Here's a quote from Dyson:
Another source who admits he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Zero for 4.
Global Warming. Fact or grossly exaggerated??
- Thread starter AK-47
- Start date
Zero for 4.
He did.I heard you. I just can't believe what I'm reading.
Perhaps you can explain to us why the fake "Nobel laureate" refuses to make his computer codes and raw data available, to determine whether his results actually can be replicated (and whatever happened to the Medieval Warm Period)?
He gave it lobbyist McIntyre willingly and his full data set has been available for years.
His work has been replicated numerous times.
The guy who "doesn't know what he's talking about" is you.Another source who admits he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Here is the actual quote:
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have. I think that’s what upsets me.
His point was that he isn't engaged in the minutiae of one graph or another, but that his criticisms are aimed at the overall flaws in the research -- particularly, the complete emphasis on computer models rather than real-world evidence.
And let's not forget -- his predictions about the unreliability of the computer models has been proven right.
Right, his point was that he didn't know the specific science, but had a feeling that he was right.The guy who "doesn't know what he's talking about" is you.
His point was that he isn't engaged in the minutiae of one graph or another, but that his criticisms are aimed at the overall flaws in the research -- particularly, the complete emphasis on computer models rather than real-world evidence.
.
Another of your sources based off 'faith' rather then science.
Its a pattern, isn't it?
Oh, there's a pattern all right.Right, his point was that he didn't know the specific science, but had a feeling that he was right.
Another of your sources based off 'faith' rather then science.
Its a pattern, isn't it?
It's pretty shocking that you're claiming Freeman Dyson doesn't know anything about science. Of course, you're also the guy who thinks Albert Einstein didn't know anything about science. So maybe we shouldn't be surprised.
You clearly haven't read the article (even though you found a quote from it, most likely from one of your propaganda sites). You don't understand the quote and I am 95% certain you don't understand the article. But I'm not wasting my time explaining it to you.
It's tough enough just trying to get you to understand that when you accept a bet, you are held to that decision, regardless of whether or not you actually read the terms of the bet (and, clearly, you didn't).
Not my opinion.I heard you. I just can't believe what I'm reading.
Perhaps you can explain to us why the fake "Nobel laureate" refuses to make his computer codes and raw data available, to determine whether his results actually can be replicated (and whatever happened to the Medieval Warm Period)?
And why did Keith Briffa, the Deputy Director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, warn his colleagues not to let Mann push them "beyond where we know is right" (Pages 3 to 4): http://www.oig.doc.gov/OIGPublications/2011.02.18-IG-to-Inhofe.pdf
And if his research is so sound, why does he insist on attacking anyone who disagrees with him as being "anti-science," a "denier," etc.?
Figures based on the northern hemisphere mean temperatures graph from MBH99 were prominently featured in the IPCC Third Assessment Report of 2001, and became the focus of controversy when some individuals and groups disputed the data and methodology of this reconstruction.[28]
The 2006 North Report published by the United States National Academy of Sciences endorsed the MBH studies with a few reservations. The principal component analysis methodology had a small tendency to bias results so was not recommended, but it had little influence on the final reconstructions, and other methods produced similar results.[29][30] Mann has said his findings have been "independently verified by independent teams using alternative methods and alternative data sources."[31] More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original hockey stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[32][33]
- (29) Revkin, Andrew C. (22 June 2006), "Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate", New York Times
Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, National Research Council (2006). Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the last 2,000 years. National Academies Press. - (30) Brumfiel, G. (June 2006). "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph". Nature 441 (7097): 1032–3.Bibcode:2006Natur.441.1032B. doi:10.1038/4411032a. PMID 16810211.
- (31)Warner, Frank (2010-01-03). "Penn State climate professor: 'I'm a skeptic'". The Morning Call. Archived from the original on 2010-07-06. Retrieved 2010-07-06. "And in a wide-ranging interview, Mann says that not all global warming science is settled. It's not yet certain, for example, that the heat is reducing the world population of polar bears or that it increases the number of hurricanes, he said."
- (32) Frank, David; Esper, Jan; Zorita, Eduardo; Wilson, Rob (14 May 2010). "A noodle, hockey stick, and spaghetti plate: A perspective on high-resolution paleoclimatology". Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1 (4): 507. doi:10.1002/wcc.53.
- (33) Pearce, Fred (February 9, 2010). "Part four: Climate change debate overheated after sceptics grasped 'hockey stick' | Environment". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2010-03-08.
You obviously know differently.
Probably because he only attacks deniers and pseudo scientist.
As far as Briffa is concerned, again you're talking about 2007 and before AR4. I wonder if he feels the same today, 7 years later.
Here's a more contemporary take on Briffa's condemnation of Mann from 2013, based on new findings, exposing some serious shortcoming in Briffa's condemnation of Mann. How versed are you on dendrology? I hope more than you are on climate and weather.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/06/16/briffa-condemns-mann-reconstructions/
From the 2006 Committee on Energy and Commerce Report investigation inquiring into Mann's hockey stick graph:
Mann himself confirmed in 2005 that he did not feel the need to disclose his computer codes (Page 6):
http://www.realclimate.org/Mann_response_to_Barton.pdf
Never mind the fake "Nobel laureate" nonsense, the mean-spirited accusations against anyone who disagrees with him (does he not know the difference between history and science? The Holocaust was a historical fact), etc., and concerns about the quality of his research.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...89897/Hockey-stick-graph-was-exaggerated.html
Page 51: http://a-sceptical-mind.com/Documents/WegmanReport.pdfSharing of research materials, data, and results is haphazard and often grudgingly done. We were especially struck by Dr. Mann’s insistence that the code he developed was his intellectual property and that he could legally hold it personally without disclosing it to peers. When code and data are not shared and methodology is not fully disclosed, peers do not have the ability to replicate the work and thus independent verification is impossible.
Mann himself confirmed in 2005 that he did not feel the need to disclose his computer codes (Page 6):
http://www.realclimate.org/Mann_response_to_Barton.pdf
Never mind the fake "Nobel laureate" nonsense, the mean-spirited accusations against anyone who disagrees with him (does he not know the difference between history and science? The Holocaust was a historical fact), etc., and concerns about the quality of his research.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...89897/Hockey-stick-graph-was-exaggerated.html
Aside form the Telegraph article, all based on really dated information,but even it was from 2010 and Mann's report was 1998, almost 20 years, a generation, ago. I noticed you didn't comment on Steve McIntyre more contemporary critique.From the 2006 Committee on Energy and Commerce Report investigation inquiring into Mann's hockey stick graph:
Page 51: http://a-sceptical-mind.com/Documents/WegmanReport.pdf
Mann himself confirmed in 2005 that he did not feel the need to disclose his computer codes (Page 6):
http://www.realclimate.org/Mann_response_to_Barton.pdf
Never mind the fake "Nobel laureate" nonsense, the mean-spirited accusations against anyone who disagrees with him (does he not know the difference between history and science? The Holocaust was a historical fact), etc., and concerns about the quality of his research.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...89897/Hockey-stick-graph-was-exaggerated.html
Don't have time. I already spent more time than should have been necessary proving that the "10,000" posting was nothing but trash propaganda.I noticed you didn't comment on Steve McIntyre critique.
You proved what?Don't have time. I already spent more time than should have been necessary proving that the "10,000" posting was nothing but trash propaganda.
It would have taken 10 minutes to read and critique, but I guess you're too busy.
Here is the British House of common reports on Hand and Jones complaint.
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/phil%20jones%20house%20of%20commons%20report.pdf
Pages 50-54
I know you won't want to make the time, but you should It's only 4 pages, big print, double space. I suspect others will.
Maybe not. I think you need to fix the link.I know you won't want to make the time, but you should. I suspect others will.
Fixed, my bad.Maybe not. I think you need to fix the link.
That's not what I claimed, I said he didn't know anything about climatology, as he admitted.Oh, there's a pattern all right.
It's pretty shocking that you're claiming Freeman Dyson doesn't know anything about science..
He's just another example of someone operating off their previous biases and faith, not off of the science.
Previous to the illegal hacking of emails by oil funded lobbyists, there was no legit programme or policy about research data publishing.From the 2006 Committee on Energy and Commerce Report investigation inquiring into Mann's hockey stick graph:
The norm in business, medicine, journalism and most other examples are that you don't share your research until you can publish your results so that it won't be stolen or claimed by someone else as their work.
We now have a policy that publicly funded climatology research data is all available publicly, which is great news and clearly destroys any arguments that Mann or anyone else is hiding their data.
You have been once again to be shown wrong.
But what else would you expect from someone who can't tell creationism from science?
No, he said he doesn't get into the details of individual studies. Not the same thing.That's not what I claimed, I said he didn't know anything about climatology, as he admitted.
That doesn't do much to restore the key data that were deleted or "lost."We now have a policy that publicly funded climatology research data is all available publicly, which is great news and clearly destroys any arguments that Mann or anyone else is hiding their data.
As for Mann, I think you're wrong. I don't believe he has provided the raw data or the computer codes (although I think McIntyre and McKitrick got the codes through FOI requests). What's your source for that?
I don't think it takes that long, but in any event, I did read it. See post 655.It would have taken 10 minutes to read and critique, but I guess you're too busy.
It says absolutely nothing. It merely creates a false illusion for the ill-informed that it offers something to say. Political propaganda at its worst.
And still waiting for an explanation of how the IPCC has managed to force nearly the entire scientific community to publish false data.
Either the IPCC is leading some conspiracy or the evidence backs the anthropogenic global warming theory.
Either the IPCC is leading some conspiracy or the evidence backs the anthropogenic global warming theory.
Real simple, when there's billions of dollars on the line people will sometimes do strange things. And if they get caught fudging the numbers, they'll just simply say they made a mistake. I mean everyone makes mistakes, right??And still waiting for an explanation of how the IPCC has managed to force nearly the entire scientific community to publish false data
Carbon credit trade worth $140 billion annually: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/european-fraudsters-steal-7b-in-carbon-credit-scam-1.853443
As usual you are wrong.No, he said he doesn't get into the details of individual studies. Not the same thing
He said he didn't know anything about the 'technical facts'.
Sounds like a double or nothing bet, here.That doesn't do much to restore the key data that were deleted or "lost."
As for Mann, I think you're wrong. I don't believe he has provided the raw data or the computer codes (although I think McIntyre and McKitrick got the codes through FOI requests). What's your source for that?
Are you willing to bet on it?
the bet:
Michael Mann's data is publicly available.
Will you take it?
You'll have to buy two books, including:
http://www.amazon.ca/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Global-Warming/dp/1592570712/ref=pd_sim_b_2/179-8355621-9460133?ie=UTF8&refRID=1GRS7EAZSKKT9Y94RM52
So you argument now has to rely on either:Real simple, when there's billions of dollars on the line people will sometimes do strange things. And if they get caught fudging the numbers, they'll just simply say they made a mistake. I mean everyone makes mistakes, right??
a) one scientist made a mistake once and then thousands decided to risk their careers by backing that one scientist
b) every climatologist is fudging the numbers so they can get rich off of carbon credits
Both of those are ridiculous claims.
