Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...

[Toddsterpatriot]

OK. Fair enough. I think I actually know why but if you want to put in EXTRA EFFORT to type out things I already typed then that's your gig.

I'm copying and pasting, not retyping anything.

The hockey stick is reasonably important.

Nobel Prize worthy?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I'm copying and pasting, not retyping anything.

And the funniest part is all you REALLY have to do is just put your cursor after where you want to type and hit enter, it automatically breaks out the quote.

The hockey stick is reasonably important.

Nobel Prize worthy?

I believe he won the Nobel Peace Prize, so I'm not really all that interested in regards to a technical topic like this.

The Hockey Stick graph is pretty solid. Sure there were a few issues around the principal component analyses but those were largely fine given that M&M didn't really follow proper PC analysis protocols.

Other than that it looks pretty good.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I believe he won the Nobel Peace Prize, so I'm not really all that interested in regards to a technical topic like this.

I believe he lied about winning it.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I believe he lied about winning it.

Like I said, I don't much care one way or the other. I'm not as obsessed with the non-science as you guys are.

Let me know when you'd like to talk more science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Like I said, I don't much care one way or the other. I'm not as obsessed with the non-science as you guys are.

Let me know when you'd like to talk more science.

I'm not obsessed with the liar, Michael Mann.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I'm not obsessed with the liar, Michael Mann.

Would you like to discuss the hockey stick or have you sufficiently made the argument "against the man"?

In logic and rhetoric it is called an ad hominem ("against the man") when you can't discuss the technical content of the data but make it about the person.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Would you like to discuss the hockey stick

Sure.

Do you believe it was an honest hockey stick, or did he molest the data?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Do you believe it was an honest hockey stick, or did he molest the data?

Why should I believe he molested the data?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why should I believe he molested the data?

Maybe the fact that he won't release the data he used to construct it?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Maybe the fact that he won't release the data he used to construct it?

Do you think the NSF is in the secret cabal of evil doers?

Federal Investigators Clear Climate Scientist, Again

The Inspector General of the National Science Foundation has closed its investigation into climatologist Michael Mann after failing to find any evidence of misconduct

www.scientificamerican.com

(Also, if Mann released the data what could you do with it?)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you think the NSF is in the secret cabal of evil doers?

Federal Investigators Clear Climate Scientist, Again

The Inspector General of the National Science Foundation has closed its investigation into climatologist Michael Mann after failing to find any evidence of misconduct

www.scientificamerican.com

(Also, if Mann released the data what could you do with it?)

Do you think the NSF is in the secret cabal of evil doers?

Probably not.

(Also, if Mann released the data what could you do with it?)

That justifies his refusal to release it?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Do you think the NSF is in the secret cabal of evil doers?

Probably not.

Then why wouldn't you be happy with this finding?

(Also, if Mann released the data what could you do with it?)

That justifies his refusal to release it?

May I ask how many times YOU'VE released your raw data from your peer reviewed papers? Because in mine I haven't had to release any of it. I don't know why there would be any problem with it, but if the NSF suggests that repeated investigations find no evidence of fraudulent manipulation of the data I guess I don't much care.

Unless, of course, the NSF is part of the secret lizard people cabal you denialists fear so much.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Then why wouldn't you be happy with this finding?



May I ask how many times YOU'VE released your raw data from your peer reviewed papers? Because in mine I haven't had to release any of it. I don't know why there would be any problem with it, but if the NSF suggests that repeated investigations find no evidence of fraudulent manipulation of the data I guess I don't much care.

Unless, of course, the NSF is part of the secret lizard people cabal you denialists fear so much.

"No direct evidence has been presented that indicates the subject fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified his results," the report concludes. "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct, ... we are closing this investigation with no further action."

Maybe he feels releasing the raw data will indicate he did fabricate it?

May I ask how many times YOU'VE released your raw data from your peer reviewed papers?

Every time my paper was funded by taxpayer dollars spent by a state university, I did.

What about Mann? Is he too good to show his taxpayer funded work?

but if the NSF suggests that repeated investigations find no evidence of fraudulent manipulation of the data I guess I don't much care.

No reason to let any skeptics double check his work, eh?
So much for seeing if it can be replicated.
Can't question the Nobel Prize winner.
The science is settled!!!

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

"No direct evidence has been presented that indicates the subject fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified his results," the report concludes. "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct, ... we are closing this investigation with no further action."

Maybe he feels releasing the raw data will indicate he did fabricate it?

Ahh, "guilty until proven innocent". Nice.

May I ask how many times YOU'VE released your raw data from your peer reviewed papers?

Every time my paper was funded by taxpayer dollars spent by a state university, I did.

Really? Most of my papers were when I was with the US government and no one ever asked anything about the raw data. Huh. And the papers that came out of grad school didn't require that I turn over any raw data either.

No reason to let any skeptics double check his work, eh?

That's interesting. It seems you are not familiar with McKitrick and McIntyre? They were skeptics and they took on the Hockey Stick.

So much for seeing if it can be replicated.

Oh, you mean like Wahl and Amman (2007) (HERE)

Or Whang et al, (2000) who found a hockey-stick type feature from borehole data? (HERE)

How about Smith et al (2006) who found hockey-stick behavior from speleothems (HERE)

Or weren't you aware of these?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ahh, "guilty until proven innocent". Nice.



Really? Most of my papers were when I was with the US government and no one ever asked anything about the raw data. Huh. And the papers that came out of grad school didn't require that I turn over any raw data either.


That's interesting. It seems you are not familiar with McKitrick and McIntyre? They were skeptics and they took on the Hockey Stick.



Oh, you mean like Wahl and Amman (2007) (HERE)

Or Whang et al, (2000) who found a hockey-stick type feature from borehole data? (HERE)

How about Smith et al (2006) who found hockey-stick behavior from speleothems (HERE)

Or weren't you aware of these?

Ahh, "guilty until proven innocent". Nice.

If he did nothing wrong, why is he hiding it?

Most of my papers were when I was with the US government and no one ever asked anything about the raw data.

You must be more ethical than Mann.

It seems you are not familiar with McKitrick and McIntyre? They were skeptics and they took on the Hockey Stick.

Did Mann give them his data?

Oh, you mean like Wahl and Amman (2007) (HERE)

Did Mann give them his data?

How about Smith et al (2006) who found hockey-stick behavior from speleothems (HERE)

Did Mann give them his data?

Or weren't you aware of these?

I was not aware that Mann gave them his data.

 

[ding]

I guarantee you more people will die from global warming than will die from trying to stave it off.

 

[ding]

denialists

Is that how you normally describe people who disagree with you?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Most of my papers were when I was with the US government and no one ever asked anything about the raw data.

You must be more ethical than Mann.

As noted before, several reviews have found NO EVIDENCE of data tampering.

It seems you are not familiar with McKitrick and McIntyre? They were skeptics and they took on the Hockey Stick.

Did Mann give them his data?

You complained that critics couldn't take on his studies. You clearly were unaware of M&M and the whole Principal COmponent Kerfluffle.

Oh, you mean like Wahl and Amman (2007) (HERE)

Did Mann give them his data?

How about Smith et al (2006) who found hockey-stick behavior from speleothems (HERE)

Did Mann give them his data?

Or weren't you aware of these?

I was not aware that Mann gave them his data.

Doesn't matter. You said replicated. These folks found hockey stick type responses in a variety of other proxies.

That's replication.

Why would I need YOUR data if I were trying to replicate the effect you found?

(I keep forgetting that you don't have any actual scientific experience of running experiments and analyzing data).

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Is that how you normally describe people who disagree with you?

No, that's how I describe people who deny the reality of the science behind AGW.

Hence the word "denialist"....(hint: it's in the word itself)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

As noted before, several reviews have found NO EVIDENCE of data tampering.



You complained that critics couldn't take on his studies. You clearly were unaware of M&M and the whole Principal COmponent Kerfluffle.



Doesn't matter. You said replicated. These folks found hockey stick type responses in a variety of other proxies.

That's replication.

Why would I need YOUR data if I were trying to replicate the effect you found?

(I keep forgetting that you don't have any actual scientific experience of running experiments and analyzing data).

You complained that critics couldn't take on his studies. You clearly were unaware of M&M and the whole Principal COmponent Kerfluffle.

I complained that without releasing his data, his results can't be replicated.

Why would I need YOUR data if I were trying to replicate the effect you found?

Should me the data and how you used it to build your lying hockey stick.

(I keep forgetting that you don't have any actual scientific experience of running experiments and analyzing data).

And I never won the Nobel Prize.