Michael Mann at TAM... Really?

[Cleon]

- Will Mann purposefully turn off the air conditioning in the TAM building beforehand without telling anyone to exacerbate people’s experience of the heat ?

I'm gonna go with "no."

 

[Cleon]

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

He is a relatively high-profile climate scientist. The attorney general of VA has been trying to go after him for ideologically incorrect scientific findings; fortunately, the AG's been laughed out of court at every turn.

 

[Wowbagger]

Since there are a lot of accusations that concern the science itself, where does one draw the line?

I'm not a moderator, but here is how I see it:

If it's about Mann's work, specifically, I assume it's probably fine to post here.

If it's about AGW, in general, then move it to another thread.

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

I didn't know much about who he was until this thread was started.

 

[stewgreenUK]

Straw Mann argument ? Agree Climate Changes, but Not Mad projections

Michael Michael quoted in the TAM press release by Dr. Steven Novella

- "You alluded to the word "skeptic." Well, many of those who simply deny that
climate (will) change (Catastrophically)(due to CO2 increasing and that is due to humans) EXISTS,
, we don’t call them skeptics, because that’s not skepticism. That’s just denial or contrarianism. Now, skepticism is a good thing in science, but it means looking at all sides of an issue."

- Replace the stuff about "climate change catastrophe" with the words "Our God"..then see how it reads..

— Novella continued ..
Michael E. Mann is ..A VERY BIG BIG MAN.. (I paraphrase)

I ABSOLUTELY AGREE ..Lying about proven facts is DENIAL, but who is denying ?
- Mann is making a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT
- (almost) no one denies the climate change exists . No one denies human behaviour effects the climate, quite possibly warms it a small amount.
..THE CLIMATE CHANGES ALL THE TIME over the decades and centuries.
- What people dispute is that current situation will lead to CERTAIN CATASTROPHE.

Mann says skeptical is : "looking at all sides of an issue" ..well surely includes considering that changes are not CERTAINLY catastrophic
- CO2 has been at 3000ppm when primates were living and at times when the world 3C hotter. It's still here !

- People Mann calls "deniers", agree climate changes but just happen maybe to disagree that MAD projections are proven (or likely)

.. but don't worry we can discount their views cos they are Deniers !)

 

[godless dave]

Michael Michael quoted in the TAM press release by Dr. Steven Novella

- "You alluded to the word "skeptic." Well, many of those who simply deny that
climate (will) change (Catastrophically)(due to CO2 increasing and that is due to humans) exists,
, we don’t call them skeptics, because that’s not skepticism. That’s just denial or contrarianism. Now, skepticism is a good thing in science, but it means looking at all sides of an issue."

- Replace the stuff about "climate change catastrophe" with the words "Our God"..then see how it reads..

There's an important difference there.

 

[DC]

l

Michael Michael quoted in the TAM press release by Dr. Steven Novella

- "You alluded to the word "skeptic." Well, many of those who simply deny that
climate (will) change (Catastrophically)(due to CO2 increasing and that is due to humans) exists,
, we don’t call them skeptics, because that’s not skepticism. That’s just denial or contrarianism. Now, skepticism is a good thing in science, but it means looking at all sides of an issue."

- Replace the stuff about "climate change catastrophe" with the words "Our God"..then see how it reads..

— Novella continued ..
Michael E. Mann is ..A VERY BIG BIG MAN.. (I paraphrase)

ABSOLUTELY AGREE ..Lying about proven facts is DENIAL, but who is denying ?
- Mann is making a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT
- (almost) no one denies the climate change exists . No one denies human behaviour effects the climate, quite possibly warms it a small amount.
..THE CLIMATE CHANGES ALL THE TIME over the decades and centuries.
- What people dispute that current situation will lead to CERTAIN CATASTROPHE.

Mann says skeptical is : "looking at all sides of an issue" ..well surely includes considering that changes are not CERTAINLY catastrophic
- CO2 has been at 3000ppm when primates were living and at times when the world 3C hotter. It's still here !

- People Mann calls "deniers", agree climate changes but just happen maybe to disagree that MAD projections are proven (or likely)

.. but don't worry we can discount their views cos they are Deniers !)

who care what you deniers deny?
experts have provided a huge amount of evidence for AGW, its a siple fact, AGW is happening and will continue to happen as long we keep emiting greenhouse gasses.

we are not talking about climate changes in general, but about the anthropogenic climate change. so who cares if you clowns accpet natural climate changes? AGW is not aboout natural climate changes, but about the anthropogenic climate change.

and are you willing to explain to us how it comes that all the reconstructions show the hockey stick shape? all faked? or could it be that this is what you get when you reconstruct past temperatures from proxies?

the denier clowns have slung so much mud at Mann and nothing, absolutely nothing stuck on him, it all fell of like water from a feather. must be deressig for you guys.

 

[DC]

the deniers claim others do not question Mann's work, nor would we ever consider the possibility that Mann's work is flawed or even faked.

this is pure projection. it is actually the deniers that do not ever consider the possibility that Mann's work is not flawed and not faked but real.

very telling

 

[OMGturt1es]

Very cool. I got to see Mann speak about his "climate wars" a couple years ago at AGU. It was a very entertaining talk. And the talk was absolutely packed.

 

[Wowbagger]

- but your CERTAINTY is that is that it is going up like a hockey stick and will thus lead to Catastrophe isn't it ?

It is potentially catastrophic. Not "certainly" catastrophic. There will likely be various means implemented to fend off catastrophe.

Though, it is important to know what's coming, so we can plan effectively. And, perhaps take steps to try control factors that could lead to catastrophe before they occur.

And, I don't think anyone needs to make any hard, life-changing (for the worse) choices, in order to do that. If that's what you're worried about.

 

[a_unique_person]

Michael Michael quoted in the TAM press release by Dr. Steven Novella

- "You alluded to the word "skeptic." Well, many of those who simply deny that
climate (will) change (Catastrophically)(due to CO2 increasing and that is due to humans) EXISTS,
, we don’t call them skeptics, because that’s not skepticism. That’s just denial or contrarianism. Now, skepticism is a good thing in science, but it means looking at all sides of an issue."

- Replace the stuff about "climate change catastrophe" with the words "Our God"..then see how it reads..

Perhaps we could have a link to the press release first, and what Michael Mann actually said, not what you have inserted, and then we can talk about the facts.

 

[Mister Earl]

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.

Ah! Now I'm tracking. Agreed, quantity does not equate quality. But I would argue that the ideas have been tested, again and again, by many independant researchers who do not stand to profit one way or the other, and that suggesting that they are somehow wrong or being dishonest would require substantial evidence that deniers cannot furnish. At best they rely on graph distortion, misleading statements, and repetitive denial.

A common, yet hilarious argument I sometimes hear from denier acquaintences of mine is, "The scientists are just lying about global warming, just to make sure they keep getting their grants." I try to take great pains in showing the error of this, saying things like, "Let's say, for the sake of hilarity if nothing else, that you're right and nothing we're pumping into the environment isn't having the slightest effect. Every freakin' climatologist would be doing studies about how all the stuff we're dumping into the environment isn't doing anything to a surprisingly robust ecology. The scientists and the studies would STILL be there, either way, the topic would merely be different."

 

[Wowbagger]

...suggesting that they are somehow wrong or being dishonest would require substantial evidence that deniers cannot furnish.

Correct.

What I see, here, are people who assume too much:

If someone knows nothing about Censored Mean-Level Detection (for example), happens to find a folder labeled "Censored" with data that looks different from what was published, that person could automatically assume the good data is being hidden ("censored"). If only more homework was done on the stuff they found, it would save them the embarrassment of dredging that folder out.

Some people also seem to assume, too easily, that "proxies = fudged data". It is easy to make those automatic assumptions. It is much harder to step into the shoes of a real scientist working with imperfect data, in the most responsible manner they can.

A common, yet hilarious argument I sometimes hear from denier acquaintences of mine is, "The scientists are just lying about global warming, just to make sure they keep getting their grants."

It would probably cost the government far less money to offer grants to studies that could demonstrate, conclusively, that global warming is not a real trend worth worrying about; than it would for them to fund both AGW-studying grants, AND all the money needed to implement the strategies to deal with it.

 

[uke2se]

JREF is doing the right thing in inviting Mann, especially after Randi's climate denial gaff. JREF should always take the side of science in these kinds of mock controversies, and if the deniers feel left out, so much the better. The deniers should be marginalized and ridiculed. Then either they'll learn and accept science, or they'll slip away and die as old kooks.

 

[KwamiFabu]

I wouldn't have been any happier if they'd invited Monckton; he is not a scientist. I would, however, have approved of JREF also inviting Lindzen, or Christie. But then Mann would not have accepted the invitation. Mann and the Hockey Team never debate AGW skeptics. In fact, they never defend their work on its own merits, opting instead for ad hominem attacks or persecution fantasies at the hands of a cabal of "deniers."

Neither Mann's original paper nor subsequent submissions were ever the best science at the time. He employed statistical methods aimed at achieving a desired result. It has been demonstrated that any data could have been manipulated in the same way to produce a "hockey stick." Numerous Freedom of Information submissions have been repeatedly thwarted by the UK's University of East Anglia to prevent our learning about the details of this chicanery.

The Climategate emails show Mann and his cronies colluding to blackball certain journals simply for publishing papers that challenged the AGW orthodoxy, to the point of demanding their editors be fired. And this is the man to be honored at a skeptics convention?

 

[Wowbagger]

In fact, they never defend their work on its own merits,

Yes they do: When they do science! All of their actual scientific work stands on its own merits.

If none of them want to waste their time debating the AGW-skeptics/deniers, then that's their prerogative. There are others who will.

It has been demonstrated that any data could have been manipulated in the same way to produce a "hockey stick."

Anyone could manipulate any data to look like anything, you know.

However, you are confusing Mann's attempts to test the robustness of his data for "manipulation". If Mann was out to manipulate data, why was he so careful to make sure it was as accurate as could be expected from proxies?

It seems that if Mann was going to fraud the public, it would have been faster and easier to just arbitrarily toss out data points he did not like, on some arbitrary excuse. But, there is no evidence he ever did anything like that.

The Climategate emails show Mann and his cronies colluding to blackball certain journals simply for publishing papers that challenged the AGW orthodoxy, to the point of demanding their editors be fired.

The Climategate emails have been examined by many independent parties, and NONE OF THEM identified any actual wrongdoing, you know.

If this is the kind of thing Mann has to put up with, I think he deserves to be honored at a skeptics/scientist's convention!

 

[uke2se]

If this is the kind of thing Mann has to put up with, I think he deserves to be honored at a skeptics/scientist's convention!

A real skeptic honored by real skeptics, yes. As opposed to faux-skeptics aka climate deniers.

 

[Megalodon]

I wouldn't have been any happier if they'd invited Monckton; he is not a scientist. I would, however, have approved of JREF also inviting Lindzen, or Christie.

Lindzen? How's that iris coming up, btw?... Trying to set him or Christie at the same level as Mann is laughable. You don't get cookie points in Science for being consistently wrong.

But then Mann would not have accepted the invitation. Mann and the Hockey Team never debate AGW skeptics.

To paraphrase Dawkins, it wouldn't improve Mann's CV, but it would look great in the denier's. Specially because deniers are not shy about lying in public, and that makes them impossible to debate.

In fact, they never defend their work on its own merits, opting instead for ad hominem attacks or persecution fantasies at the hands of a cabal of "deniers."

Really? You think a scientist doesn't have to defend his work? You obviously have no contact with science... And btw, it's not the scientists advancing the idea that thousands of professionals around the world are at best incompetent, and at worst criminals.

Neither Mann's original paper nor subsequent submissions were ever the best science at the time.

How would you know that? Reading stuff in a blog doesn't make it true, you know...

He employed statistical methods aimed at achieving a desired result. It has been demonstrated that any data could have been manipulated in the same way to produce a "hockey stick."

See what I meant about lying in public?

Numerous Freedom of Information submissions have been repeatedly thwarted by the UK's University of East Anglia to prevent our learning about the details of this chicanery.

All the details are public, and nobody offered anything but the same false accusations of fraud. Same thing with the models, and datasets: all deniers know that they're wrong, but not one can show us how.

The Climategate emails show Mann and his cronies colluding to blackball certain journals simply for publishing papers that challenged the AGW orthodoxy, to the point of demanding their editors be fired.

The editor in cause fast-tracked a very poor paper without listening to the reviewers. Any scientist would avoid such a journal for the dissemination of their work. Or do you think journals have a right to the scientists intellectual property?

And this is the man to be honored at a skeptics convention?

Apparently yes, and I'm very happy about it.

 

[Buckaroo]

I wouldn't have been any happier if they'd invited Monckton; he is not a scientist. I would, however, have approved of JREF also inviting Lindzen, or Christie.

Are you even going to TAM? No? So who gives a **** whether you're happy about it?

 

[DC]

I wouldn't have been any happier if they'd invited Monckton; he is not a scientist. I would, however, have approved of JREF also inviting Lindzen, or Christie. But then Mann would not have accepted the invitation. Mann and the Hockey Team never debate AGW skeptics. In fact, they never defend their work on its own merits, opting instead for ad hominem attacks or persecution fantasies at the hands of a cabal of "deniers."

Neither Mann's original paper nor subsequent submissions were ever the best science at the time. He employed statistical methods aimed at achieving a desired result. It has been demonstrated that any data could have been manipulated in the same way to produce a "hockey stick." Numerous Freedom of Information submissions have been repeatedly thwarted by the UK's University of East Anglia to prevent our learning about the details of this chicanery.

The Climategate emails show Mann and his cronies colluding to blackball certain journals simply for publishing papers that challenged the AGW orthodoxy, to the point of demanding their editors be fired. And this is the man to be honored at a skeptics convention?

what do you think how scientists would react if Nature or Science would publish a paper claiming there is no such thing as Gravity,yet the paper does not provide evidence for the claim. Don't you thik it would be apropriate for the person responsible for its publication to be fired? he obvious would not be fit for the job, wouldn't he?

Willi Soon et all got a paper published that contained huge errors, he misstook graphs, missinterpretet papers and made a claim not supported by the alleged evidence he provided. yet that lousy paper got published, even the big boss of the journal agreed that it never should have been published with this lack of evidence and huge errors in it. yet it was published. don't you wonder why such a lousy paper got past the peer review?