Over the last two days, ice drift has completely blocked the eastern end of the Beaufort Sea with 100% concentration ice – right up to the shoreline.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Recent Comments
Morgan Wright on Climate Destroying Shrimp Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… saveenergy on What’s At Stake? willys36 on “The world began to end… Morgan Wright on Climate Homicide saveenergy on Climate Homicide saveenergy on Homophobic Gas Walter on Protecting Endangered Species
David posted this downstairs. It shows very warm surface temperatures along the route oh the row.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/weather/arcticweather_imagecontainer.php
This is good news for the rowers
Reggie, you still haven’t done your homework have you old dufus!!
You are talking about AIR temps when you should be paying attention to SST’s which are normal to cool. If those NUCLEAR HOT winds can’t change the SST’s they have no chance at melting the ice.
Really, buy a vowel or something man!!
Ok,
So these rowers are hoping for good weather on their trip. Big deal. This can prove NOTHING. Weather is not climate.
Oops, bad link
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/weather/arcticweather.uk.php
It’s the map on the right
Can trollers be rowers, as well.
If someone posts 100 percent factual comments supported by science, are they trolls?
Ice melts when its warm and freeze again when its cold. That is all you really need to know. OK?
Anyone admitting to being an acolyte of Mikey “Hockey Schtick” Mann can instantly be considered a troll. BTW, we’re still waiting for one of those “100 percent factual comments”. (With the possible exception of your admitting that ice comes and goes, quite naturally, due to the Milankovitch Cycle.)
Did you know that GENUINE skeptics have invited Dr Mann to speak at their convention, Tam2013.
I bet that is going to cause the heads of the pretend skeptics (climate change deniers)
to explode.
Why do think Mann refuses to debate?
You got it 100% RIGHT BC -any one so STUPID and UNINFORMED to believe PLAYSTATION HOCKY SCHTICK is NOTHING but a TROLL, and a really STUPID and UNINFORMED one. I am still waiting for REGGIE POOH to anything true, real, or factual.
Mostly, REGGIE POOH just drools crap.
I understand blogs about fishing consider trolling to be an acceptable practice.
On this blog trollers drag a half rotten red herring through Artic Waters to see if they can get a drowned polar bear to bite.
Peer reviewed science is how Mann does debate.
Oral debates are a waste of time, the climate change deniers do a gish gallop and claim victory.
Did you know that Lord Monckton ran away from his online debate with journalist Peter ( potholer54) Hadfield because Hadfield wised up to the gish gallop routine and insisted that the debate be on the internet over a period of several days, so he could research Monckton’s lies.
Watt’s deletes all comments that mention Hadfield, he has even posted that WUWT is now a “potholer54” free blog. Watts also lies to his readers about Monckton running away.
It’s a good thing I was taking screenshots before Watt’s flushed it all down the memory hole.
At least you seem to be honest and have not been deleting comments that contain inconvenient truths. I give you kudos for that Steve
ROFLMAO
Climategate E-mails show that Mann worked to kill journals which published skeptical viewpoints.
Drool, Drool, Drool
You are really psycho, Reggi Pooh, really psycho – an extremely paranoid psycho.
I now feel sorry for you – you cannot help drooling what you drool. It may be all that brain damage you got playing hockey. You need help, kiddo, a LOT OF HELP.
Climategate?
Are you still talking about those stolen emails taken out of context?
Weren’t there five different investigations that all exonerated the scientists from charges of wrongdoing?
That tired old dog doesn’t hunt anymore, at least not in the reality based universe
ok, you really are nothing more than a troll…they were right all along
Emails uncovered in the 2009 Climategate scandal showed Mann participated in concerted efforts by global warming activists to hide, destroy, and misrepresent scientific evidence that undercut their assertions that humans are creating a global warming crisis. The Climategate emails also showed Mann and the other activists sought to blackball skeptical scientists from being published in peer-reviewed science journals and coerce the science journals to fire any editors who published scientific articles challenging global warming alarmism.
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/virginia-legislators-seek-block-transparency-global-warming-records
And I’ve been finding this sooo funny. Mann keeps defending his work and now.
Hey Ya! (mal) McIntyre was right – CRU Abandons one tree Yamal Superstick
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/28/hey-ya-mal-mcintyre-was-right-cru-abandons-yamal-superstick/
The emails probably were archived and released by an internal whistle-blower who had grown tired of of the lies, deceit and obfuscation of the Warmist ideologues posing as climate scientists.
The investigations you refer to were whitewashes from beginning to end. No attempt was made to interview the key scientists and statisticians, including Steve McIntyre, who had exposed the fraud. A decision was made in advance to torpedo evidence of wrongdoing.
Mann, Jones, Schmidt and a few of the other AGW ringleaders should be arrrested, tried and convicted of fraud. Their demonization of CO2, a plant nutrient, and the manipulation of dendochronology and thermometer data has have defrauded taxpayers of hundreds of billions of dollars, while perpetrating one of greatest frauds in the history of science.
Drool, drool, drool, Reggie Pooh.
Want a laugh?
Willard A Watt’s banned me on my third comment at his blog for asking Monckton about his claims of discovering a cure for AIDs, flu and the common cold.
All my comments were promptly flushed down the memory hole. and I became persona non grata.
When and where were you not persona non grata (excluding your group think progressive chums?)
oh, I remember that…
..and even after you were told to stop de-railing the thead and email Monckton and ask him
you kept doing it
If banning you is good enough for Watts….it’s good enough for me
Latitude
How do you know what I really posted? I have screenshots that prove my first question was very on topic, but it would have exposed Monckton as a liar.
Watts’s mods have been known to delete comments and claim them they are off topic, even when they are not.
Did you know he allows his mods to have multiple sock-puppets?
Do you want to know a few of the socks dbstealey has worn?
We would like to know your Sock Puppets!
I don’t have any sock-puppets and very seldom comment on blogs. I enjoy lurking at blogs that have stimulating discussions about real science. I also lurk at places that tear apart climate deniers pseudo-science when I need a good laugh.
Reggie:
You could have fooled me with that one. You sound just like about a hundred other trolls I have “Discussed” weather and climate with over the years. You seem to use the same Chicken Little wannabe play book as the others. You probably even think SS is a reliable site!
because I not only remember you tried to derail the thread…
…I remember what Watts…not mods….posted to you
even when he warned you to stop derailing the threads….you continued
You deserved to be banned….exactly like you’re doing here….when one thing backfires on you….you jump to something else
Wow, you have an incredible memory, that discussion took place 18 months ago. looking at the screenshots, Watts wasn’t involved,
The mod was the unfortunate chap who died from a heart attack.
yes I do….and you have a distinct history
and Watts was involved
Speaking of ‘deniers’….don’t you realize that while you are denying that you were derailing a thread on another site, you are engaging in that very same pathetic behavior on this site? Not much of a defense bro….but count your blessings….anyone that stupid is lucky to be living indoors.
Now, do you have anything at all to say about ice drifts completely blocking the eastern end of the Beaufort Sea in late June? If not, you should really consider doing something worthwhile for the blogosphere and head over to Whiners Anonymous – http://www.city-data.com/forum/other-topics/394314-whiners-anonymous.html
well that explains it, do you not know Sir why it is you get banned?
Explains what?
Do you believe Monckton’s claims about finding a cure for the common cold?
What about his claim to be able to cure AIDs
What about his claim to cure the flu?
Don’t you feel it is possible that he is lying about those alleged cures he discovered?
You really like your Kool aide . . Just keep chugging away.
The amusement value is quite good.
As for the Cold and Flu, so far, I have successfully cured them every time I have contracted them. What is your stupid point this time?
Squid:
I agree, if we had not found the cure each time we would not be here to talk about it.
The boys made it to Ft. Nelsonand seem to like very late morning starts.
http://mainstreamlastfirst.com/
1038am and they haven’t hit the road yet.
Sight seeing and partying! OPM! Why not!
They have probably looked at Steven’s information and realized they aren’t going to make it so are enjoying life while they can!!
Steven, what Reggie has just called Robert Phelan here: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/big-trouble-for-arctic-rowers/#comment-243696
is despicable and grotesque, and this is coming from the same commenter who has just informed me that I was “rude” for having the unmitigated nerve to write to him, “I assume you were not lying to me when you said you wanted to answer the question” that I had asked him >11 hours previously, while he skipped around your blog grandstanding against other comments with which he disagreed.
With his latest comment in a discussion with Latitude, he has come a millimeter from admitting that he is here to derail the present thread.
You have been more than fair to him. You have a visitor who is now playfully suggesting that he is here to derail your threads if possible.
RTF
My quote of myself was from memory; the actual quote is: “I am assuming you were not lying to me when you said you intended to answer it.”
Grow up Richard, this is what I posted
“The mod was the unfortunate chap who died from a heart attack”
What is offensive about the words “unfortunate chap”.
What is offensive is your attempts to derail all the conversations.
miked1947 – Reggie Pooh suffered serious brain damage playing hockey, so he is not responsible for anything he says or does. Please do not take him seriously; he cannot help it.
Terrence:
I have been at this long enough that I do not take any of them seriously! Reggie is just reciting from the Chicken Little wannabe Play Book!
Team Twisted rowers are being sent to their demise by irrational assholes who hope for gloom & doom and an ice free Arctic (& Antarctic), those that cheer them on and on…
The news coverage over the next several weeks will be spectacular entertainment for everyone.
Is this Reggie sponsored by Brawndo? He claims to be a rower in the video and by the end of the video it seems to accurately portray Reggie. 😉
That’s Reggie!
Is this Reggie sponsored by Brawndo? – IT MOST CERTAINLY IS REGGIE POOH!!!!
That is an EXTREMELY accurate portrayal of Reggie Pooh. He really is brain damaged.
Maybe their boats are out fitted with skis.
LOL…yep, they have skies/runners on the bottom….if not, when they drag it over the ice, they would tear up the bottom of their boat
Once again, you are 100 percent wrong.
There are no runners or skies [sic] on the bottom, just paint over a thin kevlar coating
Drool, drool, drool, Reggie Pooh.
Watch the video for yourself, Reggie Pooh. See what you look like to people who are not brain damaged.
I read that in an article……my fault…….don’t ever listen to the news! LOL
Reggie, they have to at least have it reenforced well enough to drag it on shore….that’s what they are saying in case of storms….
If it’s reenforced enough to drag it on shore…they can drag it over ice
Kevlar won’t hold up to that without reinforcement and stringers……
found their boat construction pics…I’m jealous!
….love the boat and construction….super light weight and strong
It looks like their intensive planning for takeoff tomorrow won’t happen!
if the planning for their easy part of the journey failed, I can only imagine how the rest will pan out..
http://mainstreamlastfirst.com/
GO TEAM TWISTED!
Can we please stop with the insults? All we’re doing is repelling potential contributors to this blog. If I were to bash fellow physicists at a conference, I’d be kicked out immediately.
I disagree with Reggie’s views on climate change, but I’m not about to go trashing him over it. Seriously, this is so pathetic.
I, as an anthropogenic global warming skeptic, and a physicist working in climate science for relatively minuscule pay, am ashamed to see this unscientific trashfest. Is this maybe why the “Hockey Team” refuses to debate? With the demeanor shown in this thread, I don’t blame ’em! And I never thought I’d ever hear myself saying this…wow
philr1992 – would you be so kind as to point Reggie Pooh’s ‘contributions’, other than name calling, insulting and misrepresenting what others say?
Those posts where Reggie Pooh does NOT dump his crap are very intelligent, thoughtful, and informative. Why do think Reggie Pooh was banned a WUWT?
Based on my own recent experience Phil, I fear you will be sadly disappointed if you hope to encounter any “Real Science” in these hallowed halls.
“Just Having Fun” and it is comical that the rowing team has ditched reality for fantasy:)
Models never lie, but their designers sure do!
The rowing team have a shared delusional approach that excludes natural cyclical processes, and that is quite unhealthy…
Said the “surrealist programmer” .. and “cutting edge contemporary artist”
ROFLMAO…
I’m pleased to discover you appreciate my sense of humour Squid. “Just having fun”!
philr1992,
It stopped being about the science a looooong time ago. Just ask a Warmist.
Here is some science from the great climate scientists of our day.
Thank you Phil.
There is a lot of shame to go around on this thread, including for Philr1992 who though he has had no contribution to the scientific debate with Reggie that has been ongoing, has actually implicitly defended the decision by Reggie to bash many of us in this “conference” and also the decision to dance on the grave of a dead and highly respected scientist, Robert Phelan (who cannot be here to defend himself) for no other reason than to score a few cheap political points in a science-related food fight / soap opera.
The moderator of this and related threads apparently made a choice to allow a free-for-all in order to spotlight the worst that Reggie was capable of. I disagree with that decision, but nonetheless that is no reason to shy away from valid criticism of Reggie when he steps over the line. It appears that he is here to incite, and not to honestly debate scientific questions. While I could certainly do with less noise, I direct that criticism to both sides and not just to my own side.
RTF
obsess much, Richard?
Writing, “the mod was the unfortunate chap who died from a heart attack”, is somehow dancing on his grave…that accusation is pure unadulterated horse manure
Read the thread from the start, it wasn’t me who brought up Dr Mann.
Later it was Steve Goddard who brought up Mann and debate.
Steve changed the subject to climate-gate.
My first comment here today included a link to a map that was very relevant. Not one person here dared mention it because it showed surface temperatures that are less than ideal for ice.
It is going to be 81 and sunny tomorrow at Inuvik, the starting point of the row, then three days of rain. Big trouble for ice but good news for the rowers who are probably departing on the 5th of July.
It is good & healthy that occasionally a person can come across a website that allows thoughts from differing sides.
The rowing team has no chance of finishing their trip, but the awareness to delusional group thinking that this site brings is a good thing.
Making the masses aware of reality and with the team heading into an area far outside their range of comfort and knowledge will not be good for the promoters and hopeful followers.
The crew of four has no need for their 80 day dried food supply, unless they plan on some long walks heading south toward the early part of August…
Well, OF COURSE, Reggie Pooh – if the FORECAST is for 81, it WILL OF COURSE, BE 81.
If you did NOT have your head so far up your rectum, you would KNOW that Steven was NOT the one “who brought up Mann and debate” CAN YOU READ ENGLISH REGGIE POOH???
Terrence, you are wrong!
stevengoddard says:
June 30, 2013 at 3:58 pm
Why do think Mann refuses to debate?
PLEASE TAKE YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR RECTUM, REGGIE POOH. YOUR FECAL MATTER IS UGLY AND DISGUSTING.
CAN YOU READ ENGLISH, REGGIE POOH
BC says:
June 30, 2013 at 3:14 pm
Anyone admitting to being an acolyte of Mikey “Hockey Schtick” Mann can instantly be considered a troll. BTW, we’re still waiting for one of those “100 percent factual comments”. (With the possible exception of your admitting that ice comes and goes, quite naturally, due to the Milankovitch Cycle.)
Reply
You are a BRAIN DEAD IDIOT Reggie Pooh – a BRAIN DEAD IDIOT!!!
terrance,
Are you still in junior high?
It’s hard to tell whether terrence is a Poe or not. He certainly is making Steve’s
blog look bad.
TOTALLY OBNOXIOUS OAF – you really should get out of your mommies basement and stop smoking that weed – you are obviously BRAIN DAMAGED
Thanks for making even MORE of a FOOL out of yourself, Reggie Pooh – is English your second or third language?
Do you still think Steven was the first one to use “Dr” Mann’s name in this post? Of course, you are too STUPID to admit you were wrong. But, when the Totally Obnoxious Oaf is the one of the very few here who agrees with you speaks VOLUMES.
Have you figured out that the ONLY reason Steven lets you two brain-dead losers post here is show how STUPID fans of “Dr” Mann really are – you losers do SUCH a good job of looking stupid.
I am sure you both BELIEVE in “Dr” Mann’s hockey stick; and “think” he does “science”!!!
reggie sponsored by Brawndo says:
June 30, 2013 at 4:33 pm
Climategate?
Are you still talking about those stolen emails taken out of context?
============================================
Reggie, please put this in context for me.
Bradley:
“I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”.
Cook:”
I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly cannot be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.”
Reggie, put the above in context… wait , let me help you…
.Then Cook proposes a new climate reconstruction to sort out all the past one’s, a best effort if you will of the team..
with a tentative title: Cook writes…
“Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Over The Past Millennium: Where Are
The Greatest Uncertainties?”
Authors: Cook, Briffa, Esper, Osborn, D’Arrigo, Bradley(?), Jones
(??), Mann (infinite?) – I am afraid the Mike and Phil are too
personally invested in things now (i.e. the 2003 GRL paper that is
probably the worst paper Phil has ever been involved in – Bradley
hates it as well), but I am willing to offer to include them if they
can contribute without just defending their past work”
==================================================
Cook next (in seven steps) articulates what he thinks can be learned from this team effort after describing it in detail ending with step 7
Cook writes…
“…7. Publish, retire, and don’t leave a forwarding address. It is then summarise that the team will lknow “fuck all” about real temperatures.
So not only do the “team” CAGW proponents trach Mann’s work, but so do many serious scientists globally. Just to give one review, I suggest you read the paper last year by McShane and Wyner in The Annals of Applied Statistics (Vol. 5, No. 1, p. 5-44). You can see in their study they found that random noise was as effective as the proxies processed by the Mann algorithm in predicting temperatures. As they put it “random series that are independent of global temperature are as effective or more effective than the proxies at predicting global annual temperatures in the instrumental period. Again, the proxies are not statistically significant when compared to sophisticated null models”. Do you know what that means?
This is not even taking into account Mann leaving out 40 years worth of data when he purports to show that his proxies correlate to temperatures in the thermometer era. If you are truly interested in understanding Mann’s work, you should read and digest the The Hockey Stick Illusion by A.W. Montford (which has already been recommended by the book club).
In his more recent papers, Mann has used a proxy upside down from the orientation proposed by the author of the original study developing the proxy.
Of course, showing that Mann’s science is unsupportable in nowway “disproves” global warming. It simply means that anyone wanting to show temperature reconstructions of the past 1000 years cannot validly rely on his methods.
Do you have a scientific reason for ignoring the conclusion of Prof. Wegman who concluded in a report to Congress that the Mann conclusions were not statistically valid? (You may recall that Dr. Gerry North, who was head of an NAS panel reviewing climate reconstructions testified under oath that he agreed with the conclusion of the Wegman report).
Thanks for the summary, David; you really refreshed my memory.
But, I must say, Reggie Pooh will NOT have anything intelligent to say about your comment. He may well dump some crap; but he will not address it (it will be a FIRST, if he does).
I still like:
I don’t think it helps you side to discuss the Wegman report. In November of 2010, the story broke that a good deal of the report had been copy-pasted from Wikipedia and some old textbooks, Wegman’s paper was later retracted.
Experts claim 2006 climate report plagiarized
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2010-11-21-climate-report-questioned_N.htm
Journal Retracts Disputed Network Analysis Paper on Climate
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/06/journal-retracts-disputed-network.html
Plagiarized’ GOP-Commissioned Climate Change Report Laid Groundwork For Climate-Gate
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/plagiarized_gop-commissioned_climate_change_report.php
You guys make this too darn easy!
David
I don’t think it helps you side to discuss the Wegman report. In November of 2010, the story broke that a good deal of the report had been copy-pasted from Wikipedia and some old textbooks, Wegman’s paper was later retracted.
Experts claim 2006 climate report plagiarized
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2010-11-21-climate-report-questioned_N.htm
PLEASE TAKE YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR RECTUM, REGGIE POOH. YOUR FECAL MATTER IS UGLY AND DISGUSTING.
That does not change the results of the paper.
Nice hand waving. 😆
David:
Journal Retracts Disputed Network Analysis Paper on Climate
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/06/journal-retracts-disputed-network.html
`Science`magazine is SUCH an open rag – it DOES NOT PUBLISH ANYTHING THAT EVEN QUESTION AGW. I am sure you believe every word you read in that dishonest rag.
David, here is a third one
Plagiarized’ GOP-Commissioned Climate Change Report Laid Groundwork For Climate-Gate
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/plagiarized_gop-commissioned_climate_change_report.php
You guys make this too darn easy!
Steve, please delete the comment in the spam box that was posted at…
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/big-trouble-for-arctic-rowers/#comment-243799
Sorry, I inadvertently exceeded your limit for links in a single comment, it won’t happen again.
Plagiarism and AIDS cures. How again does any of this defend the discredited hypothesis of AGW? It doesn’t.
More hand waving. 😆
Reggies says…
Sorry, I inadvertently exceeded your limit for links in a single comment, it won’t happen again.
——————————————————————————-
Reggie, Reggie, Reggie, your accusation of plagerism sadly demotes you to troll status. You have exceeded more then one limit in your response to my post. The ignorance in your post is only exceeded by it’s arrogance. …”In November of 2010, the story broke that a good deal of the report had been copy-pasted from Wikipedia and some old textbooks”
Really? ” a good deal of the report.” Neither Dr. Wegman nor [first author Yasmin Said] has ever engaged in plagiarism, In a March 16 e-mail to the journal, Wegman explained that a student who “had basically copied and pasted some wikepedia references into the 2006 congressional report, and said the text was lifted without acknowledgment and used in the journal study. “We would never knowingly publish plagiarized material” wrote Wegman, a former CSDA journal editor.
So Reggies, please quote the copied wik references. They are a TINY part of the Wegman report, not as you assert, a good deal of the report. Furthermore, and here is what is most important, they are 100 percent inmaterial to what the reports demonstrates and was supported by the NAS confirmation. In true troll like fashion you ignored the DIRECT questions I asked you in my post.
You ignored that the “team” scientists who promoted the CAGW story, all condemend, not only Mann’s work, but their own studies as well, admiting and stating that even if they did their best combined work on past T, they would know “fuck all” about the true past T record.
I must say Reggie, are you not a little bit ashamed? If you hope to elevate your comments above troll status, please reread my post, and respond to the questions I asked you, all of them.
David
You are hilarious
What part of the Wegman report was retracted do you not understand?
Keep spinning
Thank for the laughs Reggie Pooh, THANKS FOR THE LAUGHS!!!
You just keep your head up your rectum, Reggie Pooh
Reggie,
did you ever figure out who WROTE that section that was “plagiarized” from WIKIPEDIA?!?!?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
Yes, another embarrassment for DUFI like you!!
Reggie, till avoiding much. Still living in a fantasy world where if you deny something you assume everyone else will.
A CHALLENGE FOR REGGIE…read the paper by McShane and Wyner in The Annals of Applied Statistics (Vol. 5, No. 1, p. 5-44). You can see in their study they found that random noise was as effective as the proxies processed by the Mann algorithm in predicting temperatures. As they put it “random series that are independent of global temperature are as effective or more effective than the proxies at predicting global annual temperatures in the instrumental period. Again, the proxies are not statistically significant when compared to sophisticated null models”. Do you know what that means? CHALLENGE FOR REGGIE
As I stated earlier, Dr. Gerry North, who was head of an NAS panel reviewing climate reconstructions, testified under oath that he agreed with the conclusion from the Wegman report that the Mann conclusions were not statistically valid. Do you have a SCIENTIFIC reason for ignoring the conclusion of Dr Gerry North? CHALLENGE FOR REGGIE
Or are you defending the indefensible as Cook, a warmist, phrased it? CHALLENGE FOR REGGIE
Dr. Jonathan Jones, Professor of Physics, Brasenose College, Oxford University made on the Bishop Hill blog ( http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/12/2/tim-barnett-on-the-hockey-stick.html ) at December 3, 2011 at 6:11 PM. Professor Jones makes an unequivocal condemnation of the “Hockey Stick” and much of climatology. Do you have a SCIENTIFIC reason for ignoring the conclusion of Dr. Jonathan Jones? CHALLENGE FOR REGGIE
REGGIE , which of the following has Mann not done? CHALLENGE FOR REGGIE…
From the National Association of Scholars website:
“How to detect an obvious fraud:
If a researcher will not show their raw data.
If a researcher will not show the “adjustments” they have made to their raw data.
If the researchers historical “adjusted data” conflict rather dramatically with other generally accepted data sets without any rational explanation.
If a researcher will not show the internals of the model that processes their adjusted data to produce their results.
If a researcher attempts to destroy anybody who disagrees with them, instead of attempting to refute their position.
If a researcher attempts to destroy their raw data/adjustments/models rather than have them released.
If a researcher attempts to destroy their communications with other researchers rather than have them released.”
David,
Then I guess it is a good thing for Mann that several newer studies featuring different methodologies, different data, different codes and different people over the past 15 years have created new hockey sticks making all your arguments irrelevant.
The old “show us the data” has been a bit tough, as the guardians won’t give it up.
The reviewers are also without the raw data, but they sure do like the AGW ideas:)
McIntyre, Grey, Christy, Lindzen, Lovelock, Pielke, Wallace, Tisdale, Eschenbach, Mosher, Page, Spencer, etc.. are all wrong, or are they just misguided?
Sorry TOO, but simply not so. In fact some of the leaked claimetagate emails show that the “team” was very critical of all the proxy studies,and they admitted that they used many of the same questionable proxies, and Cook concluded that if they did their best ever paper, they still would know “fuck all” about actual historical T.
So, after being forced more and more into the reality of the MWP, which was the consensous for real scientific reasons, their papers slowly got a little better, but the models which are a reflection of these studies to some degree, can not forecast for shit, or “fuck all” if you preferr. They are simply TOO senstive to CO2
Now for some peer reviewed studies that give a more realistic senstivity to CO2, which if the models used they would not ALL be way TOO wrong, please consider. All below show lower sensitivity then the IPCC
Aldrin, M., et al., 2012. Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations oh hemispheric temperature and global ocean heat content. Environmetrics, doi:10.1002/env.2140.
Gillett, N.P., et al., 2012. Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations. Geophysical Research Letters, 39, L01704,
doi:10.1029/2011GL050226.
Olson, R., et al., 2012. A climate sensitivity estimate using Bayesian fusion of instrumental observations and an Earth System model. Journal of Geophysical Research, 117, D04101, doi:10.1029/2011JD016620.
Padilla, L. E., G. K. Vallis, and C. W. Rowley, 2011. Probabilistic estimates of transient climate sensitivity subject to uncertainty in forcing and natural variability. Journal of Climate, 24, 5521-5537, doi:10.1175/2011JCL13989.1.
Schmittner, A., et al., 2011. Climate sensitivity estimated from temperature reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum, Science, 344, 1385-1388, DOI: 10.1126/science.1203513.
David,
Here are a few temperature reconstructions (i.e Hockey Sticks):
An independent assessment of Mann’s hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). They confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick – that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.
Elementary Reconstruction of the Hockey Stick Curve: Discussion of Paper by Li, Nychka and Ammann (2010)
Temperature trends over the past five centuries reconstructed from bore hole temperatures
Shaopeng Huang*, Henry N. Pollack* & Po-Yu Shen†
A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years by Marcott et al.
Plus some links to to other paleo history:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/smith2006/smith2006.html
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/Resources/Seminar/readings/Huang_boreholeTemp_Nature%2700.pdf
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676
BTW it was interesting reading that list on what constitutes a fraud — why are you linking that to Mann? His data has always been available. He released his code but most scientists don’t. He has been cleared numerous times by numerous committees on misconstured charges and even received plaudits from the NAS which is a very rare thing indeed.
BS! Mann lawyered up, and with a denialist attorney at that! 😆
“Mann’s attorney, John B. Williams of Cozen O’Connor, retorted, saying that Mann had been “repeatedly exonerated of any fraudulent conduct”, and that “…the response is little more than an invective filled attack on Dr. Mann. And further, this attack is coupled with the transparent threat that the National Review intends to undertake burdensome and abusive tactics should Dr. Mann have the temerity to attempt to defend himself in court. Mann added on his Facebook page, “We intend to file a lawsuit.”
Williams has represented other well-known clients. For example, he successfully defended the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company in a commercial speech case filed by the Federal Trade Commission which challenged their use of the cartoon character, Joe Camel, as an unfair trade practice to target children with the fun-loving character. Commenting on that case, Williams said: “We are here because a lot of people do not like successful cigarette campaigns.” We can only wonder if Mr. Williams will argue this same bias with regard to successful climate science campaigns which, according to a Congressional Research Service report, have secured $68.4 billion in federal money between 2008 and 2012 to address man-induced climate change.
So is it true, as Michael Mann claims, that he has been exonerated of all charges in these matters? Chris Horner argues that this, most definitely, is not the case. He told me that not only hasn’t Mann been exonerated, “…in fact he’s never even been investigated… only covered up for.” Further, Horner reports that he has documents from a principal at Penn State indicating that its so-called inquiry, rightly derided by even otherwise sympathetic characters such as Clive Crook in the Atlantic, was just what it appeared to be on its face, a whitewash.”
Chris Horner adds: “Prompted by Mann arguing otherwise in the UVA case, we have now brought this, and the fact that UVA decided against an inquiry for fear the findings would leak, to the court’s attention.” All of this is detailed in his new book titled The Liberal War on Transparency.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/09/18/climategate-star-michael-mann-courts-legal-disaster/4/
Transparent! 😆
Hey T.O.O.L., why did the IPCC remove the hockey stick from their reports? Are you a MWP denier like Mikey? 😆
You guys lose all credibility when you support frauds and liars, but then I guess that is all you have. 😉
Oh MY!!!
http://mainstreamlastfirst.com/
THEIR map shows not even CLOSE to the coast. Are they that unprofessional or WAITING for the ice Steven Goddard keeps trying to point out to Reggie DUFUS to clear?!?!
Party Time! They plan to make the most of the OPM they have to Party with!
Here are a couple unwelcome papers out recently. One directly supporting Dr. Salby and one indirectly supporting him!!
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/07/swedish-scientist-replicates-dr-murry.html
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/07/new-paper-finds-ocean-along-n.html