Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148511 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by TJA (@TJA123243453)

$
0
0

I think that the gullible acceptance of the “flat blade” of the Hockey Stick is what got climate scientists caught out by the Pause.

They underestimated natural variability based on Mann’s rhetorical graph. (Definition of rhetoric: Sounds like logic, but isn’t)

This has led to a second disaster after Climategate for their credibility, being that they did not anticipate the possibility the pause and build it into their scenarios.

Now all they can do is go back and re-write history so that they can pretend that the Pause doesn’t matter to their models, or even doesn’t exist, and that the Hockey Stick is rock solid science, and that IT’S EVEN WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT!


Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Michael

$
0
0

Ron,

I’m just voicing my dissent at the way Judith bends and breaks the rules that she caims other scientists should follow.

Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by TJA (@TJA123243453)

$
0
0

You know John, I am sure that all feels like thinking to you, and you might even believe it to be persuasive. The only explanation for that that I can think of might be that you so strongly believe in “the cause” as they called it in the Climategate emails, that that faith colors your judgement.

Shorter answer, you aren’t convincing anybody.

Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by jim2

$
0
0

Truth is wherever you find it. So, yes, some remarks were in private. That’s unfortunate, but the theft has been done. But the fact it was “stolen” or leaked, does not negate the content of the payload.

Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Craig Loehle

$
0
0

Jim D: The problem here is the word “fraud”. In common parlance, someone who bloviates, exaggerates, never admits they are wrong, acts like they are smarter than everyone else, and is a bully might be called a huckster, a fraud, a phoney, a fake. This is not the same as the legal definition of a financial fraud. The legal requirement for defamation is to knowingly say something false. Steyn had X reasons (the number of quotes in his book plus Y number of posts at Climate Audit) to believe the hockey stick was not valid and that promoting it was not valid and thus was fakery. That is all he has to prove. Mann must prove Steyn called him a faker even though he knew Mann was an angel doing perfect science. By the logic of Mann, no one can call Freudian analysis or astrology or claims that vaccines cause autism “fake” or invalid if the defendant is a university professor.

Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by jim2

$
0
0

Having witnessed many of John’s antics on this blog, I have concluded his shtick (modus operandi) is to obfuscate and divert attention from good points made here against catastrophic policy actions that attempt to mitigate global warming when the science, including whatever knock-on effects warming might have, isn’t settled.

Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by jim2

Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by George Turner

$
0
0

When I was taught science they emphasized the importance of questioning theories and replicating results. The “modern” method of science is to sue any journalist who questions the dubious results. I liked the classic version better.


Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by nickels

Comment on Carly Fiorina hits the ‘sweet spot’ on climate change by manicbeancounter

$
0
0

This is a caricature of the real world. As I have tried to explain, a lot of those with little energy consumption 50 years ago now have levels comparable to many Western countries. China and South Korea are two prominent examples. On the other hand for much of Africa has seen little improvement. So globally the disparities are shrinking, as are emissions.

Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by jorgietom

$
0
0

Regardless the outcome of the case, the book provides further damning evidence to those who dislike Mann. I doubt whether the actual outcome of the case will affect opinions at all. Supporters of Steyn already know what that they think of the case, and are already building their case against the justice system in the event of a loss (Mann court shopped, the venue is liberal, the judges are incompetent, etc….think the Andrew Weaver case up in Canada). If Mann’s supporters lose, they will have their story of corrupted justice (…think Supreme Court Bush/Gore). The fight will go on unabated.

Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Craig Loehle

$
0
0

Some of Mann’s defenders seem to forget what was actually said in the initial post by Steyn that got him sued. The “tree-ring circus” quote was a criticism of the IPCC, which is allowed. The reference to Sandusky was to show that if Penn State couldn’t even investigate something that serious, why should we believe their “investigation” of Mann. Then there was the reference to torturing data. This is a common phrase used to indicate post-hoc statistics, which one should not do but lots of people do.
Since Steyn got sued for things not remotely “defamation” it is clear that Mann is simply trying to shut down criticism.

Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Judith Curry’s Latest Bat Droppings on Michael Mann | Steven S Goddard (aka Tony Heller), Exposed

$
0
0

[…] Yesterday, Curry added to the Mann pile on with high praise for a new book attacking Michael Mann ca… In this latest attempt to tarnish Mann’s reputation, the book is a collection of quotes from scientists who have less than favorable opinions of Mann or disagree with his results. In her glowing advertisement for the book, Curry is sure to inform us how to buy it and when it’s available. She says the book contains “much wit and plenty of zingers.” Then Curry proceeds to cull out sixteen quotes from climate scientists about Mann that appeared in the work that she says address his work on the hockey stick. By sticking to quotes related to the hockey stick, she tries to pretend that she’s keeping her review under the domain of science. Of course, it’s anything but. […]

Comment on ‘Climate culture’ versus ‘knowing disbelief’ by Danny Thomas

$
0
0

Adam,
Thank you for this offering. As a self described ‘independent’ when reading this I worry about my own confirmational bias when seeing the term “fuzzy” applied as that’s pretty much my take in the entire conversation. Understanding that this is not (yet?) a comprehensive undertaking just wondering if you’ve attempted similar evaluation of other areas of the globe?

Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by climatereason

$
0
0

John

I used to have this conversation with someone called FOMD. He had a Hansen fixation. He was often wrong as well :)

As you know I wrote an article on the subject of SST’s and did a great deal of research, including looking at the original ships logs.

The problem we have is two fold.

The data was extremely sparse-the vast majority of the oceans surface was not travelled let alone scientifically sampled. Many of the grids had a single observation in a year or have been interpolated.

Secondly the methodology was very inconsistent. This is with regards to the type of bucket, the type of thermometer, calibration, the depth of the sample, time between sampling and measurement, was the water sample kept in a bucket in the shade or the sun. Was the thermometer in a properly ventilated position prior to insertion in the water . Did the observer immediately write down the observation?

There are so many variables that it is impossible to know the answer to several degrees let alone tenths of a degree. I did some of my own sampling locally and the difference between depths and the position of the sample (sun/shade) length of time, thermometer type was up to 10 Degrees C. Water pulled at 15C became commonly 25C in the sun after a short period. Water temperature varied by up to 3 degrees c according to position and depth

The idea that we have a thorough knowledge of the Global temperature of the Ocean back to 1880 is all very well in theory but in practice it is not a worthwhile matrix. John Kennedy of the Met Office has a number of interesting papers on the subject. We have crossed swords on the subject but he is a fine scientist and his papers worth reading. Generally at this time on a Friday he might come out of hibernation to protest. We shall see.

tonyb


Comment on ‘Climate culture’ versus ‘knowing disbelief’ by Michel

$
0
0

The large gap of resistance to narrative of CAGW by college educated (=science aware?) Rep/Cons and Dem/Lib (74% vs 15%) is just confirming the usual political differences between these groups. No surprise.

Independents (= not republican AND not democrat) seem to be positioned “in between”, which is also not very surprising.

Probably the ‘climate culture’ addressed in this post is nothing else than ‘political preferences’, and has neither much to do with climate, nor with culture.

Comment on The adversarial method versus Feynman integrity by Don Monfort

$
0
0

Did you pitch a hissy fit when mikey mann libeled Judith? Hypocrite.

Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by John Sidles

$
0
0

jorgietom predicts  “The fight will go on unabated.”

jorgietom, what we are seeing here on Climate Etc is not the continuation of the Steyn/Mann hockey-stick fight, but rather its ending.

• For millions of mathematicians, scientists, and engineers, the main open question nowadays is not Mann’s old hockey-stick blade of accelerating temperature rise, but rather Hansen’s new hockey-stick blade of accelerating sea-level rise.

• For billions of practicing Catholics, the main social question nowadays is not Steyn’s old hockey-stick blade of stale politics-as-usual rhetoric, but rather Francis’ new hockey-stick blade of enlightening economic and moral activism.

Prediction  Few citizens, and even fewer mathematicians, scientists and engineers, will have much regard for the eventual outcome of Steyn-vs-Mann (except for Steyn and Mann, that is).

Advice  Mark Steyn would be well-advised to personally apologize to Michael Mann, and Michael Mann would be well-advised to accept that personal apology.

Because apology or not, soon it will be “game over, well-ended, and good riddance” … to a Steyn/Mann circus that has always been more about juvenile terms-of-abuse than scientific substance.

Meanwhile atmospheric CO2 is increasing, the oceans are heating, the land is baking, the waters are acidifying, the mountain glaciers are melting, the ice-caps are sliding, and the sea-levels are rising … while the land and the communities on that land suffer ongoing ecological, economic, and social devastation.

Conclusion  Nowadays fewer-and-fewer citizens, mathematicians, scientists, engineers, and religious leaders are quibbling about these amalgamated realities.

Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Turbulent Eddie

$
0
0

What makes the fraud case is not that there is warming, as indicated by thermometers, or even a hockey stick.

It’s that the tree ring data don’tindicate warming. The tree ring data indicate a decline – the decline which was hidden.

Comment on ‘Climate culture’ versus ‘knowing disbelief’ by ristvan

$
0
0

Kahan’ knowing disbelief model is logically flawed. If one knows that the pause falsifies model predictions according to Santer’s criterion, that observed effective sensitivity is between 1.6 and 1.7, not modeled 3.2, that SLR is not accelerating, Artic ice has not disappeared and looks to be once gain increasing, polar bears are thriving, extreme weather is not increasing, UK kids are very familiar with snow… Then the only rational position is to knowingly disbelieve all the CAGW pronouncements and propaganda. The ‘truly informed on climate’ dimension is missing, as you point out.

Viewing all 148511 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images