Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric who wrote (62244)	12/16/2014 7:58:19 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	2 Recommendations Recommended By Brumar89 russet Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

anonymous eric, I have reviewed what Mann has said and published and seen clear and obvious evidence of all of Mann's dishonesty and deceptions. I am a peer and that is my review. anonymous eric is not my peer or Micheal Mann's peer. Anthony Watt is a peer who has published the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth about Michael Mann. have a nice day anonymous eric.

To: Eric who wrote (62244)	12/16/2014 8:10:22 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By russet Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86356

I don't need to and what you imply isn't the purpose of peer review. Everyone even semi-intelligent can understand the problem with proxy data producing a graph that moves the opposite of the thesis and the researcher ditching the data & substituting something else to avoid dealing with that problem .. ie hiding the decline.

To: Eric who wrote (62244)	12/16/2014 8:29:54 PM
From: russet	1 Recommendation Recommended By teevee Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

It is not necessary to peer review anything to propose a scientific fact or theory. It is only necessary to publish or present your data and/or discussion in a way that allows others to become aware of them. Many times in the past, most peer review was done after publishing or presenting a theory, not before. Much has been published on Mann's scientific bloopers by many scientific experts. Many of these have been posted to this thread. Trying to splice tree ring core proxies of past temperatures onto the recent temperature record to mislead the scientific illiterate, such as you, is scientifically fraudulent. It is clear that tree ring proxies give a measurement that is dependent on far more than temperature. Tree ring proxies are therefore a poor indicator of past temperatures. The scientific literature is full of discussions of the problems of using tree ring growth rates as temperature proxies. The fact you can't see the problems with Mann's treatment of the data suggests you have little understanding of the science behind the debate, or you seek to deceive the scientifically illiterate, just like Mann. The fact that you think scientific facts are only valid if they appear in peer reviewed journals, show you know nothing about how science has progressed throughout the ages.