Michael Mann is a slimy little lying weasel and is getting ripped to shreds.

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Greven
Yes, my words - answers that were the solution to climate change - a solution which has dire implications.
You asked here what I would do. This is a different question. I know you speak English, so you can no longer pretend to misunderstand.

Oh and your edit -

Your interview is a scene from a fictional HBO program, it is not relevant. Glad I don't get my science from TV shows, continue with your mission Greven.

It almost amazes me the wicked depths you will stoop to, defaming my character previously (and trying to do so again here) - now accusing me of getting science from TV, when I explicitly linked that in jest.

You do this while ignoring the physics - ignoring realty - because you just cannot deal with it. You cannot respond to the very simple physics underlying the concern.

Instead you stoop to personal insults and attacks. Have you no sense of decency?

How can a direct quote from you be defamation?

How can a direct quote from you be a personal insult and attack?

That is not logical.

Hi, here's your quote:

originally posted by: D8Tee
You have changed your mindset from what you posted at the start of 2017?
why?

Your purpose was clear.
Do you want me to explain it in more detail to anyone who really cares about your transgressions?

Yes explain in more detail.

Okay, as long as you approve.

On the first page of this thread, you personally attacked me - claiming I was crazy and that I advocated for millions to die. Your post was removed by the staff. It also contained all of those quotes that you put here again.

It is clear to everyone that you have personally attacked me in this thread, so I don't know why you're protesting that.

Your entire objective was transparent - aiming again to use those past posts from another thread entirely to defame me, since staff disapproved of your first effort.

So, let's go over what you did. You quoted part of another post (ignoring the science bits again), in the hope that you could use those quotes against me again even though you had your hand slapped once already... so you made the attack a bit more cunning: knowing the solution I posted, you asked what I would do.

Those posts are the only solution to the problem of climate change: cutting all fossil fuel emissions immediately.

Ironically, this is much like Dr. Michael Mann's questioning in the OP - they knew an answer (from his CV), but asked anyway. The difference is, you asked me a different question:

originally posted by: D8Tee
Whats your solution if you called the shots?

My answer was to change things decades ago. Not a realistic solution, but that's the only one I'm comfortable with, were I in charge.

I doubt anyone else will make the hard call, either - it may simply be too late to do anything that would matter for humans. Even if it isn't too late, the cost of meaningful action is extreme. My past quotes might have been too optimistic - that something could still be done, however abhorrent.

You don't want to stop climate change if you were in charge?

It's a difficult thing - I don't want to doom millions or billions of people, on the hope that it could make a difference on the pit we've dug for ourselves. I wouldn't want to make that call.

Nice to see you edited in the part about comedy into your video link after the fact...

Here is where you prove how tenuous your grasp on reality is:

See the time of my last edit to that post?
16:40
See the time of your post?
16:50
The ATS website itself proves you wrong.

I added it because what I was writing reminded me of that clip.

e: To your edit:

Would you like to speak to the coverage of the African continent, or rather it's lack of coverage as far as historical temperature data goes?

I'll respond to this when you respond to the parts of this post that you haven't.

a reply to: Greven

I'll respond to this when you respond to the parts of this post that you haven't.

Whats there to respond to?

You've posted this same chart in at least one previous thread, go read the discussion there.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Given Mann is associated with so many different climate focused groups, is it possible he was just mistaken?

An error of omission rather than commission?

Few scientists would have so many associations to recall :/

And how is Mann still the climate bogeyman? Will he really have to contend with character assassination for the rest of his career? All over a 20ish year old hockeystick

a reply to: melatonin

YES!

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: melatonin

YES!

Fair enough

Not sure it's a productive use of time and effort, but whatever humps your camel, heh.

originally posted by: melatonin

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: melatonin

YES!

Fair enough

Not sure it's a productive use of time and effort, but whatever humps your camel, heh.

It's Mann thats doing the character assassination.

Check it out.

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: melatonin

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: melatonin

YES!

Fair enough

Not sure it's a productive use of time and effort, but whatever humps your camel, heh.

It's Mann thats doing the character assassination.

Check it out.

www.youtube.com...

Not sure that labels such as 'denier' and 'contrarian pundit' are character assassination. 'Slimy little lying weasel' alongside the years of denigration and political attacks Mann has been attracting are more in that arena.

To be honest, 'denier' and 'contrarian' are pretty tame when groups of competing scientists occasionally get heated, hah.

originally posted by: melatonin

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: melatonin

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: melatonin

YES!

Fair enough

Not sure it's a productive use of time and effort, but whatever humps your camel, heh.

It's Mann thats doing the character assassination.

Check it out.

www.youtube.com...

Not sure that labels such as 'denier' and 'contrarian pundit' are character assassination. 'Slimy little lying weasel' alongside the years of denigration and political attacks Mann has been attracting are more in that arena.

To be honest, 'denier' and 'contrarian' are pretty tame when groups of competing scientists occasionally get heated, hah.

Thing is he lies about it and tries to weasel his way out.

a reply to: melatonin

Lest we forget - look at how he has behaved in the last 20 years.

Listen to his testimony and how he never misses an opportunity to undermine and insult his fellow climatologists.

a reply to: melatonin

You know...Your post deserves a more expanded answer.

Micheal Mann is the creator of the Hockey Stick Graph. Do you remember Al Gore standing in the cherry picker and showing the blade of the hockey stick graph? And convincing the worlds politicians that action had to be taken now or we were all doomed?

One person, Micheal Mann, knew for sure (and now we all knew) that the blade part of the hockey stick was not tree ring data, it was in face, instrumental data that had been grafted onto the tree ring data to "hide the decline".

Had the world known that the Hockey Stick graft was, in fact, a fraud, would we have spent billions of dollars for renewable energy, billions more for research, billions more for technology and research, would useless biofuels be clogging our fuel tanks and on and on and on.

Sorry, I don't know if Al Gore is sincere in his beliefs, but I know for sure that Micheal Mann knew the hockey stick graph was bunkem.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

And you do know that the original 1997 hockeystick study has been effectively replicated many, many times?

Admittedly, as the first study of its kind, the 1997 version is not as robust as following studies. But that's science folks! The original finding holds and little changed as far as interpretation and implications are concerned. It's Hockey sticks all the way down.

And, of course they 'grafted' on the directly observed contemporary data to the historical proxy data. It would be ridiculous to do otherwise. Pretty sure it was explained in his methods.

a reply to: melatonin

you are not thinking clearly.

The tree ring data was collected to be a proxy for instrumental readings. But when the data got to the point where it could be compared to instrumental reading, the temperature declined when real world temperatures were rising.

It is not 'good" science for the instrumental readings to replace tree ring data because the fact was that when the two readings could be compared, it proved that tree rings were a poor proxy for temperature.

If the data is not good for current temperatures, what makes you think its accurate for a thousand years ago?

Not the hockey stick graph has not been replicated. How can you replicate fraud

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: amazing

But it is still within the normal climate variation. The earth gets hotter and it gets colder. And although activists are screaming about CO2, the fact is the fact. Its all with normal climate variation.

The artic ice has melted before. Las Vegas and India was hot before. there have been storms, tornados, hurricanes, droughts and floods before. Nothing is more intense. Nothing really has changed.

Wake me up when something happens that is outside natural variability

Many scientists are telling us that it's warming faster...an accelerated warming trend that appears to be caused by man's pollution. So even though we're within "Normal" range, it doesn't mean it's good. Again, why not listen to the scientists....and not just man but thousands of other scientists studying climate and writing papers on it. Mann's just one guy. Take him and everything he's said out of the equation and we still have scientists telling us that we're messing up the earth. AGain..why not listen to scientists?

a reply to: amazing

I have listened to the scientists. I have listened very carefully.

Micheal Mann had a theory that tree ring data could be used as a proxy for historical temperature. When his work got to the point where the tree ring data should have at least roughly correlated to instrumental data, the tree ring data totally diverged from the instrumental.

A normal scientist would have thought, well the theory is disproved, and carried on with his life.

Micheal Mann merely grafted the instrumental data to the tree data and proceed to alarm the world with "unprecedented" warming.

The fact is that the warming is not "unprecedented" and the ice flows in the arctic is not "unprecedented". It has all happened before as recently as the 1930s.

When scientists are robustly engaged in "adjusting" the most accurate instrumental recordings of temperature to the less accurate ship intake temperature recordings taken by hand, it is an example of revisionist history.

Satellite data does not confirm the "adjusted" temperature sets. And that fact is routinely ignored. The CO2 theory of global warming is robustly pursued in the face of mounting evidence that the C02 is lightly minimal.

If the CO2 theory was correct, there should be a hot spot in the tropics due to the greater depth of atmosphere and accumulation of CO2 in the earth's bulge. Instead, there is no hot spot.

Scientists have known for years that the oceans currents better predict climate than CO2 but instead of following that line of research, they ridicule it and do everything to refute.

The demonization of scientists who disagree with even the slightest way from the "official" CO2 theory is a clear example of how this theory has been politicized beyond reason as is the alarmism is reporting every weather incident as evidence of proof.

That increased hurricane thing never worked out but that will never be admitted.

This is all evidence that this entire field of research is no longer scientific but is in fact, an example of mass induced hysteria.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

If you remove that entire series, you still get the same curve.

a reply to: amazing

Because there are other scientists who state the exact opposite, who have been demonized until they shut up!

The whole thing is too politicized now.

Amazing - how does "replicating" a fraud, make it not a fraud?

Why is Micheal Mann still considered a credible scientist?

a reply to: mbkennel

Where is the tropical hot spot?

Why does the satellite data not match or even roughly correlate with land and ocean data?

Why was the most accurate Argo data "adjusted" to match the inaccurate ship data?

Not a lot of trust here is there?

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: melatonin

you are not thinking clearly.

Maybe, maybe not.

If the data is not good for current temperatures, what makes you think its accurate for a thousand years ago?

This explanation may well blow your mind. So hold tight!

Tree ring proxies are one method of determining temperatures indirectly. They are based on the seasonal changes in tree growth and their inner tree rings. Tree growth is climate dependent. Therefore, so are the tree rings.

The tree rings have been found to be reliable up to around 1950/60 - would need to check to know exactly. This is called the 'divergence problem'. They diverge after that period. This is also the same period when human-induced climate change began to really kick up a notch (i.e., when the hockey paddle appears) and the consequential drought and other climate impacts began to majorly influence nature.

Stunning, no? So the divergence problem you are focusing on is caused by the issue we should be concerned about.

Not the hockey stick graph has not been replicated. How can you replicate fraud

Perhaps given the study has been replicated many, many times by Mann and other independent researchers using other tree proxies and other non-tree proxies it may not be fraud? Could you possibly consider that you are the one who is mistaken on this occasion?

a reply to: melatonin

Of course I could be mistaken that is always possible. So could you be mistaken, that is also possible.

Scientific method, remember? The theory was "Can tree rings be used as temperature proxy". That data results came back with a divergence problem. The theory was not proved. Did Mann do more work to see if CO2 was messing with tree rings?

No - he merely grafted the instrumental data onto the tree ring data and offered it to Gore to make a movie out of it.

That is fraud.

Fraud that was openly discussed among select few climatologist (Phil Jones at East Angola) as a proper means of dealing with other "problems".

Again, How is Micheal Mann still a credible scientist? For that matter, how is Phil Jones still a credible scientist?

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: melatonin

Of course I could be mistaken that is always possible. So could you be mistaken, that is also possible.

True. However, you may note that there is little contradictory data from my angle.

Scientific method, remember? The theory was "Can tree rings be used as temperature proxy". That data results came back with a divergence problem. The theory was not proved. Did Mann do more work to see if CO2 was messing with tree rings?

The divergence problem kicks in around 1950/60. The proxy data does not diverge from instrumental readings before that point. Yes, there has been research on the divergence problem. It appears to be due to climate change induced drought and other human-induced impacts. This has impacted on tree growth.

Again, How is Micheal Mann still a credible scientist? For that matter, how is Phil Jones still a credible scientist?

To be fair, I find them both a little more credible than you. But that's just my opinion, dude.