• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.



Spoofomaniac warmist alarmists implores Democrats to ignore the data on climate change

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,630
Website
www.google.com
See this is the type of unscientific nonsense from grantfare suckling Z-listers that ruins public policy debates
Activists Push DNC for a Cleaner, Fairer Party Platform - BillMoyers.com
What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle. Regardless of how you measure the impacts of climate change
See there are numerous ways to deal with climate change
(1) Continue using fuel but reduce emissions
(2) Develop clean energy sources
(3) Remove or otherwise neutralise greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
(4) Other climate altering techniques like aforestation, dusting the atmosphere etc
(5) Reduce the likelihood of the bad effects of climate change (e. g. dams)
(6) Reduce the impact of the bad effects (e. g. irrigation for drought)

Pseudo scientists like the above are idiots, data is needed to guide how much of 1 to 6 might be needed and to do cost benefit analysis on which to deploy

cYp
 


cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,630
Website
www.google.com
The call to ignore the data is a call for absolute power to be given to the chosen Scientist-Kings

cyp
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,287
Zoo please for this drivel.
 

Feckkit

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2011
Messages
5,889
I don't know why you would risk an outbreak of out-fighting from the resident loon-thread on this topic, but what are you actually saying? That Mann is a nutter?
 

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,630
Website
www.google.com
I don't know why you would risk an outbreak of out-fighting from the resident loon-thread on this topic, but what are you actually saying? That Mann is a nutter?
Mann is a pretty good second rate scientist, but is not a first rate scientist, and is largely ignorant of material from outside his discipline

His call to abandon data models is utterly demented, and people of his narrow abilities, really ought to be ringfenced more in public policy debate

cYp
 

Feckkit

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2011
Messages
5,889
Mann is a pretty good second rate scientist, but is not a first rate scientist, and is largely ignorant of material from outside his discipline

His call to abandon data models is utterly demented, and people of his narrow abilities, really ought to be ringfenced more in public policy debate

cYp
I was rather hoping that you would go with 'Mann's a nutter' - because that's precisely what he is; an idealist pushing propaganda and not at all worthy of your 'second-rate scientist' award. Fellas like him should be quarantined, well away from any public policy discussions.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
44,408
The warmist lobby promoting the lie that humans can alter climate are the nazis of the second millennium .
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,359
See this is the type of unscientific nonsense from grantfare suckling Z-listers that ruins public policy debates
Activists Push DNC for a Cleaner, Fairer Party Platform - BillMoyers.com


See there are numerous ways to deal with climate change
(1) Continue using fuel but reduce emissions
(2) Develop clean energy sources
(3) Remove or otherwise neutralise greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
(4) Other climate altering techniques like aforestation, dusting the atmosphere etc
(5) Reduce the likelihood of the bad effects of climate change (e. g. dams)
(6) Reduce the impact of the bad effects (e. g. irrigation for drought)

Pseudo scientists like the above are idiots, data is needed to guide how much of 1 to 6 might be needed and to do cost benefit analysis on which to deploy

cYp

At no point does Mann call for ignoring the data. All he said was that you can actually see the effects of climate change on the news now. You do not need the special tools climate scientists use to see the effects any more. He does not even mention data modelling, except to say that it's something ha e has done a lot of.

The jump from what Mann says to the utter drivel in the OP is entirely that of the OP. For the OP to call anyone a 'pseudo scientist' based on his own cluelessness about something as simple as spoke English would be ironic were it not standard fare.
 

JCR

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
6,322
Mann is a pretty good second rate scientist, but is not a first rate scientist, and is largely ignorant of material from outside his discipline

His call to abandon data models is utterly demented, and people of his narrow abilities, really ought to be ringfenced more in public policy debate

cYp
You should go back to trolling on facebook or something. You are a complete idiot and nothing more.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2015
Messages
2,592
Mann is a pretty good second rate scientist, but is not a first rate scientist, and is largely ignorant of material from outside his discipline

His call to abandon data models is utterly demented, and people of his narrow abilities, really ought to be ringfenced more in public policy debate

cYp
I'm in no position to judge his value as a scientist but from what I read from the link in the OP he doesn't really push the "abandon the data/models" angle as hard as you are. In the context of the rest what he said he's clearly calling for moving from a data gathering stage to taking action. I'd find it hard to believe that even a second rate scientist could believe that "abandoning" the data models would be of much assistance.
 

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,630
Website
www.google.com
I'm in no position to judge his value as a scientist but from what I read from the link in the OP he doesn't really push the "abandon the data/models" angle as hard as you are. In the context of the rest what he said he's clearly calling for moving from a data gathering stage to taking action. I'd find it hard to believe that even a second rate scientist could believe that "abandoning" the data models would be of much assistance.
He is completely wrong

Data gathering needs to be increased, as else the action will be wrong

He is way out of his depth and lacks capacity to do original science

Furthermore not does he not even understand the knowledge outside of his discipline ..he doesn't even understand that he doesn't understand it

He is the Tommy O'Brien of Climate Change - a moderately intelligent person, who grew up in a village stashed full of fools...and has not adjusted well to the wider world

cYp
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,359
He is completely wrong

Data gathering needs to be increased, as else the action will be wrong

He is way out of his depth and lacks capacity to do original science

Furthermore not does he not even understand the knowledge outside of his discipline ..he doesn't even understand that he doesn't understand it

He is the Tommy O'Brien of Climate Change - a moderately intelligent person, who grew up in a village stashed full of fools...and has not adjusted well to the wider world

cYp
All that may be true, but in your post, in the linked article, there is no evidence for anything you're saying. If you've got some kind of personal beef with the guy, you'd have done better just to say that than to come out with such a visibly spurious claim - if you don't, and you actually think what he said means what you claim, then you should simply be embarrassed.
 

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,630
Website
www.google.com
All that may be true, but in your post, in the linked article, there is no evidence for anything you're saying. If you've got some kind of personal beef with the guy, you'd have done better just to say that than to come out with such a visibly spurious claim - if you don't, and you actually think what he said means what you claim, then you should simply be embarrassed.
If you listen to what he said, he rather carelessly says data not needed anymore

Given how much time he spends in public policy debate, he knows how that will be taken...Liberal Democrat blogs have interpreted it in a certain way

cYp
 

Ardillaun

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
11,493
To my ignorant ear, this is what a bona fide, hardcore, numbers-based scientist sounds like:

Mann was born in 1965, and brought up in Amherst, Massachusetts, where his father was a professor of mathematics at the University of Massachusetts. At school he was interested in math, science, and computing. In August 1984 he went to the University of California, Berkeley, to major in physics with a second major in applied math. His second year research in the theoretical behaviour of liquid crystals used the Monte Carlo method applying randomness in computer simulations. Late in 1987 he joined a research team under Didier de Fontaine which was using similar Monte Carlo methodology to investigate the superconducting properties of yttrium barium copper oxide, modelling transitions between ordered and disordered phases.[4] He graduated with honors in 1989 with an A.B. in applied mathematics and physics.[1]

Mann then attended Yale University, intending to obtain a PhD in physics, and received both an MS and an MPhil in physics in 1991. His interest was in theoretical condensed matter physics but he found himself being pushed towards detailed semiconductor work. He looked at course options with a wider topic area, and was enthused by PhD adviser Barry Saltzman about climate modelling and research. To try this out he spent the summer of 1991 assisting a postdoctoral researcher in simulating the period of peak Cretaceous warmth when carbon dioxide levels were high, but fossils indicated most warming at the poles, with little warming in the tropics. Mann then joined the Yale Department of Geology and Geophysics, obtaining an MPhil in geology and geophysics in 1993. His research focused on natural variability and climate oscillations. He worked with the seismologist Jeffrey Park, and their joint research adapted a statistical method developed for identifying seismological oscillations to find various periodicities in the instrumental temperature record, the longest being about 60 to 80 years. The paper Mann and Park published in December 1994 came to similar conclusions to a study developed in parallel using different methodology and published in January of that year, which found what was later called the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation.[5]

In 1994, Mann participated as a graduate student in the inaugural workshop of the National Center for Atmospheric Research's Geophysical Statistics Project aimed at encouraging active collaboration between statisticians, climatologists and atmospheric scientists. Leading statisticians participated, including Grace Wahba and Arthur P. Dempster.[6]

While still finishing his PhD research, Mann met UMass climate science professor Raymond S. Bradley and began research in collaboration with him and Park. Their research used paleoclimate proxy data from Bradley's previous work and methods Mann had developed with Park, to find oscillations in the longer proxy records. "Global Interdecadal and Century-Scale Climate Oscillations During the Past Five Centuries" was published by Nature in November 1995.[7]

Another study by Mann and Park raised a minor technical issue with a climate model about human influence on climate change: this was published in 1996. In the context of controversy over the IPCC Second Assessment Report the paper was praised by those opposed to action on climate change, and the conservative organisation Accuracy in Media claimed that it had not been publicised due to media bias. Mann defended his PhD thesis on A study of ocean-atmosphere interaction and low-frequency variability of the climate system in the spring of 1996,[8][9] and was awarded the Phillip M. Orville Prize for outstanding dissertation in the earth sciences in the following year. He was granted his PhD in geology and geophysics in 1998.[1]
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,809
At no point does Mann call for ignoring the data. All he said was that you can actually see the effects of climate change on the news now.
Which is an out and out fabrication.

From a man who is a documented liar.
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,809
To my ignorant ear, this is what a bona fide, hardcore, numbers-based scientist sounds like:
A wiki entry. You know who writes those don't you.


Here is what bona fide sceintists think about your "bona fide hardcore, numbers-based scientist", in their own words:


"A Disgrace to the Profession"


This book details what other scientists around the world think of Michael Mann, and what is revealed is a bully who has tried to get scientists who disagree with him fired, kicked off peer review boards. He and his cronies have tried to get the tenure pulled from scientists who have disagreed with him, but at the same time, has tried to convince the public that he is himself a victim of this.

How Mann generated his results are shocking and I wont try and write these here, but suffice it to say, I would never trust anything this man says regarding climate change or anything else. His science is not real science, it is pathological science, where the conclusion is reached first and then data cherry picked to support it. But in this instance it is not cherry picked, it is simply made up. The Hockey Stick should be renamed the cricket stump, it is a shocking example of how science can be corrupted by very few people with far too much power.
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,809
What are Mark Steyn's scientific credentials again?
Outstanding credentials as a reporter.


As you would have noticed - being one who meticulously reads links and garners evidence - Steyne has compiled the views of scientists with outstanding credentials..


So unless you are claiming he isn't qualified to report what scientists has said about Michael Mann (the fraudulent "Nobel Prize Winner"), you have beclowned yourself.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top