Ok but that's going into my questionable column until this is resolved: http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/website.htm
|
|
|
cc facts
- Thread starter yodude
- Start date
Ok but that's going into my questionable column until this is resolved: http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/website.htm
Look up the damn case, not the author of the piece written about it.
Mann sued Ball for defamation because Ball essentially called him a fraud. Ball did cartwheels as any case brought by Mann will require full disclosure of raw data and methods used in Mann et al. to prove defamation, which to this day, no one has seen in full. The most recent development doesn't look good on Mann. Just release the data so you can be proven right or wrong.
Did you even read any of it, or was it straight to good to "check source"
yodude
Banned
just follow the science
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...ood-teeth-overall-health-scientists-conclude/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...ood-teeth-overall-health-scientists-conclude/
I think I found the data. Google is my friend. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/MANNETAL98/
Here's a different paper with different authors, but same topic: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198
The issue is how the data was selected and corrected. Is that the raw data, with all supporting work showing how Mann got to the data used in his papers? Yeah, please do believe you've solved this in an hour of googling... lol. Guess they can all just pack it in now.
..... guess I need to break it up... kept getting internal sever error.
Last edited:
.... the rest
Ah, Marcott et al. I've seen it.
High certainty, low resolution. Like insisting that girl you went home with while wasted wasn't that bad.
There's also Mann esque issues
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04...l-are-condemned-to-repeat-it-marcotts-yad061/
Ah, Marcott et al. I've seen it.
High certainty, low resolution. Like insisting that girl you went home with while wasted wasn't that bad.
There's also Mann esque issues
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04...l-are-condemned-to-repeat-it-marcotts-yad061/
Ok then I find these:
https://web.archive.org/web/2013050....harvard.edu/~phuybers/Doc/hockey_grl2005.pdf
and
http://opensky.ucar.edu/islandora/object/articles:9155
Thanks for bringing it up btw, it's good to be at least somewhat informed of the issues. The big problem I have with the naysayers, is that they criticize others data and methods, which is then revised with corrections, but don't seem to do likewise when their data and methods are in error. You get people like Watts seemingly posting McIntyre's uncorrected data to push a point, that should have already been decided.
Also, there seem to be enough hockey sticks to equip an entire team now
https://web.archive.org/web/2013050....harvard.edu/~phuybers/Doc/hockey_grl2005.pdf
and
http://opensky.ucar.edu/islandora/object/articles:9155
Thanks for bringing it up btw, it's good to be at least somewhat informed of the issues. The big problem I have with the naysayers, is that they criticize others data and methods, which is then revised with corrections, but don't seem to do likewise when their data and methods are in error. You get people like Watts seemingly posting McIntyre's uncorrected data to push a point, that should have already been decided.
Also, there seem to be enough hockey sticks to equip an entire team now
Last edited:
The problem that I have is that your link, showed the undated work of someone else in a blog.
My assumption, since the location/date of work was not referenced, is going to be that it's just old stuff, that's been disproved.
Otherwise, it should be properly referenced, verified and published, to show that it's later updated work.
Yeah, it cited this link:
https://climateaudit.org/2013/04/10/the-impact-of-tn05-17/
Dated 2013... it's asking legitimate questions of the proxies and methods used. To that you went straight to find something to discredit a person, not what was presented. Google names till your blue in the face, it doesn't detract from the problems in the climate scare.
You act as though you've rigorously dissected all this, yet you didn't even notice a simple link, proclaiming it was "was not referenced" ....probably because you don't bother reading the entire article before you hit google looking for a rebuttal. I've been following this stuff for 10+ years, and I was once on the other side... anyway you're not going to present anything I haven't heard before.
Then again, you've made it clear why your here
https://climateaudit.org/2013/04/10/the-impact-of-tn05-17/
Dated 2013... it's asking legitimate questions of the proxies and methods used. To that you went straight to find something to discredit a person, not what was presented. Google names till your blue in the face, it doesn't detract from the problems in the climate scare.
You act as though you've rigorously dissected all this, yet you didn't even notice a simple link, proclaiming it was "was not referenced" ....probably because you don't bother reading the entire article before you hit google looking for a rebuttal. I've been following this stuff for 10+ years, and I was once on the other side... anyway you're not going to present anything I haven't heard before.
Then again, you've made it clear why your here
Baggsy said:
defeater905
Well-known member
What are they calling it now? Is it 'Man-made climate change', 'climate change', 'global warming' etc? Just how the terms change every month is sneaky enough. Never mind how a tax is going to change anything especially since us Canadians can't be making much of a negative dent in climate change. You have countries like china who pollute like crazy, what do we do with them? oh nothing, we make each other feel bad instead. blah.
I'm more interested in the effects of asteroids on our climate, which some climate change scientists are starting to study with their own funding. Not funding specifically to prove man is causing climate change.
I'm more interested in the effects of asteroids on our climate, which some climate change scientists are starting to study with their own funding. Not funding specifically to prove man is causing climate change.
First off, the sniping is the same reason that others have posted in this thread, including yourself. Second off, we're back to the blog
Can we get some published stuff that was reviewed, rather than some guy's personal blog that he also moderates?
I've seen some stuff from a retired guy earlier, that was peer reviewed and published, but it sounds likes he's not so active in the discussion anymore.
Have you tried posting his stuff over on the pro side's blog, to see their reaction?
Maybe we can all still learn something, even if we're going to degenerate to blogs, rather than actual published papers, criticisms and rebuttals?
First off, the sniping is the same reason that others have posted in this thread, including yourself. Second off, we're back to the blog
Can we get some published stuff that was reviewed, rather than some guy's personal blog that he also moderates?
I've seen some stuff from a retired guy earlier, that was peer reviewed and published, but it sounds likes he's not so active in the discussion anymore.
Have you tried posting his stuff over on the pro side's blog, to see their reaction?
Maybe we can all still learn something, even if we're going to degenerate to blogs, rather than actual published papers, criticisms and rebuttals?
You make it sound like the blogs are the distinct domain of the skeptic.. we could do a count. My guess would be 10 to 1 in favour of our impending doom. I've stated this before, but I'll go ahead and say it again. I do not profess to know anything for certain, I do however see strong evidence suggesting a grossly overstated state of catastrophe. I wish there was more funding for those that hold the unpopular belief, but not unlike Peterson recently denied funding for the first time in his career, conveniently after deciding to swim upstream, money is in short supply for those who question. That said, they exists. Anyway, look up Liu et al. The Holocene Temperature Conundrum...
... and I'll leave you with this from McIntyre on Mercott:
Stuff like this is an insight into the 'science' of climate. Turn the knobs until desired result....
|
|
|
|
|