Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What legal bills? His website is funded purely by donations.
Who is paying Michael Mann's legal bills?
''His website is funded purely by donations.''
Why do you suppose people would pay a business man for running his mouth about science?
It must be good business for him.
McIntyre is a mathematician. He's an expert with statistics. That makes him eminently more qualified to determine the validity of Michael Mann's statistical algorithms than you or Michael Mann himself. The National Science Foundation confirmed McIntyre's analysis of Mann's Hockey Stick fraud.
I thought you believed in consulting experts.
Let's see. We have a global organization with unfettered access to the best climate science in the world vs Fox News bought and paid for by those heavily profiting from the status quo.
You're hooked on the Fox News story because they agree with what you wish was true.
Thats a pretty easy and obvious choice for me. And the reason why you spend so much time trashing science.
Science always trumps politics.
I have never seen or heard 'Fox News'. I have a good layman's understanding of scientific method. I am a rationalist and science is the light I live by. Which is, of course, why I am so dismayed by the perversion of science by warmist charlatans. They have over decades cherry-picked data and when that proved insufficient simply invented it. It is they who spread alarmism for political reason. You say "Science always trumps politics". Let us hope that that turns out to be the case.
If you were anything like you claim to be, you'd be demanding science and evidenced based action in the face of completely unaffordable consequences of doing nothing about energy.
You say you don't even have the excuse of being misled by Fox. Does that imply that you are a self made moron?
Like most deniers you look around and notice that your grass is green today so, what's the problem?
What you're really doing is hoping that someone else will take care of you as the problem unfolds and solutions get put in place. Unfortunately, as almost always happens, the problem solvers will take care of the problem creators. If mankind could fix that there would be a lot fewer problem creators and a lot more problem solvers.
McIntyre is a mathematician. He's an expert with statistics. That makes him eminently more qualified to determine the validity of Michael Mann's statistical algorithms than you or Michael Mann himself. The National Science Foundation confirmed McIntyre's analysis of Mann's Hockey Stick fraud.
I thought you believed in consulting experts.
I read about the National Science Foundation's opinion. You are almost completely misrepresenting it.
Have I?
Here are some excerpts from the report:
The debate over Dr. Manns principal components methodology has been going on for nearly three years. When we got involved, there was no evidence that a single issue was resolved or even nearing resolution. Dr. Manns RealClimate.org website said that all of the Mr. McIntyre and Dr. McKitrick claims had been discredited. UCAR had issued a news release saying that all their claims were unfounded. Mr. McIntyre replied on the ClimateAudit.org website. The climate science community seemed unable to either refute McIntyres claims or accept them. The situation was ripe for a third-party review of the types that we and Dr. Norths NRC panel have done.
While the work of Michael Mann and colleagues presents what appears to be compelling evidence of global temperature change, the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid.
Where we have commonality, I believe our report and the [NAS] panel essentially agree. We believe that our discussion together with the discussion from the NRC report should take the centering issue off the table. [Mann's] decentred methodology is simply incorrect mathematics . I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesnt matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.
The papers of Mann et al. in themselves are written in a confusing manner, making it difficult for the reader to discern the actual methodology and what uncertainty is actually associated with these reconstructions.
It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the [Mann] paper.
We found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling.
Overall, our committee believes that Manns assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.
[The] fact that their paper fit some policy agendas has greatly enhanced their papers visibility. ,,,The hockey stick reconstruction of temperature graphic dramatically illustrated the global warming issue and was adopted by the IPCC and many governments as the poster graphic. The graphics prominence together with the fact that it is based on incorrect use of [principal components analysis] puts Dr. Mann and his co-authors in a difficult face-saving position.
We have been to Michael Manns University of Virginia website and downloaded the materials there. Unfortunately, we did not find adequate material to reproduce the MBH98 materials. We have been able to reproduce the results of McIntyre and McKitrick
Generally speaking, the paleoclimatology community has not recognized the validity of the [McIntyre and McKitrick] papers and has tended dismiss their results as being developed by biased amateurs. The paleoclimatology community seems to be tightly coupled as indicated by our social network analysis, has rallied around the [Mann] position, and has issued an extensive series of alternative assessments most of which appear to support the conclusions of MBH98/99.
Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus independent studies may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.
It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent.
Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on [Mann's work]. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.
It is clear that many of the proxies are re-used in most of the papers. It is not surprising that the papers would obtain similar results and so cannot really claim to be independent verifications.
We note that the American Meteorological Society has a Committee on Probability and Statistics. I believe it is amazing for a committee whose focus is on statistics and probability that of the nine members only two are also members of the American Statistical Association, the premier statistical association in the United States, and one of those is a recent Ph. D. with an assistant professor appointment in a medical school. The American Meteorological Association recently held the 18th Conference on Probability and Statistics in the Atmospheric Sciences.. Of the 62 presenters at a conference with a focus on statistics and probability, only 8 are members of the American Statistical Association. I believe that these two communities should be more engaged and if nothing else our report should highlight to both communities a need for additional cross-disciplinary ties."
Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.
Appeal to experts. Those who know. The alternative being following those who don't know. Where's that going to get you? Thats the process that makes conservatives.
As I demonstrated earlier, an appeal to "experts" is still an appeal to authority and a logical fallacy. As history shows so abundantly, the experts can be dead wrong, especially government experts.
The alternative is to way the evidence presented. That's something any well educated person is capable of. Only a servile drone allows the government to tell him what to think. The bottom line is that a free country cannot survive populated with servile brainwashed toadies like you. Your kind are what allow men like Hitler, Stalin and Roosevelt to come to power.
Obviously, you are comfortable continuing to follow those who don't know what they're doing. Feel free to carry on.
Me, I'm going to continue to live in the highly specialized 21st century culture, whereby we take advantage of the people who know best how to solve particular problems.
Here's what Wikipedia says.
I read about the National Science Foundation's opinion. You are almost completely misrepresenting it.
Have I?
Here are some excerpts from the report:.
Here's what Wikipedia says.
''His website is funded purely by donations.''
Why do you suppose people would pay a business man for running his mouth about science?
It must be good business for him.
McIntyre is a mathematician. He's an expert with statistics. That makes him eminently more qualified to determine the validity of Michael Mann's statistical algorithms than you or Michael Mann himself. The National Science Foundation confirmed McIntyre's analysis of Mann's Hockey Stick fraud.
I thought you believed in consulting experts.
Statistics is one tool that's useful with all data. Applying good statistics to bad data results in misinformation. I go with the content experts rather than the generic tool jockeys. It's much more likely that Mann knows adequate statistics, most scientists do, than McIntyre knowing adequate climate science.
Here's what Wikipedia says.
wikipedia??? Haaaaaaahaaaaaaaa ho ho ho ho....snort haaaaaa haaaaaaa
Spoken like a true f'ing idiot. He just provided you with excerpts from the actual reports and you respond with "Here's what Wikipedia says."
Bwwwwaaaaaahhhhhaaahhhaaahhaaaa...snort snort...chuckle chuckle......hhhhaaaaahhhh
As I demonstrated earlier, an appeal to "experts" is still an appeal to authority and a logical fallacy. As history shows so abundantly, the experts can be dead wrong, especially government experts.
The alternative is to way the evidence presented. That's something any well educated person is capable of. Only a servile drone allows the government to tell him what to think. The bottom line is that a free country cannot survive populated with servile brainwashed toadies like you. Your kind are what allow men like Hitler, Stalin and Roosevelt to come to power.
Obviously, you are comfortable continuing to follow those who don't know what they're doing. Feel free to carry on.
Me, I'm going to continue to live in the highly specialized 21st century culture, whereby we take advantage of the people who know best how to solve particular problems.
In other words, you'll continue to spout logical fallacies.
You're a pathetic brainwashed drone.
Obviously, you are comfortable continuing to follow those who don't know what they're doing. Feel free to carry on.
Me, I'm going to continue to live in the highly specialized 21st century culture, whereby we take advantage of the people who know best how to solve particular problems.
In other words, you'll continue to spout logical fallacies.
You're a pathetic brainwashed drone.
No, you'll continue to follow people who don't know what they are doing.
I have never seen or heard 'Fox News'. I have a good layman's understanding of scientific method. I am a rationalist and science is the light I live by. Which is, of course, why I am so dismayed by the perversion of science by warmist charlatans. They have over decades cherry-picked data and when that proved insufficient simply invented it. It is they who spread alarmism for political reason. You say "Science always trumps politics". Let us hope that that turns out to be the case.
If you were anything like you claim to be, you'd be demanding science and evidenced based action in the face of completely unaffordable consequences of doing nothing about energy.
You say you don't even have the excuse of being misled by Fox. Does that imply that you are a self made moron?
Like most deniers you look around and notice that your grass is green today so, what's the problem?
What you're really doing is hoping that someone else will take care of you as the problem unfolds and solutions get put in place. Unfortunately, as almost always happens, the problem solvers will take care of the problem creators. If mankind could fix that there would be a lot fewer problem creators and a lot more problem solvers.
There is never any point in engaging in discussion with people who think that they advance their case by calling those who with whom they disagree "morons". I'm new here so it is useful to be able to start a list of those who's posts may be safely ignored.
In other words, you'll continue to spout logical fallacies.
You're a pathetic brainwashed drone.
No, you'll continue to follow people who don't know what they are doing.
According to the NAS that's exactly what you're doing. Allow me to quote them:
"While the work of Michael Mann and colleagues presents what appears to be compelling evidence of global temperature change, the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid."
In other words, the Hockey Stick is a fraud.
No, you'll continue to follow people who don't know what they are doing.
According to the NAS that's exactly what you're doing. Allow me to quote them:
"While the work of Michael Mann and colleagues presents what appears to be compelling evidence of global temperature change, the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid."
In other words, the Hockey Stick is a fraud.
Talk about logical fallacies.
"the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid."
Does not lead to
"the Hockey Stick is a fraud"
The fact that you thought so is evidence of how easy you are to fool.
McIntyre is a mathematician. He's an expert with statistics.
According to the NAS that's exactly what you're doing. Allow me to quote them:
"While the work of Michael Mann and colleagues presents what appears to be compelling evidence of global temperature change, the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid."
In other words, the Hockey Stick is a fraud.
Talk about logical fallacies.
"the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid."
Does not lead to
"the Hockey Stick is a fraud"
The fact that you thought so is evidence of how easy you are to fool.
Yes it does lead to that. McIntyre pretty much stated the Hockey Stick is a fraud. Although he doesn't outright accuse Mann of deliberately doctoring his results. He does point out all the flaws in the process, most of which would have to be done deliberately to determine the desired result.
McIntyre is a mathematician. He's an expert with statistics.
Then why does he suck so badly at statistics? Why does he so often do a face plant into a cow patty?
Bri, of course, is a card-carrying member of the CultOfMcIntyre, so he has no idea that DearLeaderMcIntyre sucks at statistics. TheCult never told him that. As TheCult forbids the cultists from looking at any non-cult sources, Bri's purity of thought will remain forever unsullied. He'll be cut-and-pasting McIntyre's big whoppers from Climate Audit and WUWT for years to come. Poor Bri has no clue about what he's pasting, but he knows his masters have told him it's perfect and true, and he knows that only some dirty liberal would fail to have absolute faith in his DearLeaderMcIntyre. And since dirty liberals are always wrong, the fact that they laugh at DearLeader is further proof of how DearLeader must be correct.
Why is IPCC denying Mann's hockey stick
McIntyre is a mathematician. He's an expert with statistics.
Then why does he suck so badly at statistics? Why does he so often do a face plant into a cow patty?
He doesn't. The NAS confirmed that his criticism of the Hockey Stick graph were valid. Why do you so often just plain lie?
Bri, of course, is a card-carrying member of the CultOfMcIntyre, so he has no idea that DearLeaderMcIntyre sucks at statistics. TheCult never told him that. As TheCult forbids the cultists from looking at any non-cult sources, Bri's purity of thought will remain forever unsullied. He'll be cut-and-pasting McIntyre's big whoppers from Climate Audit and WUWT for years to come. Poor Bri has no clue about what he's pasting, but he knows his masters have told him it's perfect and true, and he knows that only some dirty liberal would fail to have absolute faith in his DearLeaderMcIntyre. And since dirty liberals are always wrong, the fact that they laugh at DearLeader is further proof of how DearLeader must be correct.
Well, if ad hominems were valid arguments, you would be the debate champ of this forum, and if I won the lottery I would be living in Mexico right now. The reality is that you're just another brainwashed drone who regurgitates the propaganda he's told to regurgitate.
..
He is BTW the SAME guy who defended his Hockey Stick by IGNORING 30 or 40 proxy studies of historical worldwide data to declare the MWPeriod to be "a local event".
