Michael Mann's propaganda efforts for the IPCC were long ago exposed as nonsense.

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Well Done

unread,
Sep 22, 2005, 11:35:03 AM9/22/05
to
On or about Oct. 29, 2003, dnau...@sfu.ca (David Naugler) wrote:
>http://www.nationalpost.com/financialpost/story.html?id=06C603EF-5B3F-49CF-ACAC-50D9F895E7DE
>Kyoto debunked
>A pillar of the Kyoto Accord is based on flawed calculations,
>incorrect data and an overtly biased selection of climate records, an
>important new paper reveals
>Tim Patterson Financial Post
<snip>
>The paper's authors, Toronto-based analyst Steve McIntyre and
>University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick, obtained the
>original data used by Michael Mann of the University of Virginia to
>support the notion that the 20th-century temperature rise was
>unprecedented in the past millennium. A detailed audit revealed
>numerous errors in the data. After correcting these and updating the
>source records they showed that based on Mann's own methodologies, his
>original conclusion was flawed. Mann's original version resulted in
>the famous "hockey stick" graph that purported to show 900 years of
>relative temperature stability (the shaft of the hockey stick)
>followed by a sharp increase (the blade) in the 20th century (see
>graph). The corrected version of the last thousand years actually
>contradicts the view promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on
>Climate Change (IPCC), and removes the foundation for claims of
>20th-century uniqueness.
>
NO surprise, at all, to those of us who know our chickens by the way
they cluck.
--
): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
(: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)

Roger Coppock

unread,
Sep 22, 2005, 3:07:48 PM9/22/05
to
Oh boy, here we go again! Mr. or Ms. Well Done posts an attack on a
single 6 or 7 year old global warming science paper, which has been
discussed to death here. Never mind that dozens of others have found
the same results with many other methods. Yet, MBH 98 is the only tune
the fossil fools can play. I'll bet Mr. or Ms. Well Done hasn't even
read the original MBH paper.

This post should be accompanied by a steam calliope, like they do at
circuses, "Dut-Dah-Dut-Dah-Dah-Dah-Dut-Dah!"

Steve Bloom

unread,
Sep 22, 2005, 3:21:39 PM9/22/05
to
There's a distinction between "well done" and putrified, as this two year
old information demonstrates. The error-prone amateurs McIntyre and
McKitrick were debunked long ago. See the "hockey stick" posts on
www.realclimate.org for details. For those who haven't been following this,
right-wing think tanks have continued to promote M&M in the right-wing
finanical press (e.g., the Financial Post and Wall Street Journal) far
beyond their "sell by" date. Recently, after it became clear that his
efforts were not going to result in Mann being abandoned by other climate
scientists, and indeed when Mann and his co-authors were successfully
defended by the entire scientific establishment against a Wall Street
Journal-inspired attack by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Exxon), McIntyre has gone on
the attack against the entire field of paleoclimatology. The basis for this
is McIntyre's belief that the scientific standards used by
paleoclimatologists are not of adequate quality from the point of view of a
geologist working in the fossil fuel industry. Imagine that.

P.S. -- An audit of Canadian birth records through 1930 proves that M&M
don't even exist!


"Well Done" <Well...@WellHoned.com> wrote in message
news:ger3j1dlt6jfdsvho...@4ax.com...

raylopez99

unread,
Sep 23, 2005, 4:10:14 AM9/23/05
to
Besides the "hockey stick" fiasco is the knowledge that modeling
climate for 100+ years, which the IPCC likes to do, is not feasible
given today's computer hardware and software.

But the left-wing (communist/facist, which are flip sides of the same
coin) eco-terrorists refuse to admit this, and insist on promoting
their racist, xenophobic and anti-capitalist, nilhilist views on the
rest of us. It's the Club of Rome doomsdayers all over again, in new
garb.

But you have no clothes.

But for a tiny increase in temperatures since 1980, possibly due to
undiscovered effects, there is no "global warming". In fact, during
the middle of the last century tempratures decreased, as they do today
in the American south. And Antarctic ice is actually increasing. But
some Bozo can always tweak the backwardly looking, curve - fitting (and
thereby bogus) polynomial to accomidate these facts by saying "weather
is becoming more extreme (both hotter and colder) in different parts of
the world, all due to the Arrhenius CO2 model for Global Warming!" And
get research dollars for another cut-and-paste computer simulation.

Obscene if you ask me.

RL

d...@dan.com

unread,
Sep 23, 2005, 11:38:51 AM9/23/05
to
Again equating the vast majority of the world's scientists to communists.
Let me guess: Senator McCarthy is a hero of yours.

"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127463014.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

James

unread,
Sep 23, 2005, 8:36:36 PM9/23/05
to

<d...@dan.com> wrote in message news:j5KdnVes6Nw...@comcast.com...

> Again equating the vast majority of the world's scientists to communists.
> Let me guess: Senator McCarthy is a hero of yours.


Funny you should mention that. McCarthy was right. Joseph Welch was wrong
and cried for the audience. The press didn't like McCarthy and you can guess
the outcome.

Well Done

unread,
Sep 24, 2005, 4:07:40 PM9/24/05
to
"Steve Bloom" <spb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>There's a distinction between "well done" and putrified, as this two year
>old information demonstrates.
<snip>
Two years ago the facts were the same as they are today.
M & M 's work was compromised by the IPCC, which means the IPCC report
is at least twice removed from being objective science.
That means the IPCC report is a load of shit.

owl

unread,
Sep 24, 2005, 4:30:06 PM9/24/05
to
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:07:40 -0700, Well Done <Well...@WellHoned.com>
wrote:

>"Steve Bloom" <spb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>There's a distinction between "well done" and putrified, as this two year
>>old information demonstrates.
><snip>
>Two years ago the facts were the same as they are today.
>M & M 's work was compromised by the IPCC, which means the IPCC report
>is at least twice removed from being objective science.
>That means the IPCC report is a load of shit.

You'll need a time machine to get this nuts to turn into soup.
M&M's reports came out after the IPCC.

NobodyYouKnow

unread,
Sep 24, 2005, 6:10:28 PM9/24/05
to

You call that a 'report'? They never finished the analysis and got most of
THAT wrong, then had to publish it in a 'vanity press' run by a crank. How
does that make a 'report'?


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages