Posted on 03/23/2014 9:02:04 AM PDT by Twotone
Good news! As I predicted four years ago, alarmist climate scientist, Michael Mann’s gambit of using the courts to silence debate about his faked “hockey stick” graph is backfiring spectacularly. 17 mainstream media outlets now agree Mann should put up or shut up.
(Excerpt) Read more at principia-scientific.org ...
Brandon Schollenburger is compiling a list of Michael Mann's egregious errors. . . And frauds:And Schollenberger has proven this using the data I linked to? And had that confirmed by peer review? Does Schollenberger explain how Mann's work passed peer review by other climatologists? I'd appreciate some links.
Gee, isn't it funny then that after McIntyre and McKitrick were being stonewalled by the East Anglia climate fraudsters on their request for the climate data, the hockey-stick-hoaxsters (as revealed by the whistle blown e-mails) were in a panic that FOIA laws would require them to release the data due to the fact they were government funded?I remember ClimateGate very well and I don't recall American researchers being in a panic at all. Can't speak for England. Mann at the time was completely unworried, as Mann's solution, the "Nature trick" was to augment the tree ring proxy data with real and reliable instrumental data in order to reconstruct the end series of the time averaging. There was no manipulation of actual recorded temperature data, only how the reconstructed proxy data was processed to more closely match the accurate data. This is a perfectly valid method of statistics and is accurately pointed out not only in the data link I gave above, but also in Chapter 6 of the IPCC AR4. Now, East Anglia had withheld about 5% of the data, but that was long after the Mann paper. Which is the only thing I'm talking about here.
And to perpetrate this fraud, is it believable that the left would stop at merely hiring some scientists to whore their data without also corrupting the peer review process as well?Yes, I've heard that theory, just as I've also heard it's a plot by the UN, the Bilderbergers, the Jews, the Muslims, the Communists, and a bunch of other groups to use climate change to take over the world. But I require more than supposition to believe in a conspiracy that would require the connivance of a few hundred thousand people to make good.
In fact, the AGW peer review process has been as corrupted as anything the left gets its tentacles into, not limited to academia, the MSM, and election stealing. Articles abound on the subject.Well, since it's Evolution News & Views, I really can't truck with what they say. Being Catholic and a scientific skeptic, I don't follow YEC, though I'll leave my usual commentary on it by the wayside for the sake of our more inclined FR members. I prefer people like this fellow who are a bit more...even-tempered on the subject. I'm not saying I believe that climate change is the big hoopla all the doomsters make it out to be. I am saying that no, I do not believe the peer review process has been corrupted, primarily because I have not received what I consider sufficient proof that would stand up in a court of law. Lot of speculation. Not much solidity.
It's what he left out that he's not reporting, the exculpatory data that DID NOT support his thesis, . . and the facts that the "hockey stick" data is using VERY limited data set chosen from locales that have been generalized so that people think it is valid for the world. An honest scientist includes ALL data, including data that doesn't fit. . . Mann, the Al, agreed to hide data that did not support their over all theory of AGW. . . and Mann, specifically did not include all the dendrochronological data that was available to him, instead cherry picking only those that seemed to show what he wanted, and excluding those that showed nothing or the opposite. . . and even his turned out to not be a good temperature proxy. It is now known that other tree ring data was deliberately excluded because it did not show what Mann wanted it to show. The fact that Mann's tree ring data did NOT model temperatures for the 20th century for the areas where the trees grew—instead representing more closely known drought and wet seasonal patterns, and others turning out to be sampled from differing parts of the trees, I.e. Close to the roots as opposed to farther up the boles—is an extremely difficult issue for Mann that was NOT disclosed in his work. . . as was Mann's impermissible extension of data he did not have to reach 1400 AD. , or the doubling of data sets. The data did not show the Medieval Warm period that is known completely historically which which should cause anyone to question the validity of the basic premise of the proxy. . . and his proxies DO fail to show that well known period. Using his misapplied statistical approach, you can put almost ANY data into his formulas and get a hockey stick (McIntyre). . . as many statistician have said. Data has been hidden, and Mann is refusing FOI releases. . . Including RAW data. He is refusing discovery on why these important data sets were omitted on some in the court cases. He's stonewalling. Why? He dare not allow himself to take the stand.
By the way, some of these data errors Mann has admitted (doubling, extending his data back), but he has not corrected his papers. . . and in fact published again, using the same data, after admitting the errors. No one is using the hockey stick except the popular press. It's been discredited. Drs. Mann, Briffa, and Jones have been caught conspiring to "hide the decline" in their own words. In her testimony before Congress Climate Scientist Dr. Judith Curry, hardly a AWG denier, said:
"McIntyre’s analysis is sufficiently well documented that it is difficult to imagine that his analysis is incorrect in any significant way. If his analysis is incorrect, it should be refuted. I would like to know what the heck Mann, Briffa, Jones et al. were thinking when they did this [hide the decline] and why they did this, and how they can defend this, although the emails provide pretty strong clues. Does the IPCC regard this as acceptable? I sure don’t. Can anyone defend “hide the decline”? I would much prefer to be wrong in my interpretation, but I fear that I am not."Mann's response to Curry was to call her names and declare her a "climate-denier" and "anti-science," and threaten to file a defamation suit against her! This seems to be his modus operandi. . . someone criticizes his work, attack! Name call! SUE! Thin skinned, isn't he?
Mann spends an inordinate amount of time on Twitter insulting other scientists, and non-scientist including people such as Bill Gates, and the FOUNDER of Greenpeace who have realized the bunk Mann has been pushing and who now disagree with him even though they may still agree with the premise of AWG. . . but he cannot STAND to receive critical fire in return. It seems it's all about his ego.
After all, Mann claims to have been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, claiming "I won the Nobel Peace prize" in his court pleadings against Mark Steyn. . . . an under oath document!. . . when he did not even get a contributor certificate (actually, no one did) with the person and organization who actually DID win that prize. Only Al Gore and the IPCC were actually awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize received "Nobel Diplomas" for that particular 2007 prize, and did NOT include Mann who, according to Geir Lundestad, Director of the Nobel Institute, added his own (vanity) award commendation wording to a copy of the Nobel Diploma! Can you say FORGERY! How egotistical can one get??? This behaviors shows a certain willingness to, shall we say, stretch the truth. . . or shall we be blunt and say LIE? The winners are tolerantly amused. . . Being Liberals.
Ooooh, I understand now. You are a newby.... Signed up on March 10, 2014.
You didn’t strike me as being conservative. . . now I’m sure. Welcome to FreeRepublic. I have a feeling your stay will not be long. People who believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming, and swallow that party line won’t last long around here.
It's what he left out that he's not reporting, the exculpatory data that DID NOT support his thesisOK, I can go with this. What is the exculpatory data that is missing and what instrumentation did it originate from? Tree ring data, I presume?
and the facts that the "hockey stick" data is using VERY limited data set chosen from locales that have been generalized so that people think it is valid for the world.Yes, McIntyre and McKitrick did claim this in 2003. A rebuttal to that was provided by Wahl and Amman in 2007 in their paper "Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence" I assume you think the rebuttal is insufficient; would you please tell me why?
Mann, the Al, agreed to hide data that did not support their over all theory of AGW. . . and Mann, specifically did not include all the dendrochronological data that was available to him, instead cherry picking only those that seemed to show what he wanted, and excluding those that showed nothing or the oppositeI've seen that accusation before, but I've not seen any type of proof that would stand up to a court of law. And before you bring in ClimateGate and East Anglia, that's a separate issue totally unrelated to the work done by Mann in 1998. If you want to have a separate conversation about that, that will be fine, but I prefer to stick to the on topic. Now, if you have convincing evidence that Mann lied and hid the data - and by convincing proof, I mean documents, videos, audio recordings, so on - please feel free to link me.
It is now known that other tree ring data was deliberately excluded because it did not show what Mann wanted it to show.OK. What tree ring data and what facility did that data originate from?
others turning out to be sampled from differing parts of the trees, I.e. Close to the roots as opposed to farther up the bolesThat wouldn't matter in dendrochronology. Replication would take care of that, and if it didn't, comparison of radiocarbon dating with the dendrochronology would resolve discrepancy.
The data did not show the Medieval Warm period that is known completely historically which which should cause anyone to question the validity of the basic premise of the proxy. . . and his proxies DO fail to show that well known period.I see you've read the Wegman Report, which was retracted due to plagiarism and Wegman failing to submit it for peer review. Wegman failed to acknowledge that since the Medieval Warm Period (and the Little Ice Age) was a regional and not global phenomenon, they should not be included. If Mann's paper was about the regional temperature record of Europe over time, it would need to be included then.
Data has been hidden, and Mann is refusing FOI releases. . . Including RAW data.I linked to the raw data, which can both be downloaded from there and freely requested from NOAA. Please explain what data was hidden and which facility/agency that data originated from.
No one is using the hockey stick except the popular press. It's been discredited.Now that's just plain not true. Aside from the IPCC using it, the North Report put out by the investigation of the National Research Council verified that while there were minor statistical issues with Mann's work, they confirmed his results. I do not know of any major scientific institution that does not currently use the hockey graph. If you are able to name a few, I would appreciate it.
In her testimony before Congress Climate Scientist Dr. Judith Curry, hardly a AWG denierJudith Curry was a friend and professor of mine at Tech and I am well-familiar with what she said regarding the decline, which she summarized in her Hiding The Decline posts, the start of which I just linked to. I have had some disagreements with her on the subject, but in general we agree on the original Mann paper. We are in definite agreement that there is a problem with CRU.
Mann's response to Curry was to call her names and declare her a "climate-denier" and "anti-science," and threaten to file a defamation suit against her! This seems to be his modus operandi. . . someone criticizes his work, attack! Name call! SUE! Thin skinned, isn't he?If someone publicly declared my work with copier technology to be fraudulent, thus impacting my livelihood, you may have no doubt I would file a defamation suit and seek damages. I hold a grudge that way. I understand why Mann did what he did, even if I disagree with him doing it.
Mann spends an inordinate amount of time on Twitter insulting other scientists, and non-scientistOh, he's an a-hole for certain. That's generally what a-holes DO, you know. No disagreement there. I even agree that he stretches things in the name of ego.
You didn’t strike me as being conservative. . . now I’m sure. Welcome to FreeRepublic. I have a feeling your stay will not be long. People who believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming, and swallow that party line won’t last long around here.And this is where I stand up and point at you, shouting, "YOU LIE!"
Excuse me, but suing in a court of law is NOT how science is done. . . Nor is threatening lawsuits against other scientists who disagree with you. Nor is it done by suing laypeople who disagree with you. Michael Mann IS a fine piece of work... who has been caught with his fingers in the proverbial cookie jar and is throwing everything at the wall in hopes nobody will notice. I know a lot of scientists... and most of them are holding their collective noses at the NON-science that is coming out of Climate "science" these days. . . and the dancing they climate 'scientists" are doing to ignore the data from the last fifteen years.
I’ve read that Mann has a deep pocket group financing his lawsuits. I know of no good reason why a newbie would show up on FR to defend him.
Mark Steyn ping.
Freepmail me, if you want on or off the Mark Steyn ping list.
Thanks for the ping Twotone.
Exactly! Mann thought he saw the opportunity to bully somebody, and took the bait. Now he has to get out of it without being wrung out like a wet hanky. And Steyn (be still my heart) is just the man to do it. Hee hee!
http://www.steynonline.com/6201/what-kind-of-fool-am-i
Daniel J Kornstein and his co-counsel Mark Platt were the driving force behind the most consequential free-speech legislation this century.
Dan and Mark's most important client in the last decade or so was Rachel Ehrenfeld, whose book Funding Evil happened to include rather more details of Khalid bin Mahfouz's bankrolling of al-Qaeda than the Saudi billionaire cared to have revealed to the world. So he sued her in a London court. Dan and Mark got Dr Ehrenfeld to countersue in New York to prevent Mahfouz from ever collecting, and, when the court declined to acknowledge it had personal jurisdiction over Mahfouz, they got the legislature to take up the issue and pass "Rachel's Law".
This law prevents New York courts from enforcing libel judgments from other countries with lower standards of freedom-of-speech protection.
Steyn has lawyers now, Kornstein and Platt, and they are really big guns.
Good news!!!! I think Mark had to get the donations/funds before he could hire all this great legal talent. I still want to see Mark do some cross examination on Michael Mann (in court)
Mann has some phantom funders for his legal assault on Mark Steyn’s free speech rights. IOW this is not costing Mann much money unless Steyn sues him for damages
Since Steyn has counter-sued, doesn't that stop this being a legit option? He'd have to make a deal with Steyn that they'd both drop their suits, which I think is highly unlikely to happen.
Don't be so sure. The "peers" who review Mann's work are as capably as Mann of lying through their teeth. In fact, I expect them to do just that because their entire house of commie cards is endangered.
I think it's best summed up by Ken White over at Popehat, though. He's the free speech expert, and he lays it out well:
That post is a month old, and like yours, is mistaken: http://www.steynonline.com/6201/what-kind-of-fool-am-i
Problem is, all of his data AND his methodology has been publicly available for years
This claim is also completely false. Go over to http://climateaudit.org/and read the complete history of the Warmists' conspiracy to deny rightful FOIA [and the UK counterpart laws] over many years, to many different petitioners.
He does not. He's gone total pro se. And Steyn is refusing any and all offers of assistance so far.
Untrue. It wasn't true when Popehat first claimed and posted it 5 weeks ago, and it obviously isn't true now.
So either those other climatologists are in on a big conspiracy, or his work is up to snuff.
They are involved in a conspiracy, which is what the East Anglia email scandals were all about. You need to disabuse yourself of your silly ideas; in particular, have fun reading Steve McIntyre's blog, where he meticulously establishes what the emails say, and in which he completely demolishes Mann's laughable claim that he has been exonerated of scientific wrongdoing by eleven different independent commissions. No. He hasn't. Only the PSU whitewash even mentions "Nobel Prize Winner" Michael Mann. You should also check out Bishop Hill. His timeline and details about the Warmist Cadre's attempt to suffocate debate and violate the law is illuminating as well.
This isn't Daily Kos, DU, or some other dump website where you're used to posting, where you can just post crap. Keep up to date with the facts, or don't post at all.
And Welcome to FreeRepublic, N00b.
I know of ONE good reason. [If by good we mean “nefarious.”]
Especially when they post crap that isn’t true.
(1) The Power/Control Grab
The prescriptions offered for addressing AGW are a liberal tyrant's wet dream, i.e., more power and control over We the People delivered into the hands of the political elites. It is the growth of Bigger Government, and the corollary loss of individual freedom.
The objective of the AGW hoax is exactly the same as the objective for ObamaCare. They are two sides of the same leftwing strategy coin. Despite the Serial Lies of Obama, Pelosi, et al, ObamaCare is a power/control grab of Leninist proportions (my FR tagline --- Lenin: "Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State.") If the elites really wanted to insure the uninsured they would be horrified at the number of newly uninsured, legions of whom are also now out a job, or severely downsized in hours directly because of ObamaCare, but the reality of the elites' lack of contrition and their relentless continuing shill for ObamaCare puts the lie of the objective to the Liars.
(2) The Financial Profiteers
Foremost among these, of course, being Al Gore, the perfect point man for the AGW hoax. The bloated buffoon who flunked out of Divinity School, who earned a "D" in science has made himself fitly, filthy rich pushing the AGW scam. The flaming hypocrite who travels in an inefficient private jet, whose limousine runs the motor to keep the heat on while Al is inside addresses the gullible throngs of useful idiots, and whose palatial mansions each burn energy at the rate of a village. Yet he piously intones to a congressional committee that he pays for his lifestyle by purchasing carbon credit offsets, conveniently neglecting to add that he has OWNERSHIP in the carbon credit scam company, from which he is purchasing absolution. Gore also has heavily involved in the failed CCX … and let's not forget the hypocrisy of selling his failed TV network to Al-Jazerra, funded by evil Qatar oil.
A subset of the AGW profiteers is those who would prostitute their scientific credentials to falsify methodology and data to support anthropogenic global warming.
Richard Lindzen (the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT): "It's become standard that whatever you're studying, include global warming's effects in your proposal and you'll get your (government) funding."
According to Paul Driessen (author of "Eco-Imperialism") on the G. Gordon Liddy show 12/1/09, hour 2: The US Big Government had funded $90 billion in GW research over the previous 20 years promoting climate crisis science.
To this end, and if you're in the mood for a chuckle, see Dr. John Brignell's "Complete List of Things caused by Global Warming", most especially when for a single event independent "scientists" ascribe polar opposite results as both being caused by "global warming" --- pure comedy gold.
(3) The Useful Idiots
The scientifically and politically ignorant and gullible who are duped by the lies of the left, but have been so brainwashed they clutch at the mantras and unwaveringly spew them back when confronted by reality. I'm not sure what they get out of the AGW hoax, as I'm not a psychologist. The good news is that despite years of propagandizing most people have not been fooled.
And why should they be fooled? Certainly not by reality. There has been no temperature increase for 17.5+ years now. (Despite official temperature sensors suspiciously placed where they are not recording merely ambient air temperature, but the heat exhaust of air conditioners, reflected convection from nearby surfaces, etc., --- all photographically documented by Watt, plus the decommissioning of temperature sensors disproportionately in cooler locations.)
Moreover, the globe has been in a cooling mode since the Medieval Warm Period, a time when wine vineyards actually existed in the British Isles, now too cold for such activity.
But what is it that is said to be causing this Global Warming (GW which can't be verified, at that) as there are a multitude of interacting factors that no yet yet fully understands. Citing just a few, is it the fact that solar energy output fluctuates normally? Is it the eccentricities in the earth's revolution and orbit? Dr. Roy Spencer has posited the fact that the energy of precipitation and its role in climate has not even been studied.
No, we are to believe, greater than solar flux and all the other factors is the Greenhouse effect, and specifically one of the minor in terms of volume (minuscule compared to water vapor) and weaker (as compared to methane, for example) greenhouse gases but the one most advantageous for a political power/control grab --- namely CO2, a by-product of mankind's use of the engines of productivity that have advanced civilization and freedom --- both of which liberals can't abide.
After all, what's the use of being a liberal if you can't lie, cheat, and steal?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.