Australian Politics Forum - Looks like the hockey stick is in a fight

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Looks like the hockey stick is in a fight
Aug 24^th, 2012 at 9:48pm

Climategate figure and Penn State Professor Michael Mann is threatening to sue National Review for a critical article of Mann and his now infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph of Northern Hemisphere temperatures claiming to show unprecedented 20th century warming.

See: National Review Responds to Michael Mann's lawsuit threat: 'Get Lost!' & Michael Mann lawsuit: 'Does Mann really want to litigate hockey stick in a court of law? Does he in fact want to dig into any of his unscientific behavior in a venue in which he will be under oath...''

Mann's lawyer John B. Williams of Cozen O'Connor issued the following statement on August 23, 2012.

Excerpt: “The response of the National Review is telling with respect to the issues it did not address. It did not address, or even acknowledge, the fact that Dr. Mann's research has been extensively reviewed by a number of independent parties, including the National Science Foundation, with never a suggestion of any fraud or research misconduct. It did not address, or even acknowledge, the fact that Dr. Mann's conclusions have been replicated by no fewer than twelve independent studies. It did not deny the fact that it was aware that Dr. Mann has been repeatedly exonerated of any fraudulent conduct.” (For the complete statement see here.)

Mann added: “We intend to file a lawsuit.” (For more on Mann's lawyer, see: Michael Mann lawyers up with Tobacco Lawyers! Represented by experienced defamation lawyer John B. Williams who successfully represented R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company)

Climate Depot responds to key points made by Mann's lawyer John B. Williams in the above statement.

Mann's lawyer John B. Williams: “...Dr. Mann's research has been extensively reviewed by a number of independent parties, including the National Science Foundation, with never a suggestion of any fraud or research misconduct'

Climate Depot Response: Mann's research has been subjected to nearly a decade of intense scrutiny by his colleagues, climate researchers and institutions. See: 2010: Head of UK Royal Statistical Society Prof. David Hand: Michael Mann's 'Hockey stick' graph was exaggerated -- 'The 'hockey stick' that became emblematic of the threat posed by climate change exaggerated the rise in temperature because it was created using 'inappropriate' methods...would have shown less dramatic results if more reliable techniques had been used to analyze the data'

2009: UN scientists turn on each other: UN Scientist Declares Climategate colleagues Mann, Jones and Rahmstorf 'should be barred from the IPCC process' -- They are 'not credible any more' -- UN IPCC's Eduardo Zorita: 'By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication'

'Wegman Report in 2006 had also warned of a small 'clique' of climate scientists - just 43 -- which operated to manufacture a consensus' -- 'An astonishingly small group of scientists - a number of whom faked data, destroyed evidence needed for checking, silenced skeptics and colluded in exaggerations - has corrupted the entire basis of global warming theory, and dominated the proceedings of the UN IPCC'

Flashback 2006: Wegman Report: 'We found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Michael Mann...closely connected'

Climate Audit's Steve McIntyre: 'Climategate Documents Confirm Wegman's Hypothesis' -- 'The Wegman Report was vindicated on its hypothesis about peer-review within the Mann 'clique' -- 'The Wegman Report hypothesized, but were unable to prove, that reviewers in the Mann 'clique' had been 'reviewing other members of the same clique'. Climategate provided the missing evidence, Climategate documents showed that clique member Phil Jones had reviewed papers by other members of the clique, including some of the articles most in controversy – confirming what the Wegman Report had only hypothesized'

Flashback 2010: New Book 'The Hockey Stick Illusion' details the case against Michael Mann's Hockey stick temp chart -- 'Exposes in delicious detail, datum by datum, how a great scientific mistake of immense political weight was perpetrated, defended and camouflaged by a scientific establishment that should now be red with shame'

2010: Wash. Post claims Mann's Hockey Stick was 'exonerated by NAS & Penn State. But Neither Claim is true' -- 'No part of NAS conclusion exonerates Mann or his hockey stick'

Steve McIntyre mocks warmist Raymond Bradley's defense of 'Hockey Stick': The 'Hockey Stick' outhouse was actually built of bristlecone pine' -- 'The more recent Mann et al 2008 was built at least, in part, out of mud. While the part using mud may well have been built robustly, it was also built upside down. A definite disadvantage when the outhouse is put to use'

2009: Claims that Hockey Stick has been verified by 'independent' evidence 'is not the case...same proxies are used over and over again'

2011: There He Goes Again: Mann Claims His Hockey Stick was Affirmed by the NAS – 'The NAS report did nothing of the sort, and in fact validated all of the significant criticisms of McIntyre & McKitrick (M&M) and the Wegman Report...The NAS found that Mann's methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero' – 'Mann never mentions that a subsequent House Energy and Commerce Committee report chaired by Edward Wegman totally destroyed the credibility of the 'hockey stick' and devastatingly ripped apart Mann's methodology as 'bad mathematics'. Furthermore, when Gerald North, the chairman of the NAS panel -- which Mann claims 'vindicated him' – was asked at the House Committee hearings whether or not they agreed with Wegman's harsh criticisms, he said they did:

CHAIRMAN BARTON: Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman's report?

DR. NORTH [Head of the NAS panel]: No, we don't. We don't disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

DR. BLOOMFIELD [Head of the Royal Statistical Society]: Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

WALLACE [of the American Statistical Association]: 'the two reports [Wegman's and NAS] were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.'

New paper in Journal of Climate 'documents surprising, and somewhat inexplicable, errors in some previous pseudo-proxy studies by Mann and collaborators'

Climategate 2.0: 1999 Briffa email: 'I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago' -- 'I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike [Mann] appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future background variability of our climate'

Blow to the Hockey Stick: New paper finds many tree-ring analyses to be highly biased -- New study calls for 'great caution in the interpretation of historical growth trends from tree-ring analyses.' The authors find that 'big tree selection bias' resulted in a fictitious 'doubling in growth rates over recent decades.' Consequently, tree-ring analyses claiming to link growth rates to historical temperatures would show a fictitious large 'hockey stick' increase in temperature over recent decades.

John L. Daly's message to Mike Mann and The Team: 'Mann's theory simply does not stack up...' 'What is at issue is the uncritical zeal with which the industry siezed on the theory before its scientific value had been properly tested. In one go,they tossed aside dozens of studies which confirmed the existence of the MWE and LIA as global events,and all on the basis of tree rings –a proxy which has all the deficiencies I have stated above'

Michael Mann email from 2006: 'We certainly don't know the GLOBAL mean temperature anomaly very well, and nobody has ever claimed we do'

German Prof. Slams Climate Claims – Calls Mann's Hockey Stick 'A Very Very Nasty Fabrication' -- Prof. Dr. Richard Dronskowski at Aachen U.: 'No chart has been so falsified as the hockey stick chart. It's an embarrassment for the IPCC' -- 'Dronskowski reminds his audience that the scientists are talking about 'tenths of a degree' with error margins “of a full degree' and that 'nobody can believe it'

UN IPCC scientist makes admission: E. Zorita: 'Past variations were probably larger than was originally believed' -- 'I was involved in the 'discovery' that climate reconstruction based on proxy indicators very likely provides only an underestimation of past climates. This means that past variations were probably larger than was originally believed'

Is Michael Mann's 'Hockey-Stick' Due To Sheep Crap!? Study Finds That Animals Influence Tree Ring Growth More Than Temperatures

much more
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/17202/Michael-Mann-says-lawsuit-against-National-R...

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Looks like the hockey stick is in a fight
Reply #1 - Aug 24^th, 2012 at 9:50pm

2012: Shollenberger's Technical Review of Mann's recent book -- For all the “technical” issues in Mann's papers, the controversy is actually very simple. Mann's papers give undue focus to a small amount of data. Even he and his supporters admit his original hockey stick was based entirely upon a small amount of tree ring data (which the NAS says should not be used to measure temperature). His latest hockey stick was the same, save he added upside down data which he couldn't possibly calibrate to temperature.

2012: A detailed review of Mann's book: The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars as it relates to the Wegman report to Congress -- Amazingly enough, Mann now admits his original hockey stick existed solely because of “one set of tree ring records,” directly contradicting his 1998 paper which said the reconstruction was “relatively robust to the inclusion of dendroclimatic indicators” (dendroclimatic indicators are tree ring data). Despite admitting he knew this, he has never corrected his original paper. Instead, he built upon that paper and never told people his conclusions were based on only a tiny fraction of the data he used.

History Of How The Hockey Stick Was Manufactured: 'Erased the MWP & LIA, erased 1930s & jacked up recent temps. The past got cooler & the present got warmer' -- 'Hansen and Mann had a huge problem. They had to create a spike in temperatures, get rid of tree-ring data, get rid of Medieval Warm Period, get rid of 1930s, get rid of 1970s ice age scare, & get rid of Little Ice Age. Warming 1970s didn't make much sense, so they instead chose to cool 1930s...And now we have this completely manufactured temperature trend. The spike that we see is indeed Mann-made, & Hansen-made'

# #

Mann's lawyer John B. Willaims: “...Dr. Mann has been repeatedly exonerated of any fraudulent conduct.”

Climate Depot Response: Mann has repeatedly cited the various Climategate investigations as some sort of “exoneration” of his work. But a closer look reveals that the investigations were nothing more than the global warming industry pretending to investigate itself and of course pretending to find no wrongdoing. No amount of sham Penn State or Lord Oxburgh or Muir Russell investigations can change the reality of the Climategate scandal.

See: Penn State's other investigation failure: 'Failure to ensure proper investigation of Climategate emails' of Michael Mann -- The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann — the paleoclimatologist who came up with “the hockey stick” — would be difficult to parody. Three of four allegations are dismissed out of hand at the outset'

Michael Mann threatens legal action over Steyn comment -- Cites various investigations into Climategate as evidence that there was no wrongdoing -- Reality Check on Climategate: Andrew Montford's report into four of those investigations found that to a greater or lesser degree, they were 'rushed, cursory and largely unpersuasive' -- 'The [Penn State] report...says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers – so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false'

Meet Prof. William Brune -- the man who helped 'exonerate' Climategate's Michael Mann! 'The Penn State reports in which Brune participated would be 'difficult to parody' -- Prof. Brune brags: 'I recruited [Mann] to Penn State.' Brune's report says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers — so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false' -- Report: Mann's 'success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research'

Penn State whitewashed ClimateGate: 'Federal govt IG has revealed prima facie proof that the so-called independent inquiries...were, in fact, whitewashes' -- 'The IG's report specifically reveals Penn State's wagon-circlers to have been at best comically negligent/inept in allowing Mann to not answer the damning charge they were tasked with examining: did he delete or ask others to delete records? At worst, they were complicit in the cover-up'

Climategates's Eugene Wahl to send Michael Mann to Big House?! Q. 'Did you ever receive a request by either Michael Mann or any others to delete any emails?'

Wahl's Answer: 'I did receive that email. That's the last one on your list here. I did receive that.'
Q. 'And what were the actions that you took?'
A. 'Well, to the best of my recollection, I did delete the emails.'
Q. 'So, did you find the request unusual, that they were — that the request — that you were being requested to delete such emails?'
A.' Well, I had never received one like it. In that sense, it was unusual.'

The Climategate and Jerry Sandusky Scandals: A Common Thread -- 'Spanier's 'investigation' of Jerry Sandusky was so thoroughly inept that it got him fired' -- 'Spanier stated that he had 'complete confidence in how they handled allegations against Sandusky,' & he was fired very shortly thereafter. The Freeh report indicates the investigation was conducted for purpose of finding nothing...it was a cover-up. It wasn't the only time Spanier rigged an inept investigation for the purpose of finding nothing. In 2010, his investigators found that Michael Mann had done nothing wrong when he invented his 'hockey stick trick'

Climatologist Declares: Climategate Whitewash Continues: Don't believe 'independent' reviews -- One 'independent' panelist was on faculty at Climategate's University of East Anglia -- 'Independent' Muir Russell Reivew was 'commissioned and paid for by University of East Anglia, exonerated University of East Anglia' -- 1 of the panel's 4 members, Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, was on faculty at UEA's School of Env. Sciences for 18 years...Last Dec. Mr. Boulton signed a petition declaring that the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia 'adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity'

Climate Depot's Exclusive Round Up of Climategate 2.0 -- Read about the most comprehensive report on the latest global warming scandal -- Even warmists are lamenting that Climate 2.o may be 'devastating': 'These [emails] sound worse than I thought at first – their impact will be devastating'

More on alleged Climategate 'investigations' here and here.

# #

Mann's lawyer John B. Williams: “...Dr. Mann's conclusions have been replicated by no fewer than twelve independent studies”

Climate Depot Response: Michael Mann's Hockey Stick temperature claims have been demolished in the scientific literature. The latest research clearly reveals that the Medieval Warm Period (used to be referred to as the Medieval Climate Optimum) has been verified and was in fact global, not just confined to the Northern Hemisphere. The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change reported in 2009 that the “Medieval Warm Period was: (1) global in extent, (2) at least as warm as, but likely even warmer than, the Current Warm Period, and (3) of a duration significantly longer than that of the Current Warm Period to date.”

In addition, The Science and Public Policy Institute reported in May 2009: “More than 700 scientists from 400 institutions in 40 countries have contributed peer-reviewed papers providing evidence that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was real, global, and warmer than the present. And the numbers grow larger daily.”

Climate Depot has assembled a small sampling of peer-reviewed studies, data and analyses that refute Michael Mann's Hockey Stick temperature claims of unprecedented 20th century warmth.

See: Evidence of Prior Unprecedented Global Warming Discovered In Scotland, Medieval Period Low CO2 Levels Likely At Fault

Medieval Warm Period found in 120 proxies. Plus Roman era was similar to early 20th Century -- 'Climate models cannot explain what caused warming 1000 years ago, nor cooling 300 years ago, so they can't rule out the same factors aren't changing the climate today (though they claim they can). If climate models can't explain the past, they can't predict the future'

Danish Meteorological Institute Scientist Issues Another takedown of UN & Michael Mann's 'Hockey Stick' -- 'We cannot from these reconstructions conclude that the previous 50-year period has been unique in the context of the last 500-1000 years'

Paper finds Medieval Warm Period in Arctic was much warmer than the present -- 'A paper published in Polar Research finds that temps at two sites in Arctic were much warmer than at the end of 20th century. At one site, Longyearbyen, the11-year running-mean peak winter temperature was a remarkable 9C warmer than at the end of the record in 2000. At the 2nd site, Vardo, the11-year running-mean peak winter temperature was about 3.3C warmer than at the end of the record in 2000'

New paper finds Medieval Warming Period was ~1°C warmer than current -- 'A new paper published in Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology finds that the Medieval Warming Period 'was warmer than the late 20th century by ~1°C.'

Paper finds Medieval Warm Period in Arctic was much warmer than the present -- 'A paper published in Polar Research finds that temps at two sites in Arctic were much warmer than at the end of 20th century. At one site, Longyearbyen, the11-year running-mean peak winter temperature was a remarkable 9C warmer than at the end of the record in 2000. At the 2nd site, Vardo, the11-year running-mean peak winter temperature was about 3.3C warmer than at the end of the record in 2000'

Earth was warmer in Roman and Medieval Times say German researchers -- 'While CBS touts a 'groundbreaking' government report linking extreme weather and climate change, German researchers find 2,000 years of cooling and warmer temps in medieval times and the Roman era'

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17029	Re: Looks like the hockey stick is in a fight Reply #2 - Aug 24^th, 2012 at 9:52pm too much information. Just go to the link in the first post if you want to sse the rest.
Back to top	IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Looks like the hockey stick is in a fight
Reply #3 - Aug 25^th, 2012 at 6:57am

Mann's response.

********
The response of the National Review is telling with respect to the issues it did not address. It did not address, or even acknowledge, the fact that Dr. Mann’s research has been extensively reviewed by a number of independent parties, including the National Science Foundation, with never a suggestion of any fraud or research misconduct. It did not address, or even acknowledge, the fact that Dr. Mann’s conclusions have been replicated by no fewer than twelve independent studies. It did not deny the fact that it was aware that Dr. Mann has been repeatedly exonerated of any fraudulent conduct. It did not deny the fact that it knew its allegations of fraud were false. Rather, the National Review’s defense seems to be that it did not really mean what it said last month when it accused Dr. Mann of fraud. Beyond this, the response is little more than an invective filled personal attack on Dr. Mann. And further, this attack is coupled with the transparent threat that the National Review intends to undertake burdensome and abusive litigation tactics should Dr. Mann have the temerity to attempt to defend himself in court.
*********

We intend to file a lawsuit.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Looks like the hockey stick is in a fight
Reply #4 - Aug 25^th, 2012 at 9:48am

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 24^th, 2012 at 9:48pm:

Climategate figure and Penn State Professor Michael Mann is threatening to sue National Review for a critical article of Mann and his now infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph of Northern Hemisphere temperatures claiming to show unprecedented 20th century warming.

It's about time that all defamed climatologists took out class actions.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Upton Sinclair

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 496

Re: Looks like the hockey stick is in a fight
Reply #5 - Aug 25^th, 2012 at 2:49pm

I urge everybody who cares to donate a few dollars to the Climate Science Legal Defence Fund: http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/

Quote:

The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund: Protecting the Scientific Endeavor

The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund was established with one goal: to protect the scientific endeavor. Scientific research has brought us amazing advancements in technology, medicine, and in our basic understanding of the planet. Over the last twenty years, a small handful of politically-motivated think tanks and legal foundations, because they disliked certain scientific findings, have taken legal action against scientific institutions and individual scientists. In recent years, the legal attacks have intensified, especially against climate scientists.

The scientific method is designed around the belief that skepticism is good. Results should be subjected to the utmost scrutiny through the peer review process, followed by close examination and replication by others in the scientific community. Those whose ideas do not live up to the standards of rigorous science have instead chosen to litigate.

For the individual scientist these legal actions are a painful burden. Academic salaries were not designed to support ongoing legal expenses. Legal actions also have taken many of our brightest scientific minds away from their research to focus on frivolous lawsuits. This state of affairs is unacceptable. The United States of America should be the leader in science and technology, and it cannot do so if unscrupulous people subject our scientists to these actions.

The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund was established to make sure that these legal claims are not viewed as an action against one scientist or institution, but that they are seen as actions against the scientific endeavor as a whole. As such the Fund will defend climate scientists who are dragged into litigation and act aggressively to protect the interests of the scientific endeavor.

In addition, the Climate Science Defense Fund will create platforms and opportunities for members of the scientific community to gain a better understanding of the legal issues surrounding their work.

Back to top

"I am not asking the Australian people to take me on trust, but on the record of a lifetime,"
--Tony Abbott

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Looks like the hockey stick is in a fight
Reply #6 - Aug 25^th, 2012 at 5:30pm

Upton Sinclair wrote on Aug 25^th, 2012 at 2:49pm:

I urge everybody who cares to donate a few dollars to the Climate Science Legal Defence Fund: http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/

Quote:

The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund: Protecting the Scientific Endeavor

The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund was established with one goal: to protect the scientific endeavor. Scientific research has brought us amazing advancements in technology, medicine, and in our basic understanding of the planet. Over the last twenty years, a small handful of politically-motivated think tanks and legal foundations, because they disliked certain scientific findings, have taken legal action against scientific institutions and individual scientists. In recent years, the legal attacks have intensified, especially against climate scientists.

The scientific method is designed around the belief that skepticism is good. Results should be subjected to the utmost scrutiny through the peer review process, followed by close examination and replication by others in the scientific community. Those whose ideas do not live up to the standards of rigorous science have instead chosen to litigate.

For the individual scientist these legal actions are a painful burden. Academic salaries were not designed to support ongoing legal expenses. Legal actions also have taken many of our brightest scientific minds away from their research to focus on frivolous lawsuits. This state of affairs is unacceptable. The United States of America should be the leader in science and technology, and it cannot do so if unscrupulous people subject our scientists to these actions.

The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund was established to make sure that these legal claims are not viewed as an action against one scientist or institution, but that they are seen as actions against the scientific endeavor as a whole. As such the Fund will defend climate scientists who are dragged into litigation and act aggressively to protect the interests of the scientific endeavor.

In addition, the Climate Science Defense Fund will create platforms and opportunities for members of the scientific community to gain a better understanding of the legal issues surrounding their work.

Oh good. They are going to get rid of pal-review. I cant see them wasting much money soon, as the move toward open science (public funded research only) for climate science, is getting ever closer.

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Looks like the hockey stick is in a fight
Reply #7 - Aug 25^th, 2012 at 9:18pm

Calling Dr Mann

Michael Mann's threat to sue the National Review over its quoting of a fairly rude Competitive Enterprise Institute article has elicited a fairly blunt response from the Review's lawyers. http://www2.nationalreview.com/pdf/2012-08-22_National_Review_Response_Letter.pd...

Quote:

Our review reveals that the magazine has published statements that are fully protected under the First Amendment. There is no need for National Review to remove or retract the post.

Dr. Mann complains about two statements: 1) that as "the man behind the fraudulent climate-change 'hockey-stick' graph," he is "the very ringmaster ofthe threering circus" on climate change; and 2) that he "could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet." Neither ofthese statements is actionable. Moreover, if Dr. Mann decides to pursue this matter, he and his research would be subjected to a very extensive discovery of materials that he has fought so hard to protect in other proceedings. Such materials would be required for National Review to defend itself.

Which is pretty much what everyone said when word of the threatened suit hit the internet.

The Review's lawyers also seem to be admirably well read:

Quote:

Politicians, scientists and journalists have also continued to question Dr. Mann's tactics in defending the "hockey stick" graph, particularly in light of the thousands of leaked e-mails about the controversy that have painted him in a less than flattering light. See, e.g., Andrew Montford, The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption o/Science, Stacey International, 2010; James Delingpole, Opinion, "Climategate 2.0," Wall St. J., Nov. 28, 2011. In referencing the "Climategate" e-mails, Congressman Darrell Issa did not mince words: "[I]t's very clear that those people played fast and loose with both the truth and our money." Darren Goode, "Issa calls for 'relook' at climate science," The Hill, Sept. 23, 2010. Mr. Simberg and Mr. Steyn have simply come to the same conclusion that many others have in the past decade - that Dr. Mann's research may not be scientifically viable.

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/8/22/calling-dr-mann.html

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 25^th, 2012 at 9:24pm by progressiveslol »

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Looks like the hockey stick is in a fight
Reply #8 - Aug 26^th, 2012 at 2:16pm

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 24^th, 2012 at 9:52pm:

too much information. Just go to the link in the first post if you want to sse the rest.

it's called document shock: the confidence tricksters main weapon!

Magic is based on the eyes inability to process all the information presented to it!!

keep smiling won't ya buddy: still unable to look the younger generation in the eye I presume!

Cheesy

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

Chrislee New Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 13 Gender:	Re: Looks like the hockey stick is in a fight Reply #9 - Aug 27^th, 2012 at 7:25pm It is very nice.
Back to top	IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: Looks like the hockey stick is in a fight Reply #10 - Nov 7^th, 2012 at 7:05pm
Back to top	IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Looks like the hockey stick is in a fight
Reply #11 - Nov 8^th, 2012 at 12:20am

Soren wrote on Nov 7^th, 2012 at 7:05pm:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/steyn/pics/large/320.jpg

I was thinking about posting this stuff about Mann, but the cringe factor of embarrassment for another human being was too much.

I did find it funny that because Mann won the Nobel prize, well as he embarrassingly said he did, then that makes it that each and every person in the EU and their relatives, have also won the Nobel Peace prize. Congrats to all.

Back to top

IP Logged