And the Virginia Attorney General is now taking action, requiring Mann—the producer of the now infamous “Hockey Stick”--to produce "a sweeping swath of documents” relating to Mann’s receipt of sweeping swathes of taxpayers’ money used to produce his questionable graph.
“Since it’s public money, there’s enough controversy to look in to the possible manipulation of data,” Dr. Charles Battig, president of the nonprofit Piedmont Chapter Virginia Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment, told The Hook.
What’s it all about? Put simply, “When temperatures records are revised in a way that creates a warming trend where none formerly existed, inquiring minds want to know what's going on.”
The unspoken word in he AG inquiry is, of course, fraud. Story here.
It couldn’t happen to a more deserving Mann.
PS: The poor Mann must be feeling embattled. He’s suing the makers of this now-classic video satire of his botched science.
So, naturally, the No-Cap-and-Trade Coalition has responded with a sequel.
“The question at hand, “they say, “is whether ‘Hide the Decline’ defames or defines Michael Mann.”
UPDATE: Pharyngula (a warmist) and Steve McIntyre (the chap who’s become Mann’s nemesis) both condemn the action of Virginian Attorney-General Cuccinelli.
“Cuccinelli is using the law to pursue a vendetta” says Pharyngula.
“This is a repugnant piece of over-zealousness by the Virginia Attorney General” says McIntyre at his blog.
12 comments:
Read Andrew Montford's book. It is a demolition of Mann and his colleagues.
And this video is extraordinarily good as well.
http://www.blip.tv/file/3539174
I read a number of skeptic websites, and the inconsistent arguments presented are always a great indicator as to how little many of you really understand what you're talking about.
"many revealed in the Climategate emails, where scientists discussed “Mike’s Nature trick” to hide a decline in temperatures shown in data"
The data you're referring to is not a direct temperature reading. It's based on measurements of the rings of certain trees. Humans beings haven't been measuring temperature directly for very long, this technique is one of a few which is used to assess what the temperature was beforehand.
The people who developed this technique (who BTW are not directly connected with the CRU) have stated that this will not work past about 1960, since the closer you get to the outer rings, the more variation there is.
The argument that exists, is that this technique to create a temperature record should not be used at all. After all if it's not good for the past 50 years why is it good for before that? The crucial point here though, is that no-one, not McIntyre, not Monckton, is saying that anyone has actually tried to hide a genuine decline in temperature records.
The skeptic arguments are that the entire technique is flawed, and that using this information combined with other proxy information to create a temperature record is bad science.
Endlessly parroting the sound bite "Hide the decline" is bad enough, since presenting it out of it's context is enough to imply that someone is actually hiding a measured decline in temperature, when that simply isn't true, and no-one with any knowledge of the issue is seriously suggesting it.
The above quote however isn't just misleading - it's wholly inaccurate. It shows you don't even understand the skeptics arguments, let alone the arguments for AGW, and that you've just swallowed your own propaganda.
David S
The burden of proof falls upon he who asserts the positive. In the absence of a proof an assertion is merely an arbitrary claim and should be dismissed without further consideration.
Your fellow AGW pushers have not provided proof for their claims. What they have accomplished is to produce a structure of lies, fibs, frauds and deceptions. They are unable to demonstrate that their claims are anything other than self-serving arbitrary nonsense. Hence they are best dismissed without further consideration. End of story.
No more excuses.
LGM
How is that a rebuttal of my criticism of this post? It's true that I think AGW is real and is a problem, but my previous comment doesn't actually make any argument for it. I was pointing out that PC's comment is incorrect.
Is it alright for someone to either lie, or just be ignorant, simply because you're on the "correct" side of the argument?
David
It wipes out your entire position, arbitrary beliefs and all. Definately a complete rebuttal.
You have nothing of value to contribute until a valid proof for your silly AGW claims is produced. Given previous performance I'd be more than safe in betting that no such proof will be forthcoming.
LGM
Yes, you keep avoiding that oh so inconvenient reality that PC is either:
A. Trying to intentionally mislead his readers.
B. Ignorant.
"many revealed in the Climategate emails, where scientists discussed “Mike’s Nature trick” to hide a decline in temperatures shown in data"
This statement is incorrect, regardless of your position on AGW.
David
Yes, you keep avoiding that oh so inconvenient reality that your AGW pimps are either:
A. Trying to intentionally mislead.
B. Ignorant of reality.
"many revealed in the Climategate emails, where scientists discussed “Mike’s Nature trick” to hide a decline in temperatures shown in data"
This statement is correct, regardless of your position on AGW.
Your AGW position remains unproved, arbitrary assertion, hence baseless.
LGM
David S must be the same person as Barry, because they have exactly the same points in their argument on any topic.
Well, David has a point. The parenthetical clause is hardly grammatical, and doesn't tell the full story.
What I perhaps should have said was
"scientists discussed using “Mike’s Nature trick” to hide the decline that became obvious when they mashed together two incommensurate sets of data to make a hockey stick."
There you go. That's more accurate.
PC
Righto.
Gosh. I never realised how AGW belief can be supported by an appeal to bad grammar. Goodness, gracious, next it'll be in the headlines:
"Well known skeptic's grammatical errors evidence for AGW!"
or how about this one,
"Analysis of grammar repairs hockey stick!"
or,
"AGW scientifically proven by grammar".
I is sure real amused of it like.
LGM
Or how about this,
"AGW, a grammatical fact."
LGM
That's a little better PC, but it's still wrong, it doesn't come close to explaining the issue even from a skeptical perspective.
Oh, and it's certainly far from just a "grammatical error". Unless you think calling a spade a weather balloon constitutes a "grammatical error".
PS, for the record, I am not Barry. I do not post under any other names.
Post a Comment