Comment: The machinations of Mann continue, here we see a shining example of the “team ethic” when it comes to communications and attribution. – Anthony
Comment: The machinations of Mann continue, here we see a shining example of the “team ethic” when it comes to communications and attribution. – Anthony
OT: UEA defends its record on cheating:
http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/uea_defends_its_record_on_cheating_1_1227357
Fish rots from the head.
[SNIP: How about staying on topic? -REP]
The list of PHD’s in statistics who attend/attended the U.N. Climate change meetings at the same time as Mann etal would be a starting point on the who/what/when/where they got the experts to aid in the orginal misuse of statistics and the follow up misuse of computer modeling programs that enabled the false trail everyone was sent down as the warming lemmings gathered grants and votes by elected ones in need of re-election money.
It is very possible one or more of these over used and misused PHD’s might be ready to cop a plea before the truth be known by others who just might be a bit on the mad side of elected ones about to reep the ill winds blowing about in current re-election cycles world wide.
To keep it simple, we need a snitch.
And on a related note, readers might be interested in:
Sunday shocker: Michael Mann misrepresents … again
in which further examples of the “revisionist scholarship” to be found in Mann’s latest opus are discussed. My conclusion is that Mann’s work might be more aptly titled, Portrait of the Artist as an Aggrieved Mann: A Novel
Thanks, Anthony, for reposting this here.
However, I would appreciate it if readers would make substantial comments over at CA, in order to keep them all in one place: http://climateaudit.org/2012/03/04/mann-on-irreproducible-results-in-thompson-pnas-2006/
Thanks!
Omigod, license to be substance free. At last, at last!
============================
Ummm,
When I go to CA, I am flooded with too much information.
I seem to have a lifetime ban over there for using the Frod word. Twice. >:-p Perfectly justified uses, of course, but I guess SM doesn’t/didn’t want to invite attention from The Mann (and his litigious legal beagles). ‘Fair dinkum’, as the Oz-balls say.
Mann seems to have a novel recollection to match his statistics. The Antarctic Warming issue has been and will continue to be amusing. I am sure there will be a lively discussion on the AR5 recollection of the events coming to a head in the near future.
u.k.(us) says:
March 4, 2012 at 5:21 pm
Ummm,
When I go to CA, I am flooded with too much information.
As Einstein very properly pointed out with words to the effect of: “It does not matter if they claim 10,000 things wrong with my theory; it would only take one fact to prove me wrong.”
I suspect at CA you not being flooded with too much information, but being flooded with much too much dogmatic mythinformation to be able to find what (little of) their statements are true.
I go to CA for forensic science. It is stated as :
“Forensic science has shaped the world of justice, fuelling crime investigations and signifying the progress of modern technology.
Forensic science of today covers :
Modern computer/clay facial reconstruction;
DNA fingerprinting;
Autopsy techniques;
Forensic anthropology;
Toxicology and much more.
What more reliable method is there to prove innocent or guilty other than through science?”
This needs an additional field ” Exposing errors, ommisions and tricks in Climate Science”
Mann should be ignored. EOF
RACookPE1978 says:
March 4, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Could you elaborate and provide citations? I am not aware of anything at CA that is erroneous, except a few items that have been publicly corrected by the authors.
Now if you meant RC, then I could wholeheartedly agree.
Got to love the line from the Reference Frame article
“– the AGW realists (scientists and bloggers) are a collection of really smart people with elephant sized bull shit detectors who know a scam when they see one.”
Over to you Dr Mann 🙂
Jer0me says:
March 4, 2012 at 7:26 pm (responding to)
RACookPE1978 says:
March 4, 2012 at 5:53 pm
I suspect at CA you not being flooded with too much information, but being flooded with much too much dogmatic mythinformation to be able to find what (little of) their statements are true.
Could you elaborate and provide citations? I am not aware of anything at CA that is erroneous, except a few items that have been publicly corrected by the authors.
Now if you meant RC, then I could wholeheartedly agree.
—–
Thank you for the prompt correction: Yes, I was thinking of Real Climate (RC) in my remarks, NOT Climate Audit (CA) – which is reliable and verifiable, as you pointed out.
Again. Thank you for the courtesy of your correction.
Oooh, I’m glad I read the thread before I fell upon RACPE’78 with a substantial load of bricks.
=======================
There’s a Journal of Irreproducible Results where their work should be submitted.
Mann increasingly shows himself to be a showman rather than a scientist. He is grasping at book sales by fools before the fall. I seem to recall the same plot…..ah. The Music Man.
But somehow I doubt that Mann will be ….The Weather Mann.
One thing you can say about Mann. He is good at ‘rallying the troops’ for those predisposed to be hard core believers anyway. But he has turned the rest of us who started off as fence sitters, into rather determined sceptics.
Will Nitschke says: March 4, 2012 at 10:07 pm
And perhaps when the history book is written, this will turn out to be his greatest “accomplishment” and legacy 😉
All it needs is for peer to be interpreted correctly. The climate scientist have used peer in the sense of status in the climate science world. If it was interpreted as one of equal of higher proven ability in the particular skill under consideration and a much broader review group brought in the initial errors subsequently concealed deliberately would never have been possible.
Any data acquisition engineer will tell you the temperature network is an inadequate non purpose built network that is so highly flawed that any conclusions should be treated with extreme caution.
Hardly consistent with being the basis for science proven beyond question.
Hilary (hro001) has provided link to Brandon Shollenberger’s review of Mann’s book. Are there are other substantive and detailed reviews around? So far the critical reviews at Amazon have been unhelpful and non-substantive.