brenthutch

What do you mean by “score points”? Would that be the same as pointing out gaps in reasoning, and flaws in methodology? Could that include invalidating the entire hypothesis? (GASP!) “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong” Einstein

A better question would be, what would be the purpose of reviewing it if you were NOT skeptical? Or should Peer Review just be a rubber stamp and an attaboy from your buddies?

About as long as it took to convince a cosmologists in the early 1900’s that the universe was expanding. (>97% of “experts” thought the universe was static)

Nice try, but his “deniers” have PhD’s in relevant fields.

Mann won’t show his work to skeptics... case closed If Mann was confident in his research, he would have done what Bill Booth did in the early 90’s at Carolina Sky Sports during the Easter or Thanksgiving boogie (I can’t recall which) when he unveiled the Sigma tandem rig. He explained its features and his reasoning for its design. He then asked the tandem instructors assembled, to tear it apart and find its faults, shortcomings and potential problems. After an hour long Q&A (none pre-screened) nobody could find a significant fault and everyone came away impressed. If climate science could bear the same scrutiny, I could be a convert.

He doesn’t have to. The system does it for him. https://www.biospace.com/article/the-mess-that-is-peer-review-and-what-should-be-done-about-it-/ If the peer review system was as good as you claim, why would he not welcome scrutiny from skeptics?

Cute and true https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/ Riddle me this. If the conclusions of his research could withstand scrutiny from a non-sycophant, why would he refuse to disclose and loose an otherwise easily winnable court case?

What part of “only shares his research with those who agree with him” don’t you understand?

No, it is also the fact he will not share his research with anyone other than those who share his views. He will not debate skeptics. He spoke at a forum I attended and only took written, prescreened, questions (all friendly) which was a first for that setting. Normally hands are raised and a mic is handed to the questioner. He sues critics, and looses. (Partly because refuses to show his research). He hawks his books which are full of ad hominem and hyperbole and short on science. Anyone who lets himself be called “Mr. Global Warming” has lost the ability to view their own research critically.

No I wasn’t, If I overlooked an autofill I apologize. Michael Mann: http://www.met.psu.edu/people/mem45

He doesn’t make things up, he just suffers from confirmation bias. He was introduced to me by his colleagues as “Mr. Global Warming” in our conversation that followed it was apparent to me that his mind was closed to any alternative views. He dismissed any possibility that higher levels of CO2 could be any other than disastrous. He twists his research to support his agenda, refusing to show his work to anyone who may disagree with it. He said something to the effect “why would I share my research with someone who just wants to prove me wrong”. That is not how science is supposed to work.

I never said all/most scientists, I said Michelle man and his cohorts. https://news.psu.edu/story/631498/2020/09/14/research/michael-mann-receives-world-sustainability-award https://news.psu.edu/story/558486/2019/02/12/research/michael-mann-awarded-2019-tyler-prize-environmental-achievement Not to mention Penn State EXPLICITLY stated the reason they brought Mann on was to attract federal climate dollars.

No, but we have now passed his turning point and have not stopped the rise of CO2. Mann is now fighting both the climate realists who say higher CO2 levels are no big deal AND the climate catastrophists who are claiming there is nothing we can do and we are all doomed. To keep the government money flowing he has to thread that needle. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/meet-the-doomers-some-young-us-voters-have-given-up-hope-on-climate

In 2017 he said “We don’t have much time — 2020 is a clear turning point.” For what you ask? To avoid “unprecedented damaging weather extremes” and “catastrophic warming of the planet”. He also said about AOC’s statement:”Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we're like, 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.” ”there is SUBSTANTIAL TRUTH in what AOC said.” Now 2020 has come and (nearly) gone and CO2 has continued to rise. So we are all doomed or the climate science community has overstated the threat. “It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future”

Michael E. Mann Apr 09, 2017 Mann is a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University and co-author of The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy. “Science is under attack at the very moment when we need it most. President Donald Trump’s March 28 executive order went much further than simply throwing a lifeline to fossil fuels, as industry-funded congressional climate change–deniers have done in the past. It intentionally blinded the federal government to the impacts of climate change by abolishing an interagency group that measured the cost of carbon to public health and the environment. Now, the government won’t have a coordinated way to account for damages from climate change when assessing the costs and benefits of a particular policy. With that in mind, Trump should read the landmark “2020” report now published by Mission 2020, a group of experts convened by the former Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The reportestablishes a timeline for how we can ensure a safe and stable climate. We don’t have much time — 2020 is a clear turning point.” So are you saying that Dr. Mann and a group of experts convened by the former Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change are out of the mainstream?

In an interview for The Ecologist, the Emeritus Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research Prof. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber warned that if we continue as we are now, then over the next century we may bring civilization to an end. He predicted that humans would survive somehow, but that almost everything which had been built up over the past two thousand years would be destroyed. He rated chances of success in the fight against climate change as more than 5% but definitely less than 50%.[61] In his 2019 BBC documentary Climate Change – The Facts, Sir David Attenborough warns that dramatic action needed to be taken against climate change within the next decade to avoid irreversible damage to the natural world and the collapse of human societies.[62] In a 2019 Channel 4 interview with Jon Snow, Attenborough states that the worst outcome of climate change that could be experienced within the next seventy years would be civil unrest and mass migration on a great scale. He predicts that humans will continue to find enough food, but that their diets will be forced to change.[63] Professor Emeritus of climate strategy at the BI Norwegian Business School Jørgen Randers predicts that we will fail to meet the pledges of the Paris Agreement as in the short-term it is cheaper to continue acting as usual.[64] As a lifelong environmentalist, Prince Charles has given speeches warning that climate change could bring unimaginable horrors and that it calls into question our future survival on the planet.[65] Pope Francis has stated that climate change threatens the future of the human family and that we must take action to protect future generations and the world's poorest who will suffer the most from humanity's actions. He has also stated that our choice of energy has the potential to destroy our civilization and that this must be avoided.[66] In an interview, the Secretary-General of the United Nations António Guterres warned that the world was losing the fight against climate change, and described lack of action on climate change as "suicide".[67] In a September 2020 presentation to the United Nations, Fiji Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama described the present situation as an environmental armageddon.[68]

You are leaving out the catastrophic part of the CAGW theory. The part about, no glaciers in glacier national park by 2020, the part about no snow on Mount Kilimanjaro by 2020, the part about snowfall being a rare event that we would no longer be prepared to deal with by 2020, the part about how islands in the pacific world disappear beneath the waves by 2020, the part about how there would be fewer polar bears by 2020. If human emissions of CO2 only cause deserts to shrink and food production to increase, I can live with that, why can’t you?

Really?

Now that we are at the end of another year, it is time to measure the predictions of climate experts against what actually happened. https://junkscience.com/2020/12/wrong-again-2020s-failed-climate-doomsaying/ To paraphrase Richard Feynman; “If the predictions of your theory do not agree with observation, your theory is wrong. It doesn’t matter how smart you are, how beautiful the theory is (or if 97% of your buddies agree with it), IT IS WRONG! And that my friends is how science works”

They turned into Democrats?

My muzzle break nearly eliminates felt recoil by deflecting the muzzle blast to the side/rear. Even with eye and ear protection, it feels like getting slapped in the face if one is on either side. Folks DO hunt with active hearing protection. (Speakers in the earpiece transmit sound just not beyond a certain db in fact one may turn up the volume to be able to hear sounds inaudible to the unaided ear). A better question is why shouldn’t I be able to readily purchase one?

Being a good neighbor on the firing line, hunting without hearing protection, recoil moderation and reduced muzzle jump to name a few. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/155/text

Suppressors, the only place where silencers exist is in Hollywood.