The global warming hockey stick is bad science

Here it is: Our homework. http://en.wikipedia.org... Mann's research has been duplicated http://www.ucar.edu... MM05 was not about any mathematical error. http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:ig7aXxydRw8J:www.realclimate.org/dummies.pdf+hockey+stick+controversy&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us but about whether the bristlecone pines should have been included. How did they get "weighed 380 times?" What characteristics did they have that made it inadvisable to include them? (My opponent's position, not the IPCC) Past reconstruction has problems http://www.realclimate.org... "A scientist named Mann" http://en.wikipedia.org...(scientist) "Bad science" from a Lead Author on the "Observed Climate Variability and Change" chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Report (2001). He has been organizing committee chair for the National Academy of Sciences ‘Frontiers of Science' and has served as a committee member or advisor for other National Academy of Sciences panels. He served as editor for the Journal of Climate and has been a member of numerous international and U.S. scientific advisory panels and steering groups. Dr. Mann has been the recipient of several fellowships and prizes, including selection as one of the 50 leading visionaries in Science and Technology by Scientific American, the outstanding scientific publication award of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and recognition by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) for notable citation of his refereed scientific research. Mann is one of several climate scientists who contribute to the RealClimate blog. The IPCC is a UN outfit. I need to know what my opponent means by "political" so as not to include himself. http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent does not believe global warming exists. It's pretty obvious my opponent has some, shall we say, questionable source material. Where on Earth is he getting this garbage? Why don't I just debate them? Here's some background: http://www.technologyreview.com... http://www.technologyreview.com... Honesty and reliability in scientific research. It's certainly an issue. Research fabricated. http://blogs.consumerreports.org... In fact Big Pharma http://www.BigBug.info... virtually owns our educational system. Debate protocol: First a good topic is selected. This has not been done. The Instigator takes a position on that topic and posts his opening argument, which includes why he is arguing as he is by making explicit the values he feels he is upholding, for example to win debates. A 40-1-2 record. The contender takes a position that disagrees with that of the other guy, and often posits different values, for example do you want good debates or not? They take turns promoting their own views and trashing the other guy's. Modern debating protocol is designed to allow a maximum of creativity, and allows me to question my opponent's values and criteria with respect to his position which includes his selection of the topic and restrictions he seems to think he is entitled to place on the debate, and the implicit assertion that this is a good topic and that these restrictons are good ones. It's normally not done in oral debates because why waste your precious three minutes of debating time trashing your judge but in this case hey I have three days. Why on Earth would anyone wany to debate this question? Normally in a debating tournament the topics are chosen with great care to reflect relevant social issues and to provide an enjoyable and meaningful debate for everyone. That is not the case here. The topic was chosen with great care to win debates with biased restrictions on the topic and to make it look like something was actually proven. We need to up the ante in this here side show. China and Japan have jointly declared war on the US but stipulated that it must be fought with chopsticks. Iceland has declared that the next World Cup must be played at the South Pole. I would like to know where the idea originated that a participant in a contest could dictate how the contest would be conducted and decided. My opponent's position, stated very clearly in his opening argument, is that the debate should be restricted as he demands. Opening argument. Well I disagree. Global warming and dishonest scientific research are social issues. But the kicker is the implicit statement that any thesis which supports an inaccurate hypothesis or has errors in the derivation of the data is "bad science." This is very clearly his opinion and is implied by his opening argument. We will be spending some time on this one. And, yes, define "bad science." Define "is?" Great idea. Define "is." When you start a debate there is a box for debate parameters and one for opening argrment. Anything in the opening argrment box is opening argument and subject to debate. The rules of debating are also clear. I must take a position that disagrees with my opponent. But I cannot do that until he has posited what value there is in so restricting the debate to the accuracy of the hockey stick graph as he demands. This he has not done. He must support this opinion. Why does he want to restrict the debate to such a narrow topic? He needs to posit some values that this would uphold, besides winning debates, and criteria for selecting a good debate topic, and show how these criteria support those values and how the topic meets those criteria. What I intend to do is to show that restricting the debate to the accuracy of the hockey stick graph as he demands is not a good idea. I need to contention against his values and for mine. How can I do this if he has not stated any? In layman's terms, who cares? My disagreement is leaning toward the form of some statement about oversight of scientific research. I look forward to a stimulating debate.