Michael Mann at TAM... Really?

[DC]

Good, everyone is welcome at TAM as long as they stick to basic rooms of civilty and debate is open.
- So I state for the record that I find the word "denier" as offensive as the N-word & B-word and that nobody will be bullying others by using this word against them.
- Furthermore it is essential that Mann's appearance is not completely controlled & scripted and that questions can be asked freely without having to be submitted for clearance before hand. That people should be able to ask him about his past predictions and should be able to ask to make firm predictions for the near future that can be tested by time.

- I hope there will be respect for people's opinions in the past I have also seen "True Believer" Skeptics try to BULLY Randi .. "look at those idiots who don't believe" , but he states his principles clearly
see : randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/805-agw-revisited.html

- TAM 2008 it was sad when Penn & Teller were BULLIED by Sharon Begley for saying "Man made global warming ? I don't know .. it's complicated" she replied "how can you not believe the evidence is overwhelming ! etc." & and then ripped into them in her blog.
- It's a fundamental rule of skepticsm that people should be repected when they say "I don't know"
- If you tell people to pick a side when they haven't analysed all the arguments & evidence themselves, then you are telling them to rely on the fallacy of AUTHORITY

- 1950 USA You are NOT ALLOWED to say you don't believe in God, based on Argument from Authority
- 2013 USA You are NOT ALLOWED to say you don't believe in CAGW certainty of castatrophic manmade global warming , based on Argument from Authority.

- 1. The human brain doesn't like uncertainty, it likes to fill in the gaps rather than say "I don't know"
- 2. Given a choice between Simple : pick a side (with all answering dogma), or admit something is complicated ..people will go for the dogma side
.. but I hope skeptic are above that !

- Can we confirm that in future events other SKEPTICAL SPEAKERS we suggest can come to give presentations
....without people saying "No, we can't give THOSE people a platform" ?

he is working in paleoclimatology, i was not aware that they also make predictions.
what are his past predictions?

the problem is the people that have made up their mind without looking at the evidence.

 

[DC]

- I have been sad to see that when it comes to Global warming many top US Skeptics throw all their principles away and suddenly come over all "True Believer" just like the UFO hunter's anti-anti-vaccine people with "confirmation bias", "absolute certainty beyond evidence", emotion, SHOUTING & namecalling etc.

-I try to work out their thinking
: "the right wing is always wrong, so the other side must be CORRECT".. "EASY job done"
This pick a side (with all answering dogma) "feels nice", "no need to analyse all that complicated science & evidence"
.... but that is basically a fallacious ARGUMENT from AUTHORITY
- They then surround themselves with other cool people, hipppy girls who want to hear the greendream etc. and so it is reinforced.. so basically they don't get to hear alternative viewpoints (they don't know they exist) and if they come across them then rather than THINK HARD they can play the "it's funded by big oil card" and dismiss it

Just as the GREEN Movement walked away from Green .. (to magic dogma)
The SKEPTICAL Movement moved away from being SKEPTICAL

.. lets move back and NOT FAIL to capitalise on a whole new market of people who are starting to think critically

when you want to debate the science of AGW or AGW in general, in the science subforum is a whole thread you can use, this is about Michael Mann going to TAM.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176635&page=223

there is the place for your debate about AGW. tell us there what your problems with the science of AGW is. there are many people there able and willing to explain it to you in great detail.

 

[lionking]

Deniers just don't give up....

 

[stewgreenUK]

Are you bullying me DC ? ..

- 1. Mann's predictions ..just Google yourself and you will find his
- 2. Yes my second post is about Mann being invited, because some one has to state that not all skeptics are GreenDream "true believers"
(I am not debating CAGW here cos "it's too FREAKIN complicated" and it would take 1000 pages to explain properly I guess. )
- Keeping the forum tidy shows you respect people So can we please REFRAIN from namecalling, petty point scoring
& don't fill the page with an entire quote of someone's spiel, when you are just making a quick point.
- Thankyou : egslim, Railer .. you make good points.

A Good rule : don't feed the trolls, who namecall and try to throw the discussion off topic

 

[Buckaroo]

If you think DC' s posts are "bullying," you're not going to have a very good time on this forum.

 

[DC]

- 1. Mann's predictions ..just Google yourself and you will find his
- 2. Yes my second post is about Mann being invited, because some one has to state that not all skeptics are GreenDream "true believers"
(I am not debating CAGW here cos "it's too FREAKIN complicated" and it would take 1000 pages to explain properly I guess. )
- Keeping the forum tidy shows you respect people So can we please REFRAIN from namecalling, petty point scoring
& don't fill the page with an entire quote of someone's spiel, when you are just making a quick point.
- Thankyou : egslim, Railer .. you make good points.

A Good rule : don't feed the trolls, who namecall and try to throw the discussion off topic

bullying ? really?

when you google "Michael Mann Prediction" you find his book where he explains the IPCC predictions, i am not aware that Mann himself made any predictions. maybe i missed it? and usually you should provide a link or something similar, so we know what exactly you are talking about.

AGW has nothing to do with greendream true believers, whatever that is supposed to mean. its a scientific theory explaining the late 20th century warming, a theory supported by a huge amount of evidence from all over the world from 10 000's of researchers around the world.

the AGW thread is not limited, and is already very long, most denier myths are covered over and over again. just have a look at it and post your problems with the science.

this is not bullying at all.

 

[stewgreenUK]

Mann predicted just a couple of weeks ago : horrific sea level rise

just a couple of weeks ago: .. it was horrific sea level rise
: "Mann Forecasts Six Feet Of Sea Level Rise "
..also his hockey stick is a form of prediction..he projects it into the future ?

- But I hope people will be free to question him about
1. His climategate emails
2. Why the University of Virginia went to such terrific legal lengths to resist making data public when ATI was asking for
QUOTE...“context” to the Climategate scandal that, all are told, would explain away as non-problematic the revelations of “hide the decline”, “Mike’s Nature (Magazine) trick,” “recruiting” journalists to go after opponents UNQUOTE
..using even more taxpayers money to resist showing how taxpayers money had been spent

QUOTE A.W. Montford’s book, The Hockey Stick Illusion, it is definitely worth the read. His presentation of Steve McIntyre’s analysis of Mann’s hockey stick is devastating
– it shows, inter alia, that random numbers may even correlate better to actual temperature data than Mann’s “proxies.” In other words, solid proof that Mann’s data is garbage. UNQUOTE

- I have already stated that I find the use of the term "denier" derogatory.
(It's clearly calculated to skew debate and does reflect well on the people who use it).. so please desist ..thankyou in advance
.. There must be some other term you can use for people that don't believe catastrophe is certain
- actually I think "true believers" (of Catastrophe is certain) don't have any right to take OWNERSHIP of the word Skeptic. I think if people have the perfect right to self- define themselves at Skeptics of catastrophe etc. Isn't it normal to let people self define ?

BTW Mann makes political predictions all the time; he appeared on "Big Oil" TV a few hours ago to say
.."The disinformation campaign can only survive for so long...it's like the case of tobacco.. the rest of the world is moving increasingly towards renewable energy" on Al Jazeera
that's 2 predictions
- (Funny the world top 2 Solar PV companies recently went bankrupt and Germany has recently pulled out of a lot of renewables and starting building coal fired power stations" ..just Google it )

- Another question to ask is "Why does Mann always decline to share a stage with a skeptic ?" .. if one is invited onto a TV show, then Mann won't appear at the same time.

 

[DC]

just a couple of weeks ago: .. it was horrific sea level rise
: "Mann Forecasts Six Feet Of Sea Level Rise "
..also his hockey stick is a form of prediction..he projects it into the future ?

- But I hope people will be free to question him about
1. His climategate emails
2. Why the University of Virginia went to such terrific legal lengths to resist making data public when ATI was asking for
QUOTE...“context” to the Climategate scandal that, all are told, would explain away as non-problematic the revelations of “hide the decline”, “Mike’s Nature (Magazine) trick,” “recruiting” journalists to go after opponents UNQUOTE
..using even more taxpayers money to resist showing how taxpayers money had been spent

QUOTE A.W. Montford’s book, The Hockey Stick Illusion, it is definitely worth the read. His presentation of Steve McIntyre’s analysis of Mann’s hockey stick is devastating
– it shows, inter alia, that random numbers may even correlate better to actual temperature data than Mann’s “proxies.” In other words, solid proof that Mann’s data is garbage. UNQUOTE

- I have already stated that I find the use of the term "denier" derogatory.
(It's clearly calculated to skew debate and does reflect well on the people who use it).. so please desist ..thankyou in advance
.. There must be some other term you can use for people that don't believe catastrophe is certain

you mean a speach where he presented and talked about his book in which he explains the IPCC preojections.
not his predictions, the IPCC Projections.

how would you like to be called? you seem ot be in denial of AGW, so denier is the most apropriate label i guess, but i often call them Conspiracy theorists, because that is also something they often belief, that its all a huge conspiracy.
but pls, tell me, how would you like to be called but remember i will not use names like "climate realists" because thats not what you are, nor would i use "AGW sceptic" because thats not what you are.
how about scientific ignoramous? reality rejector?

Steve McIntyre's crackpottery had virtually no impact inthe scientific community. they seem to be quite happy with Mann's and all the other reconstructions. they sure work on improving them and expanding them, yet noone was able to find anything that contradicts the hockey stick graph at all. if so, it would make a huge impact on the scientific community dealing with this. it would mean that over a dozen of global and hemispherical reconstructions are wrong. all of them in the past 20 years. but nobody was able to show anything of that sort, and even the latest reconstructions like those from PAGES have again confirmed the hockey stick like temperature curve. even worse. it shows a cooling trend do to orbital forcing that would have led us into the next glaciation period, yet the Anthropogenic warming has overcome that in a very very short period of time.

i hope some in the audiance at TAM will bring up some of the denier miyths around Michael Mann's work and get handed the facts promptly by Mann himself.

 

[DC]

and why should deniers be invited? they are a small fringe group that seek attention, why give them the attention? many people already do hold the believe that AGW is somehow a topic under heavy debate, in the media we often get presented with the scientific view and then with the deniers view. yet when i watch a docu about our solar system they never invite geocentrist presenting us their view of the solar system and the universe. same with Evolution, usually when i see a documentation about evolution i don't get presented the views of the fringe group of creationists . because they play no role in the science, the science has advanced, in the science they are talking about how much warming CO2 doubling will cause, and how much sea level rise we will have do to landbased ice melt etc etc. not if AGW is happening or not. that debate was over a few decades ago when the amount of evidence for AGW became overwhelming.

 

[Mister Earl]

Anyone else notice that climate change deniers seem to think that reality itself is subject to opinion or discussion? Like the Earth itself somehow takes a yearly vote. "Nope, no climate change, not enough backing to go with it."

 

[stewgreenUK]

DC : The topic is Michael Mann

DC you already told me not to debate CAGW here, but you seem to have gone off topic yourself
..Your last post didn't mention Michael Mann at all
It was namecalling, seeking to alienate people, statistically incorrect , and insulting
"people .. believe that AGW is somehow a topic under heavy debate"
- People HAVE appeared here to debate ..to criticise Mann .. then they have been insulted them. is that OK ?

- "they are a small fringe group" Well you namecall people a fringe and say they should NOT be allowed to a debate .. do you remember what fallacy that is ?
.. don't large numbers of people in the world vote for parties skeptical of catastrophe ?

Media Balanced ?
- You know many large media outlets like the BBC, ABC Australia and the Guardian have a deliberate policy of not allowing space to skeptics.
- can you tell me when the 400ppm CO2 limit at Mauna was officially crossed ? according to Scripps/Keeling & NOAA ? ..it wasn't May 9th go and check. was the world's media balanced ?

- and you appear to be shouting "the debate is over"
- Can we say this when in science the predictions of models don't match reality ?.. what was your prediction in 1998 of the 2012 Global average temperature ? were you right ?
- 1978 "Ulcers are caused by stress " ..was the debate over ?

 

[Mister Earl]

If you wanna debate global warming, chief, a great place to start would be to explain how 97% of all climatology studies published in reputable peer-reviewed journals have agreed with the assertion that climate change is real and man is driving that change.

I won't hold my breath.

#EDIT: Let me put that into more easily digestable perspective. For every ONE paper printed in a peer reviewed scientific journal where the authors don't see man-influenced climate change, there are THIRTY-TWO printed that show otherwise. That's not an even debate. That's not even close. That's like saying you expect a pamphlet to take the same amount of time to ship as the Statue of Liberty because they're "about" the same weight.

 

[DC]

DC you already told me not to debate CAGW here, but you seem to have gone off topic yourself
..Your last post didn't mention Michael Mann at all
It was namecalling, seeking to alienate people, statistically incorrect , and insulting
"people .. believe that AGW is somehow a topic under heavy debate"
- People HAVE appeared here to debate ..to criticise Mann .. then they have been insulted them. is that OK ?

- "they are a small fringe group" Well you namecall people a fringe and say they should NOT be allowed to a debate .. do you remember what fallacy that is ?
.. don't large numbers of people in the world vote for parties skeptical of catastrophe ?

Media Balanced ?
- You know many large media outlets like the BBC, ABC Australia and the Guardian have a deliberate policy of not allowing space to skeptics.
- can you tell me when the 400ppm CO2 limit at Mauna was officially crossed ? according to Scripps/Keeling & NOAA ? ..it wasn't May 9th go and check. was the world's media balanced ?

- and you appear to be shouting "the debate is over"
- Can we say this when in science the predictions of models don't match reality ?.. what was your prediction in 1998 of the 2012 Global average temperature ? were you right ?
- 1978 "Ulcers are caused by stress " ..was the debate over ?

you will continue to be offended as you did not say how i should call those that do not accept the scientific findings of AGW. mmhhh how about TTDNATSFOAGW?` better?

and what is your source that it was not May 9th?
according to NOAA and Mauna Loa Observatory it was May 9th. but i didnt fact check it as i wasn't much interested in it. and it doesn't really matter when exactly it was. CO2 levels will start to fall anyway untill october then start to rise again.
but pls show me how NOAA got it wrong.

i do not deny that media outlets do a bad job in reporting and are sometimes fearmongering with innacurate reporting about AGW. but overall i think they do a bad job with giving the TTDNATSFOAGW's a much to large stage to spread their ignorant myths.

yes the debate about if AGW is human caused or not happening at all is over. the evidence is overwhelming. to change that it would need new evidence, but sofar nothing indicates the science to be wrong. not even the not predicted plateau in surface temps we currrently have is able to show that the science is wrong.
but there is still plenty of debate going on about the details of AGW.

so can we see you in the AGW thread in the science subforum? ideal place to present your view that NOAA got it wrong with the CO2 400 ppm anouncement.

 

[Wowbagger]

However, he also used a set of 20 proxies that showed a 20th century growth spurt, which we know from nearby thermometer data, was unrelated to temperature.

That's not the same as fudging data.

You are accusing him of a form of fraud. But, all you have evidence for is: Careful analysis and application of approximate data for which exact data was not known.

That's all you have!

And in Mann's flawed analysis, that one bad set of proxies came to dominate the results. Mann knew it: On his own server was a folder labeled "CENSORED", which included the same analysis without the bad set of proxies, and without a hockey stick.

... and also taken entirely out of context, by folks like you, apparently.

I don't know all the details about that folder, myself, but apparently it is standard practice in signal analysis to do what is called "Censored Mean-Level Detection" (look it up), and that is what the "Censored" folder was for. It was for testing the robustness of his data. Not for hiding anything.

If he was trying to hide that data, why would he distribute it to so many people on an FTP server?

 

[Wowbagger]

If you wanna debate global warming, chief, a great place to start would be to explain how 97% of all climatology studies published in reputable peer-reviewed journals have agreed with the assertion that climate change is real and man is driving that change.

I wanted to add that that 97% result was all papers since the year 1991. If you look at the chart of their results, ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/files/2013/05/erl460291f2_online1.jpg ), you see that a much higher percentage supports AGW over time than not.

It's close to 99.5% for papers published in the last couple of years.


Oh, and one more thing: This argument of yours, although accurate, doesn't actually belong in this thread for two reasons:
1. It is not about Michael Mann. This is a thread about him, not AGW in general.
And,
2. It is, technically, an Ad Populum fallacy. Just because a LOT of scientists agree with something, that doesn't mean it's true. What if that 0.5% of papers denying AGW turn out to be correct? You have to analyze the quality of evidence, not the quantity.

(It happens that the quality of evidence is also on the side of AGW being real, but that has nothing to do with the number of papers published about it.)

 

[Mister Earl]

I thought I established the quality level when I said, "climatology studies published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal". They definitely have a higher quality level than say, "unsourced blog post by the great aunt who thinks oil is from Jesus and ice caps are the devil".

 

[Wowbagger]

I thought I established the quality level when I said, "climatology studies published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal".

First of all: Those papers not supporting AGW were ALSO published in "reputable peer-reviewed journals".

Second of all: Sometimes poor quality papers do make their way into "reputable" journals. It's rare. But, it does happen, on rare occasions. (I recently attended a panel about "cut-throat science", at the NY Academy of Sciences, that went into this.)

At least we can argue that Michael Mann's chart was correct enough, in spite of its proxies, that almost all good-quality studies have since matched its results very closely. And, THAT brings this discussion back to its proper topic! If Mann had been a fraud, that wouldn't have happened.

 

[Gr8wight]

Michael Mann is the last straw in what was once a quality science magazine. What's next phrenology? The scientific consensus on Piltdown man?

I assume there will be a opposing viewpoint at the lectures? No that's because Mann won't show up if anyone dares question dogma.

I would argue the obvious errors in AGW here but what's the point your minds have long since closed.

I've removed myself from the mailing list, JREF you had a good run, goodbye.

Your only post, ever, is to say, "Goodbye?" Why bother? Nobody's going to miss you. Nobody even knew you were here.

 

[Mister Earl]

First of all: Those papers not supporting AGW were ALSO published in "reputable peer-reviewed journals".

Don't see the problem. I wasn't saying one was and the other was not.

Second of all: Sometimes poor quality papers do make their way into "reputable" journals. It's rare. But, it does happen, on rare occasions. (I recently attended a panel about "cut-throat science", at the NY Academy of Sciences, that went into this.)

Sure. But then other folks who disagree with the findings do their research and publish showing how they are wrong and why they are wrong. I don't see a problem here.

At least we can argue that Michael Mann's chart was correct enough, in spite of its proxies, that almost all good-quality studies have since matched its results very closely. And, THAT brings this discussion back to its proper topic! If Mann had been a fraud, that wouldn't have happened.

Sounds like we both believe in the rigors of the scientific method. So I don't know why it sounds like we're disagreeing.

#EDIT: I'm guessing on miscommunication. I think either I'm seing a subtext to what you're saying that isn't there, or you're seeing a subtext in what I'm saying that isn't there.

 

[Wowbagger]

So I don't know why it sounds like we're disagreeing.

We're not disagreeing.... Or rather, we ARE disagreeing, but ONLY on the point of whether or not we are disagreeing... ermmm.... perhaps I should start over...


We're not disagreeing. I'm merely pointing out that the percentage of papers saying one thing is not indicative of that thing being accurate. It is possible, however unlikely, that the minority idea could be the more accurate one. Therefore, bringing up the idea of the 97% papers thing is, in itself, not relevant to the facts about AGW.

That's all.