• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ted Cruz demonstrates he knows less about science than an average kindergartener

bubbabgone said:
Wait a minute.
You're denying those were actually their emails?
Oh please tell me that's what you're saying.
On top of the 97% thing that denial would be too much I could ever hope to expect.

And if you ever saw Mann's hockey stick and not wonder where the known warming and cooling periods went and not wonder why he appended real temp readings to his proxy data rather than continue with proxy data (for effect and to affirm his methodology) along with the real temps, then it explains a great deal.
But that's not anything 3G could bring himself to explain either pages ago that I'd rather not rehash because you'd very likely divert also.
Click to expand...

I think I explained QUITE CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY that Mann's work has never been shown to be wrong in the scientific literature, he did not combine temperatures with proxy data, and that all of this is fairly irrelevant since Mann was looking at Northern Hemisphere paleoclimate and now we have MUCH LARGER and MORE COMPREHENSIVE studies looking at THE ENTIRE PLANET with many, many more proxies than Mann used and the findings of these studies confirm Mann, Bradley and Hughes original work from 1998 and expand upon it.
 
Threegoofs said:
he did not combine temperatures with proxy data
Click to expand...

This is false.

[h=3]Mike’s Nature trick[/h] Nov 20, 2009 – 9:59 AM
So far one of the most circulated e-mails from the CRU hack is the following from Phil Jones to the original hockey stick authors – Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes.

By Jean S | Posted in Briffa, climategate, Jones et al 1998, MBH98, Spot the Hockey Stick! | Tagged jean_s, trick | Comments (430)



[h=3]The Trick Timeline[/h] Feb 26, 2010 – 2:21 PM
Date: 16 Nov 1999, Phil I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Date: 22 Dec 2004, mike No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted […]

By uc00 | Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged MBH98, mbh99, nature_trick, smooth, smoothing, uc, uc00 | Comments (6)

[h=3]Replicating the “Trick” Diagram[/h] Nov 29, 2009 – 11:44 AM
Michael Mann, Dec 2004 No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum [realclimate]. Phil Jones, Nov 1999 I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick […]

By Steve McIntyre | Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged trick | Comments (51)

[h=3]The Trick[/h] Nov 26, 2009 – 8:25 PM
For the benefit of new readers, we discussed some aspects of the “trick” at Climate Audit in the past. Obviously, the Climategate Letters clarify many things that were murky in the past. On the left is a blowup of IPCC 2001 Fig 2.21 showing where the Briffa reconstruction (green) ends. More on this below.

By Steve McIntyre | Posted in climategate | Tagged decline, trick | Comments (74)
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
This is false.

[h=3]Mike’s Nature trick[/h] Nov 20, 2009 – 9:59 AM
So far one of the most circulated e-mails from the CRU hack is the following from Phil Jones to the original hockey stick authors – Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes.

By Jean S | Posted in Briffa, climategate, Jones et al 1998, MBH98, Spot the Hockey Stick! | Tagged jean_s, trick | Comments (430)



[h=3]The Trick Timeline[/h] Feb 26, 2010 – 2:21 PM
Date: 16 Nov 1999, Phil I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Date: 22 Dec 2004, mike No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted […]

By uc00 | Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged MBH98, mbh99, nature_trick, smooth, smoothing, uc, uc00 | Comments (6)

[h=3]Replicating the “Trick” Diagram[/h] Nov 29, 2009 – 11:44 AM
Michael Mann, Dec 2004 No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum [realclimate]. Phil Jones, Nov 1999 I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick […]

By Steve McIntyre | Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged trick | Comments (51)

[h=3]The Trick[/h] Nov 26, 2009 – 8:25 PM
For the benefit of new readers, we discussed some aspects of the “trick” at Climate Audit in the past. Obviously, the Climategate Letters clarify many things that were murky in the past. On the left is a blowup of IPCC 2001 Fig 2.21 showing where the Briffa reconstruction (green) ends. More on this below.

By Steve McIntyre | Posted in climategate | Tagged decline, trick | Comments (74)
Click to expand...

I was going to ask why something so clear is so hard to accept by some people after having their noses rubbed in it so many times but I think that may be the problem ... they're in too deep now.
 
Jack Hays said:
Not a single word in your link to deny that observed temperature records were spliced onto proxy data to "hide the decline." Zero points.
Click to expand...

That's because it says this instead:

“We roughly agree with the substance of their findings,” says Gerald North, the committee’s chair and a climate scientist at Texas A&M Uni- versity in College Station. In particular, he says, the committee has a “high level of confidence” that the second half of the twentieth century was warmer than any other period in the past four centuries."

Bubba probably doesn't know that the NAS is generally considered the highest and most respected body of science in the US.
 
Threegoofs said:
That's because it says this instead:


“We roughly agree with the substance of their findings,” says Gerald North, the committee’s chair and a climate scientist at Texas A&M Uni- versity in College Station. In particular, he says, the committee has a “high level of confidence” that the second half of the twentieth century was warmer than any other period in the past four centuries."

Bubba probably doesn't know that the NAS is generally considered the highest and most respected body of science in the US.
Click to expand...

Entirely irrelevant to this discussion. By setting aside the recent proxy data they undermined the credibility of all their proxy data. No doubt NAS agrees with the observed temperature record of the 20th century, but that's not the topic here.
 
Jack Hays said:
Entirely irrelevant to this discussion. By setting aside the recent proxy data they undermined the credibility of all their proxy data. No doubt NAS agrees with the observed temperature record of the 20th century, but that's not the topic here.
Click to expand...


See what I mean about them being in too deep for their own good?
It's almost like they don't even read the links they post.
Do you think they really don't get that the entire stick was an amalgam of weak proxies and actual temperature readings?
 
bubbabgone said:
See what I mean about them being in too deep for their own good?
It's almost like they don't even read the links they post.
Do you think they really don't get that the entire stick was an amalgam of weak proxies and actual temperature readings?
Click to expand...

All good questions.
 
bubbabgone said:
See what I mean about them being in too deep for their own good?
It's almost like they don't even read the links they post.
Do you think they really don't get that the entire stick was an amalgam of weak proxies and actual temperature readings?
Click to expand...

LOL.

The NAS says you're wrong.

I'll go with them.


And the studies 10 years later that proved then right.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but the NAS doesn't say anything about the topic under discussion here.
Click to expand...

Why isn't that clear?
I'm starting to worry about the guy.
Seriously.
He's a Manniac.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom