?
chumpsky abandoned McIntyre and scours the internet for anything he can find.
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
McIntyre just made stuff up and posted it on his blog. He admits it.
"Maybe Graybill bristlecone chronologies are a reasonable temperature proxy.
I’m not convinced about this"
What exactly did he make up?
Already explained. McIntyre admits bristlecone chronologies are just fine, and
"the contribution from all other proxies was nothing more than whitish noise"
is completely unsupported. Run boy!
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-09 15:58:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 19:22:53 -0800, Chom Noamsky
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
The number one thing Mann is accused of is bad science.  In
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Lieblog refuted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of
proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century
"shaft" appears."
Two-hunnert not-a-hockey-stick studies!
http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/22/200-non-hockey-stick-graphs-published-since-2017-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-warming/
Notrickzone... Unbelievable that you still post such rubbish.
The article merely lists two-hunnert PEER-REVIEWED research
papers, published in reputable peer-review science journals.
When did you start calling peer-reviewed scientific literature rubbish?
Which ones claim to be representative of global climate for the
past 2000 years?
Which one of Mann's reconstructions was "representative of global
climate for the past 2000 years"?
Mann's reconstructions represent about 1000 years, so okay, which ones
that the lieblog lists claim 1000 years of global climate? Keep running.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
See the part where the PAGES tree ring networks that Mann relied
upon don't produce hockey sticks when bristlecone chronologies are
are removed.
Actually, all I see is a claim by Steve McIntyre to that effect. No evidence
was provided that "the contribution from all other proxies was nothing more
than whitish noise".
Missed this?
chumpsky abandoned McIntyre and scours the internet for anything he can find.
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
McIntyre just made stuff up and posted it on his blog. He admits it.
"Maybe Graybill bristlecone chronologies are a reasonable temperature proxy.
I’m not convinced about this"
What exactly did he make up?
Already explained. McIntyre admits bristlecone chronologies are just fine, and
"the contribution from all other proxies was nothing more than whitish noise"
is completely unsupported. Run boy!
I accept your defeat.
Unum
2018-11-09 23:27:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
The number one thing Mann is accused of is bad science.  In
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Lieblog refuted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two
dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and
combinations of
proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft"
appears."
Two-hunnert not-a-hockey-stick studies!
http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/22/200-non-hockey-stick-graphs-published-since-2017-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-warming/
Notrickzone... Unbelievable that you still post such rubbish.
The article merely lists two-hunnert PEER-REVIEWED research papers,
published in reputable peer-review science journals.
When did you start calling peer-reviewed scientific literature rubbish?
Which ones claim to be representative of global climate for the
past 2000 years?
Which one of Mann's reconstructions was "representative of global
climate for the past 2000 years"?
Mann's reconstructions represent about 1000 years, so okay, which ones
that the lieblog lists claim 1000 years of global climate? Keep running.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
See the part where the PAGES tree ring networks that Mann relied upon
don't produce hockey sticks when bristlecone chronologies are are removed.
Actually, all I see is a claim by Steve McIntyre to that effect. No evidence
was provided that "the contribution from all other proxies was nothing more
than whitish noise".
Missed this?
chumpsky abandoned McIntyre and scours the internet for anything he can find.
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
McIntyre just made stuff up and posted it on his blog. He admits it.
"Maybe Graybill bristlecone chronologies are a reasonable temperature proxy.
I’m not convinced about this"
What exactly did he make up?
Already explained. McIntyre admits bristlecone chronologies are just fine, and
"the contribution from all other proxies was nothing more than whitish noise"
is completely unsupported. Run boy!
I accept your defeat.
Keep on running, boy!

$27 TRILLION to PAY for KYOTO
2018-11-08 00:31:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Wow, you accuse someone like this of many things, it's like water of a duck's back as far as leftists are concerned, but if you accuse a white male of the minutest of sexual impropriety, from DECADES ago, they go BERSERK. Fascinating how their minds (don't) work.
$27 TRILLION to PAY for KYOTO
2018-11-09 06:36:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"No, not a man, a god; a GREAT god!"
"A man whose boots I'm not fit to lick clean; until HOLES wore through my tongue!"
"I would rather be sealed in a pit of my own filth than tread upon the same ground as he!"
"A man who is so totally, and utterly wonderful..."

-Monty Python
Loading...