63 replies to this topic

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 29 October 2012 - 04:10 PM, said:

The statement was that Mann and the other authors of the IPCC report received the Nobel prize. Again you can argue whether the members of the IPCC are the IPCC or not - but the statement is at worst ambigious and certainly not dishonest.

it was awarded to the IPCC, not the individuals involved in cleaning the floors for the IPCC or any other duty performed for the organisation.

Quote

As for the other part - the certificate is a genuine document issued to all members of the IPCC and as such he is perfectly entitled to use it to show that he as a member was part of the receiving body.

but he does not do that, he uses it to say (in the lawsuit) that HE was awarded the nobel prize.

Quote

lets actually look at what you claimed he did
"He did not receive any personal certificate. He has taken the diploma awarded in 2007 to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and to Al Gore) and made his own text underneath this authentic-looking diploma."

That in of itself is slander since it is in no way true and suggests misconduct which never took place.

not my words as you claim. that was a direct quote from the Nobel Committee guy, my comment that maybe Mann would next sue the Nobel Committee is obviously lost on you.

Quote

There was an attempt here to distort the statement Mann made to imply that he directly had received the Nobel prize - but he never actually said that and so it is unfair to say he misrepresented anything. Since this makes up no part of the Libal action I doubt it will have any effect on the outcome of the case.

point 2 in the introduction of Mann's lawsuit (manns words) - "Dr Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize"

Quote

Why couldn't the people making this claim actually quote the words of Mann ??

oh but they did, you just pretend that they didn't - its the denial.

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 29 October 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

I did read it and actually understood it

no you didn't read the mann lawsuit because you said "Someone definitely mangled that quote" when it was a direct quote from Mann's lawsuit.

who took my biscuit?

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 29 October 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

no you didn't read the mann lawsuit because you said "Someone definitely mangled that quote" when it was a direct quote from Mann's lawsuit.

who took my biscuit?

If you take the members out of the IPCC - what is there to make an award to  ?
The IPCC is its members.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 29 October 2012 - 04:49 PM, said:

If you take the members out of the IPCC - what is there to make an award to  ?
The IPCC is its members.

Br Cornelius

michael mann was not awarded the Nobel Prize, so Mann's legal statement "Dr Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize" is false.

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 29 October 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

michael mann was not awarded the Nobel Prize, so Mann's legal statement "Dr Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize" is false.

Lets see how much baring it has on the Libel case and those claims of academic fraud

Br Cornelius

[Br Cornelius]

Quote

but he does not do that, he uses it to say (in the lawsuit) that HE was awarded the nobel prize.

Your making things up here - he makes no reference to that document anywhere in the legal papers

Quote

not my words as you claim. that was a direct quote from the Nobel Committee guy, my comment that maybe Mann would next sue the Nobel Committee is obviously lost on you.

He made no alteration to the document issued by the IPCC so the statement is absolutely untrue.
It seems that the Nobel Committee was deliberately misdirected to make that statement by not been informed about the actual nature of the document. Nothing underhand in that then.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 29 October 2012 - 05:19 PM.

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 29 October 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

Lets see how much baring it has on the Libel case and those claims of academic fraud

Br Cornelius

roll on court case, I think mann might be getting more than he bargined for.
here is the evidence to support the defendent:

http://www.climatede...tm_medium=email

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 29 October 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

roll on court case, I think mann might be getting more than he bargined for.
here is the evidence to support the defendent:

http://www.climatede...tm_medium=email

A press release by "Climate Depot", I bet he's ****ting himself as we speak

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 29 October 2012 - 05:30 PM, said:

A press release by "Climate Depot", I bet he's ****ting himself as we speak

Br Cornelius

how else would you like the information?

on an ipcc certificate with Nobel Prize written on it?

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 29 October 2012 - 05:34 PM, said:

how else would you like the information?

on an ipcc certificate with Nobel Prize written on it?

Climate depot that notorious repository of impartial climate science.
I tried following up on a few of their case clinching studies - couldn't track them down in the peer reviewed papers

Unfortunately a court room is about the worst environment to decide on points of science so there is a certain amount of risk for Mann. Its a rare day that a scientifically literate judge or Jury walks into a courtroom. Still since the main point at issue is whether its acceptable to compare a scientist doing his job to a sex offender - I think he's got a good chance. Crossing the line of common decency has a habit of coming back to bite you on the ****.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 29 October 2012 - 05:51 PM.

[Little Fish]

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

[Doug1o29]

Br Cornelius, on 29 October 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

Lets see how much baring it has on the Libel case and those claims of academic fraud

Br Cornelius

The libel suit and Nobel Prize are side issues.  The key question is:  has the "hockey stick" been disproven?  To answer that, one needs to be very specific:  exactly what did Mann do wrong?  If he used bad data, they need to say which data sets were bad.  If he made a processing mistake, they need to say exactly what it was.

It is possible that a few years from now, I may be checking Mann's work by carrying out a similar project for a different set of proxies - that both double-checks the previous work and extends the knowledge base.  If Mann made mistakes, I need to know what they are so I don't repeat them.  Little Fish et al. could do me and science a real favor by naming the specific problems in Mann's study.
Doug

[Br Cornelius]

Doug1o29, on 30 October 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

The libel suit and Nobel Prize are side issues.  The key question is:  has the "hockey stick" been disproven?  To answer that, one needs to be very specific:  exactly what did Mann do wrong?  If he used bad data, they need to say which data sets were bad.  If he made a processing mistake, they need to say exactly what it was.

It is possible that a few years from now, I may be checking Mann's work by carrying out a similar project for a different set of proxies - that both double-checks the previous work and extends the knowledge base.  If Mann made mistakes, I need to know what they are so I don't repeat them.  Little Fish et al. could do me and science a real favor by naming the specific problems in Mann's study.
Doug

He will just point you to the MM paper without any understanding of what he is doing. MM pointed out many minor errors which were subsequently corrected and incorporated into the subsequent reanalysis, since then there has been nothing of substance which has questioned the validity of Manns work and the criticism has boiled down to unverified claims of academic fraud with no  specifics supplied.
As a trained statistician you would be the best person to make the judgement call on whether the chosen statistical analysis was appropriate to the data. My understanding would be that there is no absolute right answer to this since different methods will produce slightly different result - all equally valid within their own terms.
The problem that myself, and 99.9% of the public, have is that statistics is an alien territory which operates counter intuitively to simple linear logic. The details of the arguments made against Mann are over the heads of almost everyone and most will find it almost impossible to make meaningful value judgments about what is significant. That is why we can only  fall back on peer review and the opinion of expert statisticians (who have looked at the work and found it valid). Unfortunately the likes of MM are highly politically motivated and so set out to specifically deceive their target audience to satisfy the needs of their paymasters  and their political ends.



The point of the main complainants is that they never made or intended to make specific verifiable claims about Manns work, their sole intention was to undermine confidence in the Hockey stick and climate science in general. In this respect the more general and none specific your criticism's the better - because their validity can never be tested in any meaningful scientific way.



Ultimately the point is that the hockey stick graph has been reproduced at least 10 times by different teams using different datasets and different methodologies. Unless you subscribe to the Grand Conspiracy way of look at this, that is fairly conclusive verification that Mann was right from the start.


Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 30 October 2012 - 02:03 PM.

[Hilander]

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

[Doug1o29]

Br Cornelius, on 30 October 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

The point of the main complainants is that they never made or intended to make specific verifiable claims about Manns work, their sole intention was to undermine confidence in the Hockey stick and climate science in general. In this respect the more general and none specific your criticism's the better - because their validity can never be tested in any meaningful scientific way.

Ultimately the point is that the hockey stick graph has been reproduced at least 10 times by different teams using different datasets and different methodologies. Unless you subscribe to the Grand Conspiracy way of look at this, that is fairly conclusive verification that Mann was right from the start.


Br Cornelius

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


P.S.:  You might be interested in this:  the average interval between severe winter storms in Arkansas/Oklahoma has increased from 2 years in 1780 to 2 years in 1880 to six years in 1980 and has now dropped back to 5 years in 2010.  I should have a table showing that available by the end of the week.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 30 October 2012 - 02:26 PM.