Mann vs. Curry, Round 1?

[Ottawa Mike]

In the blue corner, Michael Mann:

"Testimonies at the EPW Senate Hearing: #Science (https://twitter.com/michaelemann/status/...4207877120

In the red corner, Judy Curry:

"Since you have publicly accused my Congressional testimony of being ‘anti-science,’ I expect you to (publicly) document and rebut any statement in my testimony that is factually inaccurate or where my conclusions are not supported by the evidence that I provide." http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/18/mann-o...nsibility/

On a 10 point "must system", how do you score Round 1?

Predictions for Round 2?
____________________________________________________
@climate realist(and others): Note that I edited the links in Mann's tweet. You need to go to that tweet if you want to follow the links.

[Climate Realist]

The first two links seem to be broken. I believe that I found the working links through your third link. Nevertheless, the #Science link has nothing in it but accepted science. Try refuting any point in that article.

In the #AntiScience link, Judith Curry makes a big deal of the supposed lack of warming since 1998. There are two problems with that assessment.

1. The trend since 1998 is warming.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...1998/trend

2.. What is relevant isn't what happened since 1998, what is relevant is what happened in the past 30 years.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/ccl/faqs.html

And in the last 30 years, we see a strong warming trend.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...1984/trend

I will wait to see if you can find scientific errors in the #Science link, and then I will score this round.

<Note that I edited the links in Mann's tweet. You need to go to that tweet if you want to follow the links.>

In other words, you want us to do your work. Perhaps the realists will give up, and those who have already made up their minds and don't want to be confused by the facts, like Maxx and Sagebrush will tell you what you want to hear.

Post the links, or Curry forfeits.

<Predictions for Round 2?>

I predict that Round 2 will be lame as well.

Graphiccs

Is there any reason why the RSS dataset is any more valid than the GISS dataset? I consider the GISS dataset to be the best, because it has an extrapolation mechanism to include polar regions, where warming is the fastest.

Mike

As I said, what matters is what happened in the past 30 years.

Kano

Your link is to a photo in which Tony Soprano Whattsit photoshopped John Cook's face to a Nazi uniform. John Cook never actually dressed up as a Nazi.

[Zippi62]

Blue corner? Red corner? It's not that simple.

This is not a RED or BLUE issue even though the media has defined our own interpretations of what politics are and what these colors represent.

Mann is a self-important elitist. He hides behind Government monies and knows nothing about actual climate science. He plays with numbers which are simply manipulated to show a result to perpetuate the cause for the ELITES.

Judith Curry is a simple scientist who counteracts radical remarks with simple scientific findings. I believe Curry is in it for the common person where Mann has always been fed his money through Government research.

Putting labels on types of people only perpetuates the problem because it identifies what ELITES want you to concentrate on. As long as you are worried about what the opposition is doing, then you don't have time to watch what the ELITES are doing.

Global Warming is and always has been a "Financial Institution's Dream Cause". It (Global Warming) is a great vehicle for making money because Governments will borrow money to research it, yet there is no profit to be made and threaten financial institutions.

Score? Curry 10 - Mann 0

[Caliservative]

Is anyone surprised that MM goes straight to the ad hominem when confronted with statements that question his deeply held beliefs? His reasoning is blatantly circular: when JC agreed with CAGW, she was 'on the team'; when, more recently, she dares to question the 'Sacred Science', the claws come out.

As MM has said before, the 'basic science cannot be discussed; only the responses to CAGW can be discussed'. Nothing scientific is beyond question. This is a dogma (religion), not science.

JC summed it up very well in this post on he blog:

"Skepticism is one of the norms of science. We build confidence in our theories as they are able to withstand skeptical challenges. If instead scientists defend their theories by calling their opponents names, well that is a sign that their theories are in trouble."

[Mike]

CR, according to Skeptical Science
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
trend in gistemp from 1998 is .064+-.130

[graphicconception]

Mann was doing well when he thought of it as a "drive-by shooting". However, Professor Curry has not been intimidated and has issued a challenge. Basically, she has not gone for the "put up or shut up" approach. She has specified "put up" i.e. the pistols at dawn approach.

Mann is already in over his head. He is already suing people in three court cases. It is a wonder he has any time for science.

As to CR's attempt to support Professor Mann saying that temperatures are still increasing I would like to support Professor Curry by choosing a different data source from the same web site:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/fro...1998/trend

Score:
Mann: 5
Curry: 10

Mann started well with the ambush but Curry survived and was not intimidated. Her response could leave Mann crushed with no easy options.

EDIT @CR: GISS is the only one that seems to change with time. The 1930s in the US got cooler again in 2012. The graph below is of the differences between what GISS published in 2004 and 2012. Do GISS publish the reasons for these corrections anywhere? It is interesting that the corrections are not random.

[Jeff M]

Here are the links to the first two:

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...2a7d074d06

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...4165860275

It looks like all Curry is doing is ignoring the science and restating exactly what the self proclaimed skeptics in here do. No warming since 1998, ocean rising at the same rate as previously, increasing Antarctic ice extent, and so on. She claims that the IPCC does not have a convincing explanation for the current 'hiatus' yet current science shows that the decrease in warming is a result of the negative or neutral PDO. you think what she is therefor claiming is scientific and up-to-date?

Dealing with climate sensitivity all she is doing is complaining that the lower bounds have been decreased slightly thereby making the case for anthropogenic global warming... 'weaker'? I don't really see how one leads into the other.

Dealing with sea level rise what she is doing is trying to obscure the argument. Sea level is increasing because the planet is warming. To determine where that rise is coming from we need to look at the cause of the warming. What she is claiming is that the sea level rise in the earlier part of the 20th century, when solar was actually increasing, is equal to the sea level rise of the late 20th century and therefor humans have no impact on it. What she is doing is coming to a conclusion based on personal belief and leaving out an entire middle explanation.

With sea ice she is ignoring ice mass as is usual with people that attempt to obfuscate the argument. This has been spoken about quite a lot in here recently. She is also making the claim that sea ice will continue increasing until the year 1940 and cites a recent paper though she has no link on the provided response but it is labelled with a 7. That section was probably in a separate file.

Overall? I would say that Curry is continuing to play with the data and not telling the full story. Would you label this anti-science? It would be similar to someone explaining the reasons why evolution is a hoax because of Piltdown man.

[C]

Curry's big premise is...
"It is difficult to avoid concluding that the IPCC consensus is manufactured and that the existence of this consensus does not lend intellectual substance to their conclusions."

She feels that IPCC consensus is manufactured

She was involved in Heartland for a while and that is enough to discredit her

Cali....The statement about skepticism within science is correct. Unfortunately the skeptics here deny the reality of AGW and that makes them simply Deniers, a totally different type of skeptic

[kano]

I dont believe in anything from skepticalscience not when their leader dresses up as a Nazi http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.c...=207&h=333

[Sagebrush]

Looks like Mann has reverted to Goebbels' wonderful practices.

"You are an old meany"
"You don't know what you are talking about"
"I am a respected scientist, you are not"
"How dare you question me?"
"We are the ones in power, you are not."
"If you are so smart, how come you aren't rich like me?"
"You should listen to Al Gore more and not that Rush Limbaugh."
"Everyone knows that Bush caused this."
'My hockey stick was not a bald faced lie, it was just a teensy weensy little white lie."
"I'm not going to give my grant money back just because you proved me wrong."
"Please, Mother, help me out!"

I think, "Since you have publicly accused my Congressional testimony of being ‘anti-science,’ I expect you to (publicly) document and rebut any statement in my testimony that is factually inaccurate or where my conclusions are not supported by the evidence that I provide." Now that is real logic. You can see on here who don't understand science, but they sure do understand Goebbels' principle.

Curry 1000. Mann - 10