mothra wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 8:50pm:


I disagree with your opinion entirely, but I will defend to the death your right to hold it.

Kytro wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 7:17pm:


Mann is a shonky scientist whose Hockey Stick has been thoroughly debunked. He was part of ClimateGate and even now continues to push lie after lie after scientific lie.

There are literally handfuls of books written to debunk him and his junk science.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 6:35am:


Well the evidence of his existence is as valid as that of JC or Mo at least.

Kytro wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 6:47am:


If you really want to debate this then I expect you to do some reading. Now, you are certainly one of the more credible debaters since you actually possess a brain and a degree of integrity. There are several books that debunk the Hockey Stick from a scientific basis despite all the efforts by Mann to frustrate them (in defiance of accepted scientific protocols). For instance, were you aware that his claim that the Medieval Warm period never existed is based literally on the evidence of the rings of a single north American tree?  His statistical model has been repudiated by virtually everyone - including the world's top experts. When his statistical model was finally discovered it was found to be so 'robust' that no matter what data you put into it, a hockey stick was produced. EU exchange rates over 20 years produced... a hockey stick.

One of Manns co-authors has also said of late that the original report is fatally flawed.

And you might want to read the entire outcomes of the many investigations into Mann and the behaviour of his cohorts. They are not nearly as supportive as you think. One American enquiry that 'exonerated' him of fraud also said that his hockey stick was bad science. You only read that he was exonerated.

So, are you seriously up for a detailed debate? If so, so am I.

Just as a footnote, one author was sued by Mann for defamation when he said his HS was rubbish. It is now going to court. When the time came for amicus briefs to be submitted in support for each side, the author had dozens while Mann had literally none. Science it self might be happy to tolerate him but in a court of law, they want nothing to do with him. Even the IPCC has dumped the HS as has pretty much everyone else.

Thoughts?

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 6:52am:


And yet, religion is what has founded nations, schools, health, art and music. Today, the majority of social work is done by the Church, especially in foreign countries.

I think describing it as a failing is more than a bit harsh. In many way, I hate to imagine what an atheist society would be like - except that I don't. USSR and communist China are some examples to look at.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 6:35am:



possibly, but the stories of plato aren't accompanied by calls for donations and power, therefore they are more credible

the stories of jesus were spread by those with a political agenda, the bible was just a means to an end.

Kytro wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 7:49am:


Do yourself a favour and read a couple of the books on the Hockey Stick. Mann is (or was) a major player in the ACC movement and yet his intellectual and personal integrity is disgraceful. Ultimately, neither of us are scientists 'in the know'. We need to rely on what we are told. And to trust that we need scientists of absolute integrity and capability. You will find that Mann is neither and one Professor stated that his Hockey Stick work is so bad that the University should revoke his PhD!

Just do yourself the favour of reading up on Mann and the hockey stick. There are a couple of great kindle books on Amazon. What you read will disgust you and probably shatter your impressions on the ACC movement. If the con that Mann pulled off took 15 years to be finally rejected - while being obviously wrong - then what are others doing?

You up for it?