Global warming "expert" and media darling, Michael Mann refuses to produce data, loses lawsuit

Its that whole "largely debunked" thing I'm struggling with.    But even if you have a problem with the Wayne Gretzky model there still that whole scientific consensus to deal with.    I mean, except Jim Inhofe.

The Big Hockey stick controversy

"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.^[12][17] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.^[18] Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions."

PJ, why did Michael man refuse to show his data after the judge ordered hiim to do so?  You and I know he refused because he lied about his data.  Libs don't care.

Neither do "conservs."

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/business/joseph-valle/2019/08/01/noaa-scientist-turns-climate-skeptic-recounts-censorship?fbclid=IwAR1cKv2vHjVVw3Agf31A3Co3ySaCOjwcs0balqvErXRFDien0RAKYDjnj7w

Its worth citing again... 14 other independant reconstructions found the same conclusion.   

"The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.^[18] "

And by your same logic ...  Donald Trump refused to testify under oath in the Mueller investigation.  So I guess we can draw whatever conclusion we want, right?   I mean like you did here?

PJ argues that 14 others came to the same conclusion as Michael Mann.  That means that they utilized the same flawed data that Mann used.  This proves that the data the other 14 are using is also flawed, falsified, cherry picked, whatever word you choose.

I didn't argue anything - I cited the recorded history of easily demonstrable facts.

There have been 15 recorded studies by 15 groups of people that all reached the same broad conclusion.    

You aren't familiar with their studies, their credentials, or their work.  But you've made unsubstantiated inferences anyway.   Kinda like you did with Bengazhi.   

So I guess it comes down to who people want to believe...15 different groups of climate scientists ....or Boilerman.

I know who I'm choosing !

If you don't promote the false man-made climate change agenda, your work is not published.

********quote********

Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records. 

But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken. 

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

*****endquote********

Ref: MIT Technology Review

I don't understand what conservatives have to gain by climate change denial. Is it simply because the fossil fuel companies pay the Republicans?

It's the height of ignorance to say that anthropogenic climate change isn't real; it's also criminally irresponsible. People are going to die--in fact, they already have--from neglect of the climate change threat.

And Boilerbaby and Don, how idiotic to say that when fifteen different studies all reach a conclusion you don't like, they all must have used flawed data! Actually, the number of studies conducted in the last two decades that confirm anthropogenic climate change is about twenty thousand. They all must have used flawed data! It all must be FAKE NOOZE!

This is BoilerBob's (I'm conflating them, as they're essentially identical) cue to dredge up some article by some pseudoscientist living in his mom's basement that states that climate change isn't real because it was cold yesterday in Skeleton Flats, North Dakota.