Michael Mann at TAM... Really?

[a_unique_person]

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.
?

I don't think we will be seeing Sylvia Browne or Uri Geller along anytime.

The word 'denier' is offensive only to those who don't like it pointed out that they are denying accepted science, as it is taught at university.

 

[varwoche]

It must be incredibly frustrating to AGW deniers (sorry folks -- you don't get to banish common words) that AGW is universally accepted as fact throughout academia -- taught in virtually every university in the world.

 

[a_unique_person]

- 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

When you don't understand something as complex as climate science and say you don't know, then the only logical response is to defer to experts, that is, the climate scientists. To say that because you don't know because you can't understand something that complex, then expect everyone else to take that position is just an appeal to ignorance. A kind of perversion of the "appeal to authority" fallacy.

Many people fail to understand that the appeal to authority fallacy applies when you defer to someone who has no better idea of the truth of something than you do, that is, a priest telling you that god exists. Scientists claiming AGW is real have a mountain of evidence ready to back them up. They will be quite happy to point it out to you. Unfortunately, most people will not be able to understand it. You see evidence of this all over the internet on blogs. McKitrick would be a good example.

From wikipedia.

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
*cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
*cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter
*any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.

None of these apply to AGW.

As for Penn and Teller being bullied, I have seen them bully people. They were not subject to bullying in this instance.

 

[stewgreenUK]

- Question for JREF ..will Mann receive any JREF money (apart from less than $1000 travel expenses)?
- Will Mann purposefully turn off the air conditioning in the TAM building beforehand without telling anyone to exacerbate people’s experience of the heat ?
- of course there are other questions I can ask, but I make space for other people

- I just checked Penn's words at TAM 2008 he seems to be alluding that "True Believers" were just taking an easy option of joining The Cult of Gore

 

[stewgreenUK]

off topic but answering questions

@DC "but pls show me how NOAA got it wrong.
who is the denier ?..instead of checking the facts you just shout back at me ..
- The NOAA reading of May 9th was later adjusted downwards check on the NOAA records and the story in the LA Times
“The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) revised its May 9 reading at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii, saying it remained fractions of a point below the level of 400 ppm, at 399.89″
..see you didn't know .... see how the media are doing a bad job

- (you might be relieved to hear that since May 13th the Scripps/Keeling measurement did cross 400 on 13th, 16th & 17th but they are preliminary, none of the NOAA daily averages have yet crossed 400)
May 18 - 399.69 May 17 - 399.87 May 16 - 399.74 May 15 - 399.59 May 14 - 399.81

"the debate is over"
would you accept that from a religious person who says if you don't believe in God you are a "denier"
- Is Lovelock a "denier" ?

 

[stewgreenUK]

DC I told you about "absolute certainty beyond evidence"

.."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."
..do you ever check any facts ? It's called projection when you project YOUR OWN flaws onto others
- recently Mann made a whole heap of predictions on the wfmz.com page
- "Mann predicted if nothing is done average global temperatures will rise five to seven degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100."

- Then on sea level DC says "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."
“He said sea levels could rise six to nine feet by the end of the century."
- May 20013 Paper : Ice2sea (Greenland and Antarctica melt ) projections are 69cm MAX
- Even adding a little bit due to other factors like ocean exapanding due to heat their maximum his minimum is their maximum
Again I quote DC "he is working in paleoclimatology, i was not aware that they also make predictions.
what are his past predictions?"
contradicted by his Mann's 2011 paper "The Sea Level Hockey Stick"
The paper is: Kemp, A.C., Horton, B.P., Donnelly, J.P., Mann, M.E., Vermeer, M., Rahmstorf, S., Climate related sea-level variations over the past two millennia, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. (in press) PNAS
"ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY WITHOUT EVIDENCE" is a sure sign of bad science

- DC does this Guardian bit stand up to analysis ?
...QUOTE In the wake of last month’s discovery that the extent of Arctic sea ice coverage hit a record low this year, climate scientist Michael Mann told the Guardian that “Island nations that have considered the possibility of evacuation at some point, like Tuvalu, may have to be contending those sort of decisions within the matter of a decade or so.”ENDQUOTE

 

[stewgreenUK]

Reply to #28 "how would you like to be called?" SKEPTIC please

"Skeptic of CAGW" .. that there is certain to be Climate catastrophe and that one will caused my manmade CO2
"Skeptic of magic green solutions" - The idea that anything considered "green" is somehow a magic solution
- The real world is full colour complex not black and white simple. And it is a mistake to try to put things in neat little boxes "complexity denial".
- So in a civilised debate is there any need to label people ? In complex issues people have individual differences about different aspects. Do all scientists in a field agree on all issues ? Or can you split them into Truthers & Deniers ?
- What do you call someone who agrees wih you on CAGW, but says that solar PV doesn't work ? Do you just classify them as DENIER ?
- Beware of false dichotomy .. it's an easy debate tactic to say there are only 2 possible viewpoints and then project someone who disagrees to the extreme of the scale and so dismiss them.
- Don't you think it basically shows that they have lost the debate ?

- Is it acceptable for a believers in Gods to call non-believers deniers ?
- People who don't believe that the existance of GOD or that dowsing works have a right to call themselves SKEPTIC
- The religious & "True Believers" don't have the right to claim ownership of the term ..as again that would be bullying
BTW it up to people putting forward a theory to clearly define it and state HOW IT CAN BE FALSIFIED.
- "While, a science is not genuine if whatever happens, it is always right. If a so-called science is such that it can explain anything you want, then I said it was a pseudo-science."
..Karl Popper, founder of modern scientific reasoning

"Conspiracy theorists" - few skeptics say there is a conspiracy ..again that sounds like projection again. Conspiracy theory is the norm for UFO believers and other "TRUE BELIEVER CULTS"

...BTW where is this Big Denial Machine Funded by big oil ? How come 90% of mainstram media reports seem to toe-ing the line of the GreenDream

...DC's rant of "blah blah" sounds again projection again this time DENIAL

Quoting DC again : "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."

... Oh really : then why is the latest Ice2sea 2013 sea level projection, so much lower than Mann's 2011 projection ?

 

[stewgreenUK]

Clarifications

@Mister Earl "climatology studies published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal"
@Wowbagger "Sometimes poor quality papers do make their way into "reputable" journals"
- Unfortunately the 2005 JPA Ioannidis study "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False." proved most published science cannot be replicated over time
..only 10% of medical science papers stand up
and probably the majority in other fields have problems also
- Peer review is just the first step of the process, it does not establish truth
(multiple replications of studies which are done in a PROPER way, which can then produce models which give accurate predictions ..does)

@sophia8 "I imagine that Mann will be at TAM to talk about how he was attacked, not about AGW itself. YES we know this from Novella's Press release
- Climategate : "That question seems to have been quietly buried."
- QUIET ? There was Climategate 3 on March13 2013 with another release of data
- the police ended the Climagate enquiy 10 months ago a couple of months before the 3 year statute of limitation ran out
- on allegations of death threats to UEA scientists " Norfolk Police said : "No specific complaint or report was made to the Constabulary and no crimes were recorded detailing threats to life or threats of bodily harm."

 

[Wowbagger]

@Wowbagger "Sometimes poor quality papers do make their way into "reputable" journals"
- Unfortunately the 2005 JPA Ioannidis study "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False." proved most published science cannot be replicated over time
..only 10% of medical science papers stand up
and probably the majority in other fields have problems also
- Peer review is just the first step of the process, it does not establish truth
(multiple replications of studies which are done in a PROPER way, which can then produce models which give accurate predictions ..does)

THIS is the only post of mine you are responding to? The one that plays Devil's Advocate to try to convey things on your side, a little?

I would rather have you respond to something we both strongly disagree with.

As best as I can tell, the evidence I've seen does NOT seem to indicate Michael Man was any sort of fraud. And, the best quality evidence I have seen indicates that AGW is a genuine trend.

Do you have any GOOD QUALITY evidence to demonstrate otherwise?

 

[DC]

@DC "but pls show me how NOAA got it wrong.
who is the denier ?..instead of checking the facts you just shout back at me ..
- The NOAA reading of May 9th was later adjusted downwards check on the NOAA records and the story in the LA Times
“The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) revised its May 9 reading at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii, saying it remained fractions of a point below the level of 400 ppm, at 399.89″
..see you didn't know .... see how the media are doing a bad job

- (you might be relieved to hear that since May 13th the Scripps/Keeling measurement did cross 400 on 13th, 16th & 17th but they are preliminary, none of the NOAA daily averages have yet crossed 400)
May 18 - 399.69 May 17 - 399.87 May 16 - 399.74 May 15 - 399.59 May 14 - 399.81

"the debate is over"
would you accept that from a religious person who says if you don't believe in God you are a "denier"
- Is Lovelock a "denier" ?

so you say the media did a bad job in that= yet you send me to the media to check the story lol .

would not be the first time a god believer calls me a denier. but the difference is, there is no evidence for any gods, there is however overwhelming evidence for AGW.

 

[DC]

"Skeptic of CAGW" .. that there is certain to be Climate catastrophe and that one will caused my manmade CO2
"Skeptic of magic green solutions" - The idea that anything considered "green" is somehow a magic solution
- The real world is full colour complex not black and white simple. And it is a mistake to try to put things in neat little boxes "complexity denial".
- So in a civilised debate is there any need to label people ? In complex issues people have individual differences about different aspects. Do all scientists in a field agree on all issues ? Or can you split them into Truthers & Deniers ?
- What do you call someone who agrees wih you on CAGW, but says that solar PV doesn't work ? Do you just classify them as DENIER ?
- Beware of false dichotomy .. it's an easy debate tactic to say there are only 2 possible viewpoints and then project someone who disagrees to the extreme of the scale and so dismiss them.
- Don't you think it basically shows that they have lost the debate ?

- Is it acceptable for a believers in Gods to call non-believers deniers ?
- People who don't believe that the existance of GOD or that dowsing works have a right to call themselves SKEPTIC
- The religious & "True Believers" don't have the right to claim ownership of the term ..as again that would be bullying
BTW it up to people putting forward a theory to clearly define it and state HOW IT CAN BE FALSIFIED.
- "While, a science is not genuine if whatever happens, it is always right. If a so-called science is such that it can explain anything you want, then I said it was a pseudo-science."
..Karl Popper, founder of modern scientific reasoning

"Conspiracy theorists" - few skeptics say there is a conspiracy ..again that sounds like projection again. Conspiracy theory is the norm for UFO believers and other "TRUE BELIEVER CULTS"

...BTW where is this Big Denial Machine Funded by big oil ? How come 90% of mainstram media reports seem to toe-ing the line of the GreenDream

...DC's rant of "blah blah" sounds again projection again this time DENIAL

Quoting DC again : "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."

... Oh really : then why is the latest Ice2sea 2013 sea level projection, so much lower than Mann's 2011 projection ?

oh dear what a bunch of strawmen.

no i will not call you sceptic, because that is not what you are.

i never claimed that everything green is a magic solution, nor a solution nor do i even think everything that is called green is actually green.
there are many things i disagree with the greens for example. opposition to niclear energy comes to mind for example.

there is no evidence for god nor for ET spacecrafts etc. so even if they call me denier for rejecting their crackpottery, so what? its not denial if they do not provide evidence like in the case of AGW, where the evidence is overwhelming, just like for evolution, graphity, electromagnetism etc etc etc.

what is your evidence for 90% of media reports bla bla bla ? pls provide evidence for this claim.

the amount of sea level rise from land base sea melting is one of the topic they do debate in science, so its no suprise there are different projections of that, that was my point. there are however no debates in science is there will be sea level rise or not, because we already have sea level rise. and only crackpots licke wannabe" Lord" Monckton and co that want to make people believe there is somehow no sea level rise etc... do you get it now?

btw you seem also to be in the conspiracy theory camp, when Michael Mann is a fraud, how come all other global and hemispherical reconstructions confirmed the hockey stick? coincidence? or did they conspire to misslead the public? tell me, how come all those reconstructions agree with eachother? could it be that its not fraud and that is actually what reconstructions from proxies tell us? and thus Mann and the others are not frauds at all?

 

[DC]

"Skeptic of CAGW" .. that there is certain to be Climate catastrophe and that one will caused my manmade CO2
"Skeptic of magic green solutions" - The idea that anything considered "green" is somehow a magic solution
- The real world is full colour complex not black and white simple. And it is a mistake to try to put things in neat little boxes "complexity denial".
- So in a civilised debate is there any need to label people ? In complex issues people have individual differences about different aspects. Do all scientists in a field agree on all issues ? Or can you split them into Truthers & Deniers ?
- What do you call someone who agrees wih you on CAGW, but says that solar PV doesn't work ? Do you just classify them as DENIER ?
- Beware of false dichotomy .. it's an easy debate tactic to say there are only 2 possible viewpoints and then project someone who disagrees to the extreme of the scale and so dismiss them.
- Don't you think it basically shows that they have lost the debate ?

- Is it acceptable for a believers in Gods to call non-believers deniers ?
- People who don't believe that the existance of GOD or that dowsing works have a right to call themselves SKEPTIC
- The religious & "True Believers" don't have the right to claim ownership of the term ..as again that would be bullying
BTW it up to people putting forward a theory to clearly define it and state HOW IT CAN BE FALSIFIED.
- "While, a science is not genuine if whatever happens, it is always right. If a so-called science is such that it can explain anything you want, then I said it was a pseudo-science."
..Karl Popper, founder of modern scientific reasoning

"Conspiracy theorists" - few skeptics say there is a conspiracy ..again that sounds like projection again. Conspiracy theory is the norm for UFO believers and other "TRUE BELIEVER CULTS"

...BTW where is this Big Denial Machine Funded by big oil ? How come 90% of mainstram media reports seem to toe-ing the line of the GreenDream

...DC's rant of "blah blah" sounds again projection again this time DENIAL

Quoting DC again : "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."

... Oh really : then why is the latest Ice2sea 2013 sea level projection, so much lower than Mann's 2011 projection ?

ice2sea homepage is down, but from what i can see so far, ice2sea is looking at sea level rise on European coasts, mann was talking about new jersey, ice2 sea talks about contribution from land based ice melt to sea level rises, mann was talking about sea level rise in general.

you are aware that sea level does not rise the same all over the world? there are place with less sea level rise and others with more, and even places where sea levels will sink over long time.

so you can't just take the twoo figures and compare them. its a bit more complicated. but i gladly explain it to you in more detail in the AGW thread. if you wnat.

 

[a_unique_person]

- Question for JREF ..will Mann receive any JREF money (apart from less than $1000 travel expenses)?
- Will Mann purposefully turn off the air conditioning in the TAM building beforehand without telling anyone to exacerbate people’s experience of the heat ?
- of course there are other questions I can ask, but I make space for other people

- I just checked Penn's words at TAM 2008 he seems to be alluding that "True Believers" were just taking an easy option of joining The Cult of Gore

In other words, you are just creating facts out of thin air. Get some facts together and we can argue about them. Also, what does Al Gore have to do with any of this. If you can point to any papers Al Gore has published, contributions to textbooks, etc, that would be a start. Otherwise Al Gore's contribution has only been to draw people's attention to research they may have otherwise not known about. The scientific source behind his movie was Hansen.

 

[godless dave]

As soon as people bring Al Gore into I know they're full of it. I heard about global warming in 1990, long before Gore adopted it as a cause. Back then he was still figuring out that putting warning labels on records wasn't getting him the votes he thought it would .

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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.

But at least you liked his work on Miami Vice, The Insider and Ali, right?

 

[KwamiFabu]

It is indeed a shame that TAM has seen fit to invite a charlatan like Mann, who combines the worst aspects of sloppy science and self-righteous academe. His defenders have no intention of scrutinizing his work; they see only "deniers" savaging it from all sides, never considering for a moment that for all that smoke there might be a glowing ember of truth.

And it is true: Mann et. al. fashioned the Hockey Stick out of corrupted, even upside-down data. The "shaft" of the stick uses statistical tricks to "smooth out" both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, periods which we know from voluminous historical sources, most certainly did exist. And to what end? To "prove" that our present era is the hottest on record. As previously mentioned, the "blade" of the stick was formed from thermometer readings, not proxies, from 1960 on.

As for the so-called 97 percent of scientists figure, that was a thoroughly bogus survey conducted by the equally bogus Skeptical Science blog, the methodology of which has been dissected on blackboard.com. Remember that science is not conducted by a show of hands; it is a process by which hypotheses are subjected to rigorous testing. Given that the global temperature has not risen in over 15 years despite ever-rising amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, the AGW hypothesis is not looking so great right now.

I wonder if anyone will have a chance to ask Mike Mann about that...

 

[Darat]

Given the history, one warning stick to the topic of this thread or it will be closed. If you want to discuss the science for or against take it to the correct thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: darat

 

[Wowbagger]

It is indeed a shame that TAM has seen fit to invite a charlatan like Mann, who combines the worst aspects of sloppy science and self-righteous academe.

Evidence of "sloppy science", please.

His defenders have no intention of scrutinizing his work;

When this thread was first created, I did take the time to look into the claims made about him, and to scrutinize his work. (It would not have been the first time TAM had a questionable speaker. And, if he was going to be bad for TAM, I would have loved to have joined in with the complainers.)

But, I found no evidence, so far, that he was "sloppy", yet.

So, I'm inclined to think those who call him such things probably don't know what they are talking about.

Perhaps you might have some evidence?

And it is true: Mann et. al. fashioned the Hockey Stick out of corrupted, even upside-down data.

Not from what I have seen.

Ironically, the evidence for his alleged "sloppiness" seems to indicate that he was actually very careful in his application of data, testing for robustness and accuracy all along the way, so far.

Unless you have something different.

Remember that science is not conducted by a show of hands; it is a process by which hypotheses are subjected to rigorous testing.

This, at least, I agree with.

Given that the global temperature has not risen in over 15 years despite ever-rising amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, the AGW hypothesis is not looking so great right now.

You seem to misunderstand some fundamental aspects of climatology.

ETA: As per Darat's request, we can discuss this in another thread, if you wish.

 

[DC]

It is indeed a shame that TAM has seen fit to invite a charlatan like Mann, who combines the worst aspects of sloppy science and self-righteous academe. His defenders have no intention of scrutinizing his work; they see only "deniers" savaging it from all sides, never considering for a moment that for all that smoke there might be a glowing ember of truth.

And it is true: Mann et. al. fashioned the Hockey Stick out of corrupted, even upside-down data. The "shaft" of the stick uses statistical tricks to "smooth out" both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, periods which we know from voluminous historical sources, most certainly did exist. And to what end? To "prove" that our present era is the hottest on record. As previously mentioned, the "blade" of the stick was formed from thermometer readings, not proxies, from 1960 on.

As for the so-called 97 percent of scientists figure, that was a thoroughly bogus survey conducted by the equally bogus Skeptical Science blog, the methodology of which has been dissected on blackboard.com. Remember that science is not conducted by a show of hands; it is a process by which hypotheses are subjected to rigorous testing. Given that the global temperature has not risen in over 15 years despite ever-rising amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, the AGW hypothesis is not looking so great right now.

I wonder if anyone will have a chance to ask Mike Mann about that...

i wonder what you would say had they invited Monckton.

have you ever considered for a moment, that Michael Mann's reconstruction are not sloppy nor faked nor whatever, but merely the result of a reconstructions done with the best knowledge at the time?

have you ever wondered why all other reconstructions showed roughly the same picture?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Am I the only one who has no idea who this person is?