Climate Change

gwb-trading said:
Michael "Hide the Decline" Mann - the hockey stick guy? He is completely discredited. And has a track record of faking data. Remember the East Anglia emails? Nothing Mann says has any relevance.

michael-mann-mugshot2.jpg
More...


You are lying. He is not discredited at all. He has not faked data. The E-mail thing was nothing. Multiple studies and reading them with a little intelligence shows that. The intelligence requirement explains why you are still confused and wrong. You like staying ignorant and angry don't you? Typical raving ignorant angry righty.
 
futurecurrents said:
You are lying. He is not discredited at all. He has not faked data. The E-mail thing was nothing. Multiple studies and reading them with a little intelligence shows that. The intelligence requirement explains why you are still confused and wrong. You like staying ignorant and angry don't you? Typical raving ignorant angry righty.
More...

Mann is a proven perjurer in court. We need not say more.
 
Defamation lawsuit
In July 2012, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) blog published a piece by CEI scholar Rand Simberg accusing Mann of "deception" and "engaging in data manipulation". It alleged that the Penn State investigation into Mann was a "cover-up and whitewash" which it likened to the Jerry Sandusky case with the sentence "Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet." The CEI blog editor removed that sentence as "inappropriate", but it was cited in a National Review blog post by Mark Steyn who additionally asserted that Mann's hockey stick graph was "fraudulent".[49][50]

Mann asked CEI and National Review to remove the allegations and apologise, or he would take action.[51] The CEI published further insults, and National Revieweditor Rich Lowry responded in an article headed "Get Lost" with a declaration that, should Mann sue, the discovery process would be used to reveal and publish Mann's emails. Mann's lawyer filed the defamation lawsuit in October 2012.[49] The CEI and National Review argued that the case should be dismissed under SLAPPlegislation, and that they had merely been using exaggerated language which was acceptable against a public figure: in July 2013 the judge dismissed these arguments and ruled that the case could go forward.[52][53] The case went to an appeals court under a new judge, who denied the appeal in January 2014: the CEI and National Review said they would appeal this decision. The National Review changed its lawyers, and Steyn decided to represent himself in court. If the court declines further appeal, the case will move to discovery.[51][54]
 
Hockey stick controversy[edit]
Main article: Hockey stick controversy
Figures based on the northern hemisphere mean temperatures graph from MBH99 were prominently featured in the IPCC Third Assessment Report of 2001, and became the focus of controversy when some individuals and groups disputed the data and methodology of this reconstruction.[29]

The 2006 North Report published by the United States National Academy of Sciences endorsed the MBH studies with a few reservations. The principal component analysis methodology had a small tendency to bias results so was not recommended, but it had little influence on the final reconstructions, and other methods produced similar results.[30][31] Mann has said his findings have been "independently verified by independent teams using alternative methods and alternative data sources."[32]More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original hockey stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[33][34]

CRU email controversy[edit]
In November 2009, hackers obtained a number of Mann's e-mails with climate researchers at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, and published them on the Internet, sparking the Climatic Research Unit email controversy.[35] Pennsylvania State University (PSU) commissioned two reviews related to the emails and Mann's research, which reported in February and July 2010. They cleared Mann of misconduct, stating there was no substance to the allegations, but criticized him for sharing unpublished manuscripts with third parties.[36][37]

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the National Science Foundation carried out a detailed investigation, which it closed on August 15, 2011. It agreed with the conclusions of the university inquiries, and exonerated Mann of charges of scientific misconduct.[38][39][40]

Attorney General of Virginia's investigative demand[edit]
Main article: Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation
Based on the CRU email leak, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli initiated a Civil Investigative Demand against the University of Virginia to obtain documentation relating to Mann's work at the university. The demand sparked widespread academic condemnation as a "blatantly political" attempt to intimidate and silence Mann,[41]and was denied in August 2010 by a judge for failure to state sufficient cause.[42][43] Cuccinelli tried to re-open his case by issuing a revised subpoena,[44] and appealed the case to the Virginia Supreme Court. The case was defended by the university, and the court ruled that Cuccinelli did not have the authority to make these demands. The decision, seen as supporting academic freedom, was welcomed by the Union of Concerned Scientists.[45]

In October 2010, Mann wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he described several past, present and projected attacks on climate science and scientists by politicians, drawing a link between them and "the pseudo-science that questioned the link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer, and the false claims questioning the science of acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer." Saying they were "not good-faith questioning of scientific research [but] anti-science", he called for all his fellow scientists to stand against the attacks.[46]

In July 2013 Mann joined in the Terry McAuliffe gubernatorial campaign, 2013, promoting the role of scientific research and technology in job creation. Cuccinelli was the Republican candidate.[47] Mann highlighted the costs of the Civil Investigative Demand case, and the threat it had presented to the scientific community.[48]
 
Awards[edit]
Mann's dissertation was awarded the Phillip M. Orville Prize in 1997 as an "outstanding dissertation in the earth sciences" at Yale University. His co-authorship of a scientific paper published by Nature won him an award from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) in 2002, and another co-authored paper published in the same year won the NOAA's outstanding scientific publication award. He was named by Scientific American as one of fifty "leading visionaries in science and technology." TheAssociation of American Geographers awarded him the John Russell Mather Paper of the Year award in 2005 for a co-authored paper published in the Journal of Climate. The American Geophysical Union awarded him its Editors' Citation for Excellence in Refereeing in 2006 to recognize his contributions in reviewing manuscripts for its Geophysical Research Letters journal.[55]

The IPCC presented Mann, along with all other "scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports", with a personalized certificate "for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC," celebrating the joint award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC and to Al Gore.[56][57][58][59]

In 2012, he was elected a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union[2] and awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union for "his significant contributions to understanding decadal-centennial scale climate change over the last two millennia and for pioneering techniques to synthesize patterns and northern hemispheric time series of past climate using proxy data reconstructions."[3][55]

Following election by the American Meteorological Society he became a new Fellow of the society in 2013.[60] In January 2013 he was designated with the status ofdistinguished professor in Penn State's College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.[61]

In September 2013, Mann was named by Bloomberg Markets in its third annual list of the "50 Most Influential" people, included in a group of "thinkers" with reference to his work with other scientists on the hockey stick graph, his responses on the RealClimate blog "to climate change deniers", and his book publications.[62][63] Later that month, he received the National Wildlife Federation's National Conservation Achievement Award for Science.[64]

On 28 April 2014 the National Center for Science Education announced that its first annual Friend of the Planet award had been presented to Mann and Richard Alley.[65]

Public outreach[edit]
Mann, along with Gavin Schmidt, Stefan Rahmstorf, and others, co-founded the RealClimate website, launched in December 2004. The website's purpose is to provide a site for commentaries by working climate scientists, "for interested public and journalists." It is part of The Guardian's Environmental Network.[66]

After repeated attacks against his and his colleagues' academic work and being "hounded by elected officials, threatened with violence, and more," Mann decided to "enter the fray" and "speak out about the very real implications of our research."[67] Mann has engaged with the public through film, television, radio, the press, and talks.[68] The Patriot-News reported in 2014, "The professor operates active Twitter and Facebook accounts. In several weeks, he’ll take part in an “Ask Me Anything” session on Reddit. For him, it’s about engaging with the community."[69]
 
gwb-trading said:
S


So basically Mann is a perjurer and a fraud. Thanks for posting everything that proves the case.
More...


So reading with comprehension is beyond you. No surprise there.

No Mann is NOT a perjurer, but YOU are a liar, in addition to being ignorant and deluded.



And like I thought, you can produce no link validating your claim and you're just making shit up now.

You're pathetic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top