AGW Deniers: Grand conspiracy or everyone wrong

It should then be childs play for you to disprove his accounting. And yet there is no response. Telling.

 

Disprove? That is not how it works. You made an affirmative claim that you can not back up. You can not prove a negative. That is logic 101.

Example: Prove santa claus does not exist.

This is basic stuff buddy.

 

There is a clear accounting of how Mann refused to release his data. If you claim that accounting is incorrect and something other than what Montford has reported then let's hear it. There's nothing involved with 'not proving a negative' in that. Mann had/has an ethical obligation to release his complete raw data and methods when his paper was published. He did not and the management of Nature magazine did not ensure that those materials were made available on the date of publication and later after McIntyre requested them. Why is that ??

 

Mann did release his data according to the gold standard of science transparency. Nature obviously agreed he had met that standard. You are proving my case. Just because two guys made unreasonable requests does not mean those requests should be granted.

 

Apparently not and what he did eventually release was certainly not done so in a timely manner. In the time period between the publication of the Hockey Stick paper MBH98 and the MM03 paper which showed that the analysis of Mann et. al. was not correct policy decisions were made base again on the faulty MBH98 schtick.

The Hockey Stick Illusion - loc 6175

 

You made another claim. Name the policy decision that was made based on incorrect data. Exact date the decision was made and exact date the data was presented.

- - - Updated - - -

Again your problem is with the standards that are used by climatology journals. Not with Mann. Take it up with Nature.

 

The entire global warming alarmist inspired policy decisions made by multiple world governments around the world since the release of the Hockey Stick paper in 1998 have been based on the incorrect conclusions of the paper.

 

I see another claim without evidence. This is the problem. You can say whatever you want and we are just to believe you. But when climate scientists present valid research papers AND submit all their data according to NSF standards we are not to believe them but are to attack them. You seem to have it exactly backwards.

 

Without evidence ?? The entire global warming alarmist movement is based on the Hockey Stick. This has literally trillion dollar economic implications and will regressively affect lower income segments of the global population. And what about Mann's ethical and moral obligation to submit all of his materials for public scrutiny with such a global impact at stake ?? Any attempt to justify not being completely transparent and providing all data, materials, and methods at the time of publication regardless of what interpretation of rules and regulations happen to be is what is exactly backwards. The ability for decisions to be made base on incorrect analysis resulting from non transparency which literally could result in loss of life (one way or the other btw) requires the greatest integrity of research scientists. Sadly that was/is not the case with Dr. Mann. He may feel at the lead of a noble cause but that does not justify corruption of the scientific process and the independent review process.

 

Mann met his ethical and moral obligation. He met the standard. You do not like the standard. The change it. The problem is you won't be able to get any scientists on your side. Everyone knows the standard is valid. You have nothing. I see no movement ANYWHERE to change national standards for scientists in this country. When you get them changed let us know. Until then AGW will continue to meet the current gold standards of independent review.....not your arbitrary petulant requests.

 

By not making his data, methods, and computer codes available in the Nature mag archives he did not. There are many scientists and researchers working in the public and private sector who willingly and gladly provide all their materials (McIntyre & McKitrick, Muller, and John Lott certainly do). To become an apologist for Mann based some Interpretable standard which allows him to avoid full disclosure is deplorable.

 

You named four scientists and provided no evidence that they do that at all. All these claims without evidence.

 

Piety of evidence with Mann. They had to be taken to court.

 

And they lost. hahahahahahaha

 

Go to their websites. Mann did not do this (and still has not) - you argue that he is not obligated because of the rules ?? Why does he need rules to do the right thing and make all information immediately available ?? All of the controversy and bad policy decisions made in the interim could have been avoided.

- - - Updated - - -

Global civilization and in particular the low income lost.

 

He did the RIGHT thing. He did the thing every other scientist that publishes in Nature does. He met the standard. The standard is the RIGHT thing. If its not change the standard. But once you try you will hear the screams of THOUSANDS of scientists all over the country that would tell you you are being ridiculous. Why do YOU get to make the standards?

 

Penn State wouldn't need to go to court if there was nothing to hide but they did defend Sandusky.

 

If the standard is not full disclosure that standard is NOT the right thing. The ethical thing to do is full disclosure. Hiding behind an interpretation of a rule/regulation to avoid full disclosure is immoral when the conclusions of the work could adversely affect people's lives. Mann chose not to fully disclose because of his career advancement.

 

What does full disclosure mean? Is it you that gets to decide what it means? Can you change what it means every time a scientists submits a AGW paper? He did submit to full disclosure. He did not submit to your arbitrary full disclosure.

 

It's not arbitrary but what makes good science. You should already know this.

 

Dr. Mann knows exactly what full disclosure means. He chose not to provide and archive of all materials when MBH98 was published and again refused McIntyre's requests for full disclosure of information subsequently.

 

He met the gold standard. He did not meet the arbitrary requirements of every tom dick and harry that wants information. Does McIntyre publish his complete tax records? We need to see where he is getting his money from. WHAT IS HE HIDING? LOL

 

When in a hole it's best to stop digging.

 

I agree. Put down your shovel

 

He never took the hint to quit while he was behind.