Richard Feynman (One of the Greatest Thinkers this Side of Einstein) on Scientists
"The best scientists are continually trying to prove themselves wrong."............Well, that certainly eliminates Michael Mann, James Hanson, Keith Briffa, and Ben Santer, now doesn't it?
Mr. Mann's hockey stick graph (which was literally laughed at by most geologists, paleoclimatologists, etc.) was so pathetic (and dishonest) that it made many arguments for intelligent design seem rigorous by comparison.
"More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears" "Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions." Agreed, Jim Infhoff's melting snowball is much more rigorous; (he also proves creationism) Perhaps we need critique Arrhenius , discard his contributions in the area as well as the concept of ionization of salts in water? Me, I am skeptical as well: skeptical of the 'scientists' whored out with the American Enterprize Institute.
BB, those studies that you refer to all part of a cabal of government sponsored "researchers" who review each other's findings and whose "studies" are only differentiated by the order of the names.......And there is proxy evidence from all over the planet that the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Minoan Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, etc. weren't only real but global as well. It is Mann, Briffa, and the rest of those proven liars who are in the minority on this one, BB.
And as McIntyre and McKitrick displayed in their devastating critique of Mr. Mann, you could have inserted random numbers into their statistical technique and THAT would have given you a hockey stick.......And I'm surprised that I have to tell you that what Mr. Mann did in his 1999 study was wrong; that far that utilized multiple data sets in an effort to get the findings that he wanted. I mean, my God, in a previous era that would have gotten him kicked out of the scientific community for ever!
BB: Perhaps you need to be more skeptical of pseudo-"scientists" whored out with left-wing, government-approved, faith-not-facts 'global warming' supporting institutions as well.
Eliminates men of faith, pretty much.
ReplyDeleteThough truth be told, there are some devout theologians who are more free-thinking. who question things a lot more than the likes of Michael Mann.
Mr. Mann's hockey stick graph (which was literally laughed at by most geologists, paleoclimatologists, etc.) was so pathetic (and dishonest) that it made many arguments for intelligent design seem rigorous by comparison.
ReplyDelete"More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears"
ReplyDelete"Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions."
Agreed, Jim Infhoff's melting
snowball is much more rigorous;
(he also proves creationism)
Perhaps we need critique Arrhenius , discard his contributions in the area as well
as the concept of ionization of
salts in water? Me, I am skeptical as well: skeptical of
the 'scientists' whored out with
the American Enterprize Institute.
Intelligent design won't increase your heating bills by 37%, Will.
ReplyDeleteBB, those studies that you refer to all part of a cabal of government sponsored "researchers" who review each other's findings and whose "studies" are only differentiated by the order of the names.......And there is proxy evidence from all over the planet that the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Minoan Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, etc. weren't only real but global as well. It is Mann, Briffa, and the rest of those proven liars who are in the minority on this one, BB.
ReplyDeleteAnd as McIntyre and McKitrick displayed in their devastating critique of Mr. Mann, you could have inserted random numbers into their statistical technique and THAT would have given you a hockey stick.......And I'm surprised that I have to tell you that what Mr. Mann did in his 1999 study was wrong; that far that utilized multiple data sets in an effort to get the findings that he wanted. I mean, my God, in a previous era that would have gotten him kicked out of the scientific community for ever!
ReplyDeleteBB: Perhaps you need to be more skeptical of pseudo-"scientists" whored out with left-wing, government-approved, faith-not-facts 'global warming' supporting institutions as well.
ReplyDeleteWill said: " in a previous era that would have gotten him kicked out of the scientific community for ever!"
ReplyDeletePerhaps it is proof that a community that would still embrace him isn't really scientific at all any more?