It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Michael Mann is a slimy little lying weasel and is getting ripped to shreds.

page: 7
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Greven

The earth is warming, how much of that is due to man made causes?

Beats being in an ice age.


It's not like an Ice age would follow, oh wait...




posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: melatonin

Because it originated as a term that compared people who questioned the so-called science first to people who denied that Holocaust ever happened and then to people who question the anti-tobacco versions of science.

It is insulting all the way around.

Nobody "denies" climate science but there is a heck of a lot to question. And those questions should be fully answered.

Question

The tree ring data when compared to instrument data proves conclusively that tree ring data underestimates temperature. Therefore Mann knew that the tree ring proxy would underestimate warming all around the globe during the Medieval Warming Period.

Yes he chose to claim that the the MWP was a regional and not global phenomena. What data supported his contention?



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: melatonin

The point of the tree ring study was to determine IF the tree ring data could be used as a proxy for instrumental readings.

What does not comparing tree ring data to instrumental data prove?????


And it was found to be effective up to the period when human-induced climate change started to really impact nature.

Can't parse the last question into anything meaningful. Probably my bad.


And no one was informed of the "divergence" problem until after Climategate and the fraud was revealed to the public/


You are either mistaken or in the the words of the OP - 'a lying little weasel'. Not my words though. I actually think you are just mistaken, but useful for illustrative purposes. The divergence problem was pointed out by Mann and also in an independent study published in 1998. A year after Mann's study. It's been known about for a while and Mann's study actually highlighted it. So by your logic Mann originally highlighting the problem in his own data is fraud? Not what I'd see as fraud, but whatever pops your peach.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: melatonin

let me try again

Micheal Mann's 1997 proved conclusively that tree rings were a poor proxy for temperature as evidenced by the fact that the tree ring data diverged from the instrumental data. It showed temperature dropping, when in fact, temperature was rising.

Yest Micheal Mann created the Hockey Stick graph that showed that the Medieval Warming Period was not as hot as previously thought and not global in nature but actually just a regional phenomenon.

This set the stage to describe current temperatures as "unprecented".

Where is the data that supported Mann's contention that the Medieval Warming Period was both not as hot and not as global as previously thought?



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

In your answer, please refer only to data available to Micheal Mann in 1997.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: melatonin

Why don't I see this warming on the hockey stick graph?



Medieval Climatic Optimum
Michael E Mann – University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

It is evident that Europe experienced, on the whole, relatively mild climate conditions during the earliest centuries of the second millennium (i.e., the early Medieval period). Agriculture was possible at higher latitudes (and higher elevations in the mountains) than is currently possible in many regions, and there are numerous anecdotal reports of especially bountiful harvests (e.g., documented yields of grain) throughout Europe during this interval of time. Grapes were grown in England several hundred kilometers north of their current limits of growth, and subtropical flora such as fig trees and olive trees grew in regions of Europe (northern Italy and parts of Germany) well north of their current range. Geological evidence indicates that mountain glaciers throughout Europe retreated substantially at this time, relative to the glacial advances of later centuries (Grove and Switsur, 1994). A host of historical documentary proxy information such as records of frost dates, freezing of water bodies, duration of snowcover, and phenological evidence (e.g., the dates of flowering of plants) indicates that severe winters were less frequent and less extreme at times during the period from about 900 – 1300 AD in central Europe……………………



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

D8Tee

Would you be kind enough to post the part of the study where Mann says the MWP was not as warm or as global as previously thought?



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: melatonin

Because it originated as a term that compared people who questioned the so-called science first to people who denied that Holocaust ever happened and then to people who question the anti-tobacco versions of science.

It is insulting all the way around.

Nobody "denies" climate science but there is a heck of a lot to question. And those questions should be fully answered.


Hmm. I would tend to think you may fit the profile of a denier. You do understand that you are simp0ly asking questions that have been answered over and over and over again for nigh on 15 years or so? The science has moved on - but you seem stuck in a rut.


Question

The tree ring data when compared to instrument data proves conclusively that tree ring data underestimates temperature. Therefore Mann knew that the tree ring proxy would underestimate warming all around the globe during the Medieval Warming Period.

Yes he chose to claim that the the MWP was a regional and not global phenomena. What data supported his contention?


We can't even agree that what Mann did wasn't fraud, but just an attempt to better understand climate change from a historical perspective. Why even bother with the MWP stuff? Just another old denier rut.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

In your answer, please refer only to data available to Micheal Mann in 1997.


haha. Are we playing university challenge? Is this my starter for 10?

Come on, you didn't even grasp the divergence problem and the fact its been noted for as long as the 1997 study. Why would I bother going down another denialist rabbit hole? Perhaps go do some reading on the issues to understand them yourself. The science is often complex when reading the original research, but you can find good sources out there which explain it well. I thought putting the Mann = fraud to rest would be relatively easy given the facts - but obviously not.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: melatonin

If the question has been asked and answered for 15 years then it should be extremely easy to answer. Why are you avoiding it?

What data did Micheal Mann rely upon in 1997 for his statement that the MWP was not as hot and only regional in nature, not global.

How was the blade of the hockey stick created?



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: melatonin

If the question has been asked and answered for 15 years then it should be extremely easy to answer. Why are you avoiding it?

What data did Micheal Mann rely upon in 1997 for his statement that the MWP was not as hot and only regional in nature, not global.

How was the blade of the hockey stick created?


I was talking about the divergence problem, which you have kept suggesting underpins his supposed fraudulent behaviour. Why would I allow you to shift goalposts onto another denialist talking point in an effort to ignore the key point we've been discussing for the last few pages?

Do you agree that the divergence problem was highlighted independently by Briffa et al in 1998? If so, can you accept that you were mistaken when you suggested that this issue was only highlighted during the 'climategate scandal'? And if comparing directly observable data to proxy data has helped us understand problems in the data how can that be fraqud - isn't science about understanding the world around us? If you can't accept errors is there any point at all moving on to something else you will be unable to accept you may be mistaken over?



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: melatonin
Figure 1: Temperatures for Europe plotted against 20th century average
Source: Based on diagram in 2nd assessment report IPCC 1995/96




Dominance of the graph by the MWP was the challenge. As IPCC participant Jay Overpeck said in his email to Professor Deming, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” This was achieved by the Mann, Bradley, and Hughes 1998 paper in Nature titled, Global–scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries, the original peer-reviewed hockey stick article.

Reviewers failed to catch several errors, including the assumption that tree rings only represent temperature, a plethora of evidence for existence of the Medieval Warm Period, and inappropriate statistical method and application.
Problems with the hockey stick were identified, but not before it grabbed world attention.

A modified (but no more valid) version appeared in the 2007 IPCC Report. It had the same problems as the original with a few more added, including the error of assuming growth rate of stalactites and sediment layers were due to temperature, not precipitation.


Trees are as much rain gauges as they are thermometers, any one who thinks otherwise is subject to confirmation bias.
edit on 3-4-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

to Melatonin

The answer to my question is impossible because you just don't want to admit the truth.

Micheal Mann created his hockey stick graph ONLY by including the instrumental data. He had no other data to support his statement that the MWP was not as hot and not as global in nature as previously thought.

He allowed everyone to believe that the current temperatures was unprecedented KNOWING that he had played jiggery pockery with the data.

Micheal Mann pioneered the method of using proxy temperature data (ice cores, ocean sediments etc) and he did it by committing scientific fraud.

I do not accept that his study has been replicated. It was replicated also using temperature proxies and the entire field is riddled with uncertainties.

Instead, we have only to look at land revealed by melting glaciers to see tree lines that extend further north and south of current tree lines. That is proof positive that the Medieval Warming Period was just as hot and just as global as previously thought.

Current temperatures are not unprecedented. And according to Micheal Mann's own testimony before the House, the anthropogenic effect of CO2 green house gas is limited to 0.2 degrees celcius (estimated) and is having vast beneficial effects (greening of the earth, increased crop yields, decreasing use of water by plants, less intense storms) etc etc.

The fraud is not limited to Micheal Mann. Climategate certainly reveals that other climatoligists were well aware of Micheal Mann's handling of the data and said nothing. Instead, they colluded to prevent contrary evidence from being published.

I am sorry but this proves that CACW is deliberately engineered hysteria.

Now - go ahead - ask me why I don't believe the "97% of scientists" who say climate change is real.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

to Melatonin

The answer to my question is impossible because you just don't want to admit the truth.

Micheal Mann created his hockey stick graph ONLY by including the instrumental data. He had no other data to support his statement that the MWP was not as hot and not as global in nature as previously thought.


Perhaps we can handle the other issue first? It's getting late here and would be worthwhile at least trying to come to some worthwhile conclusion over the divergence problem - Trailer Park Boys seems more productive at this point.

And by effectively denigrating a whole bunch of climate scientists as frauds in an off the cuff statement, yet show a complete inability to even accept an obvious error, you only show the frailty of your arguments.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: melatonin

And you refuse to accept the fact that Mann declared the whole MWP as milder and regional based on data he knew to be fraudulent and you refuse to accept verified evidence that at a certain level, climatologists knew the truth and did not speak up.

This means only that I use common sense as my guide. I am not a denier. I simply question the science.

You don't not accept common sense deductive reasoning. Your faith in science is rock solid and unquestioned. You refuse to acknowledge that you have a brain and you can use it. When the clear evidence does not support your theory, you throw away the evidence, not the theory.

How do you describe yourself?



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: melatonin



Dominance of the graph by the MWP was the challenge. As IPCC participant Jay Overpeck said in his email to Professor Deming, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” This was achieved by the Mann, Bradley, and Hughes 1998 paper in Nature titled, Global–scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries, the original peer-reviewed hockey stick article.
...


Hi D8Tee, this is old stuff. I assume you just lifted this of some denialist website and hope to make it fly. This is classic stuff, lets try to show it for the poppycock it is - so someone said said someone sent an email...makes a great story...

1. Do you have a copy of this email? Seems important if this is meant to be meaningful.
2. Can you show that Jay Overpeck was an IPCC participant before 1998?

Otherwise, just a bit of poppycock really, no?
edit on 3-4-2017 by melatonin because: fix naff quotes

edit on 3-4-2017 by melatonin because: fix naff quotes



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: melatonin

And you refuse to accept the fact that Mann declared the whole MWP as milder and regional based on data he knew to be fraudulent and you refuse to accept verified evidence that at a certain level, climatologists knew the truth and did not speak up.


haha. Again why would I want to move onto other issues with you when you are completely unable to accept a previous error?


How do you describe yourself?


Not a fan of self-flagellation.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: melatonin

That's ok - you can go back to Trailer Park Boys now. At least then you don't have to think for yourself.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: melatonin

That's ok - you can go back to Trailer Park Boys now. At least then you don't have to think for yourself.


Sure, chief. Whatever you say. To be fair, not sure blindly parroting denialist talking points and unwarranted accussations of fraud even merits the term 'thinking'.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: melatonin
Regardless of who said what erasing the MWP is exactly what they did.

Between SAR and TAR it was disappeared from numerous graphics and charts.



Video of Dr David Deming's statement to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works on December 6, 2006. Dr Deming reveals that in 1995 a leading scientist emailed him saying "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period".

edit on 3-4-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join