Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

climate hockey stick defeated

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • climate hockey stick defeated


    Dr. Tim Ball Defeats Michael Mann s Hockey Stick Climate Lawsuit

    The Supreme Court of British Columbia has dismissed Dr. Michael Mann s defamation lawsuit against skeptical Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball. Full legal costs were awarded to Dr. Ball, the defendant in the case.

    Indeed, not just a fawning MSM, but many hundreds of subsequent climate studies have relied on Mann ??s findings. Mann ??s reputation was such, that most climate researchers merely accepted his graph, a typical example of groupthink.

    Dr. Ball has long warned that if the world was permitted to see behind the secrecy they would be shocked at just how corrupt and self-serving are those ??scientists at the forefront of man-made global warming propaganda.

    As anyone can tell by contrasting and comparing the graphs below (Ball s version top, Mann ??s below) it is obvious there exists a massive discrepancy in the findings.

    link

    Last edited by way 2 go; November 17th, 2019, 12:48 PM.

  • #2
    I wonder how many people caught the fraud here. The charts show two different scales, making any comparison between them meaningless. And while "Michael Mann's version" has a consistent scaling, "Tim Ball's version" has less distance from 0 to 9.0 than there is between 9.0 and 9.5.

    And deniers wonder why people assume they are all liars. Here's some data from three different studies on global tempertures over that period:



    Looks a lot different if you don't distort the scales, doesn't it?

    Here's one that includes Mann's work, but without and distortion to exaggerate it:


    So Mann isn't the culprit here. This graph hints at what Ball was up to:

    Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999 ) with its uncertainty range (light blue).

    It seems that Ball cherry-picked where, within the range of uncertainty, he wanted the curve in different periods.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
      I wonder how many people caught the fraud here. The charts show two different scales, making any comparison between them meaningless. And while "Michael Mann's version" has a consistent scaling, "Tim Ball's version" has less distance from 0 to 9.0 than there is between 9.0 and 9.5.

      And deniers wonder why people assume they are all liars. Here's some data from three different studies on global tempertures over that period:



      Looks a lot different if you don't distort the scales, doesn't it?

      Here's one that includes Mann's work, but without and distortion to exaggerate it:


      So Mann isn't the culprit here. This graph hints at what Ball was up to:

      Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999 ) with its uncertainty range (light blue).

      It seems that Ball cherry-picked where, within the range of uncertainty, he wanted the curve in different periods.
      Poor Barbie.

      Making comments on the pictures rather than the content of the post they're included in.

      Try reading the post for once.

      It's not about the pictures. It's about a court case where Ball challenged Mann, Mann sued for defamation, Ball requested data, and Mann failed to provide it, and so Mann's case against Ball was rejected.
      Last edited by JudgeRightly; October 23rd, 2019, 10:55 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        It's not about the pictures. It's about a court case where Ball challenged Mann, Mann sued for defamation, Ball requested data, and Mann couldn't provide it, and so Mann's case against Ball was rejected.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by way 2 go View Post
          As anyone can tell by contrasting and comparing the graphs below (Ball’s version top, Mann’s below) it is obvious there exists a massive discrepancy in the findings.
          "Tim Ball & his supporters have been promoting a (A) FAKE version of a 1990 #IPCC graph that (B) only represented one locality (central England) and (C) was only ever meant to be schematic illustration (rather than a quantitative reconstruction) of temperature." -- https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/sta...41432217264130

          Comment


          • #6
            Barbarian.
            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
            E≈mc2
            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
            -Bob B.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by User Name View Post
              Which was addressed in the link that W2G posted.
              Originally posted by User Name View Post
              "Tim Ball & his supporters have been promoting a (A) FAKE version of a 1990 #IPCC graph that (B) only represented one locality (central England) and (C) was only ever meant to be schematic illustration (rather than a quantitative reconstruction) of temperature." -- https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/sta...41432217264130

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                ... "Tim Ball's version" has less distance from 0 to 9.0 than there is between 9.0 and 9.5.


                you're either an idiot or dishonest

                or both, a dishonest idiot

                Tim Ball's graph doesn't go from 0 to 9.0, it goes from 8.5 to 10.0

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                  Poor Barbie.

                  Making comments on the pictures rather than the content of the post they're included in.
                  (JR regards facts the way a vampire regards a crucifix)

                  It's not about the pictures. It's about a court case where Ball challenged Mann, Mann sued for defamation, Ball requested data, and Mann failed to provide it, and so Mann's case against Ball was rejected.
                  Don't care about the lawyer kerfuffle. I'm just pointing out the dishonesty of whoever rigged up that faked graph. And I showed some graphs of the actual data without distorted scales and faked values.

                  If Ball got away with whatever he did, good for him. I'm just showing his (or whoever made that graph) dishonesty. My wife's brother is a lawyer, as is one of my sons. They tell me it's not about justice. So maybe that explains things.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                    My wife's brother is a lawyer, as is one of my sons. They tell me it's not about justice. So maybe that explains things.
                    Yeah. Lawyers hate justice (mostly because if there were justice in their system, they would be convicted of half of everything in the trials they are involved in).
                    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                    E≈mc2
                    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                    -Bob B.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                      Yeah. Lawyers hate justice (mostly because if there were justice in their system, they would be convicted of half of everything in the trials they are involved in).
                      You were schooled by TH in that type of ignorance and yet you keep perpetuating it as if it's a badge of honour?

                      Why?

                      Well this is fun isn't it?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                        Yeah. Lawyers hate justice (mostly because if there were justice in their system, they would be convicted of half of everything in the trials they are involved in).
                        well, it's worth remembering that lawyers are motivated by money

                        justice isn't in the equation at all

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          What do you call a busload of lawyers going off a cliff?
                          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                          E≈mc2
                          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                          -Bob B.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            a good start?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                              What do you call a busload of lawyers going off a cliff?
                              A shame that it's not more?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X