Climate and Weather

espola said:
Nuances of the law are lost on plumbers (admittedly, my scientific finding is based on a sample of only 1, but it's something). The professional denial publicists, however, know what they can get away with. The loyal amateur denialists confirm their judgment.
Click to expand...
“What happened was that Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it,” Hinderaker wrote. “Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.”
 
Ricky Fandango said:
“What happened was that Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it,” Hinderaker wrote. “Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.”
Click to expand...
So no verdict? No finding that the hockey stick was fraud? Clear proof of the absence of climate change. If you analyze plumbing problems with this logic, lotsa luck!
 
Ricky Fandango said:
“What happened was that Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it,” Hinderaker wrote. “Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.”
Click to expand...

That's not quoting the court finding. It is from one of your twitter masters, based on a report from a right-wing website.
 
espola said:
That's not quoting the court finding. It is from one of your twitter masters, based on a report from a right-wing website.
Click to expand...
Did the court ask the Mann to show his work or not?

I just quoted the article I posted. The particular quote is from a lawyer commenting on the case.
Read it again.
 
Ricky Fandango said:
Did the court ask the Mann to show his work or not?

I just quoted the article I posted. The particular quote is from a lawyer commenting on the case.
Read it again.
Click to expand...

The quote is from a rightwing website, quoting a retired lawyer who now writes for another right-wing website. You can look it up.

Explain the significance of "R2 regression", the data requested by the defense in the Canadian court case. You can look that up too. Just restate it in terms that even Izzy can understand.

You have an established reputation as a sucker for any wingnut tweet you read, but it is reassuring of you to provide regular reminders.
 
espola said:
The quote is from a rightwing website, quoting a retired lawyer who now writes for another right-wing website. You can look it up.

Explain the significance of "R2 regression", the data requested by the defense in the Canadian court case. You can look that up too. Just restate it in terms that even Izzy can understand.

You have an established reputation as a sucker for any wingnut tweet you read, but it is reassuring of you to provide regular reminders.
Click to expand...
Since you consider anything you dont agree with, "right wing", your response is not surprising.
Did the judge ask Mann to show his work or not?

My understanding is that Mann was given a deadline and failed to provide his "proof".
 
espola said:
This is not news. Driving around Oceanside you can see wave-cut cliffs more than a hundred feet above the current sea level. As the article you quoted points out, that happens when the land-borne glacial ice melts off. What do you think is happening now?
Click to expand...
I just posted a link to something I find interesting and germane to the thread topic.
Why the hysterical response?
 
Ricky Fandango said:
Since you consider anything you dont agree with, "right wing", your response is not surprising.
Did the judge ask Mann to show his work or not?

My understanding is that Mann was given a deadline and failed to provide his "proof".
Click to expand...

I don't consider a website to be anything until I research its background. I also researched the background of Dr. Ball, the defendant in the Canadian case that got you so excited. He has a long history of stretching his qualifications, doing things like claiming to be a long-term professor of climatology when, in fact, he was a short-term professor of geography. You can look it up.
 
espola said:
I don't consider a website to be anything until I research its background. I also researched the background of Dr. Ball, the defendant in the Canadian case that got you so excited. He has a long history of stretching his qualifications, doing things like claiming to be a long-term professor of climatology when, in fact, he was a short-term professor of geography. You can look it up.
Click to expand...
Dr.Ball is a statistician. He used a proof defense and the judge asked Mann to provide certain requested proofs of his work.
Mann refused to provide his proof and the case was tossed.

Dr. Mann lost.
Why does that upset you?
 
espola said:
I don't consider a website to be anything until I research its background. I also researched the background of Dr. Ball, the defendant in the Canadian case that got you so excited. He has a long history of stretching his qualifications, doing things like claiming to be a long-term professor of climatology when, in fact, he was a short-term professor of geography. You can look it up.
Click to expand...
https://principia-scientific.org/br...fraudster-makes-concessions-tim-ball-lawsuit/

Some history
 
Ricky Fandango said:
Dr.Ball is a statistician. He used a proof defense and the judge asked Mann to provide certain requested proofs of his work.
Mann refused to provide his proof and the case was tossed.

Dr. Mann lost.
Why does that upset you?
Click to expand...

Dr. Mann's work (including the "R2 regression") was reviewed by experts in the field of climate research before it could be published. Dr. Tim Ball is a geographer. How would you feel if the lead contractor on a job asked one of the landscapers to inspect your plumbing installation?

There is a Dr. Ball who is a statistician -- Dr. Patrick Ball --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Ball
Perhaps you have them confused.

Did you look up "R2 regression" yet? A real statistician (or, for that matter, anyone with even modest training in a laboratory science) would recognize the humor in that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top