Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Review)   PSU's other scandal: "He was the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation"   (nationalreview.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, PSU, Jerry Sandusky, Rand Simberg, climatologies, Michael Mann, FBI Director Louis Freeh, Graham Spanier, Unabomber  
•       •       •

3564 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Jul 2012 at 1:47 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



429 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-16 09:00:19 PM  

Kome: jigger: Yeah, where in there is an explanation of Mann's methods?

Remember where this started? Mann's hockey stick is bunk.

But we can go into a different topic if you wish. Which proxy method is more stringent and rigorous than tree rings? Or a better question is which method is more accurate? Ice core "rings"?

I'm not explaining Mann's method because I am not an expert in that methodology. I am, however, familiar with how science is generally conducted. And that's why I brought up the idea of convergent validity. Let me explain by analogy: You have 10 eyewitnesses to a crime, none of whom have ever met before and have no reason to collaborate in coming up with an explanation for the police. Nine of them say one thing happened and the 10th one says another happened. One of the nine is very weird and even though he independently and without prompting came up with a nearly identical story as the other eight, there is something very untrustworthy about him. As the lead investigator on the case, based solely on the details provided by the eyewitnesses, which story do you investigate first under the assumption that it is more deserving of more immediate investigation?

Just because there is a weak link in a network doesn't mean breaking the weak link brings the entire network down. All it does, most of the time, is remove the weakest link in the network leaving the other chains and links untouched.


Tell me what the strong links are in paleoclimatology. Which one can be used as a thermometer with such accuracy that we can tack on a modern instrumental temperature to the end?
 
2012-07-16 09:03:12 PM  

jigger: The proxy data didn't match the instrumental data (as in it was WAY off) so they just excised it. That's crap science.


Then I imagine you have a huge beef with neuroscience and astrophysics. Because, frankly, the methods employed by those sciences (and, you know, by extension all the lives saved by results of the former and technologies invented by results of the latter) are often a lot sketchier than the data cleaning (as I understand it) performed by climate scientists such as Mann. Granted, as I said, I'm not an expert in that methodology, but data cleaning is such a massive part of science that no one really bats an eye when a publication explains the techniques they used to make their data make sense.
 
2012-07-16 09:04:39 PM  

jigger: Tell me what the strong links are in paleoclimatology. Which one can be used as a thermometer with such accuracy that we can tack on a modern instrumental temperature to the end?Someone please explain science to me, and use small words.

 
2012-07-16 09:05:49 PM  
The author is all wrong. He was the hitler of climate science except that instead of putting jews in ovens, he put data in ovens to die.

Or something. Whatever.
 
2012-07-16 09:12:56 PM  

Kome: Then I imagine you have a huge beef with neuroscience and astrophysics.


It depends on what you're talking about. Sure, most neuroscience seems fine and some leads to improved lives. That's great. But, some "neuroscience" is pure shiat. I've seen actual scientists claim shiat about an afterlife because the quantum information stored in the brain goes into the universe or some other shiat they pulled out of their asses.

Astrophysics is pretty precise in most areas. Which parts are you saying are sketchy? Dark matter and dark energy? Ok, but at least they admit they don't know what it is. Sometimes they have the balls to admit that maybe they don't exist and they've got something else fundamentally wrong.

Kome: data cleaning is such a massive part of science that no one really bats an eye when a publication explains the techniques they used to make their data make sense.


The excised data was the "cleaned" data. Nothing they could do could make it match the instrumental record, so they made it disappear. That's crap science no matter who you ask.
 
2012-07-16 09:13:19 PM  

Gergesa: The author is all wrong. He was the hitler of climate science except that instead of putting jews in ovens, he put data in ovens to die.

Or something. Whatever.


This thread needs more Happy Hitler gifs.

img.izismile.com

 
2012-07-16 09:19:34 PM  

jigger: The excised data was the "cleaned" data. Nothing they could do could make it match the instrumental record, so they made it disappear. That's crap science no matter who you ask.


No they didn't, you lying goddamned moron. It's right here, all of it. You don't even know what you're upset about; if they had "made the data disappear" there wouldn't be this nontroversy because it never would have been matched in the first place. Sweet merciful fark.
 
2012-07-16 09:24:12 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: jigger: Oh ok. This old textbook explains dendrochronology and all its associated pitfalls. Go to chapter 3 "Data Analysis" where it says, "Although the use of tree rings for the studying environmental changes is widespread, the extraction of the desired signal from the unwanted noise can be difficult and uncertain." The rest of the chapter makes you realize that this is a vast understatement. It's statistical astrology that to make it work requires almost flawless statistical methods. Mann's methods were sloppy at best, or at least expert statisticians who were being nice said as much.

That would be the textbook written by Edward Cook and Keith Briffa, right?
[i.imgur.com image 696x358]

You know, the guy you claim is totally unreliable for employing "Mike's nature trick" in the first place. So tell us, completely ignorant freak that clearly knows nothing about what he's talking about, if Keith Briffa is good enough to write the textbook you cite to rebut Keith Briffa's studies, why is Keith Briffa not good enough to write the studies that avoid the "pitfalls" he wrote the textbook on?

God, what a loser.

For anybody who is undecided on whether AGW is true or false, look at what just happened here. A guy whining about "Mike's nature trick" (something he doesn't understand, and can be explained step-by-step as to what Briffa was doing there, and why, and no, not only is it not deceptive, it didn't even make it into Briffa's final report, something jigger clearly doesn't know).

Do you want to believe AGW proponents, who have science so strongly on our side that our opponents' own reasoning destroys itself (as we just saw), or do you want to trust a lackwit idiot who literally just claimed the guy who wrote the textbook (he's citing, no less) on dendro walked into one of his own pitfalls a decade later?


LOL.
 
2012-07-16 09:25:57 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: jigger: The excised data was the "cleaned" data. Nothing they could do could make it match the instrumental record, so they made it disappear. That's crap science no matter who you ask.

No they didn't, you lying goddamned moron. It's right here, all of it. You don't even know what you're upset about; if they had "made the data disappear" there wouldn't be this nontroversy because it never would have been matched in the first place. Sweet merciful fark.


Wow, talk about not know WTF you're talking about. You linked to the HadCRUT3 instrumental record. Is any of that proxy data of any kind? NO.

Here, watch this little lesson on "hide the decline".

In the end he says that he'll lead a study to "redo all this in a transparent way." Well, they redid the analysis of the instrumental record, but they didn't begin to touch on proxies. I do wonder if they'll make a go at it, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
2012-07-16 09:27:31 PM  

jigger: A Dark Evil Omen: jigger: The excised data was the "cleaned" data. Nothing they could do could make it match the instrumental record, so they made it disappear. That's crap science no matter who you ask.

No they didn't, you lying goddamned moron. It's right here, all of it. You don't even know what you're upset about; if they had "made the data disappear" there wouldn't be this nontroversy because it never would have been matched in the first place. Sweet merciful fark.

Wow, talk about not know WTF you're talking about. You linked to the HadCRUT3 instrumental record. Is any of that proxy data of any kind? NO.

Here, watch this little lesson on "hide the decline".

In the end he says that he'll lead a study to "redo all this in a transparent way." Well, they redid the analysis of the instrumental record, but they didn't begin to touch on proxies. I do wonder if they'll make a go at it, but I'm not holding my breath.


I don't have to watch your little Youtube bullshiat, I've read the source code that was leaked. I can do that because I actually know some things. It's a nonissue.
 
2012-07-16 09:28:06 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: chuckufarlie: I am getting very tired of dealing with lazy, shiftless stupid people.

Must be a hard life with so much self-loathing.


Why do you think he's here?
 
2012-07-16 09:28:40 PM  

Gyrfalcon: A Dark Evil Omen: chuckufarlie: I am getting very tired of dealing with lazy, shiftless stupid people.

Must be a hard life with so much self-loathing.

Why do you think he's here?


I guess. Is this like the troll version of cutting yourself?
 
2012-07-16 09:28:41 PM  

HighZoolander: LOL.


It's funny because they lied and hid data that they didn't like because it impugned their methods.
 
2012-07-16 09:29:54 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: I don't have to watch your little Youtube bullshiat, I've read the source code that was leaked. I can do that because I actually know some things. It's a nonissue.


Keep it up. You're arguing about one thing attempting to prove me wrong about another thing entirely. It's amusing, I have to admit.
 
2012-07-16 09:32:15 PM  
fark this. It's late. Good night.
 
2012-07-16 09:33:09 PM  

Lsherm: That has to be the most tortured metaphor roaming around the internet today.


Know how I know you don't listen to NPR?
 
2012-07-16 09:33:37 PM  

jigger: It depends on what you're talking about. Sure, most neuroscience seems fine and some leads to improved lives. That's great. But, some "neuroscience" is pure shiat. I've seen actual scientists claim shiat about an afterlife because the quantum information stored in the brain goes into the universe or some other shiat they pulled out of their asses.


For neuroscience, I'm talking about fMRI specifically, although I could just as easily levy this claim about a few other parts of neuroscience as a discipline. The entire use of it as a proxy measure for neural activity. It's actually something of a major controversy in the field right now. And yet, again because of issues like converging validity (in neuroscience, converging with other neural scanning techniques) and independent replication, it's still the single most used brain scanning technique for research purposes. Which, as I said, has been responsible for knowledge that has been used by physicians to save hundreds of millions of lives.

Astrophysics is pretty precise in most areas. Which parts are you saying are sketchy? Dark matter and dark energy? Ok, but at least they admit they don't know what it is. Sometimes they have the balls to admit that maybe they don't exist and they've got something else fundamentally wrong.

As for astrophysics, I hope you know that dark matter and dark energy are not measurement techniques, but theoretical constructs that serve as a proxy that have to be used in order to make physics models of the universe work. Do you have the slightest idea the kinds of washing techniques that have to be done on any image coming from space so that it can even be remotely legible to an astrophysicist, much less a layperson like you or I? Seriously, check out Phil Plait's blog every now and again, or browse through his archives, and he occasionally does go into some amazing detail about what exactly goes on to make an image taken by the instruments used make any kind of sense to a human.

The excised data was the "cleaned" data. Nothing they could do could make it match the instrumental record, so they made it disappear. That's crap science no matter who you ask.

Even if that were true, which it isn't in this case (that much of this case I do know) elimination of statistical outliers is a valid data cleaning technique. Every science uses it at some points, and things like microprocessors and insulin still work just fine almost all of the time. The thing that makes it unethical is not reporting that you eliminated statistical outliers and why you did so. The fact that we know he did anything with the data to make it "work" is, from a scientific ethics standpoint, incredibly advantageous for his claim that he didn't do anything unethical.

But I'm getting the feeling that in spite of what I've said, you don't seem to take issue with astrophysics and neuroscience in spite of being bigger "abusers" of similar techniques that you're taking massive issue with in this thread. Why is that?
 
2012-07-16 09:33:49 PM  
know how you know I fail at HTML?
 
2012-07-16 09:47:41 PM  

jigger: HighZoolander: LOL.

It's funny because they lied and hid data that they didn't like because it impugned their methods.


Or there was a healthy discussion in the literature about why the tree ring data diverged from other proxies recently. Here's a summary: Link

I know you understand what 'lie' means, but do you understand what the verb 'hide' means?

You seem to think that a public discussion taking place over 15+ years is the same as hiding something. Why is that?
 
2012-07-16 09:59:22 PM  

pdee: Not so much.

images.sciencedaily.com



Oh, you like that trend line that was worked out from data between 138 BC and 1900 too?

i.imgur.com

So much, apparently
 
2012-07-16 10:12:52 PM  
randomjsa (favorite: "Holy fnck you're an idiot." - Nina_Hartley's_Ass): One of these days all the so called "environmentalists" will actually wake up to real man-made environmental problems, of which there are many,

And climate change is one of them.

and we can actually work on solving them.

Only if you Publicans either lead, follow, or get the fnck out of the way.
 
2012-07-16 10:23:44 PM  

randomjsa: YoungSwedishBlonde: If mountains didn't want to be strip mined, then why did God decide to make them out of coal?

We need fossil fuels and no amount of crying about "renewable" and "conservation" is going to change that fact. Development of all energy sources must go forward.


Dollars, Dollars über alles,
Über alles in die Welt....

1) There's only so much oil, coal and gas in the ground, tar sands or no. We can start developing renewable sources when oil is $300/bbl and even the Magic Kingdom is tapped out, or we can start now.

2) You wingnuts don't believe in global warming, but you do believe in the global jihad. Yet you gladly fund the House of Saud, which then funds Wahabbi madrassas.
 
2012-07-16 10:36:12 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: jigger: Oh ok. This old textbook explains dendrochronology and all its associated pitfalls. Go to chapter 3 "Data Analysis" where it says, "Although the use of tree rings for the studying environmental changes is widespread, the extraction of the desired signal from the unwanted noise can be difficult and uncertain." The rest of the chapter makes you realize that this is a vast understatement. It's statistical astrology that to make it work requires almost flawless statistical methods. Mann's methods were sloppy at best, or at least expert statisticians who were being nice said as much.

That would be the textbook written by Edward Cook and Keith Briffa, right?
[i.imgur.com image 696x358]

You know, the guy you claim is totally unreliable for employing "Mike's nature trick" in the first place. So tell us, completely ignorant freak that clearly knows nothing about what he's talking about, if Keith Briffa is good enough to write the textbook you cite to rebut Keith Briffa's studies, why is Keith Briffa not good enough to write the studies that avoid the "pitfalls" he wrote the textbook on?

God, what a loser.

For anybody who is undecided on whether AGW is true or false, look at what just happened here. A guy whining about "Mike's nature trick" (something he doesn't understand, and can be explained step-by-step as to what Briffa was doing there, and why, and no, not only is it not deceptive, it didn't even make it into Briffa's final report, something jigger clearly doesn't know).

Do you want to believe AGW proponents, who have science so strongly on our side that our opponents' own reasoning destroys itself (as we just saw), or do you want to trust a lackwit idiot who literally just claimed the guy who wrote the textbook (he's citing, no less) on dendro walked into one of his own pitfalls a decade later?


[ohsnap.jpg]
 
2012-07-16 10:41:07 PM  

jigger: It depends on what you're talking about. Sure, most neuroscience seems fine and some leads to improved lives. That's great. But, some "neuroscience" is pure shiat. I've seen actual scientists claim shiat about an afterlife because the quantum information stored in the brain goes into the universe or some other shiat they pulled out of their asses.


Those guys are as much neuroscientists as scientologists are physicists. Just because someone says they're something doesn't mean they have any clue what they're talking about.
 
2012-07-16 10:49:08 PM  
Insert youlosegooddaysir.gif here
 
2012-07-16 10:58:26 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: For anybody interested in brutalizing the very educated jigger who knows everything about the situation and is very curious and on the ball in the future using that post


What an educated jigger may look like:

www.moodindigonewyork.com



Well, it is graduated.
 
2012-07-16 11:02:12 PM  
Dr. Mojo PhD

i140.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-16 11:27:06 PM  
Science Denial is a Blind Faith indeed.

Like the Flat Earthers and Heliocentrists before them.

The fact that large energy concerns spend millions annually on pseudo scientists and corporate propaganda to help perpetuate the myths and muddy the waters of debate aint helping. It just allows whack-a-doodles to pretend they have the first clue in debates on the subject.

The Church of the Whacky Denier has two primary tenets.

First: Climate Change is massive scam cooked up by scientists around the world over the last couple hundred years.

Second: The Mann Hockey Stick Graph has been completely debunked.

Anyone who buys into either of those beliefs here in 2012 is functionally brain dead.

/Nice work on this thread, Doc M. Phd.
 
2012-07-16 11:27:40 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: And a redundant screenshot of the post in question:


"Page not found"
FYI.
 
2012-07-16 11:32:11 PM  

ox45tallboy: Well, it is graduated.


Groan.
 
2012-07-16 11:32:16 PM  

jigger: fark this. It's late. Good night.


Getting pwned by the truth is an ugly way to die.

Ugly, but fitting.
 
2012-07-16 11:34:41 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: Dr. Mojo PhD: And a redundant screenshot of the post in question:

"Page not found"
FYI.


Stupid-ass Fark filters. Take out the a in biatch.
 
2012-07-16 11:46:19 PM  
Michael Mann raped people with the mind of a child with a hockey stick? And then the Manncrush let him get away with it? Sounds like MannBearPig has some 'splaining to do.
 
2012-07-16 11:46:41 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: ox45tallboy: Well, it is graduated.

Groan.


Oh, come on. That took effort. Do you know how many pictures of bar implements I had to look for to find that?
 
2012-07-17 12:15:36 AM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: NOW GO HOME AND GET YOUR F*CKING SHINEBOX.


See, I was just smiling at this whole post. Then I read that line and I'm in tears with laughter.

Well played, Dr. Well played.
 
2012-07-17 12:30:10 AM  
Poe's Law, and 3 annoying trolls aside, I'd still like to point out to everyone that the US is still the only world power that has not signed onto Kyoto, or for that matter, drafted a new treaty that deals with the impacts of climate change 20 years later.

Know something? Nothing like it has a snowball's chance in hell of being considered unless we stop electing Republicans to Congress, and of course, the White House.

Just a final thought.
 
2012-07-17 12:57:19 AM  

ox45tallboy: Dr. Mojo PhD: ox45tallboy: Well, it is graduated.

Groan.

Oh, come on. That took effort. Do you know how many pictures of bar implements I had to look for to find that?


I rather enjoyed that one, actually.
 
2012-07-17 01:14:38 AM  

Mr. NoGo GED: Derp

So what you're saying is that Briffa and Jones published a decline and Mann found a magic tree in Yamal which he carved into a hockey stick and billions of dollars. Briffa and Jones looked on quite flabbergasted and said "brilliant!" The tree is the goose that laid the golden egg! If it funds our research, we'll say anything you want.
 
2012-07-17 01:16:53 AM  

Chimperror2: If it funds our research, we'll say anything you want.



So trust the business lobby
 
2012-07-17 01:32:26 AM  

intelligent comment below: Chimperror2: If it funds our research, we'll say anything you want.


So trust the business lobby


At least the don't pretend.

"We drill in the Gulf because.....Consensus. That's the ticket. Oh wait, we drill there because of the billions of dollars of oil. Gotcha."
 
2012-07-17 03:11:28 AM  

intelligent comment below: Chimperror2: If it funds our research, we'll say anything you want.

So trust the business lobby


Keep in mind he just said "so what you're saying" and extrapolated what I was actually saying -- that Briffa and Jones didn't lie or deceive anybody -- into some sort of magic negative. Yes, because they didn't deceive anybody, they're guilty. And if they had deceived people, they'd still be guilty. Any independent third party not yet decided on global warming has a bonus opportunity to help them decide how to make up their mind:

Now, not only did jigger outright lie (after assurances that he really knew the score), but after I busted him hard, Chimperror2, another global warming contrarian comes along and says that if scientists did lie, they're guilty, and if they didn't lie, they're also guilty. Boys and girls who don't know yet about global warming, does that sound like the position an honest man would take? Does that sound like a position an honest man would need to take? Of course not. From this, we can dedude that global warming contrarianism is built on a house of lies.

He also incorrectly attributes Yamal to Michael Mann (Mann found a magic tree in Yamal... despite it being Briffa's study). Once again, boys and girls, how can a person who can't even tell two separate people apart (but assures us that he really, truly knows what's up with Yamal when he doesn't even know who wrote it) tell us about complicated science?

Babies learn to discriminate between faces quickly. Why should we trust a person who has demonstrated that they lack the cognitive skills of an infant on their opinions on hard science?
 
2012-07-17 03:15:54 AM  
FriarReb98:
1. Stop with the analogy, it's painful beyond words.

2. I'm almost convinced that there's one truth in the Mann part of the story: There are people who believe in climate change, and there are people who don't. The gray area is very, very small, and the two sides aren't going to change their mind for any amount of evidence.

\me? I'll just do what I can to help the environment. What's the worst that happens?


cache.gawkerassets.com

 
2012-07-17 03:50:51 AM  
Confabulat:
Remember kids, a modern educated climatologist is essentially the same as a child rapist. Down with child rape (and science!)

I was shaking my head at TFA, and the tortured use of hyperbole -- until I saw crap like THIS in the thread.

Are all of you making this conclusion so colossally dim that someone pointing out that PSU's culture is corrupt, and their whitewash of Mann needs another look is something you can only view as equating scientific fraud with child rape? Really? No more mental acuity than that? How sad.

And, did you also happen to miss that the author of TFA is showing what ANOTHER AUTHOR wrote, and commenting that he thinks the other author took the analogy too far. None of that got through? Another one of those "Kill the heretic, discredit everything they say!" kind of responses, huh?

For those of you cognitively impaired, here's a tiny summary of TFA: If the culture at PSU is so corrupt that it can find no problems with a prolific serial child rapist, the fact that they cleared Michael Mann of fraud essentially means nothing.

Despite what the warmtards' blather, most of the Farkers who read the climate threads have the personal resources to see that Mann has used fraud to advance his "cause" by themselves. And, in reference to the "hockey stick" program which ALTERED the data before printing it, and made almost any ascending input look exactly the same, graphing programs are not supposed to massage data to produce the graph shape you want -- they are supposed to graph the data as they are.

There's a Garfield cartoon that is like a totem for me... In the first panel, Jon is reading the paper peacefully. In the second, he has jumped straight up in the air, the paper has been hurled into the air and "CRASH!" is in giant text across the top of the frame in an arc. Jon runs into the other room where Garfield sits on a counter, with a destroyed potted palm below him, clearly knocked over by him. He is standing there with an innocent look on his face, holding his teddy bear, Pooky in one "hand," and pointing at the bear with the other hand, clearly trying to blame the bear for the mess. In the last panel, Jon looks at the audience and says "It's not his lying to me that makes me upset, it's the credit he gives my intelligence."

That describes Mann to a tee. Anyone not parroting warmer alarmist talking points, and actually LOOKING at the work Mann has done can see the flaws for themselves. For example, doing a "survey" of current literature, EACH PAPER OF WHICH SHOWS THE MWP, and then concluding that there is no evidence to support the idea that the medieval warm period was global.

If he's going to commit fraud, the LEAST he could do is put some effort into it, and make it difficult to determine that he is fraudulent. It's like he is exhibiting contempt for anyone critical of him, implying that they don't have the observational powers of a ten-year-old; but, oddly enough, they do.

Science itself must police its members for fraud, as many are not competent to discover it -- except in Mann's case, where he seems to be taunting the reader. If science steps on the frauds, and tosses out their work, it will redeem it's currently tarnished image. But, if scientists line up to protect the fraud from the consequences of his actions, then actual mistrust of science will grow, and rightfully so.

So, if SCIENCE is your objective, then you should want an actual impartial examination of Mann's work by scientists, this time including at least one witness who at least claims to have discovered fraud. Getting all of Mann's co-workers, and others who benefit from the grants his fraud has lassoed for PSU, into a giant circle-jerk and pretending not to see the blatant fraud is more or less expected behavior from educational bureaucrats. But scientists are not supposed to support fraud, irrespective of the grant money involved.
 
2012-07-17 03:54:11 AM  
Dull Cow Eyes:
Cyclometh: This is all you need to know:


The GOP Democratic Party compares climate scientists to child rapists because they don't like their conclusions.


/i just wanted to post something equally as retarded and irritating

Mission accomplished. Fine work.
 
2012-07-17 04:01:03 AM  
TabASlotB:
jigger: Ryan2065: So Mann is the same as Sandusky because he published a paper in a peer reviewed paper that has been independently verified by studies since and has yet to be disproven...

[i145.photobucket.com image 300x300]

If by "yet to be disproven" you mean "thoroughly debunked" then, yeah.

If by "thoroughly debunked" you mean "Since 1999, there have been many independent reconstructions of past temperatures, using a variety of proxy data and a number of different methodologies. All find the same result - that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes)" then, yeah.

Oh, really? Actually, it's only fraudulent studies which show that, like Briffa's, and Mann's, which relies heavily upon Briffa's BS, cherry-picked bristlecone pine data set. Real multi-proxy studies look very much like this:

www.drroyspencer.com

 
2012-07-17 04:10:14 AM  
chimp_ninja:
jigger: Ryan2065: So Mann is the same as Sandusky because he published a paper in a peer reviewed paper that has been independently verified by studies since and has yet to be disproven...

[i145.photobucket.com image 300x300]

If by "yet to be disproven" you mean "thoroughly debunked" then, yeah.

Mann's temperature reconstructions, overlaid on common axes with results from many other groups:

[www.pnas.org image 424x440]

Please point to the problem. Source is the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Shaded areas denote measurement uncertainty. The original 'hockey stick' graph is Mann's 1999 study, which you can barely see buried under the other, similar lines.

"Please point to the problem," you say. Okay. Right there in the paper list. LOTS of papers by Briffa, Mann, and Jones -- the three stooges of climatology. Additionally, temperature reconstructions should NOT use tree-rings as a proxy for temperature. Were you aware that tree-rings are also used as a proxy for rainfall? Clearly, it can't be both -- at least not reliably. And, in the ultimate irony, tree-rings also respond to increases in carbon dioxide, defeating the whole purpost of using them to study the effects of increasing carbon dioxide.
 
2012-07-17 04:17:48 AM  
Lusebagage:
"he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet."

Poor Lieutenant Commander Data, He may immune to nearly all biological diseases and other weaknesses that can affect humans, including climate change, but he can't escape the Mann!

All kidding aside, "could" is the operable word here. It hasn't, so the point is moot, dispite who he may or may not have dittled!

He committed fraud, in order to support a massive power and money grab by governmental units up to and including the U.N., but it's okay because maybe the draconian crap based on his fraud won't get passed? Really? Is that what you're going with?

Well, since this IS a hyperbole thread.... So, Adolph Hitler tried to enslave the world, but it's okay since he didn't succeed? Yikes.
 
2012-07-17 04:17:55 AM  

GeneralJim: Oh, really? Actually, it's only fraudulent studies which show that, like Briffa's, and Mann's, which relies heavily upon Briffa's BS, cherry-picked bristlecone pine data set. Real multi-proxy studies look very much like this:


What GeneralJim isn't telling you here, because he lacks intellectual curiosity and doesn't bother to vet his sources (he mirrored the image from Dr. Roy Spencer), is that this was from Dr. Craig Loehle. Ooh, what's he a doctor in? If anybody guessed "NOT climate-related fields", you'd be right!

Dr. Craig Loehle
He received a B.S. in forest science from the University of Georgia, a M.S. in forest management from the University of Washington, and a Ph.D. in range management (mathematical ecology) from Colorado State University.

Forest science, forest management, range management.

Would you trust Dr. Alfred Kinsey, as good as he might be in biology and zoology, to tell you about particle physics? Of course not, you'd go to a physicist!

Notice how when the Heartland Institute proudly brags about featuring Dr. Loehle, they refer to him as a "scientist", but never what his science field is? He works for the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement. Very fancy, right? It was founded by paper and pulp companies. One of those PR names by a big industry to sound feel-good. But yeah, I'm sure a guy with a degree in range management knows more about climate than three climatologists. That's plausible.

I also go to my car mechanic for dental work.
 
2012-07-17 04:22:08 AM  

GeneralJim: Are all of you making this conclusion so colossally dim that someone pointing out that PSU's culture is corrupt, and their whitewash of Mann needs another look is something you can only view as equating scientific fraud with child rape? Really? No more mental acuity than that? How sad.


GeneralJim: He committed fraud, in order to support a massive power and money grab by governmental units up to and including the U.N., but it's okay because maybe the draconian crap based on his fraud won't get passed? Really? Is that what you're going with?

Well, since this IS a hyperbole thread.... So, Adolph Hitler tried to enslave the world, but it's okay since he didn't succeed? Yikes.


Remember when I said GeneralJim lacked internal moral consistency, boys and girls? This is what I was talking about.
 
2012-07-17 04:32:10 AM  
Is GJ still trying to pretend that it was only PSU that vindicated Mann's work?

Wotta kidder that guy is.

Keep it up, funnyman.
 
Displayed 50 of 429 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report