Greta Thunberg to the UN

[Unidentified 2,930]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Sorry, I saw the lead author and the paper lost all credibility.

If course, usually happens when something doesn't fit the narrative. 

 

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

From Michael Mann.

A climate scientists vs a website where whoever wants to can edit. 

 

 

So when are you going to find a paper disapproving climate change?

Edited October 2, 2019 by Unidentified

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

So when are you going to find a paper disapproving climate change?

Not gonna happen.  Anyone with even half a brain knows that the climate changes.  The issue is how much or how little we humans contribute to the phenomenon.  You know, the one that has been going on for millions of years before humans existed?

[Dashinka 23,506]

1 minute ago, Unidentified said:

If course, usually happens when something doesn't fit the narrative. 

 

A climate scientists vs a website where whoever wants to can edit. 

 

 

So when are you going to find a paper disapproving climate change?

Narratives work both ways.  Michael Mann was caught fudging his data which is a big no no when it comes to science which taints anything he writes no matter how ardent his apostles are.  As to a paper disproving climate change, I guess you forgot, I never stated the climate was not changing, and in fact I believe in global climate change.  I am though against the globalism this movement and its narrative is pushing.

[Dashinka 23,506]

Apparently, Michael Mann has some pretty hefty legal bills to cover.  Maybe he can get a loan from Al Gore.

 

https://www.newstarget.com/2019-08-28-court-decision-slapped-down-michael-mann-fake-global-warming.html

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Apparently, Michael Mann has some pretty hefty legal bills to cover.  Maybe he can get a loan from Al Gore.

 

https://www.newstarget.com/2019-08-28-court-decision-slapped-down-michael-mann-fake-global-warming.html

Wow.  Being a complete fraud can be expensive!! Millions of dollars in court costs have to be paid by this loser.  Good!

[theresaL 408]

11 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Sorry, I saw the lead author and the paper lost all credibility.

And it's from 2009. Things have changed since then you know??? (snark) funny how a 2014 study is disregarded as not being current, but something from 2009 is gospel.

[Trebor 2]

[Boiler 43,971]

i liked Miami Vice.

[theresaL 408]

15 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Narratives work both ways.  Michael Mann was caught fudging his data which is a big no no when it comes to science which taints anything he writes no matter how ardent his apostles are.  As to a paper disproving climate change, I guess you forgot, I never stated the climate was not changing, and in fact I believe in global climate change.  I am though against the globalism this movement and its narrative is pushing.

He ceased being a scientist and became a political hack pushing a narrative when he changed the data to show a predetermined result. He has no credibility period.

[Unidentified 2,930]

14 minutes ago, theresaL said:

And it's from 2009. Things have changed since then you know??? (snark) funny how a 2014 study is disregarded as not being current, but something from 2009 is gospel.

Isn't it a huge difference between something that can change (consensus in this case) and temperatures during medieval warm period that doesn't? 

[theresaL 408]

1 minute ago, Unidentified said:

Isn't it a huge difference between something that can change (consensus in this case) and temperatures during medieval warm period that doesn't? 

not when you discredit anything not meeting your criteria.

 

temperature did change in MWP. It was cold, it got warmer then it got colder again, now it's warmer again.

[theresaL 408]

16 minutes ago, Boiler said:

i liked Miami Vice.

I liked Last of the Mohicans.

 

I'm credited on IMDB by the way.

[Rosalind F 178]

Well, a lot of very highly cited and high profile journals such as PNAS, Nature, and Science still publish him. I believe in peer review. Of course, sometimes publications even in high profile journals turn out to be a fraud. But journals are meticulous, and they will retract papers -  even very old papers - if these papers turn out to be a fraud. 

[Boiler 43,971]

I have a fair amount of dealings with Journalists and have yet to meet a meticulous one, came to the conclusion if they got it 75% right I could live with it.

[Dashinka 23,506]

6 minutes ago, Rosalind F said:

Well, a lot of very highly cited and high profile journals such as PNAS, Nature, and Science still publish him. I believe in peer review. Of course, sometimes publications even in high profile journals turn out to be a fraud. But journals are meticulous, and they will retract papers -  even very old papers - if these papers turn out to be a fraud. 

Is it peer review, or pal review?  Regardless, he responsible for some pretty hefty legal bills because he would not allow his peers to scrutinize his model.