6 ms·

Hockey stick graphs are indeed alarming, but also fraudulent, and the IPCC has even accepted that in the past! Look into the history of these graphs, the Mann l

Hockey stick graphs are indeed alarming, but also fraudulent, and the IPCC has even accepted that in the past! Look into the history of these graphs, the Mann lawsuit, the work McIntyre did on showing how these graphs were manufactured etc. After it was shown how Mann did it the NAS investigated and hockey sticks vanished from IPCC reports for around 15 years. Then one snuck back in to the latest report but only in the summary! The graph doesn't appear in the actual scientific review part at all! That's the state the IPCC has degraded to: the summaries for policymakers are completely different to the actual content for scientists and introduce new claims unsupported by the cited research. The graph is still wrong and the techniques that lead to them are blatantly fraudulent (lots of cherry picking, truncating, splicing, even tipping raw data upside down to make it go up instead of down, really horrific stuff).

dmbche 4y ago
I'm sorry, you're spewing nonsense. For anyone having read this far: - "the mann lawsuit" is climategate, where some people found a single sentence out of context that sounded off out of years of emails. Mann sued the people that accused him of skewing the facts, and won a defamation suit. - while you write about things around the hockey stick graph, you dance around describing what they show. You can't "manufacture" a global rise in average t° of over 1°C. - I'm not even certain you are a real human being! Why argue all this, when you can just look at the graph?
- revelio 4y ago
  That's backwards! Michael Mann filed a defamation lawsuit against a skeptic and then lost it nine years later. The court awarded the defendant full costs: https://climatechangedispatch.com/tim-ball-defeats-michael-mann-lawsuit/ https://climatechangedispatch.com/tim-ball-defeats-michael-m... Not only did the B.C. Supreme Court grant Ball’s application for dismissal of the nine-year, multi-million dollar lawsuit, it also took the additional step of awarding full legal costs to Ball. The case was about whether Mann was engaged in knowing scientific fraud when he made his false hockey stick graph. Tim Ball said he did, and Mann sued, but in the end he preferred to lose the case rather than reveal his data and working, which says a lot: In the pre-trial Discovery Process, the parties must give up key evidence in a reasonable fashion, that proves or disproves the Claim. Dr. Mann lost his case because he abused Discovery by refusing to honor the “concessions” he made to Ball in 2018 to finally show in open court his R2 regression numbers (Mann’s math ‘working out’) for his graph (see ‘update’ at foot of article).
  - dmbche 4y ago
    Mann v competitive enterprise institute recognizes that a jury would find their comments as deragatory, false and damaging, and the suit was dropped because Mann delayed the proceedings as he was "busy with other things". No where was his data found fraudulent - the court recognized that Mr.Ball's statements are derogatory. The delay is a technicality that has nothing to do with science. The article you linked is very inflamatory and makes this seem much more of a big deal than it is - nowhere do they discuss the court decision itseld, but they bring up more than 3 scientists from the 90's shitting on climate change. I'd be weary of this news outlet.
    - revelio 4y ago
      Mann filed a lot of lawsuits over this and has lost all of them: https://www.steynonline.com/11508/youre-once-twice-three-times-a-loser https://www.steynonline.com/11508/youre-once-twice-three-tim... He didn't spend 9 years fighting a very expensive lawsuit and then, when he finally had a chance to prove that his work wasn't fraudulent in front of a judge, decide he was busy with other things lol! He refused to present the relevant evidence because his goal from the start was an ideologically motivated litigation war, in his own words: thanks Phil. there is a possibility that I can ruin National Review over this. Going to talk w/ some big time libel lawyers to see if there is the potential for a major lawsuit here that will bring this filthy organization down for good. But then National Review was removed from the case and so there was no chance for him to achieve his goal via abusive litigation anymore. Mann is unquestionably a fraud even in the eyes of his colleagues. He deliberately deleted data that disproved his reconstruction because he knew that if he was honest "skeptics would have a field day": As lead author, Mann decided to omit the Briffa data without the input of his other lead authors.. . . Mann’s own collaborators cautioned him against the deletion. IPCC TAR Coordinating Lead Author Chris Folland wrote to Mann that Briffa’s data “contradicts the multiproxy curve and dilutes the message rather significantly.”. . . Briffa himself urged Mann not to succumb to “pressure to present a nice tidy story” by “ignor[ing]” his post-1960 results. . . . Mann agreed with them on the merits but bemoaned the data’s political impact: “[I]f we show Keith’s series . . . skeptics [will] have a field day.”
dmbche 4y ago
Oh and for McIntyre, here is a paper rebutting all his work :https://web.archive.org/web/20130124033049/http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20130124033049/http://www.cgd.uc...
- revelio 4y ago
  That paper comes from the same group as the original MM paper (one of the authors studied under Mann even), has some of the same problems and was itself rebutted: https://climateaudit.org/2006/08/30/wahl-and-ammann-again-1/ https://climateaudit.org/2006/08/30/wahl-and-ammann-again-1/ WA reported that reconstructions without bristlecones (their Scenario 6) lack “skill” in reconstruction and “climatological meaning”, a finding with which we concur. The NAS Panel says that bristlecones should be avoided in temperature reconstructions. Thus, MBH-type reconstructions (with PC networks) with or without bristlecones are both eliminated. So much for the “refutation” of our criticisms.

dmbche 4y ago

I'm sorry, you're spewing nonsense. For anyone having read this far: - "the mann lawsuit" is climategate, where some people found a single sentence out of context that sounded off out of years of emails. Mann sued the people that accused him of skewing the facts, and won a defamation suit. - while you write about things around the hockey stick graph, you dance around describing what they show. You can't "manufacture" a global rise in average t° of over 1°C. - I'm not even certain you are a real human being! Why argue all this, when you can just look at the graph?

revelio 4y ago
That's backwards! Michael Mann filed a defamation lawsuit against a skeptic and then lost it nine years later. The court awarded the defendant full costs: https://climatechangedispatch.com/tim-ball-defeats-michael-mann-lawsuit/ https://climatechangedispatch.com/tim-ball-defeats-michael-m... Not only did the B.C. Supreme Court grant Ball’s application for dismissal of the nine-year, multi-million dollar lawsuit, it also took the additional step of awarding full legal costs to Ball. The case was about whether Mann was engaged in knowing scientific fraud when he made his false hockey stick graph. Tim Ball said he did, and Mann sued, but in the end he preferred to lose the case rather than reveal his data and working, which says a lot: In the pre-trial Discovery Process, the parties must give up key evidence in a reasonable fashion, that proves or disproves the Claim. Dr. Mann lost his case because he abused Discovery by refusing to honor the “concessions” he made to Ball in 2018 to finally show in open court his R2 regression numbers (Mann’s math ‘working out’) for his graph (see ‘update’ at foot of article).
- dmbche 4y ago
  Mann v competitive enterprise institute recognizes that a jury would find their comments as deragatory, false and damaging, and the suit was dropped because Mann delayed the proceedings as he was "busy with other things". No where was his data found fraudulent - the court recognized that Mr.Ball's statements are derogatory. The delay is a technicality that has nothing to do with science. The article you linked is very inflamatory and makes this seem much more of a big deal than it is - nowhere do they discuss the court decision itseld, but they bring up more than 3 scientists from the 90's shitting on climate change. I'd be weary of this news outlet.
  - revelio 4y ago
    Mann filed a lot of lawsuits over this and has lost all of them: https://www.steynonline.com/11508/youre-once-twice-three-times-a-loser https://www.steynonline.com/11508/youre-once-twice-three-tim... He didn't spend 9 years fighting a very expensive lawsuit and then, when he finally had a chance to prove that his work wasn't fraudulent in front of a judge, decide he was busy with other things lol! He refused to present the relevant evidence because his goal from the start was an ideologically motivated litigation war, in his own words: thanks Phil. there is a possibility that I can ruin National Review over this. Going to talk w/ some big time libel lawyers to see if there is the potential for a major lawsuit here that will bring this filthy organization down for good. But then National Review was removed from the case and so there was no chance for him to achieve his goal via abusive litigation anymore. Mann is unquestionably a fraud even in the eyes of his colleagues. He deliberately deleted data that disproved his reconstruction because he knew that if he was honest "skeptics would have a field day": As lead author, Mann decided to omit the Briffa data without the input of his other lead authors.. . . Mann’s own collaborators cautioned him against the deletion. IPCC TAR Coordinating Lead Author Chris Folland wrote to Mann that Briffa’s data “contradicts the multiproxy curve and dilutes the message rather significantly.”. . . Briffa himself urged Mann not to succumb to “pressure to present a nice tidy story” by “ignor[ing]” his post-1960 results. . . . Mann agreed with them on the merits but bemoaned the data’s political impact: “[I]f we show Keith’s series . . . skeptics [will] have a field day.”

dmbche 4y ago

Oh and for McIntyre, here is a paper rebutting all his work :https://web.archive.org/web/20130124033049/http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20130124033049/http://www.cgd.uc...

revelio 4y ago
That paper comes from the same group as the original MM paper (one of the authors studied under Mann even), has some of the same problems and was itself rebutted: https://climateaudit.org/2006/08/30/wahl-and-ammann-again-1/ https://climateaudit.org/2006/08/30/wahl-and-ammann-again-1/ WA reported that reconstructions without bristlecones (their Scenario 6) lack “skill” in reconstruction and “climatological meaning”, a finding with which we concur. The NAS Panel says that bristlecones should be avoided in temperature reconstructions. Thus, MBH-type reconstructions (with PC networks) with or without bristlecones are both eliminated. So much for the “refutation” of our criticisms.