IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » Welcome to ISF » Skeptical Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags michael mann , TAM 11 , TAM speakers

Reply
Old 17th May 2013, 06:10 AM   #1
egslim
Graduate Poster
 
egslim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,858
Michael Mann at TAM... Really?

With embarassment I read the e-mail that announced the presence of Michael Mann at TAM 2013.

Regardless of your position in the scientific debate about climate change, Mann's behaviour with regard to the infamous "hockey stick" has not met skeptic standards.

To understand why what he did was unacceptable requires:
- A basic understanding of the proxy technique to construct temperature records
- A basic understanding of Principal Component Analysis
- A closer look at a set of 20 tree ring proxies, including 16 from Californian bristlecone pines.

In short, Mann used PCA in such a way that it emphasized dataseries with a hockey stick-like pattern. Then, he included the bristlecone pine proxies in his dataset, which show a hockey stick-like pattern that is unrelated to temperature.

After these flaws in his research were exposed in 2004 - 2005, his paper continued to be used in IPCC 2007. And his defense that the flaws did not materially affect the conclusion is a lie that becomes clear to everyone who actually compares the results.

Conclusion: Mann combined a sloppy use of statistics with a dogged defense of his results after they had been thoroughly debunked. Does the JREF want to be associated with such behaviour?

This paper explains the issues in more detail: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...PEC-hockey.pdf

Last edited by egslim; 17th May 2013 at 06:17 AM.
egslim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2013, 06:37 AM   #2
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 44,226
Michael Mann conducted cutting edge research. It is apparently now unacceptable to do cutting edge research unless you come up with exactly the right answers. So much for the progress of science.

And what do you know, the temperature record and extraordinary climate changes such as the unpredicted melt of the Arctic Ice cap bear out his conclusions.

McKitrick is a good example of sloppy statistics and ignorance of science. I would avoid using him as a reference for your argument. He has signed up to the Bali statement of ignorance.

A critique on his paper that claims that it's all UHI. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...c-activity-ii/
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
“Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2013, 07:16 AM   #3
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,064
there is nothing wrong with the Hockey stick. neither with the proxies he used, nor with the statistics. Wegman or whatever is name is, proposed a better statistical method, Mann used that and it made virtually no difference.

also every single global and hemispherical reconstruction since has confirmed the hockey stick.

and despite all the hysteria from the deniers about the hockey stick, were they not able to find anything wrong with it.

I think its cool to have him there at TAM. especially as he was the target of hordes of people lacking critical/sceptical thinking skills.
DC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2013, 07:58 AM   #4
Railer
New Blood
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1
Goodbye JREF

Michael Mann is the last straw in what was once a quality science magazine. What's next phrenology? The scientific consensus on Piltdown man?

I assume there will be a opposing viewpoint at the lectures? No that's because Mann won't show up if anyone dares question dogma.

I would argue the obvious errors in AGW here but what's the point your minds have long since closed.

I've removed myself from the mailing list, JREF you had a good run, goodbye.
Railer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2013, 07:59 AM   #5
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,544
What you are basically complaining about is that he worked with the best proxies he had available at the time. And, when better ones were available, those were used instead.

Really: That's what you're complaining about!

Doesn't sound like such a big deal when you put it into the proper context, does it?



It would have been a scandal if he found some evidence that contradicted the hockey stick, and chose to hide it. But, that's NOT what he did.

As it turns out: Multiple lines of evidence have now lead to his conclusion. And, the hockey stick is not any less of a hockey stick after more accurate data was poured into it.

Hardly looks like a "flawed" piece of research, when the facts are in place, does it?
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!
Wowbagger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2013, 08:04 AM   #6
Buckaroo
Graduate Poster
 
Buckaroo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 1,933
Originally Posted by Railer View Post
Michael Mann is the last straw in what was once a quality science magazine. What's next phrenology? The scientific consensus on Piltdown man?

I assume there will be a opposing viewpoint at the lectures? No that's because Mann won't show up if anyone dares question dogma.

I would argue the obvious errors in AGW here but what's the point your minds have long since closed.

I've removed myself from the mailing list, JREF you had a good run, goodbye.

Based on your only post in 7 years, good riddance.
__________________
"You ask me do I love you... does the pope live in the woods? Quad Erat Demonstrandum, baby... "
"Oh! You speak French!" -- Airhead, by Thomas Dolby

"When you're slapped you'll take it and like it." -- Sam Spade
Buckaroo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2013, 08:06 AM   #7
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,127
Have we ever had a person who posted only once and that was to tell us goodbye? Don't you at least have to post a hello first?

~~ Paul
__________________
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz

RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2013, 09:08 AM   #8
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,064
Originally Posted by Railer View Post
Michael Mann is the last straw in what was once a quality science magazine. What's next phrenology? The scientific consensus on Piltdown man?

I assume there will be a opposing viewpoint at the lectures? No that's because Mann won't show up if anyone dares question dogma.

I would argue the obvious errors in AGW here but what's the point your minds have long since closed.

I've removed myself from the mailing list, JREF you had a good run, goodbye.
it's your loss.
DC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2013, 09:31 AM   #9
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,064
its so sad to see how many alleged sceptics have fallen for the AGW denial machinery.
DC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2013, 10:45 AM   #10
sophia8
Master Poster
 
sophia8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,457
I imagine that Mann will be at TAM to talk about how he was attacked, not about AGW itself.
BTW, did anybody ever find out who hacked the UEA emails? That question seems to have been quietly buried.
__________________
"Nature is floods and famines and earthquakes and viruses and little blue-footed booby babies getting their brains pecked out by their stronger siblings! ....Nature doesn't care about me, or about anybody in particular - nature can be terrifying! Why do they even put words like 'natural' on products like shampoo, like it's automatically a good thing? I mean, sulfuric acid is natural!" -Julia Sweeney
sophia8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2013, 11:20 PM   #11
egslim
Graduate Poster
 
egslim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
It is apparently now unacceptable to do cutting edge research unless you come up with exactly the right answers.
No matter what the answers are, it is unacceptable to fudge your statistics.

And to defend blatant statistical flaws after they have been exposed is unworthy of a skeptic.

Quote:
And what do you know, the temperature record and extraordinary climate changes such as the unpredicted melt of the Arctic Ice cap bear out his conclusions.
Tell me honestly: Do you believe a scientist is allowed to fudge his data-analysis, as long as it produces the "correct" result?

Quote:
McKitrick is a good example of sloppy statistics and ignorance of science.
Argumentum ad hominem.

There are several peer-reviewed papers, a Congressional investigation and confirmation from independent statistical experts that Mann's statistics are bad. However, McKitrick's paper is more accessible.

Speaking of ignorance, do you actually know anything about PCA?
egslim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2013, 11:34 PM   #12
egslim
Graduate Poster
 
egslim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted by Wowbagger View Post
What you are basically complaining about is that he worked with the best proxies he had available at the time.
Ehm, no.

Mann used a large number of proxies, and many of those were the best he had available at the time.

However, he also used a set of 20 proxies that showed a 20th century growth spurt, which we know from nearby thermometer data, was unrelated to temperature.

And in Mann's flawed analysis, that one bad set of proxies came to dominate the results. Mann knew it: On his own server was a folder labeled "CENSORED", which included the same analysis without the bad set of proxies, and without a hockey stick.
egslim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2013, 11:53 PM   #13
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 9,302
"Miami Vice" was terrible. But "Heat" and "Collateral" were pretty good, so I say give him a chance.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2013, 11:54 PM   #14
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Originally Posted by Railer View Post
Michael Mann is the last straw in what was once a quality science magazine. What's next phrenology? The scientific consensus on Piltdown man?

I assume there will be a opposing viewpoint at the lectures? No that's because Mann won't show up if anyone dares question dogma.

I would argue the obvious errors in AGW here but what's the point your minds have long since closed.

I've removed myself from the mailing list, JREF you had a good run, goodbye.
LOL

You'll be missed.



ETA: Magazine?
__________________
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
- Voltaire.

Last edited by AdMan; 18th May 2013 at 12:12 AM.
AdMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2013, 01:12 AM   #15
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,064
Originally Posted by egslim View Post
No matter what the answers are, it is unacceptable to fudge your statistics.

And to defend blatant statistical flaws after they have been exposed is unworthy of a skeptic.


Tell me honestly: Do you believe a scientist is allowed to fudge his data-analysis, as long as it produces the "correct" result?


Argumentum ad hominem.

There are several peer-reviewed papers, a Congressional investigation and confirmation from independent statistical experts that Mann's statistics are bad. However, McKitrick's paper is more accessible.

Speaking of ignorance, do you actually know anything about PCA?
the data was not fudged, that is what that congressional investigation found out......
and what peer reviewed papers are you talking about?
what experts?
and as all other global and hemispherical reconstructions since confirmed the hockey stick, have all others also fudged their data?
DC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2013, 03:22 AM   #16
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 44,226
Originally Posted by egslim View Post
No matter what the answers are, it is unacceptable to fudge your statistics.
He didn't fudge any statistics.
Quote:
And to defend blatant statistical flaws after they have been exposed is unworthy of a skeptic.


Tell me honestly: Do you believe a scientist is allowed to fudge his data-analysis, as long as it produces the "correct" result?
No. Mann didn't 'fudge' anything. You swallowing the whole conspiracy theory nonsense hook, line and sinker. Mann did some ground breaking research, (which none of the skeptics every bother to do, that is, advance science), and any errors that may have been made have been attributed to malicious intent to deceive and commit fraud. Read some other research, it is a process of continual refinement, learning and revising. Only in Climate Science is that attributed to conspiracy and malign intent. Should we attack Eienstien because he wrote two versions of relativity, and couldn't get the first one right, that he found he could not accept the findings of much of quantum mechanics?

Quote:

Argumentum ad hominem.
The funny thing is, the the whole topic is Argumentum ad hominem..
Quote:

There are several peer-reviewed papers, a Congressional investigation and confirmation from independent statistical experts that Mann's statistics are bad. However, McKitrick's paper is more accessible.
Which McKitrick paper? He has produced several howlers that can only be published in such no impact journals as "Energy and Environment".


How much does congress know about PCA?

Quote:

Speaking of ignorance, do you actually know anything about PCA?
I bet I know just as much about PCA as you do.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
“Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos

Last edited by a_unique_person; 18th May 2013 at 03:29 AM.
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2013, 07:08 AM   #17
Buckaroo
Graduate Poster
 
Buckaroo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 1,933
BTW, I highly recommend Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines to those who are interested in what he's up against. It also contains a pretty good layman's explanation of PCA.
__________________
"You ask me do I love you... does the pope live in the woods? Quad Erat Demonstrandum, baby... "
"Oh! You speak French!" -- Airhead, by Thomas Dolby

"When you're slapped you'll take it and like it." -- Sam Spade
Buckaroo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2013, 07:08 AM   #18
stewgreenUK
Student
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 45
Civil NOT Pre-scripted discussion with no bullying I hope

Good, everyone is welcome at TAM as long as they stick to basic rooms of civilty and debate is open.
- So I state for the record that I find the word "denier" as offensive as the N-word & B-word and that nobody will be bullying others by using this word against them.
- Furthermore it is essential that Mann's appearance is not completely controlled & scripted and that questions can be asked freely without having to be submitted for clearance before hand. That people should be able to ask him about his past predictions and should be able to ask to make firm predictions for the near future that can be tested by time.

- I hope there will be respect for people's opinions in the past I have also seen "True Believer" Skeptics try to BULLY Randi .. "look at those idiots who don't believe" , but he states his principles clearly
see : randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/805-agw-revisited.html

- TAM 2008 it was sad when Penn & Teller were BULLIED by Sharon Begley for saying "Man made global warming ? I don't know .. it's complicated" she replied "how can you not believe the evidence is overwhelming ! etc." & and then ripped into them in her blog.
- It's a fundamental rule of skepticsm that people should be repected when they say "I don't know"
- If you tell people to pick a side when they haven't analysed all the arguments & evidence themselves, then you are telling them to rely on the fallacy of AUTHORITY

- 1950 USA You are NOT ALLOWED to say you don't believe in God, based on Argument from Authority
- 2013 USA You are NOT ALLOWED to say you don't believe in CAGW certainty of castatrophic manmade global warming , based on Argument from Authority.

- 1. The human brain doesn't like uncertainty, it likes to fill in the gaps rather than say "I don't know"
- 2. Given a choice between Simple : pick a side (with all answering dogma), or admit something is complicated ..people will go for the dogma side
.. but I hope skeptic are above that !

- Can we confirm that in future events other SKEPTICAL SPEAKERS we suggest can come to give presentations
....without people saying "No, we can't give THOSE people a platform" ?
stewgreenUK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2013, 07:18 AM   #19
stewgreenUK
Student
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 45
NOT all skeptics became GREEN "true-believers"

- I have been sad to see that when it comes to Global warming many top US Skeptics throw all their principles away and suddenly come over all "True Believer" just like the UFO hunter's anti-anti-vaccine people with "confirmation bias", "absolute certainty beyond evidence", emotion, SHOUTING & namecalling etc.

-I try to work out their thinking
: "the right wing is always wrong, so the other side must be CORRECT".. "EASY job done"
This pick a side (with all answering dogma) "feels nice", "no need to analyse all that complicated science & evidence"
.... but that is basically a fallacious ARGUMENT from AUTHORITY
- They then surround themselves with other cool people, hipppy girls who want to hear the greendream etc. and so it is reinforced.. so basically they don't get to hear alternative viewpoints (they don't know they exist) and if they come across them then rather than THINK HARD they can play the "it's funded by big oil card" and dismiss it

Just as the GREEN Movement walked away from Green .. (to magic dogma)
The SKEPTICAL Movement moved away from being SKEPTICAL

.. lets move back and NOT FAIL to capitalise on a whole new market of people who are starting to think critically
stewgreenUK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2013, 07:25 AM   #20
Buckaroo
Graduate Poster
 
Buckaroo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 1,933
One color is sufficient, thank you.
__________________
"You ask me do I love you... does the pope live in the woods? Quad Erat Demonstrandum, baby... "
"Oh! You speak French!" -- Airhead, by Thomas Dolby

"When you're slapped you'll take it and like it." -- Sam Spade
Buckaroo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2013, 07:27 AM   #21
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,064
Originally Posted by stewgreenUK View Post
Good, everyone is welcome at TAM as long as they stick to basic rooms of civilty and debate is open.
- So I state for the record that I find the word "denier" as offensive as the N-word & B-word and that nobody will be bullying others by using this word against them.
- Furthermore it is essential that Mann's appearance is not completely controlled & scripted and that questions can be asked freely without having to be submitted for clearance before hand. That people should be able to ask him about his past predictions and should be able to ask to make firm predictions for the near future that can be tested by time.

- I hope there will be respect for people's opinions in the past I have also seen "True Believer" Skeptics try to BULLY Randi .. "look at those idiots who don't believe" , but he states his principles clearly
see : randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/805-agw-revisited.html

- TAM 2008 it was sad when Penn & Teller were BULLIED by Sharon Begley for saying "Man made global warming ? I don't know .. it's complicated" she replied "how can you not believe the evidence is overwhelming ! etc." & and then ripped into them in her blog.
- It's a fundamental rule of skepticsm that people should be repected when they say "I don't know"
- If you tell people to pick a side when they haven't analysed all the arguments & evidence themselves, then you are telling them to rely on the fallacy of AUTHORITY

- 1950 USA You are NOT ALLOWED to say you don't believe in God, based on Argument from Authority
- 2013 USA You are NOT ALLOWED to say you don't believe in CAGW certainty of castatrophic manmade global warming , based on Argument from Authority.

- 1. The human brain doesn't like uncertainty, it likes to fill in the gaps rather than say "I don't know"
- 2. Given a choice between Simple : pick a side (with all answering dogma), or admit something is complicated ..people will go for the dogma side
.. but I hope skeptic are above that !

- Can we confirm that in future events other SKEPTICAL SPEAKERS we suggest can come to give presentations
....without people saying "No, we can't give THOSE people a platform" ?
he is working in paleoclimatology, i was not aware that they also make predictions.
what are his past predictions?

the problem is the people that have made up their mind without looking at the evidence.

Last edited by DC; 18th May 2013 at 07:29 AM.
DC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2013, 07:31 AM   #22
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,064
Originally Posted by stewgreenUK View Post
- I have been sad to see that when it comes to Global warming many top US Skeptics throw all their principles away and suddenly come over all "True Believer" just like the UFO hunter's anti-anti-vaccine people with "confirmation bias", "absolute certainty beyond evidence", emotion, SHOUTING & namecalling etc.

-I try to work out their thinking
: "the right wing is always wrong, so the other side must be CORRECT".. "EASY job done"
This pick a side (with all answering dogma) "feels nice", "no need to analyse all that complicated science & evidence"
.... but that is basically a fallacious ARGUMENT from AUTHORITY
- They then surround themselves with other cool people, hipppy girls who want to hear the greendream etc. and so it is reinforced.. so basically they don't get to hear alternative viewpoints (they don't know they exist) and if they come across them then rather than THINK HARD they can play the "it's funded by big oil card" and dismiss it

Just as the GREEN Movement walked away from Green .. (to magic dogma)
The SKEPTICAL Movement moved away from being SKEPTICAL

.. lets move back and NOT FAIL to capitalise on a whole new market of people who are starting to think critically
when you want to debate the science of AGW or AGW in general, in the science subforum is a whole thread you can use, this is about Michael Mann going to TAM.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...76635&page=223

there is the place for your debate about AGW. tell us there what your problems with the science of AGW is. there are many people there able and willing to explain it to you in great detail.

Last edited by DC; 18th May 2013 at 07:35 AM.
DC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2013, 07:40 AM   #23
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 49,848
Deniers just don't give up....
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2013, 07:45 AM   #24
stewgreenUK
Student
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 45
Are you bullying me DC ? ..

- 1. Mann's predictions ..just Google yourself and you will find his
- 2. Yes my second post is about Mann being invited, because some one has to state that not all skeptics are GreenDream "true believers"
(I am not debating CAGW here cos "it's too FREAKIN complicated" and it would take 1000 pages to explain properly I guess. )
- Keeping the forum tidy shows you respect people So can we please REFRAIN from namecalling, petty point scoring
& don't fill the page with an entire quote of someone's spiel, when you are just making a quick point.
- Thankyou : egslim, Railer .. you make good points.

A Good rule : don't feed the trolls, who namecall and try to throw the discussion off topic

Last edited by stewgreenUK; 18th May 2013 at 08:17 AM. Reason: spelling
stewgreenUK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2013, 08:21 AM   #25
Buckaroo
Graduate Poster
 
Buckaroo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 1,933
If you think DC' s posts are "bullying," you're not going to have a very good time on this forum.
__________________
"You ask me do I love you... does the pope live in the woods? Quad Erat Demonstrandum, baby... "
"Oh! You speak French!" -- Airhead, by Thomas Dolby

"When you're slapped you'll take it and like it." -- Sam Spade
Buckaroo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2013, 08:29 AM   #26
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,064
Originally Posted by stewgreenUK View Post
- 1. Mann's predictions ..just Google yourself and you will find his
- 2. Yes my second post is about Mann being invited, because some one has to state that not all skeptics are GreenDream "true believers"
(I am not debating CAGW here cos "it's too FREAKIN complicated" and it would take 1000 pages to explain properly I guess. )
- Keeping the forum tidy shows you respect people So can we please REFRAIN from namecalling, petty point scoring
& don't fill the page with an entire quote of someone's spiel, when you are just making a quick point.
- Thankyou : egslim, Railer .. you make good points.

A Good rule : don't feed the trolls, who namecall and try to throw the discussion off topic
bullying ? really?

when you google "Michael Mann Prediction" you find his book where he explains the IPCC predictions, i am not aware that Mann himself made any predictions. maybe i missed it? and usually you should provide a link or something similar, so we know what exactly you are talking about.

AGW has nothing to do with greendream true believers, whatever that is supposed to mean. its a scientific theory explaining the late 20th century warming, a theory supported by a huge amount of evidence from all over the world from 10 000's of researchers around the world.

the AGW thread is not limited, and is already very long, most denier myths are covered over and over again. just have a look at it and post your problems with the science.

this is not bullying at all.
DC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2013, 09:07 AM   #27
stewgreenUK
Student
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 45
Mann predicted just a couple of weeks ago : horrific sea level rise

just a couple of weeks ago: .. it was horrific sea level rise
: "Mann Forecasts Six Feet Of Sea Level Rise "
..also his hockey stick is a form of prediction..he projects it into the future ?

- But I hope people will be free to question him about
1. His climategate emails
2. Why the University of Virginia went to such terrific legal lengths to resist making data public when ATI was asking for
QUOTE...“context” to the Climategate scandal that, all are told, would explain away as non-problematic the revelations of “hide the decline”, “Mike’s Nature (Magazine) trick,” “recruiting” journalists to go after opponents UNQUOTE
..using even more taxpayers money to resist showing how taxpayers money had been spent

QUOTE A.W. Montford’s book, The Hockey Stick Illusion, it is definitely worth the read. His presentation of Steve McIntyre’s analysis of Mann’s hockey stick is devastating
– it shows, inter alia, that random numbers may even correlate better to actual temperature data than Mann’s “proxies.” In other words, solid proof that Mann’s data is garbage.
UNQUOTE

- I have already stated that I find the use of the term "denier" derogatory.
(It's clearly calculated to skew debate and does reflect well on the people who use it).. so please desist ..thankyou in advance
.. There must be some other term you can use for people that don't believe catastrophe is certain
- actually I think "true believers" (of Catastrophe is certain) don't have any right to take OWNERSHIP of the word Skeptic. I think if people have the perfect right to self- define themselves at Skeptics of catastrophe etc. Isn't it normal to let people self define ?

BTW Mann makes political predictions all the time; he appeared on "Big Oil" TV a few hours ago to say
.."The disinformation campaign can only survive for so long...it's like the case of tobacco.. the rest of the world is moving increasingly towards renewable energy" on Al Jazeera
that's 2 predictions
- (Funny the world top 2 Solar PV companies recently went bankrupt and Germany has recently pulled out of a lot of renewables and starting building coal fired power stations" ..just Google it )

- Another question to ask is "Why does Mann always decline to share a stage with a skeptic ?" .. if one is invited onto a TV show, then Mann won't appear at the same time.

Last edited by stewgreenUK; 18th May 2013 at 09:30 AM. Reason: spelling
stewgreenUK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2013, 09:25 AM   #28
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,064
Originally Posted by stewgreenUK View Post
just a couple of weeks ago: .. it was horrific sea level rise
: "Mann Forecasts Six Feet Of Sea Level Rise "
..also his hockey stick is a form of prediction..he projects it into the future ?

- But I hope people will be free to question him about
1. His climategate emails
2. Why the University of Virginia went to such terrific legal lengths to resist making data public when ATI was asking for
QUOTE...“context” to the Climategate scandal that, all are told, would explain away as non-problematic the revelations of “hide the decline”, “Mike’s Nature (Magazine) trick,” “recruiting” journalists to go after opponents UNQUOTE
..using even more taxpayers money to resist showing how taxpayers money had been spent

QUOTE A.W. Montford’s book, The Hockey Stick Illusion, it is definitely worth the read. His presentation of Steve McIntyre’s analysis of Mann’s hockey stick is devastating
– it shows, inter alia, that random numbers may even correlate better to actual temperature data than Mann’s “proxies.” In other words, solid proof that Mann’s data is garbage.
UNQUOTE

- I have already stated that I find the use of the term "denier" derogatory.
(It's clearly calculated to skew debate and does reflect well on the people who use it).. so please desist ..thankyou in advance
.. There must be some other term you can use for people that don't believe catastrophe is certain
you mean a speach where he presented and talked about his book in which he explains the IPCC preojections.
not his predictions, the IPCC Projections.

how would you like to be called? you seem ot be in denial of AGW, so denier is the most apropriate label i guess, but i often call them Conspiracy theorists, because that is also something they often belief, that its all a huge conspiracy.
but pls, tell me, how would you like to be called but remember i will not use names like "climate realists" because thats not what you are, nor would i use "AGW sceptic" because thats not what you are.
how about scientific ignoramous? reality rejector?

Steve McIntyre's crackpottery had virtually no impact inthe scientific community. they seem to be quite happy with Mann's and all the other reconstructions. they sure work on improving them and expanding them, yet noone was able to find anything that contradicts the hockey stick graph at all. if so, it would make a huge impact on the scientific community dealing with this. it would mean that over a dozen of global and hemispherical reconstructions are wrong. all of them in the past 20 years. but nobody was able to show anything of that sort, and even the latest reconstructions like those from PAGES have again confirmed the hockey stick like temperature curve. even worse. it shows a cooling trend do to orbital forcing that would have led us into the next glaciation period, yet the Anthropogenic warming has overcome that in a very very short period of time.

i hope some in the audiance at TAM will bring up some of the denier miyths around Michael Mann's work and get handed the facts promptly by Mann himself.

Last edited by DC; 18th May 2013 at 09:33 AM.
DC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2013, 09:31 AM   #29
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,064
and why should deniers be invited? they are a small fringe group that seek attention, why give them the attention? many people already do hold the believe that AGW is somehow a topic under heavy debate, in the media we often get presented with the scientific view and then with the deniers view. yet when i watch a docu about our solar system they never invite geocentrist presenting us their view of the solar system and the universe. same with Evolution, usually when i see a documentation about evolution i don't get presented the views of the fringe group of creationists . because they play no role in the science, the science has advanced, in the science they are talking about how much warming CO2 doubling will cause, and how much sea level rise we will have do to landbased ice melt etc etc. not if AGW is happening or not. that debate was over a few decades ago when the amount of evidence for AGW became overwhelming.

Last edited by DC; 18th May 2013 at 09:34 AM.
DC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2013, 09:55 AM   #30
Mister Earl
Illuminator
 
Mister Earl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,504
Anyone else notice that climate change deniers seem to think that reality itself is subject to opinion or discussion? Like the Earth itself somehow takes a yearly vote. "Nope, no climate change, not enough backing to go with it."
Mister Earl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2013, 10:03 AM   #31
stewgreenUK
Student
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 45
DC : The topic is Michael Mann

DC you already told me not to debate CAGW here, but you seem to have gone off topic yourself
..Your last post didn't mention Michael Mann at all
It was namecalling, seeking to alienate people, statistically incorrect , and insulting
"people .. believe that AGW is somehow a topic under heavy debate"
- People HAVE appeared here to debate ..to criticise Mann .. then they have been insulted them. is that OK ?

- "they are a small fringe group" Well you namecall people a fringe and say they should NOT be allowed to a debate .. do you remember what fallacy that is ?
.. don't large numbers of people in the world vote for parties skeptical of catastrophe ?

Media Balanced ?
- You know many large media outlets like the BBC, ABC Australia and the Guardian have a deliberate policy of not allowing space to skeptics.
- can you tell me when the 400ppm CO2 limit at Mauna was officially crossed ? according to Scripps/Keeling & NOAA ? ..it wasn't May 9th go and check. was the world's media balanced ?

- and you appear to be shouting "the debate is over"
- Can we say this when in science the predictions of models don't match reality ?.. what was your prediction in 1998 of the 2012 Global average temperature ? were you right ?
- 1978 "Ulcers are caused by stress " ..was the debate over ?

Last edited by stewgreenUK; 18th May 2013 at 10:05 AM.
stewgreenUK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2013, 10:04 AM   #32
Mister Earl
Illuminator
 
Mister Earl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,504
If you wanna debate global warming, chief, a great place to start would be to explain how 97% of all climatology studies published in reputable peer-reviewed journals have agreed with the assertion that climate change is real and man is driving that change.

I won't hold my breath.

#EDIT: Let me put that into more easily digestable perspective. For every ONE paper printed in a peer reviewed scientific journal where the authors don't see man-influenced climate change, there are THIRTY-TWO printed that show otherwise. That's not an even debate. That's not even close. That's like saying you expect a pamphlet to take the same amount of time to ship as the Statue of Liberty because they're "about" the same weight.

Last edited by Mister Earl; 18th May 2013 at 10:49 AM.
Mister Earl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2013, 10:30 AM   #33
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,064
Originally Posted by stewgreenUK View Post
DC you already told me not to debate CAGW here, but you seem to have gone off topic yourself
..Your last post didn't mention Michael Mann at all
It was namecalling, seeking to alienate people, statistically incorrect , and insulting
"people .. believe that AGW is somehow a topic under heavy debate"
- People HAVE appeared here to debate ..to criticise Mann .. then they have been insulted them. is that OK ?

- "they are a small fringe group" Well you namecall people a fringe and say they should NOT be allowed to a debate .. do you remember what fallacy that is ?
.. don't large numbers of people in the world vote for parties skeptical of catastrophe ?

Media Balanced ?
- You know many large media outlets like the BBC, ABC Australia and the Guardian have a deliberate policy of not allowing space to skeptics.
- can you tell me when the 400ppm CO2 limit at Mauna was officially crossed ? according to Scripps/Keeling & NOAA ? ..it wasn't May 9th go and check. was the world's media balanced ?

- and you appear to be shouting "the debate is over"
- Can we say this when in science the predictions of models don't match reality ?.. what was your prediction in 1998 of the 2012 Global average temperature ? were you right ?
- 1978 "Ulcers are caused by stress " ..was the debate over ?
you will continue to be offended as you did not say how i should call those that do not accept the scientific findings of AGW. mmhhh how about TTDNATSFOAGW?` better?

and what is your source that it was not May 9th?
according to NOAA and Mauna Loa Observatory it was May 9th. but i didnt fact check it as i wasn't much interested in it. and it doesn't really matter when exactly it was. CO2 levels will start to fall anyway untill october then start to rise again.
but pls show me how NOAA got it wrong.

i do not deny that media outlets do a bad job in reporting and are sometimes fearmongering with innacurate reporting about AGW. but overall i think they do a bad job with giving the TTDNATSFOAGW's a much to large stage to spread their ignorant myths.

yes the debate about if AGW is human caused or not happening at all is over. the evidence is overwhelming. to change that it would need new evidence, but sofar nothing indicates the science to be wrong. not even the not predicted plateau in surface temps we currrently have is able to show that the science is wrong.
but there is still plenty of debate going on about the details of AGW.

so can we see you in the AGW thread in the science subforum? ideal place to present your view that NOAA got it wrong with the CO2 400 ppm anouncement.

Last edited by DC; 18th May 2013 at 10:31 AM.
DC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2013, 12:06 PM   #34
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,544
Originally Posted by egslim View Post
However, he also used a set of 20 proxies that showed a 20th century growth spurt, which we know from nearby thermometer data, was unrelated to temperature.
That's not the same as fudging data.

You are accusing him of a form of fraud. But, all you have evidence for is: Careful analysis and application of approximate data for which exact data was not known.

That's all you have!

Originally Posted by egslim View Post
And in Mann's flawed analysis, that one bad set of proxies came to dominate the results. Mann knew it: On his own server was a folder labeled "CENSORED", which included the same analysis without the bad set of proxies, and without a hockey stick.
... and also taken entirely out of context, by folks like you, apparently.

I don't know all the details about that folder, myself, but apparently it is standard practice in signal analysis to do what is called "Censored Mean-Level Detection" (look it up), and that is what the "Censored" folder was for. It was for testing the robustness of his data. Not for hiding anything.

If he was trying to hide that data, why would he distribute it to so many people on an FTP server?
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!
Wowbagger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2013, 03:23 PM   #35
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,544
Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
If you wanna debate global warming, chief, a great place to start would be to explain how 97% of all climatology studies published in reputable peer-reviewed journals have agreed with the assertion that climate change is real and man is driving that change.
I wanted to add that that 97% result was all papers since the year 1991. If you look at the chart of their results, ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...f2_online1.jpg ), you see that a much higher percentage supports AGW over time than not.

It's close to 99.5% for papers published in the last couple of years.


Oh, and one more thing: This argument of yours, although accurate, doesn't actually belong in this thread for two reasons:
1. It is not about Michael Mann. This is a thread about him, not AGW in general.
And,
2. It is, technically, an Ad Populum fallacy. Just because a LOT of scientists agree with something, that doesn't mean it's true. What if that 0.5% of papers denying AGW turn out to be correct? You have to analyze the quality of evidence, not the quantity.

(It happens that the quality of evidence is also on the side of AGW being real, but that has nothing to do with the number of papers published about it.)
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!
Wowbagger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2013, 03:27 PM   #36
Mister Earl
Illuminator
 
Mister Earl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,504
I thought I established the quality level when I said, "climatology studies published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal". They definitely have a higher quality level than say, "unsourced blog post by the great aunt who thinks oil is from Jesus and ice caps are the devil".

Last edited by Mister Earl; 18th May 2013 at 03:28 PM.
Mister Earl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2013, 03:33 PM   #37
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,544
Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
I thought I established the quality level when I said, "climatology studies published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal".
First of all: Those papers not supporting AGW were ALSO published in "reputable peer-reviewed journals".

Second of all: Sometimes poor quality papers do make their way into "reputable" journals. It's rare. But, it does happen, on rare occasions. (I recently attended a panel about "cut-throat science", at the NY Academy of Sciences, that went into this.)

At least we can argue that Michael Mann's chart was correct enough, in spite of its proxies, that almost all good-quality studies have since matched its results very closely. And, THAT brings this discussion back to its proper topic! If Mann had been a fraud, that wouldn't have happened.
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!

Last edited by Wowbagger; 18th May 2013 at 03:34 PM.
Wowbagger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2013, 03:43 PM   #38
Gr8wight
red-shirted crewman
 
Gr8wight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,661
Originally Posted by Railer View Post
Michael Mann is the last straw in what was once a quality science magazine. What's next phrenology? The scientific consensus on Piltdown man?

I assume there will be a opposing viewpoint at the lectures? No that's because Mann won't show up if anyone dares question dogma.

I would argue the obvious errors in AGW here but what's the point your minds have long since closed.

I've removed myself from the mailing list, JREF you had a good run, goodbye.
Your only post, ever, is to say, "Goodbye?" Why bother? Nobody's going to miss you. Nobody even knew you were here.
__________________
Aurora Walking Vacation

"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding."--Marshall McLuhan
Gr8wight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2013, 04:09 PM   #39
Mister Earl
Illuminator
 
Mister Earl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,504
Originally Posted by Wowbagger View Post
First of all: Those papers not supporting AGW were ALSO published in "reputable peer-reviewed journals".
Don't see the problem. I wasn't saying one was and the other was not.

Originally Posted by Wowbagger View Post
Second of all: Sometimes poor quality papers do make their way into "reputable" journals. It's rare. But, it does happen, on rare occasions. (I recently attended a panel about "cut-throat science", at the NY Academy of Sciences, that went into this.)
Sure. But then other folks who disagree with the findings do their research and publish showing how they are wrong and why they are wrong. I don't see a problem here.

Originally Posted by Wowbagger View Post
At least we can argue that Michael Mann's chart was correct enough, in spite of its proxies, that almost all good-quality studies have since matched its results very closely. And, THAT brings this discussion back to its proper topic! If Mann had been a fraud, that wouldn't have happened.
Sounds like we both believe in the rigors of the scientific method. So I don't know why it sounds like we're disagreeing.

#EDIT: I'm guessing on miscommunication. I think either I'm seing a subtext to what you're saying that isn't there, or you're seeing a subtext in what I'm saying that isn't there.

Last edited by Mister Earl; 18th May 2013 at 04:10 PM.
Mister Earl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2013, 06:28 PM   #40
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,544
Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
So I don't know why it sounds like we're disagreeing.
We're not disagreeing.... Or rather, we ARE disagreeing, but ONLY on the point of whether or not we are disagreeing... ermmm.... perhaps I should start over...


We're not disagreeing. I'm merely pointing out that the percentage of papers saying one thing is not indicative of that thing being accurate. It is possible, however unlikely, that the minority idea could be the more accurate one. Therefore, bringing up the idea of the 97% papers thing is, in itself, not relevant to the facts about AGW.

That's all.
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!
Wowbagger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » Welcome to ISF » Skeptical Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:20 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.