63 replies to this topic

[Doug1o29]

Hilander, on 30 October 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

I have only one thing to say about liars, they lie and don't mind doing it when it suits their agenda.

Sounds like conservative politics to me.
Doug

[Little Fish]

Doug1o29, on 30 October 2012 - 02:21 PM, said:

I know all this.  I am calling Little Fish's and Professor Buzzkill's  bluffs:  either put up, or shut up.
Doug

why does mann claim he was awarded the Nobel prize when he wasn't?

Pachari, the head of the IPCC has told people working for for IPCC including michael Mann that they cannot claim they were awarded the Nobel Prize, yet in a legal deposition to establish his credentials in a lbel case he states he was awarded the Nobel Prize, his (real) credentials have a direct bearing on the case.

why can you not bring yourself to admit the fact he is exaggerating his status?

[Little Fish]

"Prof Hand (Head of the UK Royal Statistical Society) praised the blogger Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit for uncovering the fact that inappropriate methods were used which could produce misleading results. ”The Mann 1998 hockey stick paper used a particular technique that exaggerated the hockey stick effect,” he said.

Prof Mann, who is Professor of Earth System Science at the Pennsylvania State University, said the statistics used in his graph were correct. ”I would note that our ’98 article was reviewed by the US National Academy of Sciences, the highest scientific authority in the United States, and given a clean bill of health,” he said. “In fact, the statistician on the panel, Peter Bloomfield, a member of the Royal Statistical Society, came to the opposite conclusion of Prof Hand.”"

But here is what Bloomfield ACTUALLY said :

"panel member Peter Bloomfield who Mann says above came to the opposite conclusions as Prof Hand, were asked at the House Committee hearings whether or not they agreed with Wegman’s harsh criticisms, they said they did:

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

DR. NORTH. 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. 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: ‘the two reports were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.’ (Am Stat Assoc.)

Thus, despite Mann’s incredible spin, Dr. Bloomfield did not “come to the opposite conclusion as Dr. Hand“, nor those of Dr. Wegman, Steve McIntyre, and Dr. McKitrick.
http://www.telegraph...xaggerated.html
http://sppiblog.org/...-bill-of-health

[BFB]

Micheal Mann WASN'T awarded anything! IPCC and Al Gore was.

If Mann claims he was, then he is a LAIR and should issue a public apology!

This is called fraud.

It would be the same if France, Germany or GB claimed they were awarded the Noble Peace Prize which the EU received in 2002.

Haven't gone through this case, so don't know if Mann actually does claim the Noble prize, BUT IF HE DOES ITS FRAUD!

Edited by BFB, 30 October 2012 - 03:06 PM.

[Little Fish]

BFB, on 30 October 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

Micheal Mann WASN'T awarded anything! IPCC and Al Gore was.

If Mann claims he was, then he is a LAIR and should issue a public apology!

This is called fraud.

It would be the same if France, Germany or GB claimed they were awarded the Noble Peace Prize which the EU received in 2002.

Haven't gone through this case, so don't know if Mann actually does claim the Noble prize, BUT IF HE DOES ITS FRAUD!

that's a great analogy.

here is Mann's legal submission to the court
http://legaltimes.ty...n-complaint.pdf

the second page, Introduction, point (2) :

"Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize"

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 30 October 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

why does mann claim he was awarded the Nobel prize when he wasn't?

Pachari, the head of the IPCC has told people working for for IPCC including michael Mann that they cannot claim they were awarded the Nobel Prize, yet in a legal deposition to establish his credentials in a lbel case he states he was awarded the Nobel Prize, his (real) credentials have a direct bearing on the case.

why can you not bring yourself to admit the fact he is exaggerating his status?

Both are side issues and have no bearing on whether the "hockey stick" is a valid concept, or not.  Personally, I don't care whether he's exaggerating his status, or if someone else is making it up.  It's irrelevant.
Doug

[Br Cornelius]

Lets see what Dr North actually concluded was the effect of the criticisms made by the Wegman report;

Quote

Gerald North gave testimony that "Dr. Wegman's criticisms of the statistical methodology in the papers by Mann et al. were consistent with our findings", referring to the NRC report which had found that the methodology did not have an undue effect on the graphs. In his view, "none of the statistical criticisms that have been raised by various authors unduly influence the shape of the final reconstruction. This is attested to by the fact that reconstructions performed without using principal components yield similar results."

Gerald North, chairman of the National Research Council panel that studied the hockey-stick issue and produced the report Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, stated the politicians at the hearing at which the Wegman Report was presented "were twisting the scientific information for their own propaganda purposes. The hearing was not an information gathering operation, but rather a spin machine."

So he accepted the criticisms and then concluded they were insignificant to the outcome of the Mann analysis. Not to give this conclusion is cherry picking Dr Norths analysis and ultimate opinion.

Principle component analysis is standard practice in all the environmental sciences where many disparate dataset elements are been analyzed to find significant patterns which transcend specific local factors. Many statisticans with a background in the Environmental sciences would draw entirely the opposite conclusion to Dr North and the Wegman panel in their rejection of PC analysis.

The fact that the Wegman report was drawn up by three people with no climate science knowledge and a highly politicized agenda is what is really significant here. There is also the fact that the Wegman report was plagiarized from the McKitrick paper  and so cannot be said to be independent of the largely immaterial MM paper.

A succinct summery of how bad the Wegman report actually was;

Quote

The Wegman Report (14 July, 2006) (officially the Committee on Energy and Commerce Report) was a report on the "hockey stick" graph produced by a commission headed by statistician Edward Wegman. It is now remembered as the epitome of global warming denier stupidity. After notorious deniers Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published a paper in Geophysical Research Letters criticizing Michael Mann et al's reconstruction of global temperatures that led to the hockey stick graph, the scientific community reconfirmed Mann's analysis with similar data from independent studies.^[1] The denier community would not stand for this absurd science stuff, so they decided to launch a second attack on the hockey stick.
In 2006, US Representatives Joe Barton and Ed Whitfield commissioned Wegman to produce a study discrediting the hockey stick. Totally ignoring any of the independent lines of research backing up Mann, Wegman went back and used McIntyre and McKitrick's shoddy models (coloquially referred to as "M&M") to claim that Mann had just made up the hockey stick. By ignoring the other lines of research and using algorithms that were intended to cherry-pick data to spit out a non-hockey stick shaped graph, Wegman produced a "refutation" of Mann's work. Of course, Wegman never submitted his "research" for peer review. The report went straight to the desks of Barton and Whitfield without any vetting besides some "review" by Wegman's colleagues. The Wegman Report was then used as "definitive evidence" by Republicans in Climategate hearings that Mann and his colleagues were guilty of scientific fraud. Never mind that Wegman's work had already been debunked by this point and was never subject to actual peer review.
In November of 2010, the story broke that a good deal of the report had been copy-pasted from Wikipedia and some old textbooks, one of which was authored by Mann's colleague Raymond Bradley. This was all on top of it recycling the M&M material as well.^[2] Wegman is currently under investigation by his employers at George Mason University for plagiarism and misconduct.
In 2008, a modified version of the report was submitted to the journal Computational Statistics and Data Analysis. The modified version dropped the climate-related material, leaving only a "social network analysis." The goal of this "analysis" seemed to be to reveal the secret warmist cabal controlling climate science. In reality, all it revealed was that Mann had written other papers with his co-authors. In 2011, the paper was retracted.^[3][4] Keeping it classy, Wegman blamed this c***-up on one of his grad students.^[5]

http://rationalwiki....i/Wegman_Report

More analysis of intentional misconduct by Wegman can be found here;

http://www.desmogblo...ations V1 0.pdf

http://www.desmogblo...srepresentation


Little Fish - your method of selectively quoting people to misrepresent the actual analysis they carried out is the nearest thing to academic fraud this thread will see. haven't you learnt yet that dredging up this old discredited rubbish just makes you look foolish ?


Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 30 October 2012 - 06:39 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

The Wegman Report has been withdrawn - so to quote from it in any way really isn't acceptable.

http://www.livescien...udy-debate.html

Br Cornelius

[Professor Buzzkill]

I think point 5 of the introduction (page 3) of Mann's legal submission to court to be the most compelling case that he claims to be a Nobel Prize recipient. Surely when you file a libel case, where others have accused you of lying, you shouldn't lie in the submission to the court.

http://legaltimes.ty...n-complaint.pdf

5."It is one thing to engage in discussion about debatable topics. It is quite another to attempt to discredit consistently validated scientific research through the professional and personal defamation of a Nobel prize recipient."


Is it another thing to claim you received a Nobel Prize when you did not?

Also, the point here about trying to discredit scientific research is a bit rich coming from Mann.

“Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” – Michael Mann

“It would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “Medieval Warm Period”.” – Michael Mann

“In our discussion of possible participants in Bern…the last two on the list (with question marks) would be unwise choices because they are likely to cause conflict than to contribute to consensus and progress.” – Michael Mann

The point being that it is ok to discredit anyone or organization that disagrees with Mann and his colleges "consensus", but if anyone tries to discredit Mann they are taken to court.

[Br Cornelius]

Professor Buzzkill, on 30 October 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

I think point 5 of the introduction (page 3) of Mann's legal submission to court to be the most compelling case that he claims to be a Nobel Prize recipient. Surely when you file a libel case, where others have accused you of lying, you shouldn't lie in the submission to the court.

http://legaltimes.ty...n-complaint.pdf

5."It is one thing to engage in discussion about debatable topics. It is quite another to attempt to discredit consistently validated scientific research through the professional and personal defamation of a Nobel prize recipient."


Is it another thing to claim you received a Nobel Prize when you did not?

Also, the point here about trying to discredit scientific research is a bit rich coming from Mann.

“Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” – Michael Mann

“It would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “Medieval Warm Period”.” – Michael Mann

“In our discussion of possible participants in Bern…the last two on the list (with question marks) would be unwise choices because they are likely to cause conflict than to contribute to consensus and progress.” – Michael Mann

The point being that it is ok to discredit anyone or organization that disagrees with Mann and his colleges "consensus", but if anyone tries to discredit Mann they are taken to court.

I think the point is that a line was crossed when Mann was compared to a child molestor. If this false and defamatory statement had have been withdrawn and an apology issued then the Libel case would not have been started. The fact that they have also claimed that he fabricated evidence, without any evidence to support this assertion, is secondary at this stage.

The position of the defendants is if you throw enough mud then some will stick, and it obviously has. they have never ever made a substantive claim as to what Mann has actually done wrong - but have persistently claimed that he has committed some unknown fraud. Let them make their case in a court of law and finally substantiate their claims of Fraud. They will not be able to, and hence this Nobel prize side show - lets throw a bit more mud whilst we still have a chance and it isn't going to land us out of pocket. Its pathetic.

Unfortunately Mann is not a particularly sympathetic character - he is petulant and somewhat vain - but this has absolutely nothing to do with his work and I think so far it is remarkable that he has been so restrained, considering the 20yrs of persistent libellous attack's on his character by a politically motivated lobby.

Lets ask the simple question, if you were subjected to the same degree of vitriolic personal attack for just doing your job - what would you do ??

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 30 October 2012 - 08:34 PM.

[Doug1o29]

Professor Buzzkill, on 30 October 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

Also, the point here about trying to discredit scientific research is a bit rich coming from Mann.

Mann's work has been repeatedly validated by fully-qualified climate scientists.

You will recall that McIntyre is an engineer and McKittrick is an economist - not even an ecometrician!  Wegman is a statistician, but his article was so full of errors he had to withdraw it.

Quote

“Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” – Michael Mann

Where did you get this quote and to what journal is he referring?

Quote

“It would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “Medieval Warm Period”.” – Michael Mann

As I understand it, the Medival Warm Period is limited to northern areas, perhaps just northern Europe.  One could "contain" it geographically or temporally - research efforts of late have been trying to determine its geographical extent.  So where did you get the idea that this is a political reference?

Quote

“In our discussion of possible participants in Bern…the last two on the list (with question marks) would be unwise choices because they are likely to cause conflict than to contribute to consensus and progress.” – Michael Mann

Which conference was this?  What was its objective?  Why were they being left out?  If they couldn't contribute to the meeting's objective, then there was no reason to invite them.

Quote

The point being that it is ok to discredit anyone or organization that disagrees with Mann and his colleges "consensus", but if anyone tries to discredit Mann they are taken to court.

I guess the judge will decide that.
Doug

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 30 October 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

I think the point is that a line was crossed when Mann was compared to a child molestor. If this false and defamatory statement had have been withdrawn and an apology issued then the Libel case would not have been started. The fact that they have also claimed that he fabricated evidence, without any evidence to support this assertion, is secondary at this stage.

it was a metaphor. do you know what a metaphor is?
you know - "abused and tortured the data"
the way you wrote your post, you are implying that Steyn is claiming Mann is a child abuser.
you can't get sued for a metaphor.

what does it say about the character of a man than would knowingly make a false statement (that he is "a Nobel prize recipient") in court proceedings?
does it tell us that he would make false statements with regard to data and within his published work?

Edited by Little Fish, 30 October 2012 - 09:15 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 30 October 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

it was a metaphor. do you know what a metaphor is?
you know - "abused and tortured the data"
the way you wrote your post, you are implying that Steyn is claiming Mann is a child abuser.
you can't get sued for a metaphor.

what does it say about the character of a man than would knowingly make a false statement (that he is "a Nobel prize recipient") in court proceedings?
does it tell us that he would make false statements with regard to data and within his published work?

What does it say about  Wegman that he would knowingly plagiarize and alter anothers work, and what does it say about the credibility of a person who would quote him as a source ?

If we are looking to point fingers at known liars I think you need to look closer to home.

Br Cornelius

[BFB]

Little Fish, on 30 October 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

that's a great analogy.

here is Mann's legal submission to the court
http://legaltimes.ty...n-complaint.pdf

the second page, Introduction, point (2) :

"Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize"

He is actually saying it!! WOW!!

This is not good for climate science.

Doug1o29, on 30 October 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

As I understand it, the Medival Warm Period is limited to northern areas, perhaps just northern Europe.  One could "contain" it geographically or temporally - research efforts of late have been trying to determine its geographical extent.  So where did you get the idea that this is a political reference?

Doug

There's more evidence to support the Global MWP hypothesis than the local MWP at this point.
Yes a few years back the majority of evidence was for a local MWP, but with more studies looking into the MWP the last couple of years, its clear that the MWP was global.

However this is not the main issue of this thread!

I cannot see how ANY SCIENTIST can ignore or even defend Mann on this(Noble prize issue)!

He is taking credit for something which wasn't given to him!!! This is a MAJOR blow to his credibility.
If this happened in any other field of science it would have a totally different outcome. Everyone who is a scientist knows its a "no-go" to claim credit of ANY prizes, honor, diploma which wasn't issued directly to you!

Mann is actually being a fraud here.

To be fair i understand why there's so many people who is not educated within climate science, doesn't believe a thing Mann comes out with. How can someone who can't look at the science and understand it, feel secure and trust what Mann comes out with when he is claiming prizes he did not win!!!!!!!

But this a the general problem within climate science. Most climate scientist feel the need to defend people like him, because the science(in a scientist view, which understand his papers) is acceptable. If this exact same story had happened in the field of physics, he would have been "frozen out" by the majority of scientists.  

i went into climate science with a objective mind, but it so freaking hard to do that! Because everyone wants to know what your political stand is! And that's wrong. it makes me angry and sad at the same time that you need to choose side!!

There are too many "groups" within climate science which has an agenda, IT GOES FOR BOTH SIDES!!!

Let's hope the new generation isn't the same as the old one..................

[Doug1o29]

BFB, on 31 October 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

However this is not the main issue of this thread!

As I understand the lawsuit, Mann is claiming libel because he was compared to Sandusky, a child molester.  If he actually claimed to be a Nobel Prize recipient, it won't be good for his case if he can't substantiate it.  But that's for the court to decide.

I haven't had a chance to look at the suit allegations, but I know from experience that if there is a way to twist and misrepresent what was said, the deniers will find a way - they're good at that.  So I will make up my own mind when I have some time to read up on it.
Doug

P.S.:  It would seem that the main issue of this thread is to discredit a climate scientist and hope that that will rub off on the science.  As there are many other "hockey sticks" developed from other proxies, it really won't matter if you can libel one; the others still stand.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 31 October 2012 - 12:56 PM.