• 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!

Steyn on Mann: A Disgrace to the Profession [W:455]

Lord of Planar said:
Yes, your side likes to dismiss the facts they don't like.

I don't dismiss any of the facts. The level of AGW you advocate is not a proven fact. If the forcing of CO2 and feedbacks were as strong as claimed, there would be no such thing as this flattening out of temperatures these last 17+ years. If CO2 was that strong, it would be impossible to counter.
Click to expand...

Oh. Well, if you look at this,

www.ipcc.ch

You'll see the experts in each field reviewed all the facts in the literature quite carefully.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Absolutely.

Notice how many of these soldiers only repeat marching orders, and can never coherently explain the science?
Click to expand...

Yes. We've seen you 'coherently' explain it before. You seem to have stopping telling us how you proved AGW wrong with your kitchen table calculations, though.

It must have gotten too embarrassing.
 
Here's a nice review of Steyn's self published book. Well, not a review, but a critique. A critique in which Greg Laden (who writes a nice science blog on Science Blogs) actually directly contacts the three people who Steyn quotes, and finds two of three are out of context.

The funny thing is, one of the guys, Zorita, is an author on PAGES 2K, which basically confirmed and independently verified Mann's original work.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2...-attack-on-michael-mann-and-the-hockey-stick/
 
“Did Mann et al get it wrong? Yes, Mann et al got it wrong.”

-Simon Tett, Professor of Climate Science, University of Edinburgh

The whole thing.

I think there are issues in Mann et al’s approach −− recall the Esper et al paper which produced a reconstruction with lots more low frequency variability than others. From the comment on the paper by Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn (attached) you can see that Mann’s reconstruction had the least variability of any of the reconstructions. Did Mann et al get it wrong? Yes Mann et al got it wrong. How wrong is still under debate and the ECHO−G/HadCM3 results may be over-exaggerating the variance loss for some model-specific reasons.

Well, I guess if I was a warmist and I got busted hurting "the cause "I would claim that it was out of context. The echo chamber would all agree. Rational objective people? not so much
 
Last edited:
orita did get back to me about Steyn’s use of his quote. He told me that the quote is essentially accurate, ..."

Zorita told me that he felt the Hockey Stick was something of a public relations mistake. “The irony is that the hockey-stick is not a proof and not a disproof of anthropogenic climate change. As Stefan Rahmstorf correctly wrote, if the hockey-stick had not existed the case for AGW would not be stronger or weaker. But the hockey-stick had become its symbol and the subject of political manoeuvring.” Interesting idea. Zorita also indicated that he is in the camp of seeing much more variability in the older surface temperature record than the original Mann Et Al research indicated, adding “this has had no relevance for the the case of AGW.”


So, just as with the case of Tett, Zorita is a bad choice for Steyn to use in criticizing the scientists or the science,



Oh I think he''s perfect choice, for reasons the warmists echo chamber obviously wouldn't. It's called a gaffe. When you accidentally get caught caught tellingthe truth.
 
KLATTU said:
orita did get back to me about Steyn’s use of his quote. He told me that the quote is essentially accurate, ..."

Zorita told me that he felt the Hockey Stick was something of a public relations mistake. “The irony is that the hockey-stick is not a proof and not a disproof of anthropogenic climate change. As Stefan Rahmstorf correctly wrote, if the hockey-stick had not existed the case for AGW would not be stronger or weaker. But the hockey-stick had become its symbol and the subject of political manoeuvring.” Interesting idea. Zorita also indicated that he is in the camp of seeing much more variability in the older surface temperature record than the original Mann Et Al research indicated, adding “this has had no relevance for the the case of AGW.”


So, just as with the case of Tett, Zorita is a bad choice for Steyn to use in criticizing the scientists or the science,



Oh I think he''s perfect choice, for reasons the warmists echo chamber obviously wouldn't. It's called a gaffe. When you accidentally get caught caught tellingthe truth.
Click to expand...

Zorita. The guy who indisputably confirmed Mann's work with independent proxies, and came up with a replica of the hockey stick in his PAGES 2K paper.

But that's science stuff. You wouldn't understand.
 
- Bishop Hill blog - A disgrace to the profession

www.bishop-hill.net/.../a-disgrace-to-the-profession.ht...


Andrew Montford


Jun 11, 2015 - "A Disgrace To The Profession": The World's Scientists In Their Own Words On Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick, And Their Damage To ...

[h=2]A disgrace to the profession[/h] Jun 11, 2015 Climate: Mann
902844-26305233-thumbnail.jpg
You really don't want to mess about with Mark Steyn, who is nothing if not a guy who is prepared to stick up for himself. In response to Michael Mann's libel suit, Steyn has not only countersued but now has written a book about the great climatologist.
The defamation suit against Steyn by Michael E Mann, inventor of the global-warming "hockey stick", is about to enter its fourth year at the DC Superior Court - which means Mark has a lot of case research lying around and he can't wait forever for the trial to start. So he figured he'd put some of it in a new book, now available for pre-order exclusively from SteynOnline.
In the fall of 2014, not a single amicus brief was filed on Dr Mann's behalf, not one. He claims he's "taking a stand for science", but evidently science is disinclined to take a stand for him.
That got Mark curious as to what actual scientists think of Mann, his famous hockey stick, and his other work. So he started looking - and the result is a rollicking collection of insights into Big Climate's chief enforcer by scientists from around the world, from Harvard to Helsinki, Prague to Princeton, with commentary from Steyn telling the story of the rise to global celebrity of one Mann and his stick.
"A Disgrace To The Profession": The World's Scientists In Their Own Words On Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick, And Their Damage To Science will be published later this summer, but you can make sure you're the first on your block with must-read book by pre-ordering your copy now exclusively from the SteynOnline bookstore. And as always Mark will be happy to autograph it personally for you or your warm-mongering loved one.
​


 
Threegoofs said:
Here's a nice review of Steyn's self published book. Well, not a review, but a critique. A critique in which Greg Laden (who writes a nice science blog on Science Blogs) actually directly contacts the three people who Steyn quotes, and finds two of three are out of context.

The funny thing is, one of the guys, Zorita, is an author on PAGES 2K, which basically confirmed and independently verified Mann's original work.

Mark Steyn’s Newest Attack On Michael Mann And The Hockey Stick – Greg Laden's Blog
Click to expand...

Speaking of out of context, or fraudulent?

The researchers constructed a proxy northern hemisphere temperature curve, from ice cores and tree rings, which showed temperature variability over the previous 1,000 years.
Click to expand...

Ice cores and tree rings are a small percentage of the proxies Mann used. Most were organic sentiments in the waters bottom soil layers, which doesn't well represent surface conditions. If I recall correctly, around 80% of the proxies were other than tree rings and ice cores.

At this point, I would say the author of the blog has little to no integrity.

As for the accuracy of the three quotes, he doesn't point to Steyn's end notes, for where Stein sources them from. If he is going to mislead about the proxies, what else does he mislead his readers with?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Speaking of out of context, or fraudulent?



Ice cores and tree rings are a small percentage of the proxies Mann used. Most were organic sentiments in the waters bottom soil layers, which doesn't well represent surface conditions. If I recall correctly, around 80% of the proxies were other than tree rings and ice cores.

At this point, I would say the author of the blog has little to no integrity.

As for the accuracy of the three quotes, he doesn't point to Steyn's end notes, for where Stein sources them from. If he is going to mislead about the proxies, what else does he mislead his readers with?
Click to expand...

Well, speaking to someone who virtually defined 'no integrity', I really can't take your word on this.

He talked directly to the people. They seemed surprised Steyn quoted them. That should tell you a lot.
 
Threegoofs said:
Ah yes. A creationist AND a AGW denier, as well as a stand in for Rush Limbaugh when Rush has mixed too many oxycontins with martinis.

It all makes sense now.
Click to expand...

Heh...What did it make before? If you run out of labels, I have a machine that produces them for you.
 
humbolt said:
Heh...What did it make before? If you run out of labels, I have a machine that produces them for you.
Click to expand...

I need to apply for a grant to test exactly how far the average AGW believer will take their ad hominem. If a creationist told them that the secret to a long life is not jumping off a cliff how many would spout "Hah! Eff you Creationists!" and jump.
 
jmotivator said:
I need to apply for a grant to test exactly how far the average AGW believer will take their ad hominem. If a creationist told them that the secret to a long life is not jumping off a cliff how many would spout "Hah! Eff you Creationists!" and jump.
Click to expand...

You'll need photos of that event, and a supply of hockey sticks. They each need to be holding one when they jump, with "MANN" prominently displayed on the blade.
 
humbolt said:
You'll need photos of that event, and a supply of hockey sticks. They each need to be holding one when they jump, with "MANN" prominently displayed on the blade.
Click to expand...

Why not PAGES 2K, since it is a stronger, more robust and most importantly, global set of data that says the same thing?

Oh wait. That's right. You don't know anything about that stuff- you only know what your right wingnut radio hosts tell you.
 
Threegoofs said:
Why not PAGES 2K, since it is a stronger, more robust and most importantly, global set of data that says the same thing?

Oh wait. That's right. You don't know anything about that stuff- you only know what your right wingnut radio hosts tell you.
Click to expand...

You bet, and I don't even need a radio. My scientific knowledge is limited to basic college level physics, chemistry and so on in the field of climatology. In a remarkable development that somehow comes to those who live long enough and pay attention closely enough, I can differentiate between BS and the truth, and the hockey stick is complete BS. Wait. Is that your phone? I bet it's Mann calling to tell you to bring toilet paper. He's about to publish a new paper.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Absolutely.

Notice how many of these soldiers only repeat marching orders, and can never coherently explain the science?
Click to expand...

Ask 'em a question about the most persuasive denier evidence they've ever seen.
But set aside a couple of days for restating the question.
 
humbolt said:
You bet, and I don't even need a radio. My scientific knowledge is limited to basic college level physics, chemistry and so on in the field of climatology. In a remarkable development that somehow comes to those who live long enough and pay attention closely enough, I can differentiate between BS and the truth, and the hockey stick is complete BS. Wait. Is that your phone? I bet it's Mann calling to tell you to bring toilet paper. He's about to publish a new paper.
Click to expand...

Except his work has been verified and expanded a half dozen times, with independent proxies showing global temperature.

You have no clue, you just are parroting your wingnut overlords, wherever they may be.
 
Threegoofs said:
Except his work has been verified and expanded a half dozen times, with independent proxies showing global temperature.

You have no clue, you just are parroting your wingnut overlords, wherever they may be.
Click to expand...

No clue, yet I can easily compare actual readings to the manipulated ones, which indicates with your predictable response that temperatures aren't the only things being manipulated. If not, then I have no doubt you can demonstrate exactly what happens between actual satellite temperature recordings and those published - in precise detail how the altered numbers are achieved. I'll wait on your eminence to grace us with those calculations.
 
Threegoofs said:
Why not PAGES 2K, since it is a stronger, more robust and most importantly, global set of data that says the same thing?

Oh wait. That's right. You don't know anything about that stuff- you only know what your right wingnut radio hosts tell you.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't say the "same basic thing". It shows that it has been warmer in the past 2000 years, and that the current warming began when the planet was at its coldest point in the last 2000 years. The current anomaly based on the climate of the last 2000 years is closer to +0.2 than +0.8

arctic2k-revised.jpg

So, did AGW save us from an ice age?
 
humbolt said:
No clue, yet I can easily compare actual readings to the manipulated ones, which indicates with your predictable response that temperatures aren't the only things being manipulated. If not, then I have no doubt you can demonstrate exactly what happens between actual satellite temperature recordings and those published - in precise detail how the altered numbers are achieved. I'll wait on your eminence to grace us with those calculations.
Click to expand...

Yeah. You have no clue.

It's irrelevant if I can explain it (and I can). What's relevant is that it is accepted science, as evidenced by most of these reconstructions gaining publication in some of the top scientific journals.

Your 'rebuttals', are at this point only found on blogs (and in your fevered imagination, natch).
 
Threegoofs said:
Yeah. You have no clue.

It's irrelevant if I can explain it (and I can).
Click to expand...
What's relevant is that it is accepted science, as evidenced by most of these reconstructions gaining publication in some of the top scientific journals.

Your 'rebuttals', are at this point only found on blogs (and in your fevered imagination, natch).
Click to expand...

Good. Enough with the bloviating and insult - explain away. Please be precise, with the actual numbers and formulas employed.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yeah. You have no clue.

It's irrelevant if I can explain it (and I can). What's relevant is that it is accepted science, as evidenced by most of these reconstructions gaining publication in some of the top scientific journals.

Your 'rebuttals', are at this point only found on blogs (and in your fevered imagination, natch).
Click to expand...
So If I pointed out a peer reviewed paper in Science that stated the medieval warm period not
only existed, but the Oceans were warmer than they are now, would that count?
Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years
 
humbolt said:
Good. Enough with the bloviating and insult - explain away. Please be precise, with the actual numbers and formulas employed.
Click to expand...

Bloviating?


Love it.

but seriously, you don't really expect a "liberal", on DP to actually debate do you?

The SOP in here is to attack the poster, not the post as in "you must have a reading comprehension" etc.

maybe it's because their positions are unsupportable.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yeah. You have no clue.

It's irrelevant if I can explain it (and I can). What's relevant is that it is accepted science, as evidenced by most of these reconstructions gaining publication in some of the top scientific journals.

Your 'rebuttals', are at this point only found on blogs (and in your fevered imagination, natch).
Click to expand...

Oh, come on 3goofy, you have never been able to explain any of your points. All you ever do is link to long winded stuff to evade the question. Show me wrong by explaining any point. Go for it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom