Michael Mann "Hockey Stick" Definitively Established To Be Fraud - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15035989
Pants-of-dog wrote:I like how you say I am wrong and then repeat the same facts I just mentioned.

Wrong. You said it had nothing to do with the claims. It had everything to do with the fact that Lyin' Michael Mann's claims were unsupported, and he was just abusing the legal process to inflict unjust legal costs on Ball. The court saw that's what Mann was doing, and rapped his knuckles for it by awarding costs to Ball.
#15041329
4 pages back there was a copy and paste post from some expert who said something like, "The climateproxy data and the actual modern measured data diverge. We don't know why this *is* so. The experts do not have a reason why this has happened. And this is from 10 years ago." So, 2 things.
1] It is 10 years later, so maybe the experts do *now* have a very good idea why this is so.
2] I have a thought for why it is so. I'm no expert so my thought is likely not new or useful.
. . . . My thought is --- maybe there is a confounding variable that is being assumed to be constant or to not matter, but in fact is not constant and does matter.
. . . . I suggest that this 'confounding variable' is the amount of CO2 in the air. It is well known that the more CO2 in the air the faster that planes grow. It seems likely that the faster that trees grow the less dense the wood in their rings will be. But, the opposite is also possible. Since, the density of tree rings is assumed to indicate the temp. that the tree experienced that summer as it grew the ring, it is possible that the CO2 being added to the air in the post 1960 period is the reason that the measured data and the proxy data diverged {with the measured data being higher than the proxy data implied}.

My bias is that ACC is true and we are going to suffer a lot in the next 20 or so years for our denial of the facts which therefore led to our failure to act until it *is too late* to avoid massive suffering.
#15066351
Exoneration?

The mainstream media and the Climategater scientists themselves claim complete exoneration by the various ‘inquiries’. Were they exonerated?

There was no exoneration by any objective analysis of the various inquiries. Ross McKitrick lays all this out in his article Understanding the Climategate Inquiries

“The evidence points to some clear conclusions.

The scientists involved in the email exchanges manipulated evidence in IPCC and WMO reports with the effect of misleading readers, including policymakers. The divergence problem was concealed by deleting data to “hide the decline.” The panels that examined the issue in detail, namely Muir Russell’s panel, concurred that the graph was “misleading.” The ridiculous attempt by the Penn State Inquiry to defend an instance of deleting data and splicing in other data to conceal a divergence problem only discredits their claims to have investigated the issue.


Phil Jones admitted deleting emails, and it appears to have been directed towards preventing disclosure of information subject to Freedom of Information laws, and he asked his colleagues to do the same. The inquiries largely fumbled this question, or averted their eyes.


The scientists privately expressed greater doubts or uncertainties about the science in their own professional writings and in their interactions with one another than they allowed to be stated in reports of the IPCC or WMO that were intended for policymakers. Rather than criticise the scientists for this, the inquiries (particularly the House of Commons and Oxburgh inquiries) took the astonishing view that as long as scientists expressed doubts and uncertainties in their academic papers and among themselves, it was acceptable for them to conceal those uncertainties in documents prepared for policy makers.


The scientists took steps individually or in collusion to block access to data or methodologies in order to prevent external examination of their work. This point was accepted by the Commons Inquiry and Muir Russell, and the authors were admonished and encouraged to improve their conduct in the future.


The inquiries were largely unable to deal with the issue of the issue of blocking publication of papers, or intimidating journals. But academics reading the emails could see quite clearly the tribalism at work, and in comparison to other fields, climatology comes off looking juvenile, corrupt and in the grip of a handful of self-appointed gatekeepers and bullies.


Is the science concerning the current concerns about climate change sound? Many people, starting with the members of the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, had hoped this question would be answered during the inquiry process, and there is a frequent refrain in the media that the investigations affirmed the science. But the reality is that none of the inquiries actually investigated the science. The one inquiry supposedly set up to address this, namely Lord Oxburgh’s, actually operated under a different remit altogether, despite multiple claims by the UEA that it was a science reappraisal panel.

Over the course of the five reviews, a few complaints were investigated and upheld, such as the problem of data secrecy at the CRU and the misleading nature of the “hide the decline” graph. And the IAC leveled enough serious criticisms about the IPCC process to substantiate concerns that the organization is unsound for the purpose of providing balanced, rigorous science assessments. But many other concerns were left unaddressed, or slipped through the cracks between the inquiries, or were set aside after taking CRU responses at face value.”

Steve McIntyre’s Brief submitted for the defendants in one Mann’s lawsuits addresses the key scientific aspects related to Michael Mann’s conduct and hockey stick research:

“Even before the release of the Climategate emails, numerous public concerns were raised about Mann’s conduct. Concerns about Mann’s research included:

Mann’s undisclosed use in a 1998 paper (“MBH98”) of an algorithm which mined data for hockey-stick shaped series. The algorithm was so powerful that it could produce hockey-stick shaped “reconstructions” from auto-correlated red noise. Mann’s failure to disclose the algorithm continued even in a 2004 corrigendum.

Mann’s failure to disclose adverse verification statistics in MBH98. Mann also did not archive results that would permit calculation of the adverse statistics. Climategate emails later revealed that Mann regarded this information as his “dirty laundry” and required an associate at the Climatic Research Unit (“CRU”) to withhold the information from potential critics.

Mann’s misleading claims about the “robustness” of his reconstruction to the presence/absence of tree ring chronologies, including failing to fully disclose calculations excluding questionable data from strip bark bristlecone pine trees.

Mann’s deletion of the late 20th century portion of the Briffa temperature reconstruction in Figure 2.21 in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001) to conceal its sharp decline, in apparent response to concerns that showing the data would “dilute the message” and give “fodder to the skeptics.”

Mann’s insistence in 2004 that “no researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, ‘grafted the thermometer record onto’ any reconstruction. But it was later revealed that in one figure for the cover of the 1999 World Meteorological Organization (WMO) annual report, the temperature record had not only been grafted onto the various reconstructions—and in the case of the Briffa reconstruction, had been substituted for the actual proxy

Mann’s undisclosed grafting of temperature data for “Mike’s Nature trick,” a manipulation of data which involved: (1) grafting the temperature record after 1980 onto the proxy reconstruction up to 1980; (2) “smoothing” the data; and (3) truncating the smooth back to 1980. ”

Exoneration? Not even close.

https://judithcurry.com/2019/11/12/lega ... more-25412
#15066366
Donna wrote:Someone needs to explain to Sivad what confirmation bias is.


yeah, unlike you two philosophers I have spent a great deal of time going through the IPCC reports, the national climate assessments, watching lectures and interviews of leading alarmist scientists, and engaging in real discussion and debate with alarmists who actually know their shit(yes there are a few of those out there). You two have probably only maybe listened to a TED talk and read a few popsci articles. It's why I know what I'm talking about and you two don't even know enough to know that you're fucking clueless.
#15066379
Fun story, one of Koch's pro trolls was the Sceptical Physicist.

Koch had this great idea to have this guy review the entire discipline of Climatology.

So the guy does his homework, and comes to the same conclusion that the climatologists did.

So he writes his work up, publishes, the Koch paychecks stop.

There are only 2 types of Deniers now. Paid trolls and the batshit crazy.

Or both.
#15066388
Yes these climate-fraud deniers just beggar belief. We've seen the evidence of climate-fraud in plain type in this thread. Its not exactly hard to understand. But then again these are the same people in the past, who would deny the existence of corruption in the SU, Red Fascist China and Cuba.
#15066394
Sivad wrote:yeah, unlike you two philosophers I have spent a great deal of time going through the IPCC reports, the national climate assessments, watching lectures and interviews of leading alarmist scientists, and engaging in real discussion and debate with alarmists who actually know their shit(yes there are a few of those out there). You two have probably only maybe listened to a TED talk and read a few popsci articles. It's why I know what I'm talking about and you two don't even know enough to know that you're fucking clueless.


But you're not Steve McIntyre, Sivad. You're a bad faith actor on a politics forum who is observably biased and does not understand that science is a discourse. It doesn't matter how many YouTube videos and links you post, if you do it ad hoc all of the time then it suggests you don't really respect the contextual structure of scientific fact-finding (and that makes you the clueless one, mister).
#15066429
Sivad wrote:....Ross McKitrick....


....is an economist who works for the neoliberal think tank called the Fraser Institute. The Fraser Institute has received money from fossil fuel companies.

But it is still possible that McKitrick is right even though he is a paid shill for Exxon et al.

He did publish a study that criticized Mann’s hockey stick graph.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.126 ... 3322793632

But when his study was analysed, it turned out to be wrong:


    The Mann et al. (1998) Northern Hemisphere annual temperature reconstruction over 1400–1980 is examined in light of recent criticisms concerning the nature and processing of included climate proxy data. A systematic sequence of analyses is presented that examine issues concerning the proxy evidence, utilizing both indirect analyses via exclusion of proxies and processing steps subject to criticism, and direct analyses of principal component (PC) processing methods in question. Altogether new reconstructions over 1400–1980 are developed in both the indirect and direct analyses, which demonstrate that the Mann et al. reconstruction is robust against the proxy-based criticisms addressed. In particular, reconstructed hemispheric temperatures are demonstrated to be largely unaffected by the use or non-use of PCs to summarize proxy evidence from the data-rich North American region. When proxy PCs are employed, neither the time period used to “center” the data before PC calculation nor the way the PC calculations are performed significantly affects the results, as long as the full extent of the climate information actually in the proxy data is represented by the PC time series. Clear convergence of the resulting climate reconstructions is a strong indicator for achieving this criterion. Also, recent “corrections” to the Mann et al. reconstruction that suggest 15th century temperatures could have been as high as those of the late-20th century are shown to be without statistical and climatological merit. Our examination does suggest that a slight modification to the original Mann et al. reconstruction is justifiable for the first half of the 15th century (∼+0.05∘), which leaves entirely unaltered the primary conclusion of Mann et al. (as well as many other reconstructions) that both the 20th century upward trend and high late-20th century hemispheric surface temperatures are anomalous over at least the last 600 years. Our results are also used to evaluate the separate criticism of reduced amplitude in the Mann et al. reconstructions over significant portions of 1400–1900, in relation to some other climate reconstructions and model-based examinations. We find that, from the perspective of the proxy data themselves, such losses probably exist, but they may be smaller than those reported in other recent work.

So according to the evidence, the fossil fuel company shill is wrong.
#15066676
Donna wrote:But you're not Steve McIntyre, Sivad.


excuse me? how do you know I'm not Steve McIntyre? Maybe I identify as a Steve McIntyre. From now on my pronouns are Mc and Intyre.

You're a bad faith actor on a politics forum who is observably biased


I'm a bad faith actor? I'm pretty sure you're the one acting in bad faith here. If you were acting in good faith you would simply acknowledge the plain truth that Michael Mann's conduct was unacceptable and that he clearly violated quite a few of the fundamental norms of science. At this point Mann's misconduct is so manifestly pronounced and conspicuous that only the most shameless of the bad faith babbitt dinks would even attempt to deny it.

and does not understand that science is a discourse.


Oh spare me the wide-eyed paeans to your precious Science!, you know exactly dick about how the science sausage gets made. Maybe ideally science is supposed to be a "discourse" but in reality it's heavily tainted by groupthink and tribalism and politics and careerism and money. And in the context of climate science it's extra rich, all we hear is "there's no debate" "the science is settled" "97% consensus" "jail the deniers", etc. The junk science of alarmism hasn't been "settled" through good faith rational discourse, it was imposed via fraud, manipulation, intimidation, censorship, and outright bullying.

It doesn't matter how many YouTube videos and links you post,


How good faith of you to characterize the presentation of expert opinion and thoughtful informed analysis as "posting youtube videos and links". Your discourse is sooooo good faith, you're just the paradigm of intellectual honesty aren't ya? :lol:

if you do it ad hoc all of the time then it suggests you don't really respect the contextual structure of scientific fact-finding (and that makes you the clueless one, mister).


What in the gibbering fuck does that even mean? Are you really claiming that presenting relevant critical analysis from qualified experts is anti-science? If so, the a) that's just fucking retarded and 2) it's not even honest retarded, it's retarded bad faith gibberish.
#15066691
Rancid wrote:Indeed


let's ask Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia, how rational and dispassionate of an enlightened discourse Science! really is:

Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia, which was ground zero of the Climategate scandal, suggested that the UN IPCC had “run its course.” He complained about its “tendency to politicize climate science” and suggested that it had “perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian, exclusive form of knowledge production.”

Hulme warned, “It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is  something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science.”
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
EU-BREXIT

That's why I think the answer will be USSR 2.0. […]

Hong Kong But the relevant lease period can be v[…]

A Canadian woman allegedly caught the virus on a […]

Trump Pardons...

That you think the corruption is limited to one si[…]