63 replies to this topic

[Little Fish]

Doug1o29, on 31 October 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

If he actually claimed to be a Nobel Prize recipient

what do you mean "IF"? it has been proven to you several times on this thread. There is no "IF", and you know it.
http://www.unexplain...30#entry4522924

this is why a meaningful discussion cannot be had with you, it is not that you ignore a point of fact, it is that you make out that a fact is in doubt when you know it is not. you are not coming from a point of integrity in your discussion.

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 31 October 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

what do you mean "IF"? it has been proven to you several times on this thread. There is no "IF", and you know it.

I mean I am not willing to take your word for it, as you have too often posted BS from your pseudo-science sites.  I'll check it out for myself when I have the time.
Doug

[Little Fish]

Doug1o29, on 31 October 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

I mean I am not willing to take your word for it, as you have too often posted BS from your pseudo-science sites.  I'll check it out for myself when I have the time.
Doug

again, your claiming that it is "my word" is not factual. it is Mann's words not mine.

its very simple and you need no time to check, less time than it takes to have written your post.

click the link
http://legaltimes.ty...n-complaint.pdf

it is an official document from an independent legal website.

go to the introduction (page 2), read point 2, it is 3 lines of text.

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

all I can see here is your unwillingness to concede ANYTHING, justifying my previous statement that any meaningful technical discussion with you cannot be had if you refuse to accept a simple point of fact.

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 31 October 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

again, your claiming that it is "my word" is not factual. it is Mann's words not mine.

its very simple and you need no time to check, less time than it takes to have written your post.

click the link
http://legaltimes.ty...n-complaint.pdf

it is an official document from an independent legal website.

Just to humour you, I clicked on the link.  It's a pdf file with no information on who posted it or why.  I have no way to know if this is authentic, or another sham.  But, assuming it's authentic,  page 2, point 2 reads:  "As a result of this research, Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize."  I believe this is referring to the IPCC having shared the prize with Al Gore.  The sentence is inclusive.  The way it is worded, anyone on the IPCC could be included in the phrase "and his colleagues."  That includes Mann, as well as a huge number of other people.  All your post proves is that you can't read English.

Quote

all I can see here is your unwillingness to concede ANYTHING, justifying my previous statement that any meaningful technical discussion with you cannot be had if you refuse to accept a simple point of fact.

Once again:  I AM RESRVING JUDGEMENT ON THIS.  You're the one trying to have the discussion.  I have made no determination on the issue, so there isn't really anything to discuss.
Doug

[Professor Buzzkill]

Doug1o29, on 31 October 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

Just to humour you, I clicked on the link.  It's a pdf file with no information on who posted it or why.  I have no way to know if this is authentic, or another sham.  But, assuming it's authentic,  page 2, point 2 reads:  "As a result of this research, Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize."  I believe this is referring to the IPCC having shared the prize with Al Gore.  The sentence is inclusive.  The way it is worded, anyone on the IPCC could be included in the phrase "and his colleagues." That includes Mann, as well as a huge number of other people.  All your post proves is that you can't read English.

Once again:  I AM RESRVING JUDGEMENT ON THIS.  You're the one trying to have the discussion.  I have made no determination on the issue, so there isn't really anything to discuss.
Doug

The prize was awarded to the IPCC and Al Gore. If i was the security guard at the IPCC could i claim to be a Nobel Prize recipient?

The Nobel committee has made it clear that no individual from the IPCC was awarded the Nobel Prize and therefore Mann is lying

[Doug1o29]

Professor Buzzkill, on 31 October 2012 - 07:09 PM, said:

The prize was awarded to the IPCC and Al Gore. If i was the security guard at the IPCC could i claim to be a Nobel Prize recipient?

On research papers, all who contribute to the "intellectual life" of a paper are authors.  That is the basis of authorship for IPCC reports, as well.  If Mann contributed to the intellectual process of producing those papers, then he is an author.  If the Nobel Committee awarded the prize based, in part, on an IPCC publication that Mann co-authored, then he is justified in his claim.

Because the security guard, or even the technician who collected the data, did not participate in the intellectual life of the project, he/she would not be an author and, therefore, would not receive credit.  However, it is considered polite to acknowledge those who made a significant contribution to the project by going beyond the scope of their normal duties.

Quote

The Nobel committee has made it clear that no individual from the IPCC was awarded the Nobel Prize and therefore Mann is lying

It appears that the Nobel Committee had, at best, a fuzzy idea concerning who it was awarding the prize to.  It is worth noting that it may believe that the money IS the prize.  That puts a different spin on it.

At any rate, the court's decision will define, at least in America, who actually is entitled to claim to be a prize recipient.  That's the nice thing about American law:  if you don't know what it means, file a lawsuit and the court will tell you what it means.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 31 October 2012 - 07:59 PM.

[Little Fish]

Doug1o29, on 31 October 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

Just to humour you, I clicked on the link.  It's a pdf file with no information on who posted it or why.  I have no way to know if this is authentic, or another sham.  But, assuming it's authentic,  page 2, point 2 reads:  "As a result of this research, Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize."  I believe this is referring to the IPCC having shared the prize with Al Gore.  The sentence is inclusive.  The way it is worded, anyone on the IPCC could be included in the phrase "and his colleagues."  That includes Mann, as well as a huge number of other people.  

you are using circular reasoning - you are using Mann's statement as reason to uphold Mann's statement.
the ipcc and the nobel committee state no individual can claim they were awarded this nobel peace prize.
the only one that claims he was awarded it was michael mann, and in a legal submission (which you just read) to a court to boot!

do you accept/realise the text you just read was written by Mann?
http://legaltimes.ty...n-complaint.pdf

Quote

All your post proves is that you can't read English.

I can read english. I'm a dab hand at spotting logical errors in reasoning too and your post proves you struggle with basic logic.

Quote

Once again:  I AM RESRVING JUDGEMENT ON THIS.  You're the one trying to have the discussion.  I have made no determination on the issue, so there isn't really anything to discuss.

so why do you bother "contributing" to the thread then?

Edited by Little Fish, 31 October 2012 - 10:22 PM.

[Doug1o29]

Quote

you are using circular reasoning - you are using Mann's statement as reason to uphold Mann's statement.

First, how do I know that link is to Mann's filing and not one of your faux ones?
Second, how is the reasoning circular?

Quote

the ipcc and the nobel committee state no individual can claim they were awarded this nobel peace prize.

See Post 51.  If Mann is a contributing author or co-author and the award was for a paper he contributed to, then the claim is substantiated.  If the IPCC says otherwise, then he is likely not following their recommendations.  If the Nobel Committee specified when it presented the prize, that it was to the IPCC AND NOT TO AN INIDIVIDUAL, then Mann's claim is false.  But, one cannot change one's mind after the fact.  If the Nobel Prize committee didn't specify, then it was to all members of the group, individually and collectively and Mann is telling the truth.  Once again:  THE JUDGE WILL TELL US WHETHER MANN HAS A CLAIM OR NOT.

Quote

do you accept/realise the text you just read was written by Mann?
http://legaltimes.ty...n-complaint.pdf

Whose site is this?  The site doesn't say.  Bet ya it's not Mann's.

Quote

I can read english. I'm a dab hand at spotting logical errors in reasoning too and your post proves you struggle with basic logic.

That is certainly not obvious from your posts.

Quote

so why do you bother "contributing" to the thread then?

Why do you keep insisting?
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 31 October 2012 - 11:00 PM.

[Little Fish]

Doug1o29, on 31 October 2012 - 10:58 PM, said:

First, how do I know that link is to Mann's filing and not one of your faux ones?

because as i already told you, it is published on an independent legal website, nothing to do with climate science so no bias either way. here:
http://legaltimes.ty...-for-libel.html
you can click the link in the article to get the link you have been given where it says "complaint pdf"

Quote

Second, how is the reasoning circular?

i've already explained this. you used mann's words to verify mann's words. using the premise to show your premise is circular reasoning.

Quote

See Post 51.  If Mann is a contributing author or co-author and the award was for a paper he contributed to, then the claim is substantiated.

but the award was not for a paper mann contributed to. The award was to the ipcc organisation. as has been pointed out by Nobel Laureate BFB-  the EU was also awarded the nobel prize, so by your reasoning all the citizens of the EU can claim to be Nobel Laureates by merely belonging to that organisation.

Quote

If the IPCC says otherwise, then he is likely not following their recommendations.

but the ipcc did not issue "recommendations", the ipcc said explicitly he couldn't claim he won the nobel prize in an email to all contributors (which includes Michael Mann).

"the Chairman of the IPCC sent an e-mail to all of us who had worked on the reports, explaining that we really couldn’t claim that we had won the Nobel Prize"
http://www.thegreats...he-nobel-prize/

Quote

If the Nobel Committee specified when it presented the prize, that it was to the IPCC AND NOT TO AN INIDIVIDUAL, then Mann's claim is false. But, one cannot change one's mind after the fact.  If the Nobel Prize committee didn't specify, then it was to all members of the group, individually and collectively and Mann is telling the truth.  

no, again you are using defective logic.
The nobel committee does not state who cannot claim they were awarded the prize, they state who CAN claim they were awarded nobel prize by action of awarding the prize to the recipient, otherwise I won the nobel prize in 1952 and all other years because the committee did not say I was not allowed to make the claim. so now everyone (according to your logic) along with BFB and the citizens of Europe can claim they won the nobel prize, notwithstanding the fact (which you are well aware of) that the nobel committee has confirmed that individuals working for the ipcc cannot claim they won the nobel prize, and further notwithstanding the fact (again which you are aware of) that the nobel committee explicitly naming Michael Mann as NOT being able to claim he was awarded the nobel prize.

Quote

Once again:  THE JUDGE WILL TELL US WHETHER MANN HAS A CLAIM OR NOT.

the judge has nothing to do with deciding whether Mann was awarded the Nobel prize. the judge cannot overule the nobel committee on who was awarded the nobel prize regardless of how loud you shout and stamp your feet. As far as the case goes, it bodes badly for Mann that in a submission to a law court that he falsifies his academic status in a libel case against his academic status.

Quote

Whose site is this?  The site doesn't say.  Bet ya it's not Mann's.

of course it's not Mann's. its independent of any side of climate debate. the link is above and here
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/

Edited by Little Fish, 01 November 2012 - 03:06 AM.

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 29 October 2012 - 10:38 PM, said:

http://stevengoddard...as-perpetrated/

Something's wrong here.  I just found this ^^^^ graph in a research paper.  The caption says it's a redrawn version of the 1990 IPCC report.  So, I thought I would look up that IPCC report.  Guess what:  the original graph by Lamb, "does not have an explicit temperature scale."  It is a free-hand drawing!  The degree of smoothing in the two versions of the curve is unknown, but a footnote by Lamb says that one of them was a 50-year running average - a lot of smoothing.

In other words, the graph above is based on guess-work, not on instrumental readings.  Those guesses were made based on Lamb's observations of where plants (like grapes) grew, where and when the Thames froze and the like.

In other words, a proxy reconstruction based on tree rings (or any other proxy) is likely to be a closer representation of reality than the original guesses.  Given the degree of error in the Lamb's 1984 reconstruction, THERE IS NO INCONSISTENCY between this graph and Mann's "hockey stick."

Also, note that this graph is for central England, while Mann's graph(s) are for north, south, combined and global averages.  The denialists are comparing apples and oranges.  The central England free-hand graph is not an indication of what has happened, or is happening, globally.


It really doesn't matter who wins the suit, the science stands.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 01 November 2012 - 08:02 PM.

[Little Fish]

Looks like Kevin Trenberth is falsely claiming to be a Nobel prize winner too.

"Nobel Laureate (shared) for Nobel Peace Prize 2007 (as part of IPCC) Oct 2007"
http://www.cgd.ucar....enberth-cv.html

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 11 November 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

Looks like Kevin Trenberth is falsely claiming to be a Nobel prize winner too.

"Nobel Laureate (shared) for Nobel Peace Prize 2007 (as part of IPCC) Oct 2007"
http://www.cgd.ucar....enberth-cv.html

According to my browser, this link has been taken down.

As I recall, the Nobel Committee permitted a certificate for each IPCC member who was instrumental in preparing the reports.  The wording is confusing, whether due to translation difficulties, or just a bad choise of words, I don't know.  But either way, it implies that the person shared in the Nobel Prize.  The prize committee says it didn't intend this.  The whole problem arises from confusion over semantics.  You're trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
Doug

[Doug1o29]

Doug1o29, on 12 November 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

According to my browser, this link has been taken down.

Tryed it again.  This time it ran.

Trenberth's cv lists: "Nobel Laureate (shared) for Nobel Peace Prize 2007 (as part of IPCC)
Oct 2007"

That doesn't sound like an untruth to me in that he was part of the team.
Doug

[Little Fish]

Doug1o29, on 12 November 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

Tryed it again.  This time it ran.

Trenberth's cv lists: "Nobel Laureate (shared) for Nobel Peace Prize 2007 (as part of IPCC)
Oct 2007"

That doesn't sound like an untruth to me in that he was part of the team.
Doug

he is not a Nobel Laureate, shared or otherwise. putting "Nobel Laureate" on his cv is an untruth.
it is irrelevant what the IPCC gave to Mann or Trenberth, the ipcc do not decide who is/isn't a Nobel Laureate.
Its a black and white issue, and you must realise by now you are in disagreement with the ipcc and the Nobel committee on this.

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 12 November 2012 - 11:51 PM, said:

he is not a Nobel Laureate, shared or otherwise. putting "Nobel Laureate" on his cv is an untruth.
it is irrelevant what the IPCC gave to Mann or Trenberth, the ipcc do not decide who is/isn't a Nobel Laureate.
Its a black and white issue, and you must realise by now you are in disagreement with the ipcc and the Nobel committee on this.

And exactly how does this refute my contention that the entire issue is an insignificant one resulting from a bad choice of wording?
Doug