Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Eli Rabett


Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

0
0

steven, “Dallas, I wasn’t arguing that you or anyone else was trashing classical physics. I’m arguing that you can’t say someone is wrong for using BE instead of boltzmann for a boson.”

Correct. It is more an issue of why bother. That is why this is a tempest in a tea cup. It did start me wondering when e^(-E/kT) starts breaking down.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Don Monfort

0
0

You really don’t have a clue, robbie. Have you ever been a judge in the D.C. district? Why don’t you do some freaking research, before you contradict people who are familiar with the law and this case.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Matthew R Marler

0
0

Beta Blocker: Mann’s lawsuit is nothing more than an effort by a canny scientist-businessman to protect his Michael Mann LLC* line of climate science products from the scrutiny of public policy consumer advocates such as Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn.

That’s a clever post.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Rud Istvan

0
0

It can be both colloquial and legal meanings). mR found WMO 99 met the latter meaning. That is why Mann’ s response said he bore no responsibility for it, when both the credits on WMO99 page 2 and Mann’s present CV say he did. The CV thing is real bad both for Mann and his attorneys under DC Civil procedure Rule 11 concerning the pleadings. Real, real bad.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Carrick

0
0
Don Monfort, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_journalism#Journalism_occupations" rel="nofollow">I'll go with this definition.</a> Again there are other types of journalists besides reporters of facts. Steyn's a political commentator, ergo by widely held definitions within the journalism community, a journalist.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Richard (rls)

0
0

Stephen: “the overall representation of the Hockey Stick is still valid.” The hockey stick was a representation of false advertising and was therefore not a valid representative of anything.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by A fan of *MORE* discourse

0
0

David Appell observes  “This [Mann-smearing] is starting to look like what was done to Robert Oppenheimer, also to score political points.”

More like the far-right Feynman-smearers

I do not know — but I believe that Richard Feynman is either a Communist or very strongly pro-Communist — and as such as a very definite security risk.

This man is, in my opinion, an extremely complex and dangerous person, a very dangerous person to have in a position of public trust …

In matters of intrigue Richard Feynman is, I believe immensely clever — indeed a genius — and he is, I further believe, completely ruthless, unhampered by morals, ethics, or religion — and will stop at absolutely nothing to achieve his ends.

These smears (successfully) blocked Feynman’s appointment as Presidential Science Advisor.

Conclusion  There’s a simple reason why CEI/Steyn work so diligently to smear scientists like Michael Mann: extreme-right smear-strategies have worked before.

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}


Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by faustio

0
0

The definition of fraud in criminal law won’t be relevant here, or shouldn’t be, since it’s easy to establish that it’s not what people mean by fraud in scientific or scholastic settings. Also the way people use fraud as a noun for a person, “He’s a fraud” would have no relation to the criminal notion of fraud. Scientific fraud is a complex matter of judgment.

One definition of scientific fraud from Chop & Silva: “Scientific fraud, an act of deception or misrepresentation of one’s own work, violates these ethical standards. It can take the form of plaglarism, falsification of data, and irresponsible authorship.”

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/875572239190051L

Irresponsible authorship is going to be a matter of judgment. I’m guessing the fact that readers of opinion pieces in political magazines don’t assume a crime occurred when they read a critique of a scientists work as fraudulent, especially if some further information is present that clarifies what the writer means, should matter.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by ordvic

0
0

Perhaps Dr Appell could tell us why Dr Mann refuses giving up his meta data in dicovery in his case against Tim Ball required by Canadian law thus not only defaulting on the case but opening himself up to Ball’s suit against him. What is he hiding besides the decline?

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Carrick

0
0

Keep in mind that most of the criticism of Mann that borders on charges of academic misconduct is not for the MBH paper, but Mann’s professional behavior after its publication.

The sole issue in MBH98 that I am aware of is the withholding of adverse R2-verification results. Even this amounts to what I would term a judgement call gone wrong, and so shouldn’t be viewed as evidence of misconduct but rather just a junior researcher who made a bad call.

Anyway, when you co-author a paper, you take on a certain level of trust for the other authors behavior. I doubt Bradley or Hughes had much to do with the analysis section in question, so that’s all Mann, who wrote the code and made the bad analysis decisions.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Matthew R Marler

0
0
Quinn the Eskimo: <i>Wood v. Cincinnati Safe & Lock Co., 96 Ga. 120, 123-24, 22 S.E. 909 (1895). </i> Thank you for quoting court decisions. I think that they will prove influential in deciding the outcome.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by aaron

0
0

What are the chances Mann won’t perjure himself.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by RickA

0
0

paddylol:

If people (even scientists) who are not qualified on legal matters cannot comment on legal matters, and people who are not qualifed on science matters (just extending your request into other areas) cannot comment on science, this blog will be pretty empty.

This is a blog.

Clueless comments are part of the fun of reading a blog!

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Carrick

0
0
That letter appears to have been <a href="http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/07/11/smeared-richard-feynman/" rel="nofollow">written by Feynman's ex-wife</a>. Some smear campaign.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Daniel

0
0

Carrick…does anyone bother to check who wrote what or does everyone get painted with the same brush?

To review: Rand Simberg at the Competitive Enterprise Institute published a blog post in which he made the amusing suggestion that Mann

could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.

Steyn, a friend of mine for many years, cited Simberg’s piece in a post for National Review Online and added a shower of causticities of his own:

Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr. Simberg does, but he has a point. Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to “investigate” Professor Mann.…

If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won’t it cover up? Whether or not he’s “the Jerry Sandusky of climate change”, he remains the Michael Mann of climate change, in part because his “investigation” by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke.

Neither Simberg nor Steyn was accusing Mann of any crime—the reference to Sandusky was a joke prompted by the fact that Sandusky and Mann were employed by the same university.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Carrick

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Matthew R Marler

0
0

a fan of *MORE* discourse: Observation Michael Mann’s paleo-analysis and Curry/Khvorostyanov’s quantum-analysis alike fail Feynman’s directive “details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given.”

Corollary I The word “fraudulent” applies to neither Mann’s nor Curry/Khvorostyanov’s analysis, or alternatively to both.

That is a bizarre pairing, not least because K&C was not supported by the UN for policy purposes, but this case will not depend on Feynman’s directive. It will depend on US laws, precedents, careful reading of what exactly was written and had been written already in the public domain.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by AK

0
0
<blockquote>What is questionable (despite the assertions of some that it isn’t) is the intent of his metaphor.</blockquote>Well, as a journalist engaging in advocacy, he was within his rights to accuse Mann of "fraud", metaphorically in the <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/11/fraudulent-hockey-stick/#comment-626659" rel="nofollow">context of <i>"public policy advice"</i></a>. As such, it would represent an effort to mould public opinion, as demonstrated by language changes. Whether he was consciously aware of this at the time would seem irrelevant to me. Especially in the terms I expressed it. He may just have felt a sense of outrage, proper IMO, and expressed it in vague terms: Mann's use of the "hockey stick" in the context of <i>"public policy advice"</i> (<i>i.e.</i> the IPCC) was "fraud". Unless he made a clear distinction in his mind between the <i>"scientific or professional context"</i> and the context of <i>"public policy advice"</i>, he would probably have been speaking unclearly, while trying to make a point he hadn't precisely defined. Which, as a journalist, is his right. As long as he's expressing outrage (or even disapproval), I don't see how anybody could reasonably claim an intent to defame.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Matthew R Marler

0
0
Rud Istvan: <i> The CV thing is real bad both for Mann and his attorneys under DC Civil procedure Rule 11 concerning the pleadings. Real, real bad. </i> Could you quote the relevant text?
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images