My area is getting hit hard by global warming

I'm not sure I follow.

As for the graph, the "hockey stick" has been debunked over and over. For starters, except possibly for the 19th Century on it relies on "reconstructed" temperature data a/k/a/ tree rings. Where tree ring and temperature data were both available East Anglia University was very careful to expunge the conflicting data.

 

It's a simple question: are the trends circled in blue natural cycles, or not? And how do you know?

As for the graph, it's not Mann's work and contains precisely zero tree-ring data, as you would have known if you had taken the trouble to read the sourcing line.

As for the "hockey stick," far from being debunked, it has been confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences, as well as over a dozen similar studies. Here are a few:
Briffa et. al. 2001; Christiansen and Ljungqvist (2012); D’Arrigo et al. (2006); Frank et al. (2007); Hegerl et al. (2007); Juckes et al. (2007); Leclercq and Oerlemans (2012); Ljungqvist (2010); Moberg et al. (2005); Pollack and Smerdon (2004); Shi et al. (2013); Esper et al. (2002).

Be sure and let us know who's debunked all of those, and in what peer-reviewed publications.

 

The graph is Mann's and Mann's alone, in fact he is suing anybody that disparages his hockey stick graph and will be in court soon. It took a long time to get the data that Mann used and he did not release it himself. Mann is using the court to try and silence any descent to the "official" party line.

 

Utterly, totally, blatantly false. The data is sourced right on the graph: Marcott et. al. 2013 (pre-1740); Anderson et. al. 2013 (1740-1900); and HADCRUT4 (1900-2000).



You must really have a weak case if you have to resort to blatant lying to defend it.

 

That is called the Mann trick which is graphing actual temperature readings onto proxy data. The only way you can realistically measure past proxy data is to use current proxy data.

 

I just read up on the Court case. The people being sued compared Mann to Jerry Sandusky. That is a disgusting and uncalled for comparison, much like the warmistas bandying around the term "denialist" in order to conflate climate-change skepticism with support of Hitler. Frankly there's an argument to be made for for suing the user of those kinds of terms. Also they called Mann's so-called research "fraudulent." That too is a tough order since it means showing that Mann is willfully dishonest instead of not being the sharpest tool in the shed.

 

First, you would have to provide a link for that silly accusation. Next, not a tough order since he fought hard to not allow anyone from viewing the data he used, which BTW, is bad science. It leaked and that is the only way anyone got a hold of it. Now he is trying to sue to provide a basis for never questioning the "official" stance which is a violation of free speech. If he succeeds, it will be an official silencing of any science other than that which is "official".

 

The counter suit against Mann.

 

I am not saying Mann should win the suit. By accusing the warming promoter of either fraud or pedophilia they are losing the argument before even making it since both accusations, especially the comparison to Sandusky, are in my view potentially actionable. As a lawyer I probably wouldn't want to represent the Plaintiff here but it's still a close call.

 

Link is required.

 

For what would you like a link? The Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan stands for the proposition that with actual malice falsehood is still actionable. Do you seriously believe, or does anyone, that Mann's wrongdoing rises to Sandusky's level? Didn't the Left look ridiculous by calling George W. Bush "Hitler"?

 

More misinformation! Mann is suing the National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute for defamation of character.They called Mann “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science". Mann is suing National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute not for disparaging the hockey stick, but for accusing Mann of fraud.

I think it's also about time bloggers are held accountable for their accusations.
I wonder if Dr. Mann is made aware of your post in this thread if it's not too late to add you as a defendant Hoosier?

 

A link to your claim to confirm it.

- - - Updated - - -

For the past decade, scientists have come to the defense of Michael Mann, somehow thinking that defending Michael Mann is fighting against the ‘war on science’ and is standing up for academic freedom. Its time to let Michael Mann sink or swim on his own. Michael Mann is having all these problems because he chooses to try to muzzle people that are critical of Mann’s science, critical of Mann’s professional and personal behavior, and critical of Mann’s behavior as revealed in the climategate emails. All this has nothing to do with defending climate science or academic freedom.

The climate science field, and the broader community of academics, have received an enormous black eye as a result of defending the hockey stick and his behavior. Its time to increase the integrity of climate research particularly with regards to increasing transparency, calling out irresponsible advocacy, and truly promoting academic freedom so that scientists are free to pursue research without fear of recriminations from the gatekeepers and consensus police.

Judith Curry

 

Hard to have validated science when Mann willfully ignored any requests for what was behind his "science".

 

We are on the same side. My quibble is solely with introducing the horrific Jerry Sandusky into the mix. It is off-topic and a distraction. I am not defending Mann on academic freedom grounds. I am defending him because the causes of action of slander and libel, even as cut back by the U.S. Supreme Court, still cover calling someone falsely a pedophile.

 

Are you ever going to back up your accusations?

 

With the spoliation of the East Anglia e-mails I think the warmistas have the burden of proof.

 

First of all, Steyn is being sued for quoting what someone else said namely Rand Simburg. Second, he is being sued for his claims about Mann's data to which Mann has been very secretive about. Third, Mann is a public figure,, by his own words, and the bar for his claim of defamation is very very high.

 

A little reading on your part and you would already be aware of this.

 

Bishop Hill

Mark Steyn

 

I am extremely well aware of the "public figure" issue. If it weren't for the Sandusky reference the lawsuit likely would have been dismissed. Even someone who leans in favor of the "speaker" or "writer" as myself would find the Sandusky accusation stomach-turning.

 

Even though Steyn was not the one that made the statement. Steyn's "guilt" is questioning Mann's science.

 

You say your a lawyer. Considering none of those involved in the East Anglia emails have been charged with a crime, the only "trial" has been in the right wing media. Several investigations have cleared those involved. The only one's that have shifted the burden of proof have been the right wing media.
And it's also against PF guidelines:
10.... Anyone is free to express any opinion they wish, as long as it's within the guidelines, or assert any fact. However, for the purpose of civil and productive discussion, it's sometimes important to differentiate between the two. If a poster continually asserts something as a specific historical fact, they must be prepared to substantiate it as fact if challenged to do so by another poster, through a link that is credible in the judgment of moderators or administrators.
Hoosier has chosen to ignore my request several times

 

I've already linked to the lawsuit, but you continue to make false allegations. Steyn is being sued for claiming fraud where none has been proven (Isn't that ironic! The "prove it" crowd making allegations without proof!). From Steyn's article "Football and Hockey"

Show me the "guilty of fraud" verdict.

 

Actually, Steyn made the mistake of questioning Mann's methods after Mann would not come off the data he used to get to his hockey stick. That eventually leaked proving Steyn right. Mann is using the courts to try and stifle any and all questioning of his methods. What is sad is that Mann does exactly what he is accusing others of doing in his lawsuit and the rest of the scientific community is actually acting much more like adults than Mann is.