Global warming ruins hockey

[Skybird]

Or was it the other way around...

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...nts_costs.html

http://www.ccfsh.org/climate/climate...tish-columbia/

Not the first of its kind.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/...the-backstory/

The Greta is not amused.


Political and ideological consensus is the death of scientific curiosity. Doubts are no heresy, but tools of enlightenment. And little school girls bunking off school lessons, are no climate experts.

[Rockstar]

http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=9125


A sceptic’s guide to global temperatures

Posted on August 29, 2019 by Clive Best

Climate change may well turn out to be a benign problem rather than the severe problem or “emergency” it is claimed to be. This will eventually depend on just how much the earth’s climate is warming due to our transient but relatively large increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. This is why it is so important to accurately and impartially measure the earth’s average temperature rise since 1850. It turns out that such a measurement is neither straightforward, independent nor easy. For some climate scientists there sometimes appears to be a slight temptation to exaggerate recent warming, perhaps because their careers and status improve the higher temperatures rise. They are human like the rest of us. Similarly the green energy lobby welcome each scarier temperature increase to push ever more funding for their unproven solutions, never really explaining how they could possibly work better than a rapid expansion in nuclear energy instead...

[Skybird]

While I see climate chnage as a reality and humanity as one factor amongst several attributing to it, I am pissed by the IPCC hysteria rousing which gives a very strong impression of that what it really is about is wealth transfer from haves to have-nots and from Western corrupt regimes to third world corrupt regimes, abusing climate as an excuse for in principle inter-state plundering and its legalization.



Reminds me of how health arguments and their sometimes extremely weak foundations serve as a strawman for propagating ideological bio-food demands and vegan food ideology, or artifically reset health definitions for exmaple for blood pressure or cholesterine levels serve as an excuse to boost the sale of according drugs: by defining more healthy people as now "ill" and in need of treatment.



When I then read additionally that they maintain a list of hundreds of climate-sceptical scientists who refuse the IPCC "reports" so that science magazinse should use these name lists to know which scientists they shall no more publish, so that these scientists and their data and conclusions remain unheard, then I am really done with it all.


The scientific methodology is the most superior tool we have, but the academic every-day-business routine is rotten and corrupted to the very core.

[Dowly]

Mann's research has been reproduced a number of times, the end result has been more or less the same each time.


EDIT: Mann's attorney states that the court made no decision either way since it was Ball who asked it to be terminated due to it dragging on and his health being poor. He didn't win a thing and neither was this a blow against Mann's 'Hockey Stick'.


Said statement: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EC1R41CW4AAt959.jpg

[Skybird]

Has it? It has always been "confirmed" by the same campers, and objecitng data and models are actively being oppressed.


It seems you miss the main implication of all this. The perception and debate is highly biased and is being tuned.



The court certainly did not buy Mann's excuses why he refuses to release his raw data. But that would be what science does: rechecking claims, models, theories and data. since Mann has always refused to release his raw data, it cannot be rechecked: it cannot be confirmed or falsified. In other words: from a strictly methodological point of view, Mann's statements are just claims, nothing mre.



He would not be the first prominent scientist forging data or theories. There have been quite some highly prolific scandals of this kind in the history of science.



As I pointed out, there are very strong financial and economic interests in having only this wanted version of the narraiton told in public, and staying silent on what contradicts the "official" version. The IPCC in my eyes has lost any trustworthiness and credibility, there have eben more scandals about it and dubious figures at its helm than I have kept track of.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Has it?

Yes, here's a list of some of them:
http://environmentalforest.blogspot....-for-team.html

The court certainly did not buy Mann's excuses why he refuses to release his raw data. But that would be what science does: rechecking claims, models, theories and data. since Mann has always refused to release his raw data, it cannot be rechecked: it cannot be confirmed or falsified. In other words: from a strictly methodological point of view, Mann's statements are just claims, nothing mre.

Here's Mann's raw data, available for over a decade:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/pu...ch/MANNETAL98/

[Skybird]

I refer back to my first link.

[Catfish]

"The American Thinker"?

I'll spare me reading that.

[Rockstar]

I for one dont think for a moment the consensus science band wagon has absolute truth. As Dowly pointed out RAW data is there but it doesn't mean the way or what was collected and assembled was the correct or only way. Nobody here has a clue what the numbers mean anyway. For all I know it could be code for grandma's chocolate chip cookie recipe.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

As Dowly pointed out RAW data is there but it doesn't mean the way or what was collected and assembled was the correct or only way. Nobody here has a clue what the numbers mean anyway. For all I know it could be code for grandma's chocolate chip cookie recipe.

You're right, but Mann's paper isn't the only one. In the past 20 years there has been a number of papers that have found their own hockey sticks using their own data.


Mann's paper simply gets mentioned because it was among the first (or the first?) and so is the most popular of them.

[Rockstar]

The point was that even in 2004 not everyone agreed with Mann's data especially the methods he used to obtain the results he came up with.

Unfortunately, discussion of this plot has been so polluted by political and activist frenzy that it is hard to dig into it to reach the science. My earlier column was largely a plea to let science proceed unmolested. Unfortunately, the very importance of the issue has made careful science difficult to pursue

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/4...ing-bombshell/


You do remember Rene Blondlot and his discovery of N-Rays don't you? I kinda figured that, dont feel bad nobody else does either! Nor does anyone remember the 120 or so other scientists claiming to have reproduced his work. Scientists are human their desires for fortune and glory sometimes far outweigh common sense and objectivness. Just think how different it could have been for Blondlot? If only he had the internet and politicians to make use of his discovery for their political gain. He would have been famous.

Besides the defense lawyers, politicians, and activists. Who among those named scientists claiming to have reproduced Mann's work have stood up to defend Mann's position?

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

The point was that even in 2004 not everyone agreed with Mann's data especially the methods he used to obtain the results he came up with.

Yes, McIntyre and McKitrick released a paper (past peer review) that challenged Mann's hockey stick (giggity). In turn, Wahl and Ammann 2007 refuted their findings, stating their methodology was flawed (or something to that effect, can't remember).

Besides the defense lawyers, politicians, and activists. Who among those named scientists claiming to have reproduced Mann's work have stood up to defend Mann's position?

Why should they? The numerous independent papers already corroborate Mann's as does temperature data. No need to get into a shouting match. Especially with a climate change denialist.

And now you're doing what I talked about earlier in the thread; Mann's paper gets all the attention while the 20-30+ other papers are forgotten. Hell, even IF Mann's paper would turn out to be complete bollocks, it wouldn't mean the others are since they don't rely on Mann's work.