Global warming ruins hockey

[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.