Sea-level rise threatens Miami

LOL, the Mann love almost exudes from that link. Mann is going to court (because he likes to sue people for questioning his awesomeness). It almost reads like Mann wrote it. Mann's work has not only been called shoddy, he even lies about his accomplishments. For instance, he claimed he was a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

http://www.steynonline.com/section/71/defend-free-speech

 

Really an investegation by Penn state under the direction of Gram Spanner. The Penn State and Graham Spanier that covered up for Jerry Sandusky while he raped kids on their campus. Graham Spanier is now awaiting trial for obstruction of justice. Yeah I'm sure we can trust that review.

All the report said was that other reconstructions have gotten the same answer. That doesn't mean Mann's hockey stick isn't spurious. It purports to be a graph of global temperature. It is actually a graph of CO2 in northern Colorado. That is the definition of spurious. It purports to be one thing when it actually is another.

And you intentionally took quotes from the NAS panel out of context and out of order to confuse data and analysis in yours.

Since the summary ignores all the issues confirmed in the body of the report yes it is headlines.

It says that PCA is purports to pull out signals it does not. That is the deffinition of spurious.

It says that Mann purports bristle cone pine proxies are temperature proxies they are not they are CO2 proxies. That is the definition of spurious.

 

Not just Penn State. I think more sources are mentioned.

For your first two sentences, that's my point. For the rest, please point out from the synthesis report where it states that the conclusion is spurious for reasons that you gave. Keep in mind that we're talking about the synthesis report.

Everything I quoted are conclusions. And they are not quoted out of context, as you can see in the sequence of page numbers.

Point No. 1 is a summary of the problems in reconstructions. Point 2 is a conclusion of the report, etc. There are no "headlines," as page numbers and quoted text are given.

Please point out from the synthesis report where this conclusion is made.

Please point out from the synthesis report where this argument is stated.

Please explain why the arguments given in the article are wrong.

The page numbers which refer to what is quoted are not out of sequence.

They said it was not recommended. Where is the point about "cheating" taking place?

From what I remember, the report concluded that the data is not "robust" enough and that the method is not "recommended," and yet even you acknowledged that conclusions for 1400 after are right.

You were the one who argued that he got it right for 1400 after, remember? As for the period before, doesn't the report say the same? Finally, does this put to question that he got it "all wrong"?

Feel free to explain further.

 

Yes…we know…cutting and pasting parrots who can't think don't add to the conversation however.

 

This has little to do with climate change. It is just weather. However a French research station reports one of the coldest June temperatures on their part of Antarctica since records began. The western area which global warmists cited as proof the warmer weather was melting ice has been found to be over a volcano.

The proponents of human-caused global warming are losing the argument here.

 

the debate ended long ago, denier world lost...

 

Actually, it is just beginning since so many of the alarmist predictions have failed. Those political or without a science background are the only ones that think the debate ended long ago.

 

As Hoosier states it is but the beginning. See actual people stood up and said prove AGW. And do you know what happened? Them's that rant about it can't prove it. Yes, when asked to provide evidence that 120PPM actually drives climate, no where in alarmistville is there such a thing. Oh, and while that question has been elevated to the max, the data has been proven to be in error and the NOAA had to retreat its comments about record hot years. Me thinks you are now on the wrong end of the schtick!!!!!

 

What do we really know about Global Warming?

[video]http://bit.ly/jh8HIC[/video]

 

Not what has been advertized that's for sure. Still can't believe that no one ever tested the hypothesis of the claim to acutally provide a theory. Instead were willing to live and die with models that have failed. Seems unscientific to me, but it doesn't surprise me after all I've witnessed lately.