Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[XM5ER]

turbobloke said:

XM5ER said:

Wow, climategate emails still being investigated.

Mann won't release data and is apparently in contempt as a result, the same may well happen here with emails. They would appear to be juicy.

The faith can't be challenged - though a sight of punitive damages and stripy daylight could help open the sphincters.

Whatever happened to Climategate 3.0 though. Was there a flurry of solicitors letters?

[wc98]

El stovey said:

Neither of us know what’s going’s on but I’m not pretending to, you’re the one rubbishing actual scientists and experts,

Your entrenched position is based on political dogma and rhetoric.

you mention the ipcc then shortly after political dogma and rhetoric. if you would read what people fking post time and time again you might fking learn something. i know where the rhetoric is coming from and it ain't tb.

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that .. the threat of global warming.. would fit the bill…. the real enemy, then, is humanity itself….we believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or…. one invented for the purpose.” (Maurice Strong – speech to Club of Rome – and “invented” referred specifically to ‘Global Warming’)

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” . and those encapsulate what lies behind and is the reason for ‘Global Warming / Climate Change’ .

Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015. “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole …… We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy ……….. the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated. ”

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution ”
h/t to old england wuwt.

Edited by wc98 on Thursday 7th December 19:45

[kerplunk]

XM5ER said:

Jinx said:

El stovey said:

Neither of us know what’s going’s on but I’m not pretending to, you’re the one rubbishing actual scientists and experts,

Your entrenched position is based on political dogma and rhetoric.

Disagreeing with conclusions and pointing out flaws in the data is not "rubbishing". You do know that Michael Mann's northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction has been shown to be seriously flawed in methodology ergo making his conclusions unsupportable? Is that "rubbishing" Michael Mann or pointing out flaws in his paper?

But he wont allow this data to be examined in court, leaving him in contempt. Sorry, have we pointed this out before Elstovey?

Perhaps you ought to stop pointing it out:

Contrary to the nonsensical allegations made by John O’Sullivan in his July 4 posted on climatechangedispatch.com and elsewhere, plaintiff Michael Mann has fully complied with all of his disclosure obligations to the defendant Tim Ball relating to data and other documents.

No judge has made any order or given any direction, however minor or inconsequential, that Michael Mann surrender any data or any documents to Tim Ball for any purpose.

Accordingly it should be plain and obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense that Mann could not possibly be in contempt of court.

Just to be clear: Mann is not defying any judge. He is not in breach of any judgment. He is not, repeat not, in contempt of court. He is not in breach of any discovery obligations to Ball.

In this context, O’Sullivan’s suggestion that Ball “is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions” against Mann is simply divorced from reality.


https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/post...

[turbobloke]

kerplunk said:

XM5ER said:

Jinx said:

El stovey said:

Neither of us know what’s going’s on but I’m not pretending to, you’re the one rubbishing actual scientists and experts,

Your entrenched position is based on political dogma and rhetoric.

Disagreeing with conclusions and pointing out flaws in the data is not "rubbishing". You do know that Michael Mann's northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction has been shown to be seriously flawed in methodology ergo making his conclusions unsupportable? Is that "rubbishing" Michael Mann or pointing out flaws in his paper?

But he wont allow this data to be examined in court, leaving him in contempt. Sorry, have we pointed this out before Elstovey?

Perhaps you ought to stop pointing it out:

Contrary to the nonsensical allegations made by John O’Sullivan in his July 4 posted on climatechangedispatch.com and elsewhere, plaintiff Michael Mann has fully complied with all of his disclosure obligations to the defendant Tim Ball relating to data and other documents.

No judge has made any order or given any direction, however minor or inconsequential, that Michael Mann surrender any data or any documents to Tim Ball for any purpose.

Accordingly it should be plain and obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense that Mann could not possibly be in contempt of court.

Just to be clear: Mann is not defying any judge. He is not in breach of any judgment. He is not, repeat not, in contempt of court. He is not in breach of any discovery obligations to Ball.

https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/post...

That's dated 06 July and is clearly a partisan account. Does anybody know?

Your post is dripping with certainty, is it fake? Do you have access to insider info and if so, how? Or were you searching on 'Michael Mann complies with Tim Ball'?

Here are hits from 05 July (one day earlier), 07 July i.e. one day later, and just over two weeks later on 24 July as available to outsiders. Anyone can search online using a more neutral search term..

5 Jul 2017 - Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann's humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.

7 Jul 2017 - Michael 'hockey stick' Mann doubled down on his crumbling SLAPP lawsuit against Tim Ball with his lawyer's statement of denial posted on Mann's ... Fails to comply. The data that couldn't easily prove the entire case and could have done so from day one. Game, set, match in the court of common sense.
Report: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael 'Hockey Stick' Mann ...
www.climatedepot.com/2017/.../fatal-courtroom-act-...

24 Jul 2017 - The case pits two climatologists – Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Tim Ball, retired from the University of Winnipeg – in a dispute rooted in data Mann used in creating his famous, or infamous, “hockey stick” graph. In 1999, Mann was the lead author of a paper that used an assortment of statistical techniques to reconstruct variations in atmospheric temperatures over the past 1,000 years. The graph made the Medieval Warm Period all but disappear ...

Here's the last one from CFACT as an antidote.

http://www.cfact.org/2017/07/24/decision-looms-in-...

[mondeoman]

El stovey said:

It’s because it’s nothing to do with science, it’s simply part of a wider political world view. Right wing, small government, distrust the media, anti EU, pro trump etc. It about not being told what to do by the government or worse by organisations like the IPCC etc. and certainly not being part of treaties where those distrusted organisations might be influencing our government policy or our actions.

Many of the same posters on this thread are always posting about bbc bias and are pro Brexit and Trump and aparently identify with the positions above. It’s a political position not a scientific one. That’s why this thread is much more popular than the scientific debate thread.

Many posters here happily admit they don’t know why the climates is changing or if it even is, what they know though is that they don’t believe the IPCC or NASA or the bbc etc.

Edited by El stovey on Thursday 7th December 08:26

And as this is the political thread, your point is what, exactly?

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

That's dated 06 July and is clearly a partisan account. Does anybody know?

Your post is dripping with certainty, is it fake? Do you have access to insider info and if so, how? Or were you searching on 'Michael Mann complies with Tim Ball'?

I did a quick search to see if there's been any developments since the last time I posted Mann's lawyer's statement on this thread in July - nothing found.

I like how your scepticism tap suddenly switched on. It should be on full blast for anything originating from John O'Sullivan imo.

Anyway never mind - you were saying something about faith and believers I think?

[Ali G]

kerplunk said:

I did a quick search to see if there's been any developments since the last time I posted Mann's lawyer's statement on this thread in July - nothing found.

I like how your scepticism tap suddenly switched on. It should be on full blast for anything originating from John O'Sullivan imo.

Anyway never mind - you were saying something about faith and believers I think?

Why would you believe that all legal processes are in the public domain?

[kerplunk]

Ali G said:

kerplunk said:

I did a quick search to see if there's been any developments since the last time I posted Mann's lawyer's statement on this thread in July - nothing found.

I like how your scepticism tap suddenly switched on. It should be on full blast for anything originating from John O'Sullivan imo.

Anyway never mind - you were saying something about faith and believers I think?

Why would you believe that all legal processes are in the public domain?

I don't but I do believe John O'Sullivan is a windbag.

Speaking of public domain, did you notice Michael Mann (on his fb) provides a link to where the data for the hockeystick graphs can be freely downloaded?

[wc98]

kerplunk said:

I don't but I do believe John O'Sullivan is a windbag.

Speaking of public domain, did you notice Michael Mann (on his fb) provides a link to where the data for the hockeystick graphs can be freely downloaded?

along with the code that created the hockey stick ? i hope you are not intimating the hockey stick chart is not created from falsified practice ? here is a very relevant comment from frank over at climate audit

"Steve McIntyre showed the corruption in climate reconstructions (particularly with respect to the MWP) and to some extent his skeptical position has won. The SPM for WG1 AR5 now says:

“Continental-scale surface temperature reconstructions show, with high confidence, multi-decadal periods during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (year 950 to 1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th century. These regional warm periods did not occur as coherently across regions as the warming in the late 20th century (high confidence).” https://climateaudit.org/2017/11/18/reconciling-mo...

I don’t know if Steve objects to this statement, but it is far better than AR3 and AR4. Skeptics appear to be winning about the “hot spot”. Nick Lewis appears to made a big impact with the divergence between ECS from AOGCMs and observations (EBMs).


also from steve mcintyre himself(same link), the man that destroyed every single bit of credibility mann ever had in climate science.
"Nick, as usual, refuses to confront the issue of Mann’s deletion of adverse data in IPCC 2001, which, as noted in a previous post, appears to meet all criteria of falsification as defined in codes of conduct. Deletion of adverse data is not “clever and valid”. Climategate letters revealed why Mann and others concealed the adverse Briffa results in IPCC 2001: they did so in order not to give “fodder” to skeptics and so as not to “dilute the message”.

Nick Stokes is well aware of the intentional concealment of adverse data and, rather than give offence to the community, has stoutly defended the falsification in question.

Nick doesn’t defend directly but through weaseling. Today Nick says, Look squirrel, Mike’s Nature trick is “mathematically based”. What on earth does this mean? That he used numbers in his calculation. What an irrelevant bit of nonsense. In 1998, Mann spliced proxy and instrumental data to construct his smoothed proxy diagram (as pointed out long ago at CA by Jean S and UC). He didn’t disclose the splice at the time. Then he later he swore up and down that nobody in climate spliced proxy and instrumental data, saying that only fossil fuel funded miscreants would even dare make such a claim. But that was a lie – as Nick knows but will never admit. Instead, Nick will point to more and other squirrels."

anyone suggesting mann did not deliberately produce a false impression through splicing proxy data and instrumental data is as uninformed as it is possible to be on the matter.
anyone claiming subsequent studies back up manns claim either ignores or does not know that all those subsequent studies used the exact same unsuitable proxies , namely bristle cone pines, for their strudies. end of topics. mann is a fat lying prick that has done a great disservice to science as whole, not just his own discipline. his actions are indefensible as he will find out now he has bitten off more than him and his backer (probably david suzuki ) can chew by taking on mark steyn.

Edited by wc98 on Friday 8th December 17:29

[XM5ER]

kerplunk said:

XM5ER said:

Jinx said:

El stovey said:

Neither of us know what’s going’s on but I’m not pretending to, you’re the one rubbishing actual scientists and experts,

Your entrenched position is based on political dogma and rhetoric.

Disagreeing with conclusions and pointing out flaws in the data is not "rubbishing". You do know that Michael Mann's northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction has been shown to be seriously flawed in methodology ergo making his conclusions unsupportable? Is that "rubbishing" Michael Mann or pointing out flaws in his paper?

But he wont allow this data to be examined in court, leaving him in contempt. Sorry, have we pointed this out before Elstovey?

Perhaps you ought to stop pointing it out:

Contrary to the nonsensical allegations made by John O’Sullivan in his July 4 posted on climatechangedispatch.com and elsewhere, plaintiff Michael Mann has fully complied with all of his disclosure obligations to the defendant Tim Ball relating to data and other documents.

No judge has made any order or given any direction, however minor or inconsequential, that Michael Mann surrender any data or any documents to Tim Ball for any purpose.

Accordingly it should be plain and obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense that Mann could not possibly be in contempt of court.

Just to be clear: Mann is not defying any judge. He is not in breach of any judgment. He is not, repeat not, in contempt of court. He is not in breach of any discovery obligations to Ball.

In this context, O’Sullivan’s suggestion that Ball “is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions” against Mann is simply divorced from reality.


https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/post...

Hey, Elstovey kept on about making lawsuits! It will be interesting to see how this and Mark Steyn's turn out wont it. Your link doesn't really add much more than to muddy the already very unclear water, though I have some doubt about the source of the claims also (John O'Sullivan).

I cant find any link on FB to data. Nor to his code that someone somewhere else claimed had been put out in the open and was available at Realclimate.

Edited by XM5ER on Friday 8th December 13:00

[dickymint]

XM5ER said:

kerplunk said:

XM5ER said:

Jinx said:

El stovey said:

Neither of us know what’s going’s on but I’m not pretending to, you’re the one rubbishing actual scientists and experts,

Your entrenched position is based on political dogma and rhetoric.

Disagreeing with conclusions and pointing out flaws in the data is not "rubbishing". You do know that Michael Mann's northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction has been shown to be seriously flawed in methodology ergo making his conclusions unsupportable? Is that "rubbishing" Michael Mann or pointing out flaws in his paper?

But he wont allow this data to be examined in court, leaving him in contempt. Sorry, have we pointed this out before Elstovey?

Perhaps you ought to stop pointing it out:

Contrary to the nonsensical allegations made by John O’Sullivan in his July 4 posted on climatechangedispatch.com and elsewhere, plaintiff Michael Mann has fully complied with all of his disclosure obligations to the defendant Tim Ball relating to data and other documents.

No judge has made any order or given any direction, however minor or inconsequential, that Michael Mann surrender any data or any documents to Tim Ball for any purpose.

Accordingly it should be plain and obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense that Mann could not possibly be in contempt of court.

Just to be clear: Mann is not defying any judge. He is not in breach of any judgment. He is not, repeat not, in contempt of court. He is not in breach of any discovery obligations to Ball.

In this context, O’Sullivan’s suggestion that Ball “is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions” against Mann is simply divorced from reality.


https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/post...

Hey Elstovey kept on about making lawsuits, it will be interesting to see how this and Mark Steyn's turn out wont it. You link doesn't really add much more than to muddy the already very unclear water, though I have some doubt about the source of the claims also (John O'Sullivan).

I cant find any link on FB to data. Nor to his code that someone somewhere else claimed had been put out in the open and was available at Realclimate.

Mann posted a link to Realclimate’s homepage! So I’m assuming you then have to navigate to this........

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/...

Edited for a woopy fking-doo and a

Edited by dickymint on Friday 8th December 12:54

[durbster]

dickymint said:

Mann posted a link to Realclimate’s homepage! So I’m assuming you then have to navigate to this........

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/...

Edited for a woopy fking-doo and a

Edited by dickymint on Friday 8th December 12:54

OMG you must have hacked the website to find the super secret data!!!!

You've blown this whole thing open!

You probably should go into hiding or you might end up like poor Jonny Ball after the BBC got their hands on him (by that I mean your daughter will present BBC radio shows and a spin-off of a flagship TV programme).

[LongQ]

It appears one needs to dig down to this.

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shar...

for the early stuff and maybe dredge thorough some public sources for the later stuff.

I have not looked at any details so far.

[Ali G]

durbster said:

OMG you must have hacked the website to find the super secret data!!!!

You've blown this whole thing open!

You probably should go into hiding or you might end up like poor Jonny Ball after the BBC got their hands on him (by that I mean your daughter will present BBC radio shows and a spin-off of a flagship TV programme).

Is this that Johnny Ball?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-12608157/...

The surprising aspect is that Johnny has not been burnt at the stake by the BBC for heretical crimes against CAGW.

[mko9]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/07/us/south-texas-snow-...

It is snowing in south Texas! Must be all the Man-Made Global Warming!! Or should this be in the Science thread?? ;-)

[turbobloke]

mko9 said:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/07/us/south-texas-snow-...

It is snowing in south Texas! Must be all the Man-Made Global Warming!! Or should this be in the Science thread?? ;-)

The junkscience thread



So much for the politics - from .the junkscience we know that global warming means more snow and it means less snow. Heads junkscience wins, tails science loses, and if the coin lands on its edge then that's due to global warming.

[Ali G]

Fake news - snow was banned from broadcast decades ago during the Viner years.

[Wobbegong]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/12/one-of-the-...

It’s vinering quite heavily

[dickymint]

durbster said:

dickymint said:

Mann posted a link to Realclimate’s homepage! So I’m assuming you then have to navigate to this........

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/...

Edited for a woopy fking-doo and a

Edited by dickymint on Friday 8th December 12:54

OMG you must have hacked the website to find the super secret data!!!!

You've blown this whole thing open!

You probably should go into hiding or you might end up like poor Jonny Ball after the BBC got their hands on him (by that I mean your daughter will present BBC radio shows and a spin-off of a flagship TV programme).

Problem Durbs?

Might I suggest you give up on your only reason to be on here (self confessed more than once) and quit studying the psychology of posters and seek some professional help for your own problem.

[turbobloke]

Wobbegong said:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/12/one-of-the-...

It’s vinering quite heavily