SkyDekker 1,465 #26 December 21, 2020 10 minutes ago, brenthutch said: To keep the government money flowing he has to thread that needle. ah a Trumpie. China HOAX. the idea that all/most scientists form their opinions based on how they can get paid the most says more about you than about science and scientists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #27 December 21, 2020 5 minutes ago, SkyDekker said: the idea that all/most scientists form their opinions based on how they can get paid the most says more about you than about science and scientists. Surely you know that rich scientists, grad students and research assistants laugh at the poor dupes who believe in science while they light their cigars with $100 bills they got from the New World Order? That's a 100% true Facebook fact, which I know because I did my research. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 1,149 #28 December 21, 2020 17 minutes ago, SkyDekker said: ah a Trumpie. China HOAX. the idea that all/most scientists form their opinions based on how they can get paid the most says more about you than about science and scientists. They even have a term for that "We could solve the problem if conservative politicians and media outlets would simply stop spreading misinformation about and polarizing the subject of climate change. Sadly, the rise of this ‘tribal epistemology’ has done lasting damage to America, " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #29 December 22, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, SkyDekker said: the idea that all/most scientists form their opinions based on how they can get paid the most says more about you than about science and scientists. I never said all/most scientists, I said Michelle man and his cohorts. https://news.psu.edu/story/631498/2020/09/14/research/michael-mann-receives-world-sustainability-award https://news.psu.edu/story/558486/2019/02/12/research/michael-mann-awarded-2019-tyler-prize-environmental-achievement Not to mention Penn State EXPLICITLY stated the reason they brought Mann on was to attract federal climate dollars. Edited December 22, 2020 by brenthutch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #30 December 22, 2020 28 minutes ago, brenthutch said: I never said all/most scientists, I said Michelle man and his cohorts. https://news.psu.edu/story/631498/2020/09/14/research/michael-mann-receives-world-sustainability-award https://news.psu.edu/story/558486/2019/02/12/research/michael-mann-awarded-2019-tyler-prize-environmental-achievement Not to mention Penn State EXPLICITLY stated the reason they brought Mann on was to attract federal climate dollars. You think Michael Mann (who is Michelle man?) is making things up so he can win the Tyler prize and get funding? Why would a university not target a well funded scientist? And how do you think that proves that Michael Mann makes up the science just to get funding? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #31 December 22, 2020 (edited) 34 minutes ago, SkyDekker said: You think Michael Mann (who is Michelle man?) is making things up so he can win the Tyler prize and get funding? Why would a university not target a well funded scientist? And how do you think that proves that Michael Mann makes up the science just to get funding? He doesn’t make things up, he just suffers from confirmation bias. He was introduced to me by his colleagues as “Mr. Global Warming” in our conversation that followed it was apparent to me that his mind was closed to any alternative views. He dismissed any possibility that higher levels of CO2 could be any other than disastrous. He twists his research to support his agenda, refusing to show his work to anyone who may disagree with it. He said something to the effect “why would I share my research with someone who just wants to prove me wrong”. That is not how science is supposed to work. Edited December 22, 2020 by brenthutch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #32 December 22, 2020 2 hours ago, brenthutch said: He doesn’t make things up, he just suffers from confirmation bias. Pot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 1,149 #33 December 22, 2020 (edited) 12 hours ago, kallend said: It's pretty obvious that:... 3. You cherry pick data.... 4 hours ago, brenthutch said: I never said all/most scientists, I said Michelle man and his cohorts.... 3 hours ago, brenthutch said: He doesn’t make things up, he just suffers from confirmation bias.... nuff said. Edited December 22, 2020 by Phil1111 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #34 December 22, 2020 4 hours ago, SkyDekker said: You think Michael Mann (who is Michelle man?) He is trying to make a "clever" insult by saying he is a woman, because to republicans, a woman scientist wouldn't be worth listening to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 1,149 #35 December 22, 2020 7 hours ago, billvon said: He is trying to make a "clever" insult by saying he is a woman, because to republicans, a woman scientist wouldn't be worth listening to. The deep rooted sexism, racism and narcissism of the GOP is not clever. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,447 #36 December 22, 2020 After all, there's little worse one can call a man than feminine, girly, woman. Even better, that (ahem) ilk expects women to aspire to femininity, so that they can be discarded from the power structure for not fitting in. Same works for other marginalized groups (can't say minority -- women aren't a minority) Wendy P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 2,192 #37 December 22, 2020 1 minute ago, wmw999 said: After all, there's little worse one can call a man than feminine, girly, woman. Even better, that (ahem) ilk expects women to aspire to femininity, so that they can be discarded from the power structure for not fitting in. Same works for other marginalized groups (can't say minority -- women aren't a minority) Wendy P. I hope Brent doesn't get his panties in a twist. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #38 December 22, 2020 (edited) 9 hours ago, billvon said: He is trying to make a "clever" insult by saying he is a woman, because to republicans, a woman scientist wouldn't be worth listening to. No I wasn’t, If I overlooked an autofill I apologize. Michael Mann: http://www.met.psu.edu/people/mem45 Edited December 22, 2020 by brenthutch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #39 December 22, 2020 16 hours ago, brenthutch said: He doesn’t make things up, he just suffers from confirmation bias. He was introduced to me by his colleagues as “Mr. Global Warming” in our conversation that followed it was apparent to me that his mind was closed to any alternative views. He dismissed any possibility that higher levels of CO2 could be any other than disastrous. He twists his research to support his agenda, refusing to show his work to anyone who may disagree with it. He said something to the effect “why would I share my research with someone who just wants to prove me wrong”. That is not how science is supposed to work. You didn't like a conversation you had with him, so his science is wrong. That's very....scientific. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #40 December 22, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, SkyDekker said: You didn't like a conversation you had with him, so his science is wrong. That's very....scientific. No, it is also the fact he will not share his research with anyone other than those who share his views. He will not debate skeptics. He spoke at a forum I attended and only took written, prescreened, questions (all friendly) which was a first for that setting. Normally hands are raised and a mic is handed to the questioner. He sues critics, and looses. (Partly because refuses to show his research). He hawks his books which are full of ad hominem and hyperbole and short on science. Anyone who lets himself be called “Mr. Global Warming” has lost the ability to view their own research critically. Edited December 22, 2020 by brenthutch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #41 December 22, 2020 7 minutes ago, brenthutch said: No, it is also the fact he will not share his research with anyone other than those who share his views. He will not debate skeptics. He spoke at a forum I attended and only took written, prescreened, questions (all friendly) which was a first for that setting. Normally hands are raised and a mic is handed to the questioner. He sues critics, and looses. (Partly because refuses to show his research). He hawks his books which are full of ad hominem and hyperbole and short on science. Anyone who lets himself be called “Mr. Global Warming” has lost the ability to view their own research critically. Here is a list of quite a few peer reviewed article has has published. How did he do that if he doesn't share his research? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #42 December 22, 2020 1 hour ago, SkyDekker said: Here is a list of quite a few peer reviewed article has has published. How did he do that if he doesn't share his research? What part of “only shares his research with those who agree with him” don’t you understand? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #43 December 22, 2020 17 minutes ago, brenthutch said: What part of “only shares his research with those who agree with him” don’t you understand? Oh you think that every time you publish peer-reviewed work you get to cherry pick who reviews it and then only have people who agree with you peer-review it. That's cute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #44 December 22, 2020 (edited) 51 minutes ago, SkyDekker said: Oh you think that every time you publish peer-reviewed work you get to cherry pick who reviews it and then only have people who agree with you peer-review it. That's cute. Cute and true https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/ Riddle me this. If the conclusions of his research could withstand scrutiny from a non-sycophant, why would he refuse to disclose and loose an otherwise easily winnable court case? Edited December 22, 2020 by brenthutch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #45 December 22, 2020 4 minutes ago, brenthutch said: Cute and true https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/ Please cut and paste the sentences in that article that show Mann only getting peer reviewed by those who agree with him? I have written dozens of peer reviewed articles and not once did I get to choose who would be the reviewers. Looks to me that you are once again throwing dust in the air in order to distract from your falsehoods. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #46 December 22, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, kallend said: Please cut and paste the sentences in that article that show Mann only getting peer reviewed by those who agree with him? He doesn’t have to. The system does it for him. https://www.biospace.com/article/the-mess-that-is-peer-review-and-what-should-be-done-about-it-/ If the peer review system was as good as you claim, why would he not welcome scrutiny from skeptics? Edited December 22, 2020 by brenthutch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #47 December 22, 2020 1 minute ago, brenthutch said: He doesn’t have to. The system does it for him. https://www.biospace.com/article/the-mess-that-is-peer-review-and-what-should-be-done-about-it-/ So you can't actually find anything in the article that supports your claim so you double down. I rest my case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #48 December 23, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, kallend said: So you can't actually find anything in the article that supports your claim so you double down. I rest my case. Mann won’t show his work to skeptics... case closed If Mann was confident in his research, he would have done what Bill Booth did in the early 90’s at Carolina Sky Sports during the Easter or Thanksgiving boogie (I can’t recall which) when he unveiled the Sigma tandem rig. He explained its features and his reasoning for its design. He then asked the tandem instructors assembled, to tear it apart and find its faults, shortcomings and potential problems. After an hour long Q&A (none pre-screened) nobody could find a significant fault and everyone came away impressed. If climate science could bear the same scrutiny, I could be a convert. Edited December 23, 2020 by brenthutch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lippy 918 #49 December 23, 2020 38 minutes ago, brenthutch said: Mann won’t show his work to skeptics... case closed If Mann was confident in his research, he would have done what Bill Booth did in the early 90’s at Carolina Sky Sports during the Easter or Thanksgiving boogie (I can’t recall which) when he unveiled the Sigma tandem rig. He explained its features and his reasoning for its design. He then asked the tandem instructors assembled, to tear it apart and find its faults, shortcomings and potential problems. After an hour long Q&A (none pre-screened) nobody could find a significant fault and everyone came away impressed. If climate science could bear the same scrutiny, I could be a convert. Mann not wanting to waste his breath on random deniers seems equivalent of Bill Booth not opening up his experiment to whuffos with chainsaws. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #50 December 23, 2020 Just now, lippy said: Mann not wanting to waste his breath on random deniers seems equivalent of Bill Booth not opening up his experiment to whuffos with chainsaws. Nice try, but his “deniers” have PhD’s in relevant fields. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
