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

a reply to: melatonin

Ok well I guess asking questions is truly forbidden.. That is all I have done here. Present the facts and ask questions and yet somehow that is impacting on my credibility.

I guess there is no point to this discussion. Carry on!

a reply to: melatonin
Trees have never been a good temperature proxy. The response of a tree to it’s environment is modified by a tremendous number of variables including biotic and abiotic damage, rainfall, fire, etc. You can create a “Drakes Equation” to list the unknowns and come up with any answer you like. At best, the range and amplitude of historic tree species occurence “may ” give a very general indication of historic temperature patterns. For instance, we know the world is warmer than the past, by the fact that trees now exist at the mouth of the Mackenzie River above the arctic circle. Ten or twenty thousand years ago, this area was under a kilometer of ice. We also know that the world is now warmer because that historic ice sheet no longer exists.

It occurs to me that trying to find temperatures in tree rings is akin to trying to find coded messages in music tracks played backwards. Not much signal in the noise and any discovery is biased toward the human propensity to find patterns in data. “I buried Paul….”

One really has to wonder what the state of the climate change/GW debate might be had the fraudulent Hockey Stick graph not been such a prominent feature of the IPCC’s TAR 2000.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: melatonin

Ok well I guess asking questions is truly forbidden.. That is all I have done here. Present the facts and ask questions and yet somehow that is impacting on my credibility.

I guess there is no point to this discussion. Carry on!

I think I answered the questions? But you keep throwing the fraud label around. This is what I originally meant by Mann facing a career of character assassination. All for producing a study 20 years ago that some people still seem to get a bit haughty over.

The 1997 study was less than perfect. Following studies were better. But the findings are no different. Yet for some reason Mann seems to attract constant very personal attacks. Not very becoming. Of course, we all have moments of weakness and scientific discussion can resort to playground-level games now and then.

a reply to: D8Tee

Not to mention ocean sediment proxies that confirm the existence of the Medieval Warming Period as a global phenomena as Micheal Man concludes according to his "impeccable" tree ring data (when you ignore eveything past 1960)

a reply to: melatonin

There is no problem with producing a "study" 20 years ago.

The problem is the fraud in grafting the instrumental data. That is scientifc fraud.

Once a scientist has shown and proven that is willing to engage in fraud for the purposes of environmental activism......why exactly is a Micheal Mann called a "scientist"?

remember - all Roger Pelke Jr did was publish a study that questioned a minor point of evidence in the CO2 study and he was hounded out of the field.

He asked questions - not engaged in fraud.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: melatonin
Trees have never been a good temperature proxy.

Perhaps. If you hold that position, that's fine. There are many other non-tree proxy studies. They show effectively the same outcome :/

One really has to wonder what the state of the climate change/GW debate might be had the fraudulent Hockey Stick graph not been such a prominent feature of the IPCC’s TAR 2000.

It's not as if the 1997 study was that crucial to the science. I recall climate change being a major issue at least a decade before that study. The science is not in any way dependent on that single study. Perhaps if you ignore that particular study, and even all of Mann studies if you all despise him that much, any discussion of climate change would be more productive? No point perseverating on such an old study - there's dozens of better studies. It's pretty normal for the first of any new scientific approaches to be less than ideal. Just the way science progresses.

a reply to: melatonin

Fine - we ignore Michel Mann's fraud. We ignore a group of scientists engaging in activism to influence politics.

We are left with.....wait for it.....all temperature data is within normal, natural variations and has happened before withing historical memory.

Nothing we have seen to data is "unprecedented". The CO2 theory as a catastrophic phenomena is dead although (according to climate Scientists there is still a minor 0.2 degree C of estimated effect. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas that has environmental and human benefits including the greening of the earth by 14 % and concurrent increased crop yields and less intense storms.

a reply to: melatonin

Science is not progressed by fraud. But environmental activism sure is!

originally posted by: melatonin

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: melatonin
Trees have never been a good temperature proxy.

Perhaps. If you hold that position, that's fine. There are many other non-tree proxy studies. They show effectively the same outcome :/

One really has to wonder what the state of the climate change/GW debate might be had the fraudulent Hockey Stick graph not been such a prominent feature of the IPCC’s TAR 2000.

Like the fossilized plant stomata that show C02 levels have been higher in the past?

Like the Greenland ice cores that show the same thing?

It's not as if the 1997 study was that crucial to the science.

Al Gore took that chart and ran with it. Public and political opinion was influenced with a fraudulent chart.

a reply to: melatonin

If you wish to discuss climate change as a separate subject, that is fine, we can certainly do that.

However, this thread is about Micheal Mann and what a sleazy liar he is.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: melatonin
remember - all Roger Pelke Jr did was publish a study that questioned a minor point of evidence in the CO2 study and he was hounded out of the field.

He asked questions - not engaged in fraud.

Still throwing the 'fraud' label around? Even when faced with the fact that what you pose as fraudulent has been replicated dozens of times by other researchers using a range of measures?

Is that why Nate Silver apologised for Pielke Jr's behaviour after removing him from 538? Pielke Jr is a political scientist. He was never a climate scientist. Not sure if he could be hounded out of a field he never belonged to. Pretty sure he is still a political scientist.

Often those in other fields will irritate those who actually work in a particular field when they constantly make egregious errors. Science is often rough and tumble. You seem to expect Mann to take the criticism and atacks even when barely justifiable (certainly not fraud) but wrap up Pielke Jr in cotton wool when he's called out on his errors.

Seems you may have some bias to attend to.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: melatonin

If you wish to discuss climate change as a separate subject, that is fine, we can certainly do that.

Haha. Honestly, dude - might as well talk to a tree ring. Will be just as productive.

a reply to: melatonin

how is deliberately grafting instrumental data onto tree ring data and offering the graph to Al Gore for a movie not fraud?

a reply to: melatonin

Michael Mann’s Affiliation with Climate Accountability Institute
As of July 2014, Mann appears as a member of the Board of Advisors of the Climate Accountability Institute (CAI) on the organization’s website. His affiliation connects him directly with the organized efforts to prosecute climate skeptics via RICO statutes, which got its start with Naomi Oreskes, co-founder of CAI.

Mann’s affiliation with this effort indicates his dedication to prosecute “deniers.” (The environmental left has chosen this term specifically to equate those skeptical of catastrophic man-caused global warming to Holocaust deniers. Mann refuses to use the term “skeptic.” ) Mann’s allegiance to prosecution for skeptics is symbolized by his advisory status with the CAI, and his close ties to its allied group, the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The RICO20 refers to 20 scientists — including professors from nine universities and scientists from two institutes — who signed a letter known as the RICO 20 letter, sent to the U.S. Attorney General and the President of the United States on September 1, 2015. It called for a federal criminal investigation into possible “racketeering” and collaboration among entities questioning the science backing the hypotheses of human-caused, catastrophic climate change.

a reply to: D8Tee

And let us not forget that the author of the union20 letter - Gupta - is currently under investigation for diverting almost a million dollars to his wife, his daughter and his company!

a reply to: melatonin

So - how did this replication of Mann's study work? Did his friends also graft the instrumental data to the tree ring proxy and come out with the same conclusions?

How did the ocean sediment studies come to directly refute Mann's study

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: melatonin

how is deliberately grafting instrumental data onto tree ring data and offering the graph to Al Gore for a movie not fraud?

Why would you not use the directly observable data? As I mentioned posts back, it would be ridiculous to not use them when available. It allows direct comparison to the proxy data and also highlighted the divergence problem you seem to think underpins 'fraud' - errrp. Sounds like a fine contribution to scientific understanding to me. Given, the method was in its infancy at that point, Mann actually deserves credit for his scientific ingenuity on developing this method rather than the constant vilification he has received from politically and ideologically motivated groups.

Thankfully, he doesn't depend on those politically motivated groups for his scientific credibility. That is derived from other scientists.

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?????

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

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

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: melatonin

Michael Mann’s Affiliation with Climate Accountability Institute
As of July 2014, Mann appears as a member of the Board of Advisors of the Climate Accountability Institute (CAI) on the organization’s website. His affiliation connects him directly with the organized efforts to prosecute climate skeptics via RICO statutes, which got its start with Naomi Oreskes, co-founder of CAI.

Yes, it appears he was wrong. But that doesn't mean he was lying. He could be mistaken. Sometimes what appears to be intentional malfeasance is just typical human failing. Mann is associated with more groups than most scientists in most fields. A lot of information to keep track of.

Mann’s affiliation with this effort indicates his dedication to prosecute “deniers.” (The environmental left has chosen this term specifically to equate those skeptical of catastrophic man-caused global warming to Holocaust deniers. Mann refuses to use the term “skeptic.” ) Mann’s allegiance to prosecution for skeptics is symbolized by his advisory status with the CAI, and his close ties to its allied group, the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Jeez, I'm a contrarian. skeptic, and denier in many areas. Why so bothered over a perfectly descriptive label?