Michael Mann: Harper's War on Science
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Yes, indeed, I understand ice cores and tree rings can be used to make educated GUESSES at climate conditions in the past.
How many 1,000 year old trees do you have, and are your examples evenly spread over the world, and how are they dated??
Likewise ice cores.
Perhaps you do. But cross-matching ice-cores with fossil evidence, tree rings, animal behaviors at the different periods, geological evidence, etc. can all be assembled to indicate pretty accurate guesses (that's what is meant by educated guesses). Also, the more methods you use for dating, the more accurate your guess is likely to be.
It's kind of like triangulation; the more points you can get an angle from the more accurate your desired location is likely to be.
The above is the infamous "hockey stick" graph.
The above is a selection of temperature reconstructions. Please indicate which one belongs to Mann, and is the fraud.
Yes, and yet somehow nobody disputes the past ice ages, and other cycles in our climate. Funny that, no thermometers!
Mann's study was published in 1998, with data up to 95...the second graph you posted doesn't even start until 1998. And the resolution on a graph spanning 4 centuries wouldn't show anything for 15 years. It would be a small blip, like sticking your pen down on one spot on a page...
But yes, go ahead and criticize scientists when you don't know a thing about the subject matter. Maybe you can get called as Steyn's defense witness.
Lol, you're on a roll. Many paleoclimatologists. Liek the spaghetti graph you posted that you called Mann's hockey stick.
The hockey stick is a persistant finding from many paleoclimatologists. That's called a 'robust' finding amongst us scientists.
No. Cuz McKitrick said so a decade ago. McKitrick is just some math nut at U of G.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf
Correct
Apparently there is justification
I see that you also ignore the irony that whilst you're pissing and moaning about access to info, that is exactly what Mann is denying access too.
.... As opposed to Mann who is now facing multiple law suits?
Last edited:
You have reached an internally inconsistent conclusion. You stated initally that there is no way to determine temperatures 1000 years ago.. Then you go on to say that the climate constantly changes. How do you know that? If you can't determine the emperature in the past then your conclusion should be "Climate may or may not change, I don't know."
The relevant part of the temperature reconstructions is not just the last 15-20 years. Nor does the temperature reconstruction "predict" anything. It attempts to estimate the temperatures using proxies such as tree rings. Nor is Mann's the only reconstruction. There have been many. They all reach similar conclusions. Most have current temperatures higher than the MWP.
And prior to that it was even warmer. Go even further back into the H.O. and it's been warmer.
No.....because the hockey stick has been very close to flat for 15 years.
If it were a tree, it would have toppled.
If it were a pen is, it would be in desperate need of viagra.
If it were a flag pole, somebody surrendered.
Which, if you were at all interested in the evidence instead of your intellectual investment in the "cause", you would do as well.
And from Mark Steyn's counter suit against Michael Mann:
“Plaintiff continues to evade the one action that might definitively establish its [his science’s] respectability - by objecting, in the courts of Virginia, British Columbia and elsewhere, to the release of his research in this field. See Cuccinelli vs Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia...”
Last edited:
I agree that the temperature will have to raise pretty soon, or it's back to the books. However, it's also worth keeping in mind that the temperature has not cooled either, and we are still, statistcally speaking, far above normal temperatures for the last 150 years or so.
I like to think of myself as a skeptical empiricist, so I try not to invest in causes when I'm doing a science. It's tough sometimes--nobody likes to admit they are wrong. And it's juts human nature to remember datat that agree with your beliefs and dismiss contrary data.
The thing is the CO2 is increasing and, according to greenhouse theory, every doubling of CO2 should raise the temperature around 1 deg C, and that's about what we've seen over the last 120 years. So the question I have for skeptics is: If the CO2 is not warming the planet, why isn't it? What is happening to the reflected infrared radiation by the excess CO2 molecules?
Well, that depends. from Colpy's point of view the temperatures in the past are unknown, because he's stated that tyhey can't be determined.
From my point of view, the question is what cycle caused the higher temperatures in the past?