Conspiracy narratives are always the fallback of the deniers. I gave you the code and the data and you still want to claim that "Mann has a record of being evasive about the data and methods used." Let's not let the facts get in the way of a good yarn.
So your logic is that because there was a rape scandal at the school, therefor climate change is bogus? Good job. And in order to show that Styrn didn't accuse Mann of fraud you include a quote that says: "Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph"? Interesting argument.
Nope. This isn't about whether there are better methods. Dozens of other papers get the same hockey stick with different methods and different proxies. They would all argue that their methods are better. That is science, not law. At issue here are the allegations of fraud. Here is what the most recent judge has said:
A reasonable reader, both within and outside the scientific community, would understand that a scientist who molests or tortures his data is acting far outside the bounds of any acceptable scientific method. In context, it would not be unreasonable for a reader to interpret the comment, and the republication in National Review, as an allegation that Dr. Mann had committed scientific fraud, which Penn State University then covered up, just as some had accused the University of covering up the Sandusky scandal. For many of the reasons discussed in Judge Combs Greene’s July 19 orders, to state as a fact that a scientist dishonestly molests or tortures data to serve a political agenda would have a strong likelihood of damaging his reputation within his profession, which is the very essence of defamation.
Even if the planet is warming entirely because of man, there is no definitive proof that it will reach worst case.
Right. We have to do a rational cost/benefit/risk analysis and take reasonable steps. The only thing standing in the way of rational policies is the hyperbole from the political ideologs.
Do we need to stop expiration by all animals on the planet? Should we all go on the Atkins diet? After all, herbivores expel more methane. Hmm, that's probably very sustainable.
One of the key features of the Climate Change National Forum is the comment section. Below each entry, and above the general comment section, will be comments made by other contributors. Rather than presenting a unified face to the outside world, contributors are encouraged to question, debate, dispute, expand, and otherwise discuss other contributions. The public rarely gets to see scientists debating each other, outside of the fake debates that are set up by news shows. As scientists know, what scientists eventually tell the outside world in publications, presentations, and committee reports gives little or no clue (or even the wrong impressions) about how scientists judge scientific claims, evaluate evidence, develop hypotheses, and reach conclusions. I know of no web site, inside or outside of climate science, that allows the public to experience true scientific discussions on a regular basis.
It's hard to present contrary evidence if you can't get at and question the models or data.
Those who can't perform a simple Google search would be hard pressed to debate the science in any meaningful way (and should probably cease spewing BS to score political points). I found the code and data with a two minute search. - http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holoc...
Initially the defendants were pretty cocky. Perhaps not so much now that this just got real. Here is what they originally published in an article titled "Get Lost":
"If Mann sues us, the materials we will need to mount a full defense will be extremely wide-ranging. So if he files a complaint, we will be doing more than fighting a nuisance lawsuit; we will be embarking on a journalistic project of great interest to us and our readers.
My advice to poor Michael is to go away and bother someone else. If he doesn't have the good sense to do that, we look forward to teaching him a thing or two about the law and about how free debate works in a free country."
Steyn didn't assert that Mann is a fraud, but rather that Mann "tortured" the data.
The judge disagrees that there is a distinction. Since the dozens of temperature reconstructions using different methods and different proxies all come up with the same answer it will be difficult to understand how Mann's work could be considered wrong, let alone fraudulent.
you can decide for yourself whether this is "torture" or not
Probably you cannot. Probably the most you can do is concoct conspiracy theories based on code comments. Leaving aside the fact that this code was authored by someone completely unrelated to the Mann temperature reconstructions (but why let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?), it may be worth noting that the code was used in a paper that calls tree rings proxies into question : Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today?
So if you want to dismiss the results of the paper that used this code, then you are dismissing work critical of one of the proxies used in Mann's reconstruction.
They will put a "mile-o-meter" device in your car and charge/tax you for distance driven,
Its been done before and will be easy to implement with today's technology.
I propose we call this crazy new "mile-o-meter" technology an "odometer" - from the Greek words hodós ("path") and métron ("measure")!;)
For instance, the most recent one predicts 0.3C–0.7C over the next 20 years. This is 0.15-0.35C/decade. No significant change from what we understood in 1990.
Incidentally, this post started when you stated that the IPCC predictions are way higher than observed. This is clearly false. How long would the actual measurements need to stay within the predicted value before you would be willing to accept the predictions as accurate?
The first IPCC report from 1990 predicted a temperature rise of 0.15 to 0.3C/decade. Since then we have seen a temperature rise of 0.21C per decade: http://woodfortrees.org/data/g... [woodfortrees.org]
For that prediction to be shown false the trend would need to drop below 0.15/decade.
Incidentally, if you look at the trend from 1993 to 2003 you get 0.43C/decade. Way outside the bounds of what the IPCC had predicted. You won't find any newspaper articles in 2003 saying that the IPCC has underestimated warming by half because that would have been really misleading. - http://woodfortrees.org/data/g...
So when the prediction was made in 1990, the last decade had a trend MUCH lower than what we have seen in the most recent decade. You are better off looking at the big picture rather than focusing on any one decade. The ENSO/PDO cycle dwarfs the long term trend on these timescales. Here is a graphical representation showing decadal trends vs the overall trend: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
The first IPCC report from 1990 predicted a temperature rise of 0.15 to 0.3C/decade. Since then we have seen a temperature rise of 0.21C per decade: http://woodfortrees.org/data/g...
Slashdot Mirror
This is the entire issue. Everyone on both sides of this "discussion" seem to dial it up to 11 and do nothing but shout each other down.
And your contribution addressed this how?
Were you trying to illustrate my point about bullshit?
Mod this guy up! Great example of tortured logic. Your narrative must really need an antagonist.
You can't tell industrialized countries they have to revert to the dark ages now,
Wow! Thanks for dialing down the hyperbole and coming back down to Earth!
Conspiracy narratives are always the fallback of the deniers. I gave you the code and the data and you still want to claim that "Mann has a record of being evasive about the data and methods used." Let's not let the facts get in the way of a good yarn.
So your logic is that because there was a rape scandal at the school, therefor climate change is bogus? Good job. And in order to show that Styrn didn't accuse Mann of fraud you include a quote that says: "Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph"? Interesting argument.
Nope. This isn't about whether there are better methods. Dozens of other papers get the same hockey stick with different methods and different proxies. They would all argue that their methods are better. That is science, not law. At issue here are the allegations of fraud. Here is what the most recent judge has said:
A reasonable reader, both within and outside the scientific community, would understand that a scientist who molests or tortures his data is acting far outside the bounds of any acceptable scientific method. In context, it would not be unreasonable for a reader to interpret the comment, and the republication in National Review, as an allegation that Dr. Mann had committed scientific fraud, which Penn State University then covered up, just as some had accused the University of covering up the Sandusky scandal. For many of the reasons discussed in Judge Combs Greene’s July 19 orders, to state as a fact that a scientist dishonestly molests or tortures data to serve a political agenda would have a strong likelihood of damaging his reputation within his profession, which is the very essence of defamation.
Even if the planet is warming entirely because of man, there is no definitive proof that it will reach worst case.
Right. We have to do a rational cost/benefit/risk analysis and take reasonable steps. The only thing standing in the way of rational policies is the hyperbole from the political ideologs.
Do we need to stop expiration by all animals on the planet? Should we all go on the Atkins diet? After all, herbivores expel more methane. Hmm, that's probably very sustainable.
Sigh....
You should check out http://climatechangenationalfo...
One of the key features of the Climate Change National Forum is the comment section. Below each entry, and above the general comment section, will be comments made by other contributors. Rather than presenting a unified face to the outside world, contributors are encouraged to question, debate, dispute, expand, and otherwise discuss other contributions. The public rarely gets to see scientists debating each other, outside of the fake debates that are set up by news shows. As scientists know, what scientists eventually tell the outside world in publications, presentations, and committee reports gives little or no clue (or even the wrong impressions) about how scientists judge scientific claims, evaluate evidence, develop hypotheses, and reach conclusions. I know of no web site, inside or outside of climate science, that allows the public to experience true scientific discussions on a regular basis.
- http://blog.chron.com/climatea...
It's hard to present contrary evidence if you can't get at and question the models or data.
Those who can't perform a simple Google search would be hard pressed to debate the science in any meaningful way (and should probably cease spewing BS to score political points). I found the code and data with a two minute search. - http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holoc...
Initially the defendants were pretty cocky. Perhaps not so much now that this just got real. Here is what they originally published in an article titled "Get Lost":
"If Mann sues us, the materials we will need to mount a full defense will be extremely wide-ranging. So if he files a complaint, we will be doing more than fighting a nuisance lawsuit; we will be embarking on a journalistic project of great interest to us and our readers.
My advice to poor Michael is to go away and bother someone else. If he doesn't have the good sense to do that, we look forward to teaching him a thing or two about the law and about how free debate works in a free country."
- http://climatecrocks.com/2014/...
Where there doesn't seem to be a strong consensus is whether it's entirely man-made
This review of scientific literature found that 97% of papers that took a position agree that warming is man made: http://skepticalscience.com/97...
Nope. They would be the ones out of business instead of the insurance companies that bet against the science.
Yup. People are getting real tired of bullshit. Turns out you can't call someone a fraud unless he has actually done something fraudulent.
Mann and others have still refused to disclose the details of their models
Complete nonsense! I found it with a two minute google search! http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holoc...
Steyn didn't assert that Mann is a fraud, but rather that Mann "tortured" the data.
The judge disagrees that there is a distinction. Since the dozens of temperature reconstructions using different methods and different proxies all come up with the same answer it will be difficult to understand how Mann's work could be considered wrong, let alone fraudulent.
you can decide for yourself whether this is "torture" or not
Probably you cannot. Probably the most you can do is concoct conspiracy theories based on code comments. Leaving aside the fact that this code was authored by someone completely unrelated to the Mann temperature reconstructions (but why let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?), it may be worth noting that the code was used in a paper that calls tree rings proxies into question : Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today?
So if you want to dismiss the results of the paper that used this code, then you are dismissing work critical of one of the proxies used in Mann's reconstruction.
They will put a "mile-o-meter" device in your car and charge/tax you for distance driven, Its been done before and will be easy to implement with today's technology.
I propose we call this crazy new "mile-o-meter" technology an "odometer" - from the Greek words hodós ("path") and métron ("measure")! ;)
There will be a new report out by that time whose predictions had not yet been proven. Why would waiting 20 years settle this for your?
For instance, the most recent one predicts 0.3C–0.7C over the next 20 years. This is 0.15-0.35C/decade. No significant change from what we understood in 1990.
Why?
Which one? They all say pretty much the same thing...
Incidentally, this post started when you stated that the IPCC predictions are way higher than observed. This is clearly false. How long would the actual measurements need to stay within the predicted value before you would be willing to accept the predictions as accurate?
The first IPCC report from 1990 predicted a temperature rise of 0.15 to 0.3C/decade. Since then we have seen a temperature rise of 0.21C per decade: http://woodfortrees.org/data/g... [woodfortrees.org]
For that prediction to be shown false the trend would need to drop below 0.15/decade.
Incidentally, if you look at the trend from 1993 to 2003 you get 0.43C/decade. Way outside the bounds of what the IPCC had predicted. You won't find any newspaper articles in 2003 saying that the IPCC has underestimated warming by half because that would have been really misleading. - http://woodfortrees.org/data/g...
For comparison:
2000-2010: 0.130342/decade - http://woodfortrees.org/data/g...
1990-2000 0.282782/decade - http://woodfortrees.org/data/g...
1980-1990 0.064646/decade - http://woodfortrees.org/data/g...
1970-1980 0.1437014/decade - http://woodfortrees.org/data/g...
So when the prediction was made in 1990, the last decade had a trend MUCH lower than what we have seen in the most recent decade. You are better off looking at the big picture rather than focusing on any one decade. The ENSO /PDO cycle dwarfs the long term trend on these timescales. Here is a graphical representation showing decadal trends vs the overall trend: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
The first IPCC report from 1990 predicted a temperature rise of 0.15 to 0.3C/decade. Since then we have seen a temperature rise of 0.21C per decade: http://woodfortrees.org/data/g...