28 of 130 people found the following review helpful
This review is from: The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines (Hardcover)The fact that this snake has the nerve to portray himself as a victim OR a crusader is as demonstrative as anything else about him.
Sorry folks. The Hockey Stick was delibrate fraud. He did it. And is still doing it.
Anyone who says different either doesn't know what they're talking about or is lying.
Tracked by 3 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-6 of 6 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Apr 6, 2012 1:25:44 PM PDT
David R. Cassatt says:
Didn't read the book, eh?
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2012 1:46:45 PM PDT
L. Hayles says:
But it is a nice illustration of what Chris Mooney talks about in his book...The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted on Apr 6, 2012 1:58:26 PM PDT
Rob Honeycutt says:
Joel... Let's see, if the hockey stick is a fraud then why is it that now there are nearly a dozen other multi-proxy reconstructions using different statistical techniques coming up with the same answer as Mann's research? How does that happen? How is it that no one has done a multi-proxy reconstruction showing anything other than a hockey stick. Hey, McIntyre has now had over a decade to attempt to reproduce a reconstruction that shows something different. Where's his reconstruction? OR... maybe he DID attempt to do a reconstruction and he didn't like the results... Hmmm.
Anyone producing a fake review like this clearly has not read the full body of research on this issue.
Posted on Apr 8, 2012 6:53:28 PM PDT
Jan Galkowski says:
These are simply assertions. The comment does not give any argument or evidence how and why, ad the commenter-reviewer says, "the Hockey Stick was a delibrate (sic) fraud". Prove to us, oh almighty Snider, that YOU know what you are talking about. I do, and I would enjoy learning here of the specifics of your complaint.
Posted on Jun 14, 2012 6:23:29 AM PDT
Robert Davidson says:
The real fraud is that there is any serious doubt of anthropogenic climate change, or of the basic shape of the hockey stick, or that Mann has committed any "fraud". Careful, you can be sued for such nonsense.
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 4:39:42 PM PDT
Jan Galkowski says:
(1) I challenge ANY skeptics regarding Professor Mann's important contributions to a detailed, technical discussion, mathematically based, of how and why they work. Most skeptics regarding his contributions are blindly parroting what they have read or heard elsewhere without any understanding of the techniques involved.
(2) I would recommend minions like Snider to check out responses of others on Amazon regarding this book, including mine, where I have links and arguments showing the power of the techniques which Professor Mann and others introduced to the tree ring and geophysical modeling community. Basic facts are that the tree ring data are so noisy, you need high power statistical techniques to discern information from them. No smaller errors are known in paleomagnetic results, and, after processing, these contributed seriously to the scientific underpinning of plate tectonics, a once controversial, but now very widely accepted geological theory.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›