# Creator of Infamous Hockey Stick Graph Refuses to Turn Over Data to Court



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 6, 2017)

The creator, Michael Mann, sued for libel when his data was questioned.  First step in a libel trial - prove what was said was not true.  He refused.

So any guesses as to why he refuses to turn over his data? Three guesses, first two don't count.

Michael Mann, who chose to file what many consider to be a cynical SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) libel suit in the British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver six long years ago, has astonished legal experts by refusing to comply with the court direction to hand over all his disputed graph’s data. Mann’s iconic hockey stick has been relied upon by the UN’s IPCC and western governments as crucial evidence for the science of ‘man-made global warming.’

As first reported in Principia Scientific International (February 1, 2017), the defendant in the case, Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball, had won “concessions” against Mann, but at the time the details were kept confidential, pending Mann’s response.

The negative and unresponsive actions of Dr Mann and his lawyer, Roger McConchie, are expected to infuriate the judge and be the signal for the collapse of Mann’s multi-million dollar libel suit against Dr Ball. It will be music to the ears of so-called ‘climate deniers’ like President Donald Trump and his EPA Chief, Scott Pruitt.

As Dr Ball explains:

“Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.”

*Punishment for Civil Contempt*

Mann’s now proven contempt of court means Ball is entitled to have the court serve upon Mann the fullest punishment. Contempt sanctions could reasonably include the judge ruling that Dr. Ball’s statement that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State’ is a precise and true statement of fact. This is because under Canada’s unique ‘Truth Defense’, Mann is now proven to have wilfully hidden his data, so the court may rule he hid it because it is fake. As such, the court must then dismiss Mann’s entire libel suit with costs awarded to Ball and his team.

Michael Mann refuses to hand over data to judge in climate change trial


----------



## konradv (Jul 6, 2017)

The hockey stick graph that really counts and gives rise to all the rest.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 6, 2017)

konradv said:


> The hockey stick graph that really counts and gives rise to all the rest.


Thanks for letting us know you never travel.
If you took every human being on earth and put them all in Texas every family of four would get half an acre to live on.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 6, 2017)

The entire left's talking points are blown out of the water.  Mann is found in contempt of court and will now have to pay everyone's legal fees.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 6, 2017)

The defendant in the libel trial, the 79-year-old Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball (above, right) is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger* mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann *_*did*_* act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud.* Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a “hoax.”

Let the criminal trial against Mann begin!

Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann | Principia Scientific International


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Jul 6, 2017)

Anybody who would rely on a mere 1000-2000 years of data to declare major planet climate shift is a fool.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 6, 2017)

Ding dong, the hockey stick is dead.


----------



## konradv (Jul 6, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Thanks for letting us know you never travel.  If you took every human being on earth and put them all in Texas every family of four would get half an acre to live on.


Like most denialist claims, this is a load of B.S.  They'd have less than 1/10 of an acre to live on.  Didn't think I'd do the math, did you?


----------



## konradv (Jul 6, 2017)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Anybody who would rely on a mere 1000-2000 years of data to declare major planet climate shift is a fool.


I don't care if any temperature rise can be proven.  What happens if CO2 and other GHGs keep rising?  The trapped energy has to do something.  Logic should tell you that temps will rise.


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Jul 6, 2017)

konradv said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody who would rely on a mere 1000-2000 years of data to declare major planet climate shift is a fool.
> ...


*Hate to be the one to tell y ou, but there is enough cO2 stored trapped in the ground to kill off all of you.  The only thing that will save you is to plant a tree and hug it.*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 6, 2017)

konradv said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody who would rely on a mere 1000-2000 years of data to declare major planet climate shift is a fool.
> ...


The earth has survived levels above 7000ppm..  its normal 16 deg C temp range has remained the same for millions of years...

Your logic is wrong..


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Jul 6, 2017)

konradv said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody who would rely on a mere 1000-2000 years of data to declare major planet climate shift is a fool.
> ...



Yea, too bad there are MANY MANY more factors that effect climate and global temperature. Here are a couple of riddles for you-

When was the little ice age, and how many theories can you find on what caused it?

6000 years ago people and animals lived in a rich fertile area we now call the Sahara desert. How many theories can you find on what caused it to turn into a desert?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 6, 2017)

BuckToothMoron said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...


Your avatar is apt. 



Ever consider actually doing a little research?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 6, 2017)

_Figure 1: Northern Hemisphere temperature changes estimated from various proxy records shown in blue (Mann 1999). Instrumental data shown in red. Note the large uncertainty(grey area) as you go further back in time._
_




Figure 2: Original hockey stick graph (blue - MBH1998) compared to Wahl & Ammann reconstruction (red). Instrumental record in black (Wahl 2007).





Figure 3: Global surface temperature change over the last five centuries from boreholes (thick red line). Shading represents uncertainty. Blue line is a five year running average of HadCRUT global surface air temperature (Huang 2000).





Figure 4: Northern Hemisphere annual temperature reconstruction from speleothem reconstructions shown with 2 standard error (shaded area) (Smith 2006).





Figure 5: Global mean temperature calculated form glaciers. The red vertical lines indicate uncertainty.





Figure 6: Composite Northern Hemisphere land and land plus ocean temperature reconstructions and estimated 95% confidence intervals. Shown for comparison are published Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (Mann 2008).

What evidence is there for the hockey stick?
_
*Solid evidence from many sources that the hockey stick is real.*
_
_


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Jul 6, 2017)

BuckToothMoron said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...


*Your last one was answered awhile back.  When the mountains in the ?Himalayas" started to raise the stearing currents changed therefore the area of the Sheetheadss dried up and water became scarce and the Camels drank the rest of it. lLOL  *


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Jul 6, 2017)

L said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...


*Now the Ice age was more than likley was caused by Volcano's eruption that put alot of CO2 and sulfer into the air and caused acid rain and raised the temps very high.   So got anything else.  If you need any more info watch Saturday Night Live.   LOL  Little joke. *


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 6, 2017)

konradv said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for letting us know you never travel.  If you took every human being on earth and put them all in Texas every family of four would get half an acre to live on.
> ...


OH wow, so every human being on earth could comfortably live in Texas.
You really got me good!


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 6, 2017)

konradv said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody who would rely on a mere 1000-2000 years of data to declare major planet climate shift is a fool.
> ...


Why do you lefties hate science so much?

Mann is a proven liar, CO2 myth is dead.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 6, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


And just how would you get food and water to them? You are a total idiot, Weatherman.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 6, 2017)

BuckToothMoron said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...


The most prolific period of life on earth was when there was no ice on the polar caps. The left are just anti life.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 6, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> _Figure 1: Northern Hemisphere temperature changes estimated from various proxy records shown in blue (Mann 1999). Instrumental data shown in red. Note the large uncertainty(grey area) as you go further back in time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Mann lied. Next up after he's handed the bills of every lawyer involved for the last 6 years will be his criminal trial.


----------



## konradv (Jul 6, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


I think I quite succinctly proved that, like the Trumpster, if it weren't for alternative facts, you wouldn't have any at all.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 6, 2017)

konradv said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


Like the FACT THE HOCKYSTICK IS PURE BULLSHIT?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 6, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> _Figure 1: Northern Hemisphere temperature changes estimated from various proxy records shown in blue (Mann 1999). Instrumental data shown in red. Note the large uncertainty(grey area) as you go further back in time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Very convincing!
Makes you wonder why Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann refuses to turn over his data, eh?


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Jul 6, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Hahaha...old rocks is number 147 to make that hilarious joke about my avatar. So original!

As for your research question (and thanks for jumping head first into my trap)- I have read multiple articles and research on both these events. The underlying theme- there are theories yet scientist don't agree on a single or group of unified cause(s) for either climate event. 

And that is the point of the question. We know they occurred, we have all the scientific data and research yet scientist can not say conclusively why these things occurred. So why, when we use the same science, should we be so confident in the "fact" of anthropogenic global warming. Sorry sport, to the thinking and rational among us, it doesn't pass the smell test. Are you getting the point Dumb Rocks?

What caused the Little Ice Age? | EarthSky.org
The Little Ice Age is the name for a period of widespread cooling on Earth. Scientists don’t agree on when it started and ended, but it’s generally agreed to have lasted into the 19th century. Its beginning point is less certain. Still, it’s known that northern Europe felt cooling temperatures. Advancing glaciers in mountain valleys destroyed European towns. Paintings from the 1600s depict people ice-skating on the Thames River in London and on canals in the Netherlands, places that were ice-free before and after the Little Ice Age. Places as far away as South America and China might also have cooled. Scientists don’t know exactly what caused the Little Ice Age – but there are theories.

What Changed The Green Sahara Into A Desert? | MessageToEagle.com
Although scientists agree that the Sahara was once a green place, it is still widely debated how the transition occurred.

Due to the lack of paleo-environmental records, scientist must often resort to climate modeling.

In 1999, a group of German scientists used computer simulation to create a model of the Earth’s climate thousands of years ago. They concluded that the climatic transition of the Sahara took place abruptly, within a possible span of about 300 years.

There are however other scientists who disagree with those calculations. New evidence show that the eastern region of the Sahara desert, especially the area near Lake Yoa in Chad, dried up slowly and progressively since the mid-Holocene period.

Read more: http://www.messagetoeagle.com/changed-green-sahara-
desert/#ixzz4m7OppxPH


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Jul 6, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > The hockey stick graph that really counts and gives rise to all the rest.
> ...



  Lets not get carried away now.......!!!


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...





Never heard of robotics and automation?




.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Jul 7, 2017)

If you're not just a little bit skeptical you aren't paying attention!

Federal scientist cooked climate change books ahead of Obama presentation, whistle blower charges

World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online

World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online

Fed Whistleblower: NOAA Scientists Manipulated Temperature Data To Hype ‘Global Warming’

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus" | Climate Change Dispatch


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jul 7, 2017)

*Creator of Infamous Hockey Stick Graph Refuses to Turn Over Data to Court*

throw him in jail for contempt 

simple as that


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> _Figure 1: Northern Hemisphere temperature changes estimated from various proxy records shown in blue (Mann 1999). Instrumental data shown in red. Note the large uncertainty(grey area) as you go further back in time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





This is huge......




*Many hundreds of peer-reviewed papers cite Mann’s work, which is now effectively junked*. Despite having deep-pocketed backers willing and able to feed his ego as a publicity-seeking mouthpiece against skeptics, Mann’s credibility as a champion of environmentalism is in tatters.




.


----------



## westwall (Jul 7, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> The creator, Michael Mann, sued for libel when his data was questioned.  First step in a libel trial - prove what was said was not true.  He refused.
> 
> So any guesses as to why he refuses to turn over his data? Three guesses, first two don't count.
> 
> ...








Yeah, we heard about this yesterday!  I have been one of the many contributors to Dr. Balls defense and this is sweet music!


----------



## westwall (Jul 7, 2017)

konradv said:


> The hockey stick graph that really counts and gives rise to all the rest.






And it too is wrong.  Simple graphs are the products of simpletons.



"We are living in a paradoxical time of population growth. In the media, there have been alarming reports asking how the world will be able to deal with a much larger population in years to come. The challenges are real, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, whose population is expected to double by 2050 and possibly quadruple by 2100. *At the same time, we have been experiencing the most rapid decline in global population growth ever.*

But how can we reconcile those two facts: a rapid expansion of total population numbers with a fast slowdown of population growth? Here is an analogy from the world of cars: imagine you are driving on a German motorway, where speed limits are notoriously non-existent. You are cruising at 160km/h (100m/h) but soon you cross the border into France, where 130 km/h is the limit. You are still driving very fast, though substantially slower than before. Now you switch to a regional road, driving at 80km/h, and now you slow down further to 50 km/h as you enter into a town. Meanwhile, someone else is still driving at 160 km/h on that _Autobahn_.

Global population growth is following a similar path. Even though we are still growing at a high rate the slowdown has already started and we will never revert to the high speed we had in the past. We have already passed two historical peaks of global demography a few decades ago:


*In 1968,* we reached the _relative peak_ in global population growth rate. Then, the world grew at a record 2.09 percent – adding 73.2 million to a world population of 3.54 billion. This historical peak was part of a seven-year high-growth period – from 1966 to 1972 – and the only time in recorded history when the world’s population grew above two percent. I was also born at that time.
*In 1988, *just before the fall of the Berlin wall, we reached the _absolute peak_ in global population growth (i.e. in the number of people added). The world gained almost 93 million people and since then world population growth has been declining also in absolute terms."
The Rapid Slowdown of Population Growth


----------



## westwall (Jul 7, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> _Figure 1: Northern Hemisphere temperature changes estimated from various proxy records shown in blue (Mann 1999). Instrumental data shown in red. Note the large uncertainty(grey area) as you go further back in time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...








I guess you didn't get the memo.  The hockey stick is shit, and so is every paper that used his "data".  Now, proven in a Court of Law.  In other words, you lose.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2017)

konradv said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody who would rely on a mere 1000-2000 years of data to declare major planet climate shift is a fool.
> ...



What "trapped" energy.  Can you provide a single bit of observed, measured data demonstrating that CO2 or any so called greenhouse gas other than water actually "traps" energy?

Logic demands that you first determine if your beliefs are true...CO2 doesn't trap anything.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2017)

BuckToothMoron said:


> If you're not just a little bit skeptical you aren't paying attention!



The only people who aren't skeptical are religious zealots.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 7, 2017)

The man behind the Climategate Scandal where he admitted in emails he would destroy the man made global warming fake data rather than have other scientists look at it.......is now in Contempt of Court.  He sued Mark Styen, who called him out for his fake data.....and now, he is refusing to produce his data for the court....

Articles: Things Get Hot for Michael Mann

He did even worse; he launched a campaign of punitive lawsuits against anyone who criticized him. He has sued Mark Steyn, _National Review Online,_ and climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball.

Mann shot himself in the foot with that last. For several years, Mann had refused to produce his data for the court (in support of his own case), claiming that it was “proprietary.” After missing a February 20th deadline, he now finds himself in contempt. Under Canadian law, the court is now required to dismiss the suit.

John O'Sullivan goes into detail:

"The defendant in the libel trial, the 79-year-old Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball… is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud. *Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a “hoax.”*

[...]

"Michael Mann, who chose to file what many consider to be a cynical SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) libel suit in the British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver six long years ago, has astonished legal experts by refusing to comply with the court direction to hand over all his disputed graph’s data. Mann’s iconic hockey stick has been relied upon by the UN’s IPCC and western governments as crucial evidence for the science of ‘man-made global warming.’

As first reported in Principia Scientific International (February 1, 2017), the defendant in the case, Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball, had won “concessions” against Mann, but at the time the details were kept confidential, pending Mann’s response.

The negative and unresponsive actions of Dr Mann and his lawyer, Roger McConchie, are expected to infuriate the judge and be the signal for the collapse of Mann’s multi-million dollar libel suit against Dr Ball. It will be music to the ears of so-called ‘climate deniers’ like President Donald Trump and his EPA Chief, Scott Pruitt."

*Mann has been waging lawfare against people who have rightly called him out on his deceptive practices, practices paid for with tax dollars and subject to the Freedom of Information Act. *

In point of fact, the Gang Green, the radical environmental lobby promoting the global warming hysteria, has poured massiveamounts of money into the effort, far more than was spent by their opposition.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 7, 2017)

Here, another look at the story...

‘Scientist’ Michael Mann Commits Contempt of Court in ‘Climate Science Trial of the Century’

Michael Mann, who chose to file what many consider to be a cynical SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) libel suit in the British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver six long years ago, has astonished legal experts by refusing to comply with the court direction to hand over all his disputed graph’s data. Mann’s iconic hockey stick has been relied upon by the UN’s IPCC and western governments as crucial evidence for the science of ‘man-made global warming.’

As first reported in Principia Scientific International (February 1, 2017), the defendant in the case, Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball, had won “concessions” against Mann, but at the time the details were kept confidential, pending Mann’s response.

The negative and unresponsive actions of Dr Mann and his lawyer, Roger McConchie, are expected to infuriate the judge and be the signal for the collapse of Mann’s multi-million dollar libel suit against Dr Ball. It will be music to the ears of so-called ‘climate deniers’ like President Donald Trump and his EPA Chief, Scott Pruitt.

As Dr Ball explains:

“Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

Mann confirms that "global warming" is really fake science spewed by EnviroMarxists.

Thanks, Mike


----------



## gtopa1 (Jul 7, 2017)

THIS IS HEAVEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ABOUT BLOODY TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Jul 7, 2017)

Thank you, Gentlemen; this is almost as good news as President Trump winning in your fair Country. Not quite but almost.

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Jul 7, 2017)

Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann | Principia Scientific International

It's all here as well.

Greg


----------



## RealDave (Jul 7, 2017)

2aguy said:


> The man behind the Climategate Scandal where he admitted in emails he would destroy the man made global warming fake data rather than have other scientists look at it.......is now in Contempt of Court.  He sued Mark Styen, who called him out for his fake data.....and now, he is refusing to produce his data for the court....
> 
> Articles: Things Get Hot for Michael Mann
> 
> ...



You claim it is fake so why the fuck do you want it?

If one of your denier buddies want to do research, get their own data.  Fuck you people & your constant whining & never ending stupidity of science denial.

Your hero Tim Ball is NOT a climate scientist.  He taught geography.  He is a fossil fuel funded dumbass whose job is to dupe dumbassses like you.

MMGW deniers are the dumbest people on the planet who hate their children.


----------



## martybegan (Jul 7, 2017)

RealDave said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > The man behind the Climategate Scandal where he admitted in emails he would destroy the man made global warming fake data rather than have other scientists look at it.......is now in Contempt of Court.  He sued Mark Styen, who called him out for his fake data.....and now, he is refusing to produce his data for the court....
> ...



I guess prosecutors never wanted Madoff's books, because, you know, they were fake.....

And Bill Nye is a Mechanical Engineer, not a scientist, doesn't stop your side from trotting him out every time you want to make a science point. 

I think people who support bloated government spending with countless issued IOU's hate their children.


----------



## Freewill (Jul 7, 2017)

RealDave said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > The man behind the Climategate Scandal where he admitted in emails he would destroy the man made global warming fake data rather than have other scientists look at it.......is now in Contempt of Court.  He sued Mark Styen, who called him out for his fake data.....and now, he is refusing to produce his data for the court....
> ...



 Mann's education:
Education A.B. applied mathematics and physics (1989), MS physics (1991), MPhil physics (1991), MPhil geology (1993), PhD geology & geophysics (1998)[1]

So what qualifies him as a climatologist?


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Jul 7, 2017)

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > The hockey stick graph that really counts and gives rise to all the rest.
> ...



Hey Westwall- quit being such a Dick by screwing up liberal snowflake Konradv's world view with your dumb facts. If he were interested in the truth and facts he'd be a conservative. He doesn't need you pointing out that his world view is wrong. Now apologize to him and while you're at it, as punishment, you need to tell him Hillary would have won if Russia didn't change his vote.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 7, 2017)

bear513 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > _Figure 1: Northern Hemisphere temperature changes estimated from various proxy records shown in blue (Mann 1999). Instrumental data shown in red. Note the large uncertainty(grey area) as you go further back in time.
> ...


Yep, all of the sheep who jumped on the bandwagon to get funding have found themselves in the middle of the ocean without a life jacket.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 7, 2017)

RealDave said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > The man behind the Climategate Scandal where he admitted in emails he would destroy the man made global warming fake data rather than have other scientists look at it.......is now in Contempt of Court.  He sued Mark Styen, who called him out for his fake data.....and now, he is refusing to produce his data for the court....
> ...




Moron.....he is suing another scientist......the data is part of the court case and it is also good science to allow other scientists to review your work..which he refused to do even before this...


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 7, 2017)

So the left relied upon fake science for their agenda, go figure.


----------



## martybegan (Jul 7, 2017)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Anybody who would rely on a mere 1000-2000 years of data to declare major planet climate shift is a fool.



Actually it's only 100-200 years of direct data. The rest is implied data. and even the direct data sources and methods have changed, requiring "correction" to the values.


----------



## aoxomoxoa (Jul 7, 2017)

martybegan said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Tim Ball has a Ph.D., in Historical Climatology from the University of London! 

Sent from my iPhone 25S GT Turbo


----------



## mamooth (Jul 7, 2017)

Thread summary:

A kook website made up a crazy story about Dr. Mann, and all the deniers fell for it.

Kooks, you did notice that the PSI story just made a lot of crazy claims and didn't back them up at all, right? Oh wait, none of you even read the story. You just saw a headline and BELIEVED. That's why your masters appreciate your service as Useful Idiots.

That PSI piece has a bunch of whoppers. For example, it claims Mann sued Ball under SLAPP, which is incorrect. Mann sued Ball for libel. If the article gets something so basic so totally wrong, why would you trust it?

Seriously, why are all you deniers so damn gullible?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

So much for "Settled science"


----------



## Dragonlady (Jul 7, 2017)

The American Stinker and Gateway Pundit???

You cannot be serious. 

Apparently there is no such contempt of court ruling. These stories are spurious according to Michael Mann's lawyer. He is in full compliance with all court orders issued 

Also, the law suit is about libel and slander. The court is not ruling whether climate change is real. 

Lord but you people are gullible.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> The American Stinker and Gateway Pundit???
> 
> You cannot be serious



Show us where Mann delivered the dsta


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Thread summary:
> 
> A kook website made up a crazy story about Dr. Mann, and all the deniers fell for it.
> 
> ...


That has to be the dumbest post on this website ever.  Mann sued for libel because his data was called bullshit. And he is now in contempt of court because he refuses to prove his case.  Because yes, his work is bullshit.
Next stop after every lawyer involved on both sides for the past 6 years hands him a bill for their services - criminal trial for misusing public funds to create fake science.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> That has to be the dumbest post on this website ever.  Mann sued for libel because his data was called bullshit. And he is now in contempt of court because he refuses to prove his case.  Because yes, his work is bullshit.
> Next stop after every lawyer involved on both sides for the past 6 years hands him a bill for their services - criminal trial for misusing public funds to create fake science.



Whatever the topic, you can count on the hairball to say the stupidest thing possible, and to always try and defend the inexcusable and indefensible.   She has a first class seat on the AGW crazy train and is doomed to ride it right over the cliff being to stupid to read the very clear handwriting on the wall.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 7, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > That has to be the dumbest post on this website ever.  Mann sued for libel because his data was called bullshit. And he is now in contempt of court because he refuses to prove his case.  Because yes, his work is bullshit.
> ...


dude, I'll never understand the catwoman.


----------



## westwall (Jul 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Thread summary:
> 
> A kook website made up a crazy story about Dr. Mann, and all the deniers fell for it.
> 
> ...










I suggest you actually look at the Court ruling there little mammy.  It is YOU who are the kook.


----------



## gtopa1 (Jul 7, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> The American Stinker and Gateway Pundit???
> 
> You cannot be serious.
> 
> ...



Link??!!!

Greg


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 7, 2017)

RealDave said:


> If one of your denier buddies want to do research, get their own data.  Fuck you people & your constant whining & never ending stupidity of science denial.
> 
> Your hero Tim Ball is NOT a climate scientist.  He taught geography.  He is a fossil fuel funded dumbass whose job is to dupe dumbassses like you.
> 
> MMGW deniers are the dumbest people on the planet who hate their children.


The only denial comes from AGW propagandists, their subsidized advocates and the sheeple who lap up the BS.
There is plenty of science refuting and debunking AGW alarmism. Problem is you'll never know about it if you continue to rely on MSM and other left wing propagandists.


----------



## jwoodie (Jul 7, 2017)

RealDave said:


> You claim it is fake so why the fuck do you want it?
> 
> If one of your denier buddies want to do research, get their own data. Fuck you people & your constant whining & never ending stupidity of science denial.
> 
> ...



This is either the stupidest defense or the smartest mockery of global warming I have ever read.  Thank you!


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Thread summary:
> 
> A kook website made up a crazy story about Dr. Mann, and all the deniers fell for it.
> 
> ...





^^^^ Did he just say what I think he said?


Hey doufus he sued them under libel laws do you even know what SLAPP means?  lol


Give up mamooth your AGW cult is going down.




Strategic lawsuit against public participation - Wikipedia


*Strategic lawsuit against public participation*
A *strategic lawsuit against public participation* (*SLAPP*) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[1]Such lawsuits have been made illegal in many jurisdictions on the grounds that they impede freedom of speech.

The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization's ability to operate.[2] A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat.



.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 7, 2017)

westwall said:


> I suggest you actually look at the Court ruling there little mammy.  It is YOU who are the kook.



I suggest you link to the court rulings that you're pretending are backing you up. If you're not just making it all up, that should be easy for you. You're the one making the positive claim, so the burden of proof is on you.

Ruh-roh. You're in trouble now. I just called your bluff. You've never looked at the court rulings, and you have no idea of where to look for them. Why yes, it is that obvious.

None of the deniers here have looked at the court rulings. All of them simply BELIEVED an unhinged rant from a conspiracy website. None of them is going to back up their crazy claims. They can't, because those claims are fictional. They've been busted as frauds again, so they're going to escalate their meltdowns instead as a way of deflecting.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2017)

Is it just me I am must giddy over this it's like everything came together in the past year..

Cubs won

Trump beat Hillary

Clemson beat Alabama and now Michael Mann could be going to jail 




This is funny on Micheal Mann with peer review now..


Scott Pruitt wants to hijack the peer-review process to push bad climate science


The system they describe is precisely what scientific peer-review is,” Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, told ThinkProgress via email. “The reality is that the only thing these folks don’t like is the conclusion that the scientific community (that is, the world’s scientists, literally) has arrived at — that climate change is real, human-caused, and a threat.”



*Translation ~ we make shit up*



.
.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 7, 2017)

jwoodie said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > You claim it is fake so why the fuck do you want it?
> ...



Real researchers are sick & tired of denier pretend scientists & non-climatologists taking their data & making up a story why their conclusions are wrong.

I don't blame them for not handing it out.  These people should do their own research.


----------



## westwall (Jul 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I suggest you actually look at the Court ruling there little mammy.  It is YOU who are the kook.
> ...









The Court has not responded to this latest act of mann.  They still have to have that hearing.  But mann is in breach of Court Order.  The only thing that remains is his punishment.  His lawyer is acting like everything is A-OK, because that's what lawyers do.  But the reality is far different.  This is what happens when arrogant pricks, like mann, get caught.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 7, 2017)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > If one of your denier buddies want to do research, get their own data.  Fuck you people & your constant whining & never ending stupidity of science denial.
> ...



There is far more saying it is real. I have not read anything from a denier that was not debunked.

Fuck you your MSN biullshit.  Like you asswipes don't worship Rush Limbaugh & infowars & fox news,

I read the science from science sources. I like NASA.  I guess you think NASA is FAKE NEWS?  

Research is subsidized by the government & universities.  Deniers are funded by the Fossil Fuel Industry.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 7, 2017)

bear513 said:


> Hey doufus he sued them under libel laws do you even know what SLAPP means?



It's not SLAPP just because you wish it was.

In Mann vs. Steyn, they've dismissed Steyn's anti-SLAPP counterclaims twice, with some rather harsh language towards Steyn.

I don't believe Ball has filed such a counterclaim, so he doesn't seem to believe it either.

The interesting thing is that absolutely nothing has happened recently in the Mann vs. Ball case. That crazy piece piece from PSI just popped out of nowhere for no reason, and the rest of the alt-right whinosphere instantly started parroting it. It's kind of the textbook definition of fake news.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 7, 2017)

RealDave said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Again, you rely on the common lefty deflection, including the usual disparagement of the skeptics by the propaganda of alarmists. The AGW alarmists refuse to publicly debate. They only propagate and disparage.
Do some research.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 7, 2017)

SSDD said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...



Exactly!
Only water vapor can absorb and emit photons.

DERP!


----------



## mamooth (Jul 7, 2017)

westwall said:


> The Court has not responded to this latest act of mann.



Then I'm sure you can link to an actual source showing that.

Oh wait, you can't, because the entire thing is totally fictional.



> They still have to have that hearing.  But mann is in breach of Court Order.  The only thing that remains is his punishment.  His lawyer is acting like everything is A-OK, because that's what lawyers do.  But the reality is far different.  This is what happens when arrogant pricks, like mann, get caught.



Mann responded to this exact same kook claim in Feb 2014.

Michael E. Mann

So, you resurrected a dumb story that was debunked over 3 years ago. Your side made the same crazy claims, all completely unsupported, that Mann was going to jail. And in that 3 years ... nothing. How does your conspiracy theory explain that? Reality explains it very easily. Your side just made up a load of nonsense.

Also, Mann's data can be reached at this page, so it's really crazy to claim the data is hidden.

Data Sources


----------



## westwall (Jul 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The Court has not responded to this latest act of mann.
> ...







He's only been in breach for a couple of days silly kitty.  Unlike your TV based reality, the Courts move slowly.  Life is not an episode of CSI you know.  You do know that don't you?  Or are you so lost in la la land that you can't figure that out for yourself?


----------



## RealDave (Jul 7, 2017)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


I've read plenty.  I've read the deniers & how they were debunked.

The idea you put your children at risk because you were duped is a sad  sad thing.

Years from now, when the effects of global warming heightened, your kids will look back & wonder why their Dad was so very stupid.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Hey doufus he sued them under libel laws do you even know what SLAPP means?
> ...




You stupid and didn't even know what SLAPP meant.





RealDave said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




Once again you don't have a clue..fossil fuel funds Universities tard.

And nope you just read propaganda.

.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 7, 2017)

aoxomoxoa said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Frayed knot.  It is in Geography


----------



## mamooth (Jul 7, 2017)

westwall said:


> He's only been in breach for a couple of days silly kitty.



Again, what evidence says that?

That's the point. There's literally no evidence to back up that claim, but you still all believe it, purely out of religious faith. That's the same thing that deniers base all of their "science" on.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2017)

RealDave said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




No years from now your kids will look back at how gullible and ignorant of basic science you were.



.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > He's only been in breach for a couple of days silly kitty.
> ...




Ha ha Candian court is not like US Mann has to provide his data and not keep it a secret.




_We believe he [Mann] withheld on the basis of a US court ruling that it was all his intellectual property. This ruling was made despite the fact the US taxpayer paid for the research and the research results were used as the basis of literally earth-shattering policies on energy and environment. The problem for him is that the Canadian court holds that you cannot withhold documents that are central to your charge of defamation regardless of the US ruling.”_

.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 7, 2017)

bear513 said:


> Ha ha Candian court is not like US Mann has to provide his data and not keep it a secret.



And that data is publicly available, so where's the problem?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2017)

RealDave said:


> aoxomoxoa said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...






When will you stop lying?


Ball received a bachelor's degree with honors in geography from the University of Winnipeg in 1970, followed by an M.A. from the University of Manitoba in 1971 and a PhD in climatology from Queen Mary University of London in England in 1983.[5][10]


.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Ha ha Candian court is not like US Mann has to provide his data and not keep it a secret.
> ...




Since when? . what do you think this is all about.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 7, 2017)

bear513 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > aoxomoxoa said:
> ...


 His PhD is in geography.  Your ignorance does not make me a liar.


----------



## westwall (Jul 7, 2017)

bear513 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > aoxomoxoa said:
> ...








Never.  Modern climatology has been built on lying.  They can't stop now.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 7, 2017)

bear513 said:


> Since when? . what do you think this is all about.



Since forever. It's right here. That's why your claims look so crazy.

Index of /holocene/public_html/shared/research/MANNETAL98

So, given that all the data is available, are any of the deniers willing to admit they fell for yet another denier fake news story? Or, purely out of cult religious devotion, will you all keep bitterly clinging to the big lie?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 7, 2017)

RealDave said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


So even someone in geography can see Mann's work was bullshit.  So what's your point again?


----------



## aoxomoxoa (Jul 7, 2017)

RealDave said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


God almighty,  we've got a right one here.  

Breaking: Michael Mann Doubles Down over ‘Contempt’ Issue | Principia Scientific International

Sent from my iPhone 25S GT Turbo


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2017)

RealDave said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


My ignorance you dweeb 


What part of my post can't you comprehend?



*PhD in climatology from Queen Mary University of London in England in 1983.[5][10]




.*


----------



## aoxomoxoa (Jul 7, 2017)

RealDave said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


God almighty we've got a right one here. 

Breaking: Michael Mann Doubles Down over ‘Contempt’ Issue | Principia Scientific International

Sent from my iPhone 25S GT Turbo


----------



## aoxomoxoa (Jul 7, 2017)

RealDave said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


He received a PhD in  historical climatology at  London University. 

Sent from my iPhone 25S GT Turbo


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 7, 2017)

aoxomoxoa said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...




Here is the good part to your link...

Breaking: Michael Mann Doubles Down over ‘Contempt’ Issue | Principia Scientific International

Under British Columbia case law (see below) Mann’s breach is both an unlawful act as well as *an admission of guilt*.

--------

Readers will note no mention there of the intentional failure of Michael Mann to comply with the terms of the agreement. The surrender of Mann’s hidden ‘hockey stick’ data had to have been made by the deadline date of February 20, 2017.

The key words omitted by these climate ‘fake news’ peddlers are that Ball:

“…agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.”

*Adverse Inference Jury Instruction*

Now, Mr. McConchie is billed as Canada’s top libel lawyer. So, he should know the consequences of his client’s failure to “produce all documents including computer codes” by the agreed deadline.

Of course, no judge has made any ruling on that issue – yet. This is because the court must wait until Ball’s lawyers have carefully fashioned a suitable remedy before they may rubber stamp it. What Tim Ball’s choice of remedy remains to be seen. The laws in British Columbia provide Ball with some powerful options. Not least of which is invoking the ‘adverse inference’ doctrine (a remedy to make a litigant whole again in the event the opposing party contemptuously withholds/destroys data).

Now let’s see some more of just how much the wheels are coming off Mann’s legal train. McConchie flounders:


----------



## aoxomoxoa (Jul 7, 2017)

bear513 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Global temps have fallen back to pre-El Nino levels. 

Global Temperatures Drop Back To Pre-El Nino Levels | Principia Scientific International

Sent from my iPhone 25S GT Turbo


----------



## mamooth (Jul 7, 2017)

bear513 said:


> a PhD in climatology from Queen Mary University of London in England in 1983.[5][10]
> .



No. There's no such thing as "PhD in climatology". Ball made that up. Colleges don't have a "department of climatology". He had a PhD in geology, which at the time, was the squishiest and softest of all the sciences.

Modern climatologists, of course, have hard science backgrounds, usually a PhD in physics.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > a PhD in climatology from Queen Mary University of London in England in 1983.[5][10]
> ...




Who cares.....Ball could have a Ph.d. in basket weaving...mann is still not coughing up the data......


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Since when? . what do you think this is all about.
> ...


Thanks for linking to the BS.  There is not even 200k of data there.  My personal weather station gathers 25MB a year.  That's one data point if you can't figure that out either.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Since when? . what do you think this is all about.
> ...




Excuse me?

And quit trying to spin it.





Former U-Va. climate scientist Michael Mann awarded $250 by state supreme court.

.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 7, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Here is the good part to your link...



And again, it's all fiction.

Wild unsupported claims by PSI, where Tim Ball is a chairman, are not what normal people would consider to be a reliable source.

Normal people would correctly classify it as "fake news". And all the deniers here are eating it up. They all literally don't care at all that there's no evidence to back up the crazy story, or that they told the exact same crazy story 3 years ago, or that the evidence they say is being withheld is publicly available on the internet.

It's a mixture of religious mania and mob cowardice. None of the deniers wants to admit the story is fake, because if they were honest like that, the rest of their cult mob would turn on them.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > a PhD in climatology from Queen Mary University of London in England in 1983.[5][10]
> ...



Then go change wiki




.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Here is the good part to your link...
> ...





So there is not a court case going on in Canada ?.....


.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Exactly!
> Only water vapor can absorb and emit photons.
> 
> DERP!



No you poor doofus...only water vapor can absorb IR and actually store the energy.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Years from now, when the effects of global warming heightened, your kids will look back & wonder why their Dad was so very stupid.



You seem very convinced.  When I see someone so convinced, I wonder why?  In order for a thing to convince me so thoroughly, I need to see some very convincing evidence...and since we are talking about an observable, measurable, quantifiable physical reaction, I would expect to see at least some observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the claim that our CO2 emissions, or any CO2 emissions for that matter are altering the global climate.  Just a tiny bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

So have you seen any such evidence?  I certainly haven't and I have been looking for a couple of decades.  How about you show me some of the actual physical evidence that has convinced you to such a high degree...or you could just save time and admit that you are a political dupe and really wouldn't know actual evidence if it bit you on the ass but people that you agree with politically told you that it was bad so you just took up the sky is falling flag and wave it around because that is what good little dupes do.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2017)

bear513 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Even that claim is bullshit because he was working with public money...he has absolutely no right to withhold any work that was paid for with public money from the public unless he can get it classified due to national security.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 7, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly!
> ...


*
only water vapor can absorb IR and actually store the energy.*

CO2 doesn't "store energy" when it absorbs a photon?
Where does the energy go?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 7, 2017)

*Now there are more than a dozen independent studies that have resulted in similiar hockey stick graphs. Did they ask for the data for those? If not, why not? The Mann graph is verified. And Ball is a lying cheat.*

Anatomy of Tim Ball's conspiratorial pseudo-science at WUWT | HotWhopper

Tim Ball in almost every article shows he hasn't left the 1970s. Today he's barely entered it. In the manner of religious fundamentalists, Tim doesn't accept any scientific knowledge that was developed after 1970, and he doesn't accept most science that was developed before then either. He makes up his own from fragments of books written by people he took a fancy to up until he was in his early 30s. (Tim was born in November 1938. Any science done after 1970 doesn't exist in Tim's mind, and most done before 1970 is wrong - in Tim's mind.) Like Peter Pan Tim didn't grow up. He exists in a dark fantasy of his own creation where ogres roam. Tim's ogres include Maurice Strong, an oil industrialist who was Secretary General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in the early 1970s, and was the first executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme. If there is one type of person that Tim can't abide (apart from Jews and scientists), it is anyone who thinks it's important to protect our natural world. The list of ogres who roam Tim's nightmares is too long to list here but it includes climate scientists Tom Wigley, Michael Mann, and Andrew Weaver. Tim's heroes include Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden.


----------



## aoxomoxoa (Jul 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Several molecules including CO2 are capable of absorbing IR photons,  this is  not rocket science. Taking the case of  CO2,  it absorbs IR radiation at particular frequencies which causes the molecule to vibrate  and then re-emits another IR photon.  

Sent from my iPhone 25S GT Turbo


----------



## mamooth (Jul 7, 2017)

In addition to the crank thing, the other identifying characteristic of denier "scientists" is that they're usually very old. John Mashey did a study of the few members of the APS who came out against global warming theory.

https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/2009 science bypass v3 0.pdf

Of the 119 signers of the APS pro-denier letter, 86% were born before 1950, compared to 40% of the APS general membership (46,000 people) in that age bracket. Deniers are overwhelmingly grumpy old men. Hence, time is not on their side. Science advances one funeral at a time. Relativity-deniers were once a force, but they all eventually died, and the same will happen with climate-science deniers.


----------



## aoxomoxoa (Jul 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> In addition to the crank thing, the other identifying characteristic of denier "scientists" is that they're usually very old. John Mashey did a study of the few members of the APS who came out against global warming theory.
> 
> https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/2009 science bypass v3 0.pdf
> 
> Of the 119 signers of the APS pro-denier letter, 86% were born before 1950, compared to 40% of the APS general membership (46,000 people) in that age bracket. Deniers are overwhelmingly grumpy old men. Hence, time is not on their side. Science advances one funeral at a time. Relativity-deniers were once a force, but they all eventually died, and the same will happen with climate-science deniers.


Holy fuck are you serious?  That bullshit website was started up by a financial crook and is now run by a PR agency ffs. 

Sent from my iPhone 25S GT Turbo


----------



## mamooth (Jul 7, 2017)

aoxomoxoa said:


> Holy fuck are you serious?  That bullshit website was started up by a financial crook and is now run by a PR agency ffs



Thank you for providing that example of how almost all deniers behave.

You saw data that contradicted your religious teachings.

Knowing that you couldn't refute the data, you tried to deflect from the data with insults and sleazy innuendo.

Those embracing crank science are usually old. It takes a lifetime of emotional investment in being wrong to get someone to embrace something as ridiculous as denialism.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> *Now there are more than a dozen independent studies that have resulted in similiar hockey stick graphs. Did they ask for the data for those? If not, why not? The Mann graph is verified. And Ball is a lying cheat.*
> 
> Anatomy of Tim Ball's conspiratorial pseudo-science at WUWT | HotWhopper
> 
> Tim Ball in almost every article shows he hasn't left the 1970s. Today he's barely entered it. In the manner of religious fundamentalists, Tim doesn't accept any scientific knowledge that was developed after 1970, and he doesn't accept most science that was developed before then either. He makes up his own from fragments of books written by people he took a fancy to up until he was in his early 30s. (Tim was born in November 1938. Any science done after 1970 doesn't exist in Tim's mind, and most done before 1970 is wrong - in Tim's mind.) Like Peter Pan Tim didn't grow up. He exists in a dark fantasy of his own creation where ogres roam. Tim's ogres include Maurice Strong, an oil industrialist who was Secretary General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in the early 1970s, and was the first executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme. If there is one type of person that Tim can't abide (apart from Jews and scientists), it is anyone who thinks it's important to protect our natural world. The list of ogres who roam Tim's nightmares is too long to list here but it includes climate scientists Tom Wigley, Michael Mann, and Andrew Weaver. Tim's heroes include Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden.




Getfo you say the same thing about anyone that doesn't share in your bullshit like 87 year old Freeman Dyson


What's the matter you can't indocterate them ? 

You really wish this was a world a movie like Logan's run don't you? No wisdom what's so ever.




.


----------



## Muhammed (Jul 7, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> The creator, Michael Mann, sued for libel when his data was questioned.  First step in a libel trial - prove what was said was not true.  He refused.
> 
> So any guesses as to why he refuses to turn over his data? Three guesses, first two don't count.
> 
> ...


Perhaps the dog ate hs homework.

Whatever the case, if it cannot be replicated for whatever reason (even if the dog ate his homework) then by definition it is not a peer reviewed scientific paper.

And all papers that build on those papers are dumpster material.

Worthless.


----------



## aoxomoxoa (Jul 7, 2017)

bear513 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Now there are more than a dozen independent studies that have resulted in similiar hockey stick graphs. Did they ask for the data for those? If not, why not? The Mann graph is verified. And Ball is a lying cheat.*
> ...


Jenny Agutter was the dog's bollocks in that film, truly sexy woman. 

Sent from my iPhone 25S GT Turbo


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> In addition to the crank thing, the other identifying characteristic of denier "scientists" is that they're usually very old. John Mashey did a study of the few members of the APS who came out against global warming theory.
> 
> https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/2009 science bypass v3 0.pdf
> 
> Of the 119 signers of the APS pro-denier letter, 86% were born before 1950, compared to 40% of the APS general membership (46,000 people) in that age bracket. Deniers are overwhelmingly grumpy old men. Hence, time is not on their side. Science advances one funeral at a time. Relativity-deniers were once a force, but they all eventually died, and the same will happen with climate-science deniers.




It's all about indoctrination you young fool..it's because maybe they were around for 70 to 90 years and know what the temperature was like, they know the advances in technology was 


First hand 

Once again tard temperature records only go back a few decades before they were born.


.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2017)

aoxomoxoa said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




Don't remember her , remember Farrah in that movie.



.


----------



## aoxomoxoa (Jul 7, 2017)

bear513 said:


> aoxomoxoa said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


She was the leading lady,  surely you remember Jessica? 

Sent from my iPhone 25S GT Turbo


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2017)

Muhammed said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > The creator, Michael Mann, sued for libel when his data was questioned.  First step in a libel trial - prove what was said was not true.  He refused.
> ...




Yea we should go back and revist climate gate 2.0

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate


Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.



“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.




.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 7, 2017)

And this is why there's over a dozen datasets made afterwards supporting it.

Seriously, get a grip.


----------



## aoxomoxoa (Jul 7, 2017)

bear513 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > In addition to the crank thing, the other identifying characteristic of denier "scientists" is that they're usually very old. John Mashey did a study of the few members of the APS who came out against global warming theory.
> ...


Older scientists are  either retired or near to it, hence are  not scared of  ruining their careers by not conforming to the prevailing orthodoxy. 

Sent from my iPhone 25S GT Turbo


----------



## mamooth (Jul 7, 2017)

bear513 said:


> Getfo you say the same thing about anyone that doesn't share in your bullshit like 87 year old Freeman Dyson



Dyson is remarkably stupid on the global warming topic.

That's almost certainly because he's old and grumpy, shaking his fist at how those young whippersnappers aren't doing things like they did it back in the day.

Happer would be another old cranky guy who makes the same dumb mistakes as Dyson.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2017)

aoxomoxoa said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > aoxomoxoa said:
> ...




I seen it like 20 times playing at the drive in , when me and my friends were kids sneaking in...but that was the last time around 1977..I really don't remember her, but I do remember Farrah in the movie..I am going to have to watch it again, the last part was so powerful like the planet of the apes.


Your Jenny







 


.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

They don't need data, the science is settled


----------



## mamooth (Jul 7, 2017)

aoxomoxoa said:


> Older scientists are  either retired or near to it, hence are  not scared of  ruining their careers by not conforming to the prevailing orthodoxy.



Can you name anyone who had their career ruined, or who was fired for "not conforming"? I'm pointing out that your premise is an unsupported conspiracy theory which is contradicted by the facts, being that no denier scientists have been fired anywhere.

Also, the vast majority of retired scientists don't develop such a case of the stupids, so that also debunks that conspiracy theory.


----------



## westwall (Jul 7, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> And this is why there's over a dozen datasets made afterwards supporting it.
> 
> Seriously, get a grip.







Which all use the same flawed data set for their basis point.  I agree, you need to get a grip.


----------



## westwall (Jul 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Getfo you say the same thing about anyone that doesn't share in your bullshit like 87 year old Freeman Dyson
> ...








Here's a simple test for you little kitty.  Tell us what the "scientific method" is, and how does it operate?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Getfo you say the same thing about anyone that doesn't share in your bullshit like 87 year old Freeman Dyson
> ...




That's your denial coming out and can't comprehend the difference between knowledge and wisdom..


Your Ilk is so stuck on being scared of the future and so stuck on propaganda..that you can't see the earth would of changed if humans were here or not...


It's like a circle jerk of morons with you.


.


----------



## aoxomoxoa (Jul 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Getfo you say the same thing about anyone that doesn't share in your bullshit like 87 year old Freeman Dyson
> ...


Man you are truly monumentally stupid,  Dyson is in his 90s and still as sharp as a pin. You are not even fit to lick his boots ffs. 

Sent from my iPhone 25S GT Turbo


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> aoxomoxoa said:
> 
> 
> > Older scientists are  either retired or near to it, hence are  not scared of  ruining their careers by not conforming to the prevailing orthodoxy.
> ...




Judith Curry had to quit because of it...

And we all know the promient ones have tenor and the universities can't kick them out..it's the young ones if they don't go with the mantra ...

Well forget it.



.


----------



## aoxomoxoa (Jul 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> aoxomoxoa said:
> 
> 
> > Older scientists are  either retired or near to it, hence are  not scared of  ruining their careers by not conforming to the prevailing orthodoxy.
> ...



Yes indeed, and as a fellow woman you ought to have some sympathy. Judith Curry resigned from her professorship because of the bullshit she was subjected to,  why don't you know this already?  I would suggest that  you became a tad more  circumspect and not be so inclined to spout so much nonsense.  

JC in transition

Sent from my iPhone 25S GT Turbo


----------



## mamooth (Jul 7, 2017)

westwall said:


> Here's a simple test for you little kitty.  Tell us what the "scientific method" is, and how does it operate?



That's trivial.

A. Look at what you do.

B. Do the opposite.

I'm serious. You stink so badly at all science on every level, doing the opposite of whatever you do almost guarantees good science.

For example, look at this thread.

There's zero evidence to back up the kook assertions in the OP. It's just a crazy greenhouse-effect-denier conspiracy website putting out a fake news piece. They even put out the exact same fake news piece in 2014. 3 years later, they just repeat it.

Knowing that, you and every denier still declare that it's absolutely true. You're all basing your "science" entirely on feelings instead of evidence. That's the opposite of the scientific method, and it's how every denier acts.


----------



## westwall (Jul 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a simple test for you little kitty.  Tell us what the "scientific method" is, and how does it operate?
> ...







Answer the question little kitty and then tell us how manns refusal to release his data, and methods, is a violation of the scientific method.  Go ahead, little kitty, let's see you rationalize his behavior.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 7, 2017)

bear513 said:


> Judith Curry had to quit because of it...



No she didn't. She was free to keep working at the university until she died. Where do you get this stuff?

She quit because she didn't want to work any more. Now she gets the fossil fuel money for doing nothing.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 7, 2017)

westwall said:


> Answer the question little kitty and then tell us how manns refusal to release his data,



Mann did release all data. It's all right there at the link I gave.

Now, lying is definitely a violation of the scientific method, as it's a form of data falsification. How do you rationalize lying?


----------



## aoxomoxoa (Jul 7, 2017)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


A few things are  certainly true,  the scientific method is not subject to either politics or political correctness.  Also scepticism is at its very heart, it is the very essence of scientific inquiry. 

Sent from my iPhone 25S GT Turbo


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Judith Curry had to quit because of it...
> ...




I get it from her interviews, you know damn well I watch 99% of her on you tube.

And still want to ignore fossil fuels pay so much of universities funding in the science ? I have already covered this subject with you before.


Denier.



.


----------



## aoxomoxoa (Jul 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Judith Curry had to quit because of it...
> ...


Did  you read the article in her blog? No,  of course not! 

Sent from my iPhone 25S GT Turbo


----------



## mamooth (Jul 7, 2017)

aoxomoxoa said:


> A few things are  certainly true,  the scientific method is not subject to either politics or political correctness.  Also scepticism is at its very heart, it is the very essence of scientific inquiry.



And look at this thread, where the deniers are the polar opposites of skeptics. The all embraced a load of crap solely because an authority figure told them to. I was the only one to show intelligent skepticism of the OP.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2017)

aoxomoxoa said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...




Thank you..I have no problem with science..I have a huge problem when assholes like , Michael Mann and Jim Hansen made it political and being out right whores

.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 7, 2017)

aoxomoxoa said:


> Did  you read the article in her blog? No,  of course not!



Of course I did. I'll summarize it.

"All those other scientists are poopyheads for pointing out how my predictions were all totally wrong! Admitting I was totally wrong would be embarrassing, so I quit! See ya, suckers! I'm off to collect that sweet fossil fuel cash through my 'climate prediction' front company!".


----------



## aoxomoxoa (Jul 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> aoxomoxoa said:
> 
> 
> > A few things are  certainly true,  the scientific method is not subject to either politics or political correctness.  Also scepticism is at its very heart, it is the very essence of scientific inquiry.
> ...


Using loaded words like denier says much about you.  Nobody who is seriously interested in advancing science would indulge in such puerile politicking.  

Sent from my iPhone 25S GT Turbo


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> aoxomoxoa said:
> 
> 
> > A few things are  certainly true,  the scientific method is not subject to either politics or political correctness.  Also scepticism is at its very heart, it is the very essence of scientific inquiry.
> ...




No one told me to do a damn thing..I told you a million times I am 52 years old and followed this story since I could almost read.i told you I had subscriptions to popular science , popular mechanics, old mechanic illustrated when I was 7 years old ..

They always covered this subject..

.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> aoxomoxoa said:
> 
> 
> > Did  you read the article in her blog? No,  of course not!
> ...




No to me you are trying to tell us ignore the Naomi Kliens of the world who out right admitted this was about social economic change..(remember the pope invited her to speak at the Vatican)

Is to ignore Obama's words about we our flat earthers 

Ignore Al gore ( who is advised by Jim Hansen) that the science is settled..


You make me want to puke...when you despise any one questioning your motives.



.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 7, 2017)

aoxomoxoa said:


> Using loaded words like denier says much about you.  Nobody who is seriously interested in advancing science would indulge in such puerile politicking.



Going into "I've got the vapors!" mode because your junk science was debunked says much about you. It's says you know you can't defend your claims, and so you need to deflect.

Now, back to that topic you tried to deflect from. The OP in this thread was load of crap. There's zero evidence anywhere that Mann refused to provide any data. Yet every denier still swore that's the case. None of them displayed even the tiniest amount of skepticism. All of them simply parroted what they were told to parrot.

How does that square with your "My side has the skeptics" theory?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 7, 2017)

bear513 said:


> No to me you are trying to tell us ignore the Naomi Kliens of the world who out right admitted this was about social economic change..(remember the pope invited her to speak at the Vatican)



Your deflection are quite creative, I'll give you that.



> Is to ignore Obama's words about we our flat earthers
> 
> Ignore Al gore ( who is advised by Jim Hansen) that the science is settled..



Gore Rule invoked. Whoever brings up Gore first forfeits the thread for their side. Those who can talk about the science, do. Those who can't, they deflect by raving about whatever politicians that their political cult has ordered them to demonize.



> You make me want to puke...when you despise any one questioning your motives.



You make me laugh, given how inept you are at defending your bad pseudoscience with these lame deflections.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> aoxomoxoa said:
> 
> 
> > Using loaded words like denier says much about you.  Nobody who is seriously interested in advancing science would indulge in such puerile politicking.
> ...




I already did Virginia supreme Court said...



The organization lost a lawsuit in April against the University of Virginia and scientist Michael E. Mann, with the state’s high court ruling that Mann’s unpublished research and e-mails about global warming, written when he was still at the school, were exempt from the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. This month, the court ordered that the group pay damages to the school and the scientist, who now works at Pennsylvania State University.


Former U-Va. climate scientist Michael Mann awarded $250 by state supreme court.




.


----------



## konradv (Jul 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Only water vapor can absorb and emit photons.


You aren't fooling anyone, but your fellow fools.  Why would ony water be able to absorb and re-emit photons?  There isn't anything unique about it in that regard.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > No to me you are trying to tell us ignore the Naomi Kliens of the world who out right admitted this was about social economic change..(remember the pope invited her to speak at the Vatican)
> ...




What lame attempt? You didn't know who was behind Al gores movie ?



It was yup..Jim Hansen..

Surprise, surprise ...

Who the fuck advised him.. Donald duck...?

.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 7, 2017)

BuckToothMoron said:


> If you're not just a little bit skeptical you aren't paying attention!
> 
> Federal scientist cooked climate change books ahead of Obama presentation, whistle blower charges
> 
> ...


LIES all LIES! And YOU know it!
From the "whistleblower himself:

No Data Manipulation at NOAA - FactCheck.org
But in interviews with the Associated Press and E&E, an online energy and environmental news outlet, *Bates said he had not accused his colleagues of data manipulation.*
Bates told the AP on Feb. 6 that *there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious”* involved with his colleagues’ study. *“It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form,” he said.*


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2017)

bear513 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > aoxomoxoa said:
> ...




From.a engineering stand point and technical stand point you don't think how much I despise Michael Mann and his bullshit trying to combine tree rings, thermometers, analog with digital...And say the Earth is in a fucking crisis...

With his assine hockey stick graph?

Then trying to go to Congress and being a prima Donna he is saying he is right.?


Not to mention his lie about his Nobel prize?

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 7, 2017)

konradv said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Only water vapor can absorb and emit photons.
> ...



*Why would ony water be able to absorb and re-emit photons?*

You need to ask SSDD.
He feels CO2 isn't a GHG and water vapor is, even though they can both absorb IR.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 7, 2017)

RealDave said:


> I've read plenty.  I've read the deniers & how they were debunked.
> 
> The idea you put your children at risk because you were duped is a sad  sad thing.
> 
> Years from now, when the effects of global warming heightened, your kids will look back & wonder why their Dad was so very stupid.


_Years from now_? Don't you know that Manhattan has been under water for nine years already?
The scientists who dispute AGW and any level of severity of AGW have not been _debunked_. Many are even on the alleged 97% list.
Anyone with an open mind and who wasn't swayed by fitting in with a political group or ideology would respect those differences to the point of yielding to ambivalence at the very least.
_You_ have an agenda.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jul 7, 2017)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > I've read plenty.  I've read the deniers & how they were debunked.
> ...


1970 _Years from now_?
revised 
1980 _Years from now_?
revised 
1990 _Years from now_?
revised 
2000 _Years from now_?
revised
2010 _Years from now_?
revised 
2017 _Years from now_?

--LOL


----------



## mamooth (Jul 7, 2017)

bear513 said:


> The organization lost a lawsuit in April against the University of Virginia and scientist Michael E. Mann, with the state’s high court ruling that Mann’s unpublished research and e-mails about global warming, written when he was still at the school, were exempt from the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.



That's nice. But since it has nothing to do with the wacky claims of the OP, why are you pretending it does? The OP claims a Canadian court told Mann to turn over his data, and that Mann supposedly refused. I showed that's a big ol' lie, being that all the data for MBH98 and his other papers is freely available online.

The case you quote is a case that Mann won. That is, the law backed him up. A denier paid propagandist filed bogus FOIA requests purely for harassment purposes, and got rightfully smacked down by the law. That case had nothing to do with withholding any data.

And you seem back those harassment tactics.

Tell us, have you ever accepted a check of any sort from the government?

Yes?

In that case, you'll be getting an FOIA request to turn over every email you've ever sent in your life. After all, the taxpayers have a right to know.

That's the standard you're demanding of climate scientists, and only for climate scientists.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 7, 2017)

bear513 said:


> From.a engineering stand point and technical stand point



From an engineering and technical standpoint, you get everything totally wrong. You're basing your unhinged irrational cult hatred solely on your ignorance of science, statistics, logic and common sense. That only makes you look bad.


----------



## westwall (Jul 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > a PhD in climatology from Queen Mary University of London in England in 1983.[5][10]
> ...








You're a retard.  Geology is one the hardest of the exact sciences.  Geography is what the geology majors would drop down to when they couldn't handle the math and chemistry work.  Climatology isn't even an exact science.  It is considered a soft science akin to sociology.  In other words long on opinion, but short on measurable science.


----------



## westwall (Jul 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Answer the question little kitty and then tell us how manns refusal to release his data,
> ...








No, he hasn't.  he has released NONE of his raw data sets, nor has he released his methodology.  You're lying through your tiny little teeth little kitty.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 7, 2017)

The left wing AGW zealots have tried every lie, twist, turn and deception to try and 'excuse' this away....  Laughing my ass off at the shear pretzels they have become..

With the courts finding of contempt and the assumption of intentional deceit and outright deception Mann wont be able to find a rock big enough to hide under globally.  Worse is the other scientists who based their works on Mann's fabrication, making their work worthless and scientifically unsound for any use..

When you lie, the lies that follow can not be kept in secret so the original lie is exposed...  Mann just dropped a MOAB on himself...


----------



## Muhammed (Jul 8, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> And this is why there's over a dozen datasets made afterwards supporting it.
> 
> Seriously, get a grip.


Bullshit.

They got caught, period.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 8, 2017)

bear513 said:


> *Strategic lawsuit against public participation*
> A *strategic lawsuit against public participation* (*SLAPP*) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[1]Such lawsuits have been made illegal in many jurisdictions on the grounds that they impede freedom of speech.
> 
> The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization's ability to operate.[2] A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat.


Obviously Don THE Con is SLAPP happy, but the Right doesn't mind it then!!!!!


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Jul 8, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> The creator, Michael Mann, sued for libel when his data was questioned.  First step in a libel trial - prove what was said was not true.  He refused.
> 
> So any guesses as to why he refuses to turn over his data? Three guesses, first two don't count.
> 
> ...



/---- I wonder if Mann's attorney warned him about this possibility. 


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Jul 8, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > The hockey stick graph that really counts and gives rise to all the rest.
> ...



/--- well not exactly. "Texas is 261,914 mi^2. That's 167,624,960 acres, at 640 acre/mi^2. So, with 6x10^9 people, that's .0279 acre/person. That's only about a ninth of an acre, or a square 70 feet on a side." But impressive none the same. 


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Jul 8, 2017)

konradv said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody who would rely on a mere 1000-2000 years of data to declare major planet climate shift is a fool.
> ...



/---- The CO2 is consumed by trees that In turn produce Oxygen that we breathe and we in turn expel CO2 that the trees consume...... and on and on and on 


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## konradv (Jul 8, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


That's you source?!?!


----------



## konradv (Jul 8, 2017)

Cellblock2429 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...


Thanks for the biology lesson, but if trees are consuming all the excess CO2, why has the amount in the atmosphere been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution?


----------



## RealDave (Jul 8, 2017)

jon_berzerk said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




Here uis just how ignorant your post is.

You look at statements msde in 1970 & then run in circles screaming OMG OMG OMG OMG never happened  OMG OMG OMG.

Since 1970, steps have been taken to reduce pollution.   Pollution from coal fired generation plants,.  Vehicle emissdions.

You are sofa king stupid that you think nothing as been done.

HW Bush signed legislation that reduced emissions & stopped acid rain.  Where the fuck were you?  

The goals later set forth to reduce greenhouse gas emissions  call for the reduction to put emissions back to 2005 levels.   We are halk way there.

I love it when you assholes post your stupid posts & then follow it with "lol". I am "lol" at how uninformed you are & yet you think you are so smart.  That is some funny chit.

Where will we be in  2050 or 2100?    A ten year p=old chid today has a 50/50 change of living to 100 or more.  Your ignorance is condemning your children & grandchildren to the threat of a more difficult life.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 8, 2017)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > I've read plenty.  I've read the deniers & how they were debunked.
> ...


  The vast majority believe in MMGW.  There is discussion on how severe the effects will be.   

MMGW is based on science.  Republicans used to believe in science,   Now science is"fake News" & you assholes listen to fossil fuel funded skeptics.

The time to do something is now.   Effects are happening now.  If we wait until the effects get to the point that even you dickheads recognize we have to do smething, it would take decades to lower the greenhouse gass amounts in the atmosphere.  But hey, you'll be dead & fuck your kids, right?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jul 8, 2017)

RealDave said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...




yup none of it has come true loser

it was all phony fake based in lies

*Bombshell study: Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Government Climate Data*

A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.

The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.

Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend.

Basically, “cyclical pattern in the earlier reported data has very nearly been ‘adjusted’ out” of temperature readings taken from weather stations, buoys, ships and other sources.

In fact, almost all the surface temperature warming adjustments cool past temperatures and warm more current records, increasing the warming trend, according to the study’s authors.

Bombshell study: Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Government Climate Data


----------



## RealDave (Jul 8, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You are sofa king wrong blaming global warming on water vapor.

"If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases (CO2), the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same."

More CO2 allows the Atmosphere to hold more water vapor.

It's Water Vapor, Not the CO2 - American Chemical Society


----------



## RealDave (Jul 8, 2017)

jon_berzerk said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



BTW, your story has been debunked.  

Just like I debunked your stupid post.

t one point, scientists predicted the death of many of our lakes due to acid rain.    OMG OMG OMG It didn't happen  OMG OMG OMG. Because we did something to stop it.  It does not mean the predictions were not true at the time they were made.,

Pull your head of ioyt your ass.  Become informed,.  Help your children.  Why do you hate your children?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 8, 2017)

RealDave said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Science is not hiding your data from peer review.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 8, 2017)

mamooth said:


> aoxomoxoa said:
> 
> 
> > Holy fuck are you serious?  That bullshit website was started up by a financial crook and is now run by a PR agency ffs
> ...


Did you even look at your link, dufus?  It's pure bullshit.  But if you wish to insist that is Mann's data and he uses bullshit, I will not stop you.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 8, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > If you're not just a little bit skeptical you aren't paying attention!
> ...


Dufus quotes Factcheck.  Next he'll link to CNN.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 8, 2017)

aoxomoxoa said:


> Several molecules including CO2 are capable of absorbing IR photons,  this is  not rocket science. Taking the case of  CO2,  it absorbs IR radiation at particular frequencies which causes the molecule to vibrate  and then re-emits another IR photon.



Water vapor, unlike CO2 can absorb and actually retain energy...and the fact is that very few CO2 molecules actually hold on to energy long enough to emit a photon.  At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.   The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).  Therefore,  after a CO2 (or any other so called greenhouse gas molecule except H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, not by re-emission of another photon.  

The fact is that radiation is barely a bit player in the movement of energy from the lower atmosphere to the upper atmosphere.  Convection is the mover and shaker when it comes to moving energy to the upper atmosphere.  The very idea of a radiative greenhouse effect in an atmosphere that is overwhelmingly dominated by convective energy movement is laughable.


----------



## aoxomoxoa (Jul 8, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...






Sent from my iPhone 25S GT Turbo


----------



## RealDave (Jul 8, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Science is not taking some one else's data & twisting it  so you can make money from the fossil fuel industry & Republican leadership in order to dupe dumbasses like you.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 8, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...


A fact to assholes like you is like poison.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 8, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Can you ever think for yourself, or are you just a fulltime parrot repeating bullshit you hear?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 8, 2017)

aoxomoxoa said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Same scene after every leftist event.  Obama inaugurations, the Occupoopers, etc etc.  They all hate the environment and expect everyone else to do what they don't want to do.


----------



## aoxomoxoa (Jul 8, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Don't you people ever get tired of trotting out the same tired old memes?  

Sent from my iPhone 25S GT Turbo


----------



## RealDave (Jul 8, 2017)

aoxomoxoa said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


  Don't you people ever get tired of posting the same old debunked denier crap?


----------



## RealDave (Jul 8, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


 I've read the reports & studies & I have read the denier crap.  I decided to go with science.  You can stick with the limbaughs, infowars, Glenn Beck, and Fox News.


----------



## aoxomoxoa (Jul 8, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


So then you'll be all for a red team blue team exercise ,  however the likes of Michael Mann are not so  happy.  

Leading Climate Scientist Says Debating Scientific Theories Would Be ‘Un-American’ | Principia Scientific International



Sent from my iPhone 25S GT Turbo


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 8, 2017)

konradv said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



SSDD is the source of my amusement, the target of my mockery.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 8, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



*You are sofa king wrong blaming global warming on water vapor.*

You're confused.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jul 8, 2017)

RealDave said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




only in your retarded mind has anything been "debunked" 

face it man made global warming has been debunked 

it has all been a fraud


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 8, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


*
Science is not taking some one else's data & twisting it so you can make money from the fossil fuel industry*

Exactly!
Science is taking some one else's data & twisting it so you can make money from government grants.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 8, 2017)

konradv said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


Warming increases bio mass and thus CO2..  its not all man made you moron..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 8, 2017)

RealDave said:


> aoxomoxoa said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


You have debunked nothing.. Some of us have shown you Quantitative, Observed, Empirical Evidence which debunks your alarmist crap..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 8, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Funny for someone who is wrong on many things.  Like CO2 does not warm itself, it requires other molecules which can warm itself to warm.  CO2 almost instantaneously re-emits energy absorbed at the same wave length while water vapor absorbs, warms and re-emits at a slight longer wave length than it receives because of energy consumption in warming of the molecule. (excitement phase, residency time in holding energy is much longer in water vapor)

SSDD is right on this.


----------



## westwall (Jul 8, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...









I agree.  But that's EXACTLY what climatologists do.  Only they make their money from the worlds taxpayers.


----------



## westwall (Jul 8, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...










Wow, you've read a whole bunch of computer derived fiction and think it's real.  Pretty sad.  Show us a single study you have read that relies entirely on empirical data.

GO!


----------



## konradv (Jul 8, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Can you ever think for yourself, or are you just a fulltime parrot repeating bullshit you hear?


Afraid someone is trying to steal YOUR shtick?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 8, 2017)

westwall said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


How dare you ask for empirical data, science denier!


----------



## SSDD (Jul 8, 2017)

RealDave said:


> I've read the reports & studies & I have read the denier crap.  I decided to go with science.  You can stick with the limbaughs, infowars, Glenn Beck, and Fox News.



Really?  You decided to go with science?  Science is all about observation, measurement, and quantification of data and using that to support a claim.  Can you show me a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW claim over natural variability?  Just a single piece?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 8, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



*Like CO2 does not warm itself, it requires other molecules which can warm itself to warm.* 

Huh?

*water vapor absorbs, warms and re-emits at a slight longer wave length*

Link?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 8, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *water vapor absorbs, warms and re-emits at a slight longer wave length*
> 
> Link?



You need a link to something so obvious?...if you had a clue that is.  If the water vapor is warmed by the IR that it absorbs, that takes energy...ergo...it would emit at a slightly lower wavelength since the energy would be at a lower frequency.  You never fail to demonstrate exactly how little you know...and the idea that someone like you could mock anyone...even konrad is laughable.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *water vapor absorbs, warms and re-emits at a slight longer wave length*
> ...



*You need a link to something so obvious?...*

You have a link that shows

_"water vapor absorbs, warms and re-emits at a slight longer wave length"?_

Great. Post it.

*If the water vapor is warmed by the IR that it absorbs, that takes energy..*

Yup. The absorbed photon warms the water vapor.

*...ergo...it would emit at a slightly lower wavelength since the energy would be at a lower frequency.*

Show me.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 8, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Its basic molecular physics. A molecule will only vibrate when its energy balance is positive and energy is looking for a way to exit.  CO2 can only vibrate for a 0.009 nanoseconds because its electrical bond does not allow excess energy to be retained. This means that the molecule is virtually incapable of internal warming. Water vapor will vibrate from 590 nanoseconds to over 3 seconds allowing the heating of the molecule and the residual energy is re-emitted at a slightly lower frequency due to the consumption of energy.

All one needs to do is look at the broad spectrum of water vapor emissions and ask yourself why it is..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 8, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



That's awesome!

Still waiting for your proof.

*water vapor absorbs, warms and re-emits at a slight longer wave length
*
Show me.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 8, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





Narrow banding is the hallmark of the inability to hold energy.  Water vapor however, has a very large bandwidth and has an incredible ability to hold energy.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 8, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Its basic molecular physics. A molecule will only vibrate when its energy balance is positive and energy is looking for a way to exit.  CO2 can only vibrate for a 0.009 nanoseconds because its electrical bond does not allow excess energy to be retained. This means that the molecule is virtually incapable of internal warming. Water vapor will vibrate from 590 nanoseconds to over 3 seconds allowing the heating of the molecule and the residual energy is re-emitted at a slightly lower frequency due to the consumption of energy.
> 
> All one needs to do is look at the broad spectrum of water vapor emissions and ask yourself why it is..



Pointless to talk to him...it is like talking to a 5 year old...one liners and "why" questions are about all he can manage.  I keep him on ignore mostly and talk to him every once in a while to see if he has grown up any.  So far...he is still talking on the level of a 5 year old....why mommy...why?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 8, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Thanks for the chart.
Do you have one that backs up your claim?

*water vapor absorbs, warms and re-emits at a slight longer wave length*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Its basic molecular physics. A molecule will only vibrate when its energy balance is positive and energy is looking for a way to exit.  CO2 can only vibrate for a 0.009 nanoseconds because its electrical bond does not allow excess energy to be retained. This means that the molecule is virtually incapable of internal warming. Water vapor will vibrate from 590 nanoseconds to over 3 seconds allowing the heating of the molecule and the residual energy is re-emitted at a slightly lower frequency due to the consumption of energy.
> ...



Smart photons.  DERP!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 8, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Photon follow their rules, that's what makes em "Smart"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 8, 2017)

So, this officially ends the "Global Warming" debate.  First, Climategate where they got caught lying and now this: they have no evidence at all.

It's settled, AGW is total BS


----------



## mamooth (Jul 8, 2017)

aoxomoxoa said:


> So then you'll be all for a red team blue team exercise ,  however the likes of Michael Mann are not so  happy.



We already have such an exercise. it's called peer review. Your side is demanding that handpicked Stalinist ideologues be given the power to blacklist science, which is un-American.




> Leading Climate Scientist Says Debating Scientific Theories Would Be ‘Un-American’ | Principia Scientific International




Even most other deniers laugh at PSI, because PSI is composed entirely of idiot greenhouse theory deniers like SSDD. Because they espouse such stupid pseudoscience, they have to make up the craziest lies to defend it. That's why anyone using PSI as a source instantly craters their own credibility.


----------



## westwall (Jul 8, 2017)

mamooth said:


> aoxomoxoa said:
> 
> 
> > So then you'll be all for a red team blue team exercise ,  however the likes of Michael Mann are not so  happy.
> ...









You stalinists have corrupted that once revered process to the point that YOU will accept a paper reviewed by the mans wife.  Sheesh.  Talk about an epic fail.


----------



## aoxomoxoa (Jul 8, 2017)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > aoxomoxoa said:
> ...


It is  rather touching how naive some people can be about the peer review process. It can be very hit and miss.  Indeed it often than not consists of a group of people who peer review each other's  papers in a kind of academic circle jerk.  

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

Sent from my iPhone 25S GT Turbo


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 8, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Which rules do photons follow? You have a list?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 8, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


lol..

tell me, when a photons energy is used to create heat (work) it can not be re-emitted at the same wave length because it has cooled. where are you getting magical photons from that do not expend energy in water?  CO2 simply re-emits the photon instantaneously. it therefore does little or no work.

For instance.. LWIR is absorbed by the water molecule. Because it resides inside for a long period of time before it is re-emitted, it causes vibrations of the molecule and collisions with other molecules. This is work and expends some of the energy of the photon.  The longer it resides the more energy is expended. The photon emitted will be of the lower temperature and thus a longer wave length.

A photon emitted at 12um, absorbed by water vapor for 1 second will be re-emitted at about 15um, at 3 seconds it will be re-emitted at about 24um. This process is totally dependent on ambient air temp and the pressure differential of temperatures.

You keep screaming about "smart photons" but it is not so much smart as it is the inter-dynamics of different molecules defined by the natural laws.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 8, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*tell me, when a photons energy is used to create heat (work) it can not be re-emitted at the same wave length because it has cooled.*

The photon has cooled?
*
where are you getting magical photons from that do not expend energy in water?* 

Magic photons are SSDD's specialty. My photons are the standard type.

*CO2 simply re-emits the photon instantaneously.*

In all directions. Even toward the ground, right?

*A photon emitted at 12um, absorbed by water vapor for 1 second will be re-emitted at about 15um, at 3 seconds it will be re-emitted at about 24um. This process is totally dependent on ambient air temp and the pressure differential of temperatures.*

What does "pressure differential of temperatures" mean?


----------



## RealDave (Jul 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > I've read the reports & studies & I have read the denier crap.  I decided to go with science.  You can stick with the limbaughs, infowars, Glenn Beck, and Fox News.
> ...


Any number of research papers by a number of climatologists.  Where the fuck have you been?  What have you read?

Fuck that.

Common sense.

You are soda king stupid that you think man can spew crap into the atmosphere for decades with zero effects.

My God, just how  fucking stupid can you get.

More CO2 => More greenhouse effect  => warmer temperatures.

All proven .


----------



## RealDave (Jul 8, 2017)

jon_berzerk said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



The majority of scientists are wrong & only dumbass you is right.  

Thanks for the laugh.  Too bad your children won't be laughing.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jul 8, 2017)

RealDave said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



consensus is not science 

you should really take the time to learn that


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 8, 2017)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Your making the same failed mistake every warmer does..  that all forcing effects are positive.  Water vapor is not acting like you or your gods predicted and every single model has failed to predict what is actually happening.  We are seeing just 1/2 of the warming that CO2 is supposed to be capable of in our atmosphere, BY ITS SELF(without any forcings).

your such an idiot..  Empirical Evidence shows your religion failed...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 8, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The emitted photon is at the wavelength temperature of the object which emitted it.  Water is cooler than other black bodies, therefore a warmer bodies emit a photon which is absorbed by the cooler object, in this case water, which will emit a photon at its temperature wavelength. The residency time of the photon and the temperature differential (pressure) will determine how much energy is used up during its time of residency. 

In short, water absorbs energy and it emits it at a longer wavelength as the graph I showed you shows.  Use some cognitive thinking skills and do the damn math...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 8, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*The emitted photon is at the wavelength of the object which emitted it.*

You might want to restate this, objects don't have wavelengths.
*
Water is cooler than other black bodies*

Ummm....what?

*In short, water absorbs energy and it emits it at a longer wavelength as the graph I showed you shows.*

That graph didn't show water absorbing at one wavelength and emitting at another.

You didn't answer, what does "pressure differential of temperatures" mean?

And you ignored this....

*CO2 simply re-emits the photon instantaneously.
*
In all directions. Even toward the ground, right?


----------



## IanC (Jul 9, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




Hahahaha. There is nothing correct in that last comment. Usually you get something a little bit right, probably by accident, but this time everything was wrong and by a large margin.

Were you drinking or something?


----------



## westwall (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...







None proven.  Show us empirical evidence.  Not computer models, DATA!  GO!


----------



## RealDave (Jul 9, 2017)

jon_berzerk said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



Science is science.

And the vast majority of climate scientists agree that MMGW is real.

But hey, you can cling to your fossil fuel funded "scientists" because it fits into your politics of stupidity & ignorance.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 9, 2017)

westwall said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I posted a link to an experiment that high school kids can do that proves it

The greenhouse effect is PROVEN science.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 9, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So, this officially ends the "Global Warming" debate.  First, Climategate where they got caught lying and now this: they have no evidence at all.
> 
> It's settled, AGW is total BS


Yet another dumbass who does not know that Climategate was debunked.

And, there were more really ignorant people that thought your stupid post was a winner.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




yes but your spouting fake science


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




Oil is an abiotic fluid and not a "fossil fuel". They have struck oil over a mile underneath the ground. It's a natural process produced by the earth's crust. It is the second most prevalent fluid on earth.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 9, 2017)

jon_berzerk said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



So, you think a bunch of scientists got together, did no research and just voted whether MMGW is real.  You aren't too smart.  You are confusing the way your political party met & decided to be a denier party & then duped feeble minded jerkoffs like you.

Scientists did the research.  They continue to do the research.

This is like the disaster movies where the scientists tell the government that the biggest earthquake in history will destroy the East Coast & the government ignores it because it is politically advantageous to do so,. 

Our children's future is at risk.  If we wait until the effects get too severe, we can n=do nothing to stop it.  We can reduce the amount of warming by sacting now.

But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI  Stupid fucks like you elected an orange business cheat & fraud who will delay action in hopes he an funnel more monrey to corporations & the wealthy.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




the data has been fudged 

and btw a bunch of scientists did not get together 

you live in lala land


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jul 9, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...




speaking of oil 

at the G20 summit they removed

the 2025 deadline for the end of fossil fuel subsidies

--LOL

thanks to Trump


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So, this officially ends the "Global Warming" debate.  First, Climategate where they got caught lying and now this: they have no evidence at all.
> ...



Where's the data?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jul 9, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




the question 

where is the real data 

not some made up points


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




Hey, Dave, have ya got any figures about MMGW were geo-engineering is figured into the equation? You know, the Solar Radiation Management program where they have been spraying tons of heavy metal nano-particulates into the upper atmosphere and have done so in earnest since 1997? THAT program????


See Dave run.

Run, Dave, run.

Run to your safe place, Dave!


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Science is science.



Yes it is...and when you are dealing with an observable, measurable quantity such as the movement of energy through the atmosphere, real science demands observed, measured, quantified data to support claims regarding said entity...So lets see it.  Lets see a single piece of actual observed, measured, quantified data that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability....just one.



RealDave said:


> And the vast majority of climate scientists agree that MMGW is real.



Based on what?  There is no actual evidence to support the hypothesis...what are they basing their agreement on?....if not actual data, then it must be money.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> I posted a link to an experiment that high school kids can do that proves it
> 
> The greenhouse effect is PROVEN science.



Lets see that link.  I would like to see what sort of side show hucksterism fooled you so completely.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Any number of research papers by a number of climatologists.  Where the fuck have you been?  What have you read?



Really?  Then you should have little problem copying a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.  Lets see it.  I am giddy with excitement.....literally on the edge of my seat.



RealDave said:


> Fuck that.



More like the sort of response I get from warmers when I ask for some actual data.




RealDave said:


> Common sense.



Common sense demands that you have some actual evidence in support of scientific claims....you claim to have seen some.  I have been looking for decades and haven't seen the first shred...and I have looked deeply.  Which is why I can confidently ask the question of you warmers...I have no fear of asking you for even one piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis....not the first second thought that one of you might actually produce such a piece of evidence because none exists...and you are just further proving the fact by your inability to do so.




RealDave said:


> You are soda king stupid that you think man can spew crap into the atmosphere for decades with zero effects.



Oh, we can have effects...we can pollute the air, we can cause all sorts of environmental damage...what we aren't doing, however, is altering the global climate.  You guys always attempt to shift the discussion to pollution as if my skepticism of the man made climate change scam means that I don't think we can pollute our environment and cause serious damage.  In fact, I am disgusted over how much money that could have been spent addressing actual, serious environmental issues has been wasted on the manmade climate change scam.




RealDave said:


> My God, just how  fucking stupid can you get.



You should ask yourself that question.  It is you who holds such a fervent belief without the first shred of actual evidence to support it.  I mean look at yourself...calling me names when, if you could find a single piece of the data I have asked for, you could be bitch slapping me down...being a hero to all your warmer buds..




RealDave said:


> More CO2 => More greenhouse effect  => warmer temperatures.



Yeah..that is what I am asking for...a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports that chain reaction.  Got one?




RealDave said:


> All proven .



The only thing that is proven is that you can't provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence to even support what you believe is proven...much less prove it


----------



## RealDave (Jul 9, 2017)

jon_berzerk said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...




The " Everyone is lying except me" argument.  You & El Dumpster are twins.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > I posted a link to an experiment that high school kids can do that proves it
> ...



Go back & find it yourself.

The only people that are fooled are ignorant Trumpsters like you.

I believe scientists.

You believe the fossil fuel industry.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Science is science.
> ...


There is plenty of evidence.

First you deniers ran in circles & crying about how they won't share data & now you claim is there is no data.  Make up your minds because you are making yourselves look lime dumbasses


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Go back & find it yourself.



Yeah...if had posted something so stupid, I wouldn't be eager to have it come back and visit me either.



RealDave said:


> The only people that are fooled are ignorant Trumpsters like you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> There is plenty of evidence.



If there were, you would be slapping me down with it right now instead of making claims you can't support.



RealDave said:


> First you deniers ran in circles & crying about how they won't share data & now you claim is there is no data.  Make up your minds because you are making yourselves look lime dumbasses



Prove me wrong hotshot...show me some observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...just one piece...or keep talking making claims you can't back up and look like a dupe.

By the way...I did a quick search for any post you have made that contains the word experiment...two showed up...the one where you claimed to have posted an experiment, and the post where you told me to go find it myself...

So in addition to being a dupe...you will also lie if it suits you...you never posted any experiment, you simply made the claim trying to save some face...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


SO you, like others here, can not provided empirical evidence of said process...  hmmmmmm...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


You still haven't produced any Observed, Quantifiable, repeatable science to prove anything...  come on.. someone so sure as you can do it...  Or maybe not.. Old Fraud, Crick, Ian and others still haven't...  lets see if you can..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Where's the beef (data)?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So, this officially ends the "Global Warming" debate.  First, Climategate where they got caught lying and now this: they have no evidence at all.
> ...



*Climategate was debunked.*

Exactly!
When they talked about "hiding the decline", "Mike's nature trick" and preventing skeptics from publishing........they were just joking around.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Go back & find it yourself.
> ...


  Where is your evidence that man can spew as much CO2 into the atmosphere as possible and it have no effect on our climate?  Can't wait for this.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 9, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Wow. you really are this stupid.

The trick to growing great tomatoes early is to plant them against the sunny side of your house.

A "trick" can be a clever way of doing things.

This has been debunked.  The idea you still believe it proves your ignorance.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 9, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Go back in this thread as your ignorant cohorts had a fit about Michael Mann supposedly hiding data.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



*A "trick" can be a clever way of doing things.*

A clever way to hide the decline. I get it. We all get it.

*This has been debunked.*

What has been debunked? The corruption exposed by the leaked emails?


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




Hey, Dave....from the Iron Mountain Report that was released by a whistle blower in 1968........

"_When it comes to postulating a credible substitute for war … the “alternate enemy” must imply a more immediate, tangible, and directly felt threat of destruction. It must justify the need for taking and paying a “blood price” in wide areas of human concern. In this respect, the possible substitute enemies noted earlier would be insufficient. One exception might be the environmental-pollution model, if the danger to society it posed was genuinely imminent. The fictive models would have to carry the weight of extraordinary conviction, underscored with a not inconsiderable actual sacrifice of life. … It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power"


Here is your wake -up call, Dave......._


----------



## RealDave (Jul 9, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


It is not my job to educate you fools.  The data is out there.  The science is out there.

Turn off Limbaugh, Beck, infowars & Fox news & become better informed.  Read what the ipcc has put out alot of reports.  

Pull your head out of your fat ass & read them.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 9, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




You two kill me...

Photons are emitted in all directions from all molecules.  The laws of thermal dynamics (Natural Laws) indicate that a colder object has no effect on a warmer object.  You can bitch about why that happens "smart Photons" all you want, but the physical laws show that there is no observable, quantitative effect.

You make statements, as if they were fact, due to models that are untestable and have no observed evidence to support them. they are simply unproven hypothesis.

Water vapor reactions and energy residency times are just now becoming understood.  One paper being done by the Colorado Atmospherics lab used narrow band width LWIR and injected it into a body of water vapor (cylindrical glass tube 100' long) taking note of the increase of LWIR and in what bands at various distances from the source. At just 40% humidity, LWIR sent at 16-18um showed a positive response at 22-26um. After 24 hours in a room at 80 deg F the tube had no warming. If CO2 had the powers you all like to tout then the tube should have warmed.  The energy used was equivalent to 235w/m^2 striking the surface of the earth, contained in that bandwidth.  Even when it was expanded to 14um-22um (the full spectrum of CO2's possible positive forcing) the spike in radiated energy was in the 22-49um regions.

SO why would water not immediately respond by radiating the same wave length that it absorbed? What causes this?
.
edit:  The tube was filled at the current atmospheric mixture of the earths atmosphere at 5,126 feet above sea level pressures.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


I am a doctoral student in atmospheric physics You are what? A 12 year old retard?


----------



## RealDave (Jul 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > There is plenty of evidence.
> ...


 

IPCC reports?  Scientific literature?

Have you seen the temperature charts for the warmest years?

Have you done anything other than doom your children & grandchildren to a more difficult life -because you are just a blow hard asshole?


----------



## RealDave (Jul 9, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



I'm 20 foot tall  with 15 PhD degrees in Climatology  This is the internet.  From your posts, you never graduated high school.

What school would admit you?


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




Dave...oh Dave????? I just posted some useful info....why are you avoiding it?????


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Your an internet troll..  Now go fuck yourself...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Your a dumb fuck who believes anything without verifying the facts of the matter, in short your a useful idiot and a fool.


----------



## peach174 (Jul 9, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...





Billy_Bob said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Good then maybe you can answer my question of why our sun and planets atmospheres are changing without fossil fuels.
Don’t panic but our sun has gone blank

Mars is Melting | Science Mission Directorate

Jupiter's Great Red Spot is Shrinking | Science Mission Directorate


----------



## RealDave (Jul 9, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


A wake up call?  

I have news, in 1968 pollution was rampant & it was


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 9, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*Photons are emitted in all directions from all molecules.*

Excellent! We agree, SSDD's smart photon "idea" is BS.

*The laws of thermal dynamics (Natural Laws) indicate that a colder object has no effect on a warmer object.*

Sounds interesting! Can you post this "law of thermal dynamics" that backs your claim?


----------



## RealDave (Jul 9, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Pollution was rampant in 1968. there were health issues because of it.

The idea you cling to this as significant has made me laugh & laugh.

So, you think pollution of our air & water can not be a threat to our survival?  We can pollute all we want?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> What school would admit you?



We've asked that question of Billy many times. He refuses to answer.

He also won't explain how someone with no science education (his background is criminal law) got accepted into a science doctoral program.

That is, Billy just makes everything up. If it comes from Billy, it's always openly fraudulent.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 9, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


 So, you don't know what university where you are working on your doctorate?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 9, 2017)

mamooth said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > What school would admit you?
> ...


LOL 

Says the ever lying kitten...


----------



## RealDave (Jul 9, 2017)

peach174 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




Wow, that was a really stupid post.

Our climate is based on many factors.  Our planet has been around long before man & went through any climate changes.

None of this means that man can't also be a factor.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 9, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


How about you sow me the quantifiable observed evidence that it can...  The physical laws state energy can not flow from a cooler object to a warmer one without work being performed.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



And it was picked as the weapon of choice to make the masses afraid, compliant and subservient. How can you account for a global temperature benchmark when the spraying of heavy metal nano-particulates into the upper atmosphere is not figured into the equation especially since this has been going on for the last twenty years?  Have you ever heard of the Hegelian Dialectic? Cause, affect, solution?????? Ever heard of the Club Of Rome? Agenda 21/2030 and "Sustainable Development? ICLEI????????


----------



## peach174 (Jul 9, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



You still haven't answered the demon cats question.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 9, 2017)




----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 9, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*How about you sow me the quantifiable observed evidence that it can*

You just said....*Photons are emitted in all directions from all molecules.
*
Are you still saying that a photon from 300K matter magically avoids matter at 301K?

*The physical laws state energy can not flow from a cooler object to a warmer one without work being performed*

Because the warmer matter has a force field? LOL!

Just for fun, post the law that says energy cannot flow. If it says radiation cannot flow, that'd be even better.

Thanks!


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 9, 2017)

peach174 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



You don't NEED a "Doctorate" in any science field to answer the obvious about how we have been "gamed". This scheme goes back almost 50 years in the making. Do you know that the world's economy is based on petroleum even though the technology to get us off of it has been around for 80 years? We can create an integrated circuit chip that can run a laptop that can fit inside the dimple of a golf ball but the technology to get away from the combustion engine that wastes 80 percent of the fuel that is put in it doesn't allegedly exist? If you believe that, you believe that the moon is made of blue cheese. This is a massive, royal scam.....nothing more or less.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 9, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



*when the spraying of heavy metal nano-particulates into the upper atmosphere*

You never explained, is the metal added to the fuel, or sprayed from separate tanks?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 9, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*Do you know that the world's economy is based on petroleum even though the technology to get us off of it has been around for 80 years?*

Is the technology......windmills?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 9, 2017)

peach174 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


As the sun go's so do the planets which receive its energy.  Dr Hathaway at the solar observatory has been tracking solar cycles for decades.  Even his latest predictions and the observed background solar observed evidence suggests that our next cycle will be just 50% of our current one, We are repeating cycles 3,4,5,6 and possibly 7, solar cycles which caused the Little Ice Age and a drop of 2 deg C globally.  We are currently at the beginning of cycle 3 in the series with our current cycle 25. 

As with cycle 3 there was a spike in solar output for a few years before it went cold. The planets will respond as their atmospheric compositions allow the heat to be released over time. Mars has already begun to cool rapidly and we will soon follow.


----------



## peach174 (Jul 9, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Yes it will. Which means it isn't fossil fuels.
What about Jupiter's red spot?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



lol

??? Backstroking are we???

Is man the total cause or is he just a minute influence?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Where is your evidence that man can spew as much CO2 into the atmosphere as possible and it have no effect on our climate?  Can't wait for this.



The fact that there isn't the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting that claim after all the billions upon billions wasted on the scam is pretty damning evidence that it isn't happening. 

And besides, we aren't making the claim of coming catastrophe, and aren't asking for trillions of dollars to avoid the catastrophe, nor are we looking to ruin industries and economies...when you make the claim of doom, the burden of evidence lies squarely on your shoulders....and alas, there isn't any...not the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the claim...not one.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 9, 2017)

peach174 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


Energy loss from the sun means that planets weather will be affected.  I would guess that a loss in temperature differential would cause the storm energy to decrease just like it does on earth..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Wow. you really are this stupid.
> 
> The trick to growing great tomatoes early is to plant them against the sunny side of your house.
> 
> ...



What "trick"?  Pointing out that you don't have the first piece of real evidence in support of your claim is a trick?  The trick is claiming that CO2 is altering the global climate and having people believe it without the first piece of actual evidence that it is happening...or can happen.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



What he is hiding is his lack of data...if he had strong data supporting his claim, he would have it posted on billboards, television ads, tv and radio and in practically every magazine out there...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> It is not my job to educate you fools.  The data is out there.  The science is out there.



No it isn't...and if you were half as smart as you think you are, you would realize that it is you who is being educated...your eyes, if you were half as smart as you think you are would be opening to the fact that you have been duped and there isn't in fact, the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.  



RealDave said:


> Turn off Limbaugh, Beck, infowars & Fox news & become better informed.  Read what the ipcc has put out alot of reports.



I turned off those guys 15 years ago...and I have scoured the IPCC looking for that elusive piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports AGW over natural variability...as well as every other "peer reviewed" paper that I could get my hands on....nothing.  Not the first piece of real data supporting the claim.



RealDave said:


> Pull your head out of your fat ass & read them.



Have...now pull your head out of your ass and realize that there is nothing there...the emperor is naked...or step up to the plate and show me a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports AGW over natural variability....


----------



## mamooth (Jul 9, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Dr Hathaway at the solar observatory has been tracking solar cycles for decades.



Dr. David Hathaway works at NASA, not "the solar observatory". 

Wait, I thought NASA was faking all the data. Thatmust be why you left NASA out of it. You look silly for claiming NASA fakes data, then embracing NASA data.



> Even his latest predictions and the observed background solar observed evidence suggests that our next cycle will be just 50% of our current one,



As is the case with all of your claims, that's fiction. 

If you disagree, I'm sure you can show us those predictions.



> As with cycle 3 there was a spike in solar output for a few years before it went cold. The planets will respond as their atmospheric compositions allow the heat to be released over time. Mars has already begun to cool rapidly and we will soon follow.



You and all the deniers have been making such predictions for many years now. And the cooling never arrives. Instead, it just keeps warming strongly.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> IPCC reports?  Scientific literature?



Question mark?  Is that a question mark at the end of your sentence?  Maybe you are learning after all.  The answer to your question is no...there is not a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data supporting AGW over natural variability in all of science...not the first piece.



RealDave said:


> Have you seen the temperature charts for the warmest years?



Sure...and they are laughable.  Warmest years my ass.  They pick a very short frame of time and say look...look how hot it is getting.  When you look at the longer view, the idea that we are living in the hottest anything is laughable.  

Here, have a look at the gold standard temperature reconstruction for the northern hemisphere for the past 10,000 years...






The fact is that it has been cooler for most of the past 10,000 years than it is right now...and if look, you will see that past temperature increases are far greater and more rapid than anything we have seen without the aid of the internal combustion engine.  And just so you don't play the whiner northern hemisphere card like the rest of your buds, here is a gold standard reconstruction for the southern hemisphere showing the same temperature fingerprint demonstrating that the warmer temperatures for most of the past 10,000 years were global.






As a side note...did you notice what just happened?  I made a claim, and then provided observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the claim.  Even climate science doesn't doubt the accuracy of ice core reconstructions taken from above the arctic circle and below the antarctic circle...they don't show them much because the picture they paint makes their own claims laughable but that is beside the point.




RealDave said:


> Have you done anything other than doom your children & grandchildren to a more difficult life -because you are just a blow hard asshole?



Alas, realdave, you are the blowhard.  I am still waiting on a single piece...just one single scrap of observed, measured, quantified data that supports your claims over natural variability.  Just one.  I am looking for evidence that proves me wrong and all of the actual evidence, that is real data as opposed to computer models seems to prove you wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> I'm 20 foot tall  with 15 PhD degrees in Climatology



That being the case, it should be quite easy for you to provide me with a single shred of observed, measured quantified data that supports your claims over natural variability....what's the problem?  Not to worry, all the phd's on earth combined couldn't provide me with that single piece of data I have been asking for for more than two decades.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> What he is hiding is his lack of data...



It's publicly available on the internet. I linked to it. The premise of this thread was a lie, and given the evidence provided, no honest person can deny that.

You're lying to everyone's face, as usual, and you don't care who knows it. The cult has commanded you to tell a set of particularly stupid lies, so you're telling them. 

But then, your goal is not to convince anyone, being that even you know everyone outside the cult laughs at your stupid lies. You goal is to show your loyalty to your cult by demonstrating how you're willing to tell the stupidest lies imaginable, and then accept the humiliation that follows. It's what you do here every day. By being so diligent at that task, you've amassed a lot of brownie points with the leaders of your fraud cult.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


If Mann had credible evidence he would not be hiding it from the court or scientists who wish verify and replicate his work.  As this work was done on public grants the data and code is property of the US citizens who funded it.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Wow, that was a really stupid post.
> 
> Our climate is based on many factors.  Our planet has been around long before man & went through any climate changes.
> 
> None of this means that man can't also be a factor.



Sure....man could be a factor...cats with one blue eye and one green eye could be a factor.  And there is just as much observed, measured, quantified data supporting the idea that those cats are altering the global climate as there is that we are...which is none.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> As a side note...did you notice what just happened?



Yes. You lied your ass off with deliberate dishonest cherrypicking, by pretending that a single cherrypicked ice core measurement represented global temperature.

You've done so many times, and will continue to do so, even though you know it's dishonest.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 9, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What he is hiding is his lack of data...
> ...


the crap you linked too is fabricated garbage...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What he is hiding is his lack of data...
> ...



Less than 500K of information is all of his data?...is that what you are saying?  You are laughable hairball.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > As a side note...did you notice what just happened?
> ...



No hairball...I picked one from the arctic circle, and one from the antarctic circle...two ice cores which even climate science acknowledge as the gold standard temperature reconstruction...the same temperature fingerprints are visible in the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere...that is a pretty good indication that the temperatures were global...unless you care to explain how the same temperature fingerprints could be found at both poles but somehow skip the rest of the earth.  Lets hear it hairball.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jul 9, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



 without fabricated garbage to post 

what else would they have to defend their position 

--LOL


----------



## mamooth (Jul 9, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> If Mann had credible evidence he would not be hiding it from the court or scientists who wish verify and replicate his work.



But he's not hiding anything. The data is publicly available. You're proudly lying about that.

That's the point of this thread now, that almost all the deniers were easily bamboozled by such nonsense, being that none of them is capable of skepticism. 

In contrast, the rational people here, being natural skeptics, noted that there was nothing backing up the story, and that the evidence contradicted it, hence the story was false.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 9, 2017)

jon_berzerk said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


500kb wouldn't even support my bathroom usage on a daily basis for one year..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > If Mann had credible evidence he would not be hiding it from the court or scientists who wish verify and replicate his work.
> ...



So you are saying that the entirety of his data and methodology is less than 500K?  Is that what you are saying hairball?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 9, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > If Mann had credible evidence he would not be hiding it from the court or scientists who wish verify and replicate his work.
> ...


Bull Shit!


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 9, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > As a side note...did you notice what just happened?
> ...




So, my good man, can you show me a graph were geo-engineering is figured into the equation because they have been doing heavy metal based nano-particulates spraying into the atmosphere in earnest since 1997. I mean if you really want a good benchmark of the global temperature shouldn't all factors be put into the equation? I mean we can't place all of this on poor ol Johhny Lunchpail that has to drive to a shitty job in order to eek out an existence on this shitty prison planet, no? I mean the military industrial complex and all the nuclear testing, jets, tanks, naval carrier and whatnot must leave one helluva a carbon footprint, no???? And then the military industrial complex using chemtrails for a plethora of military applications has to figure in there somewhere, no?


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 9, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What he is hiding is his lack of data...
> ...




BTW, did you know that the IPCC works at the leisure of the United Nations????? It's true.....look it up!


----------



## peach174 (Jul 9, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



So that means something else is also happening and we need all of the data not just graphs and the blindness of just fossil fuels which I have never seen since the doctored graphs of the 70's ,which the guy admitted were never correct.

You just said it's the sun ,but political scientists say it's fossil fuels only.
They dismiss adding in sun, deeper ocean studies, earths axis change and the magnetic fluctuations.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> No hairball...I picked one from the arctic circle, and one from the antarctic circle...two ice cores which even climate science acknowledge as the gold standard temperature reconstruction.



No, they don't acknowledge that . You're lying about that. And there's no point in asking you to back up that crazy claim, because everyone knows you can never back up any of your fraudulent claims.

You're also lying about not cherrypicking. Deliberately refusing to use any data except two ice cores points is blatant cherrypicking. It's all you're capable of, since the total data says you're lying.

You're all gibbering retards for claiming 500k isn't enough data. It's just numbers, dumbasses, not graphics. You cultists fell for a hilariously stupid lie, the lie got debunked, you're butthurt, and instead of being honest, you're mewling this remarkably stupid deflection.

The funniest thing is that Ball and the other idiots at PSI made this exact same crazy claim in 2014. You were told the courts would be jailing Mann anydaynow, so you BELIEVED and ran to the internet to parrot it.

How'd that turn out?

Nothing?

And yet you all BELIEVE the exact same idiot claim in 2017, even though not a single thing has changed. You PSI-cultists really are the dumbest people on the planet.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2017)

peach174 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Actually, since 2014, more than 400 papers have been peer reviewed and published showing a strong sun/climate link.  80 papers have been peer reviewed and published this year alone strongly linking solar forcing to climate...

You just don't hear much about them in the media because the media is not interested in anything that doesn't support the AGW hypothesis.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 9, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> So, my good man, can you show me a graph were geo-engineering



All I'm going to do is thank you for being an example of irrationality. People who believe in one conspiracy theory (global warming denial) tend to fall for all kinds of conspiracy theories (chemtrails, UN domination, etc.). The same lack of common sense that leads to denialism leads to belief in many insane things.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 9, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Hey dude, why did you cut and run from the thread Mueller lets his Actions do his talking when I responded to your foolishness in your post #62.

See my post #65, I look forward to your effort to spin your ignorance into something more!


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 9, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > So, my good man, can you show me a graph were geo-engineering
> ...



PUH-LEEZE!  Dude, spare me, you don't want to figure in any other possible equation but I am to blindly follow "scientists" that are under the auspices of the U.N that have already been busted for fudging data so that it fits the Climate Change narrative and to question that means we have no common sense? Dude, I don't know what you are smoking but stop bogarting that joint and pass it this way....sheesh.


----------



## peach174 (Jul 9, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > So, my good man, can you show me a graph were geo-engineering
> ...



Once again for the zillionth time.
The vast majority believe in climate change we challenge that its not fossil fuels.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2017)

mamooth said:


> No, they don't acknowledge that . You're lying about that. And there's no point in asking you to back up that crazy claim, because everyone knows you can never back up any of your fraudulent claims.



Of course they do...And unlike you, I don't say things that I can't back up...because I am not a brain dead idiot like you.

Here, from the National Ice Core Laboratory....
old-ice.shtml

Clip:  ""The problem with ice core records, it's never enough ice [for research]," he said, though stressed that ice cores remain the "gold standard" for climate research."


The past is the key to the future: Temperature history of the past 10,000 years | Die kalte Sonne

_*By Don J. Easterbrook*_
_Professor of Geology, Western Washington Univ, Bellingham, WA_

Clip: "Although the GISP2 ice core data is site specific (Greenland), it has been well correlated with global glacial fluctuations and a wide range of other climate proxies and has become the ‘gold standard’ among global climate reconstructions.'


Million-Year-Old Bubbles Reveal Antarctica's Oldest Climate Snapshot

Live science

Clip:  "Gas bubbles are the gold standard for reconstructing climate," said lead study author John Higgins, a geochemist at Princeton University."

https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/.../1957/37906/MitchellLoganE2013.pdf?sequence=1

Oregon State University

Clip:  "Ice cores are considered the gold standard for recording past climate and biogeochemical changes."



Where Should We Look for the World’s Oldest Ice?

KQED Science

Clip:  "Ice is the gold standard for researching ancient atmospheres."


And I could go on and on...there is no argument among any branches of science that ice cores are the gold standard for past climate reconstructions..

It isn't surprising that you were unaware of that fact, and it won't come as any surprise next time you claim that ice cores aren't the gold standard for temperature reconstruction...I know, you prefer to place all your crazy eggs on a single upside down bristlecone pine proxy...but then you aren't really interested in the science, you are a political hack/activist who will lie, cheat and steal in an effort to get people on the AGW crazy train with you.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 9, 2017)

Wry Catcher said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Say, dude, obviously I didn't see it....you know, I can get a bit busy at times.....so many pulling at me. I will find the post and respond since it means so much to you........


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 9, 2017)

peach174 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


"They dismiss adding in sun, deeper ocean studies, earths axis change and the magnetic fluctuations."

We are just now learning how the ENSO works in our oceans. IT directly affects the charge/discharge rate of heat into our atmosphere. We have now dropped below the base line of the start of the previous El Niño. No global step increase in temperature has been observed as we have in previous events. And once again that oscillation is going very cold.

Even the northern polar jet is bigger in size and dropping deeply to the 55 deg latitude levels during summer. This is indicative of a cooling atmosphere.  We are seeing the temperature spikes, as Mars did, just before it began to cool rapidly, our ocean buffers have slowed the cooling response but that heat buffer is now depleted.  Its taken a full 16 years to deplete. There is a lot of heat that can be stored in our oceans.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 9, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Hey Dude, why not admit you cut and ran?


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 9, 2017)

Wry Catcher said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...




Dude, not on the best day that you ever had could you make me "cut and run" about ANYTHING....not on this planet. Now, STFU so I can find the thread, doofus.


----------



## peach174 (Jul 9, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




If they are just now learning more ,then they should not have blamed it on fossil fuels way back in the 70's and kept it up for 40 something odd years.
That tells us it's purely politically motivated.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 9, 2017)

Wry Catcher said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Wow, that post you believe I "cut and ran" from was a big ol bag of nothing...I think I explained it so simply that even a dimwit like you should be able to get "the point"........


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 9, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



 Dale Smith has chosen to attack me as a dimwit, when he has yet to explain his comment which I responded to comprehensively, to wit:

Smith wrote:  "A republic means that 50.001 percent cannot usurp the God given rights of the other 49.999 percent....get it????"

Wry responded:  "You just make things up because you lack the ego strength to admit you're wrong, and only echo the meme because you cannot think for yourself.

"By your definition we do not have a republic! Apparently you have not observed or understand how one vote in the senate, or a tie breaking vote by the VP, can override the rights of the 49%.

"In fact, the 49% of senators represent millions more citizens today, since most of the GOP senators represent the smaller population in the Red States."

At this point Dale Smith cut and ran.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 9, 2017)

Wry Catcher said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...




BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! You obviously did not read my response........what a moron.....seriously.


----------



## Yarddog (Jul 9, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > The hockey stick graph that really counts and gives rise to all the rest.
> ...




Ha Ha , yeah even an idiot is capable of looking out of an airplane window when flying from New York to SF.  Maybe these people always get the isle seat.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 9, 2017)

SSDD said:
			
		

> Of course they do...And unlike you, I don't say things that I can't back up...because I am not a brain dead idiot like you.



In other words, nobody said they were a gold standard for global average temperature measurements, which is what you're trying to use them for. Thanks for confirming that.

You're still busted for dishonest cherrypicking too, of course. Two points on top of an ice sheet are not a global temperature reconstruction.

Oh, I missed this. This is crazy as well.



> Actually, since 2014, more than 400 papers have been peer reviewed and published showing a strong sun/climate link. 80 papers have been peer reviewed and published this year alone strongly linking solar forcing to climate...



First ... duh. Of course there's a solar effect on climate.

So, which of those papers said that the current global warming is due to solar effects?

None of them? That's a good guess.


----------



## konradv (Jul 9, 2017)

Yarddog said:


> Ha Ha , yeah even an idiot is capable of looking out of an airplane window when flying from New York to SF.  Maybe these people always get the* isle *seat.


 Are there bodies of water on these fairy tale airplanes of yours?


----------



## Faun (Jul 9, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > The hockey stick graph that really counts and gives rise to all the rest.
> ...


Why do you rightards suck so bad at math??

Square footage of Texas (including bodies of water):

268,597

Number of half acre lots:
*
343,804,160*

Global human population (appx)

7,500,000,000

Number of half acre lots needed to accommodate families of four:

*937,500,000*

It would take an area nearly three times larger than Texas.


----------



## westwall (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...








Proving how little actual, real science you know is all you did with that link.  That experiment demonstrates the IDEAL GAS LAWS.  Not global warming.  Were you not a complete scientific cripple you would KNOW that.


----------



## westwall (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So, this officially ends the "Global Warming" debate.  First, Climategate where they got caught lying and now this: they have no evidence at all.
> ...








The only dumbass is you who posts up stupid lies in a vain attempt to deflect from what the non braindead figured out long ago.  CLIMATEGATE was never "debunked" you silly person.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 9, 2017)

westwall said:


> Proving how little actual, real science you know is all you did with that link.  That experiment demonstrates the IDEAL GAS LAWS.  Not global warming.  Were you not a complete scientific cripple you would KNOW that.



Can you explain for us how PV = nRT explains the observed warming?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2017)

mamooth said:


> In other words, nobody said they were a gold standard for global average temperature measurements, which is what you're trying to use them for. Thanks for confirming that.



So in addition to being as stupid as I though you were..you can't read...good to know.  It explains a lot.


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Jul 9, 2017)

BuckToothMoron said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...


*The little ice age was caused by Volcano a big one that put large amount of dust and sulfur into the air.  The temp dropped therefore colder temps.*


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2017)

Dan Stubbs said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



That is one of many theories...none of which is supported by a preponderance of fact...which is why there are multiple theories.  You should say that the little ice age might have been caused by a volcano...or it might have been due to orbital forcing...or it might have been due to changes in solar activity, or possibly slight changes in ocean circulation, or more likely the inherent variability of the climate on planet earth.  

Making a statement of fact, when you have no fact that proves your case is just dumb.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Jul 9, 2017)

Dan Stubbs said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Yep, that is ONE theory or explanation. Interesting fact- that theory is only about 5 years old; much younger than the AGW "fact".  There are others tho, and there is NO consensus. Why can't all the scientist agree? A skeptic might conclude because there is no money in a consensus, unlike anthropogenic global warming. There's lots of cash..er I mean funding for "scientist" to prove AGW.

What caused the Little Ice Age? | EarthSky.org
Bottom line: What caused the Little Ice Age, a period of cooling that’s generally agreed to have ended in the 19th century. One idea is that decreased radiation from the sun caused this period of widespread cooling on Earth. In early 2012, scientists at University of Colorado Boulder with co-authors at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and other organizations announced evidence suggesting that volcanoes caused the Little Ice Age. They used radiocarbon-dating of samples of dead plant material, collected from high northern latitudes, in combination with a computer model, to show that four massive volcanoes could have triggered the widespread cooling. Their study was being published in _Geophysical Research Letters_ in January 2012.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 9, 2017)

westwall said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Scientific American:  "In fact, nothing in the stolen e-mails or computer code undermines in any way the scientific consensus—which exists among scientific publications as well as scientists—that climate change is happening and humans are the cause."

"Some of the kerfuffle rests on a misreading of the e-mails' wording. For example, the word "trick" in one message, which has been cited as evidence that a conspiracy is afoot, is actually being used to describe a mathematical approach to reconciling observed temperatures with stand-in data inferred from tree ring measurements."

"As for charges that the CRU database is corrupt or compromised such that its results cannot be trusted, Schmidt noted that a number of other databases with climate records supporting global warming exist throughout the world—including NASA's GISS, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center and even the IPCC, all of which provide access to the raw data. Further, many of the same contrarians arguing that global warming has stopped in recent years are relying on the same CRU record that they are now disparaging as untrustworthy."

Scientists Respond to "Climategate" E-Mail Controversy

So, remain an ignorant fool as those that agreed with your post.    This is how we got Trtuimp,.  I buchj of idiots who only listewn to the Limbaughs, Becks, Infowars & Fox News.

Get informed & you can actually quit looking like a fool here on this board.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 9, 2017)

westwall said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


 So, you agree that more C)2 => more greenhouse effect  => warmer temperatures.

But in your infinite wisdom, this has nothing to do with Climate Change.

Wow


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


*
Scientific American: "In fact, nothing in the stolen e-mails or computer code undermines in any way the **scientific consensus**—which exists among scientific publications as well as scientists—that climate change is happening and humans are the cause."*

Sure, why would liars be deterred when their lies and cheating are exposed?


----------



## westwall (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...









I hate to break it to you but that is not exactly a compelling statement they made.  They basically are preaching to the morons, namely you, that you can ignore the revelations made in CLIMATEGATE because we don't want you to think for yourselves.  That's all that statement means.  They are basically telling you to remain fat, stupid, and in the dark.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 9, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


"Everyone one is lying but me"  Great argument.


----------



## westwall (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...









No.  I don't.  I do agree that CO2 is a GHG.  That is not in doubt.  What is in doubt is it's power to do so.  What that crappy little experiment did is show that when you put a dense gas into a closed receptacle, and remove the less dense gas that was originally there, the temp go's up.  But it's not due to the GHG aspect of the CO2, it is due to the DENSITY of that gas.  

Might I suggest you take a physics class so you don't look like a complete moron next time?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



The warmers weren't lying.....they said they were hiding the decline.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 9, 2017)

westwall said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


The experiment had two containers.  One got more CO2.


Man has changed the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.


----------



## westwall (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...









Duh.  IT'S CALLED DENSITY!  Look it up!  My gosh but your scientific knowledge is ZERO!  Here, theis is high school grade chemistry.  Maybe this can educate you a smidgen.  Read it and learn something!  Sheesh! 

The density is determined by utilizing a variation of the ideal gas law where density and molar mass replace moles and volume.

The original ideal gas law uses the formula PV = nRT, the density version of the ideal gas law is PM = dRT, where P is pressure measured in atmospheres (atm), T is temperature measured in kelvin (K), R is the ideal gas law constant 0.0821 atm(L)mol(K)just as in the original formula, but M is now the molar mass (gmol) and d is the density (gL).

By rearranging the formula to PMRT=d the units of atm, mol and K will cancel and the value will be left with the gL units for density.


How do you find density in the ideal gas law? | Socratic


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2017)

westwall said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Maybe you could dumb it down for him a bit and try to explain the phenomenon known as "heat of compression"...that is what is being demonstrated in the jar full of CO2 experiment. 

there used to be a pretty good video demonstrating the phenomenon and how the experiment claiming a greenhouse effect was a hoax...the video is gone, but the script of the video is still available...it describes the experiment with and without a vent for the increased pressure due to the greater density of the CO2...equalize the pressure between the two jars, and both have the same temperature regardless of the content of the jars.

Der CO2-Treibhauseffekt - Internet-Vademecum - A. Brandenberger


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 9, 2017)

peach174 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


When you look at the facts, the whole AGW scam is just a scam to deprive us of our freedoms, independence, and sovereignty. AGW had no other purpose.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



In 50 years, I suspect the AGW debate will not be ongoing since the planet will still be here and change will occur, but information and technology will further our understanding.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 9, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


PRAISE THE LORD!!! The freedom to pollute!!!!!  The freedom to throw your children into a more difficult life@!!!!

My God you people are sofa king ridiculous.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


So many scientists agree.

But I guess you are smarter than all of them.

This is why your pathetic ramblings are a joke.


----------



## IanC (Jul 9, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




You should actually read both sides of the story on any particular event covered in the climategate emails, or the subsequent investigations. Then decide which version most accurately describes the facts. Then pick another similar topic, and repeat.

After a handful of these little investigations I doubt that you will be quite as certain of the integrity of the climate science elite. After a few dozen you might just find you have become a skeptic yourself.


----------



## Crick (Jul 9, 2017)

I strongly suggest you follow your own advice Ian.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 9, 2017)

Crick said:


> I strongly suggest you follow your own advice Ian.



Trying to prevent skeptics from publishing.....doesn't seem right.

If the facts are on your side, why bother? Let them publish, point out their errors.

And who would believe Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann would lie, hide the decline, trick the data?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 9, 2017)

konradv said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody who would rely on a mere 1000-2000 years of data to declare major planet climate shift is a fool.
> ...



Uh Oh...left wing logic at it again.

It just has to be that way.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 10, 2017)

Welcome to climate "science"  Data?We don't need no stinking data! we have consensus!


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2017)

RealDave said:


> PRAISE THE LORD!!! The freedom to pollute!!!!!  The freedom to throw your children into a more difficult life@!!!!



Like so many warmers who don't really have any sort of grasp on the issue, you are conflating pollution with CO2...Pollution is a serious problem...CO2 is not.  And nothing is going to be done regarding the very real problem of pollution till the AGW hoax is put in the dustbin of history where it belongs.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2017)

RealDave said:


> So many scientists agree.



Irrelevant.  Till recently, a greater percentage of scientists and physicians agreed that stress was the cause of stomach ulcers...and they have agreed for more than half a century...till they found out that they were wrong and realized that they also didn't have the first piece of real evidence supporting their belief...it was just group think.

Until recently nearly 100% of physicists, and chemists agreed that there was no such thing as quasi crystals...till they found out that they were wrong and also didn't have a single piece of real evidence supporting what they used to believe.  Again, groupthink.

And the list goes on and on.  In fact, just before most of what we know to be true today based on real evidence was not supported by most of science before that evidence came out.  In relatively new fields of science such as climate change, nearly all have been found to be wrong in their early hypotheses...climate science is no different.



RealDave said:


> But I guess you are smarter than all of them.



No...but how smart do you have to be to realize that a scientific statement regarding an observable, measurable, quantifiable entity like the atmosphere that doesn't have the first piece of observed, measured quantified evidence supporting it over natural variability doesn't have much credibility?



RealDave said:


> This is why your pathetic ramblings are a joke.



So you think it is a joke that there isn't the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?...Sorry guy, but anyone who believes that actual evidence is not necessary is pathetic and a joke.  Want to see a joke...look in the mirror...and while you are there, ask yourself why you believe when there isn't the first piece of real evidence.


----------



## aoxomoxoa (Jul 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > So many scientists agree.
> ...



This is the scientific method,  nowhere does  it say that appealing to authority and claiming consensus is a part of it. Scepticism is  an integral part of being a scientist.  Science is  not PC,  it doesn't affiliate to particular political parties or philosophies and computer models are no substitute for empirical evidence.    







Sent from my iPhone 25S GT Turbo


----------



## RealDave (Jul 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > So many scientists agree.
> ...


No, I am saying you are a joke by claiming that there has not been any data or any observation.    There are many factors into our climate & especially as to warming.  For you, to claim it is impossible that man to be a cause is not only ridiculous, it is against everything you just wrote in your post.

Where are your observation, data, measured, quantified proof that man is not a cause of global warming?

This is the problem with assholes like you. 

We are talking about a very complicated subject, the climate.  No one can guarantee where it will be in 50 years or 100 years.  We have a majority of climate scientists who are telling us that if we do not reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, our climate will change & make life on this planet more difficult for people, animals, vegetation.

We know that the h0greenhouse effect is real & proven.   We know that man has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.

We have already experienced some of these changes.

But then there are those duped by the fossil fuel industry & their paid puppets.  Your political leaders tell you it isn't real & you throw your future generations into the trash bin.  You vote for those who deny global warming & man's role.  We all know that if Inconvenient Truth was done by Rush Limbaugh instead of Al Gore,you'd have your roof covered in panels, a windmill, & drive an electric car.

You have no science that proves MMGW is false.  All you have is a bunch of Big Oil funded puppets standing on the side lines throwing stones.
What the fuick are you afraid of?  That we will reduce emissions


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 10, 2017)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



*You have no science that proves MMGW is false. All you have is a bunch of Big Oil funded puppets standing on the side lines throwing stones.*

If CO2 is so dangerous and you want non-emitting, reliable energy, you'd support 100 new nuclear plants.
Do you?

Or do you think energy that is unavailable at night, or when the wind slows, is the way to power a high tech economy?


----------



## Muhammed (Jul 10, 2017)

The climategate deniers are like those dumb people who keep sending money to some Nigerian prince. After they send money to the scammer they get ripped off, however their egos are too fragile to admit that they were ripped off, therefore instead of calling the cops they just keep sending payments until their bank account runs dry.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 10, 2017)

TMI Chernobyl  Japan....

What is your plan for the waste?


----------



## peach174 (Jul 10, 2017)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



So why is the fossil fuel industry doing research for cleaner cheaper energy other than just solar and wind that's too expensive ?


----------



## RealDave (Jul 10, 2017)

peach174 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Because they know that eventually the smart people will be back in charge & the fight to reduce emissions will win .

They want a piece of that action.


----------



## martybegan (Jul 10, 2017)

RealDave said:


> TMI Chernobyl  Japan....
> 
> What is your plan for the waste?



Store it in hardened facilities until a way to treat it is figured out, or at least until someone finally figures out fusion. 

And TMI and Fukishima were not even close to as bad as Chernobyl.


----------



## peach174 (Jul 10, 2017)

RealDave said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Maybe you should look into the types of fuels they are experimenting with.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 10, 2017)

RealDave said:


> TMI Chernobyl  Japan....
> 
> What is your plan for the waste?



CO2 is gonna kill my kids, why are you worried about the waste?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2017)

aoxomoxoa said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



To bad so many warmers are so scientifically illiterate that they don't even know what the scientific method is...and the rest are political hacks who aren't interested in science...they just want to see their political goals move forward.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2017)

RealDave said:


> No, I am saying you are a joke by claiming that there has not been any data or any observation.    There are many factors into our climate & especially as to warming.  For you, to claim it is impossible that man to be a cause is not only ridiculous, it is against everything you just wrote in your post.



Alas realdave..you are the joke.  It hasn't escaped notice that you have yet to provide even a single piece of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis...much less one that supports AGW over natural variability...thus far, all you have managed to do is mire yourself in one logical fallacy after another.



RealDave said:


> Where are your observation, data, measured, quantified proof that man is not a cause of global warming?



I already provided you with some...unfortunately, you seem to be so scientifically illiterate, that you can't even recognize evidence when it is placed right in front of you and identified as such.  Refer to post 278 and tell me how you believe anything going on in our climate today is different from natural variability.

Aside from that, asking me to prove a negative is just stupid....you are claiming that we are altering the global climate...the climate is behaving as it always has...the burden of evidence that what we are seeing is not natural variability lies on your shoulders...and as we have seen...you have nothing, because climate science has nothing.



RealDave said:


> This is the problem with assholes like you.



No, the problem is scientific illiterates like you who have been fooled and don't even realize that they are nothing but useful idiots for a political movement.  Even when you see that you can't find the first piece of observed, measured, quantified data in support of your belief, you are to stupid to even wonder why no such data is available.



RealDave said:


> We are talking about a very complicated subject, the climate.  No one can guarantee where it will be in 50 years or 100 years.  We have a majority of climate scientists who are telling us that if we do not reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, our climate will change & make life on this planet more difficult for people, animals, vegetation.



No dave, we are talking about a real simple subject.  That being the absolute, complete lack of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability after decades and billions upon billions upon billions of dollars being spent.  That is a very simple topic and one you don't seem to be able to address.



RealDave said:


> We know that the h0greenhouse effect is real & proven.   We know that man has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.



Really?  Based on what observed, measured, quantified data...that is what I have been asking for.  I know that you believe...you have proven that...what I want to see is some actual data.  You seem blissfully unaware that there has never been a measurement of the greenhouse effect and it isn't even close to being quantified...



RealDave said:


> We have already experienced some of these changes.



I have experienced some small change in the climate...but where is your observed, measured, quantified evidence that what I have experienced is man's influence on the climate rather than just natural variability?  I keep asking and you keep not delivering.  Just because you believe doesn't make it true...and just because a lot of other people believe doesn't make it true...and just because scientists believe, doesn't make it true...just as stress doesn't cause stomach ulcers no matter how many scientists believed that it did.

Data makes it true...observed, measured, quantified data..and lots of it will make it true...I am not even asking for lots of it...I am just asking for one single solitary shred and you can't come up with it because none exists.



RealDave said:


> But then there are those duped by the fossil fuel industry & their paid puppets.  Your political leaders tell you it isn't real & you throw your future generations into the trash bin.  You vote for those who deny global warming & man's role.  We all know that if Inconvenient Truth was done by Rush Limbaugh instead of Al Gore,you'd have your roof covered in panels, a windmill, & drive an electric car.



Again with the logical fallacy...the IMPOTENT logical fallacy.  Why do you keep bringing up topics that I haven't mentioned...I don't care what anyone says...I am asking for a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports AGW over natural variability...Why do you keep trying to change the topic...what's the matter?...are you afraid to address the lack of data supporting your belief?



RealDave said:


> You have no science that proves MMGW is false.  All you have is a bunch of Big Oil funded puppets standing on the side lines throwing stones.



I don't need any.  I am not suggesting any action to try and change the climate...I am saying that the climate is behaving as it always has.  You on the other hand are claiming that it is not...you are claiming that we are altering the climate and that it is going to become dangerous to us...that, cupcake requires evidence and the burden of that evidence falls on you...and guess what...there is none...not a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting AGW over natural variability.



RealDave said:


> What the fuick are you afraid of?  That we will reduce emissions



I am worried about poor dolts like you dave...people who have been duped into playing the part of useful idiots...people who don't have any idea how many people they are hurting by their mindless political activism..and I am worried about the state of our educational system which would produce people like you who have such poor critical thinking and logical skills that you are unable to even question the fact that you believe in this scientific proposal without the first piece of actual data in support of the hypothesis...I am worried about poor stupid, uneducated, unthinking, people like you dave, and the damage they do with their good intentions every day.


----------



## aoxomoxoa (Jul 10, 2017)

martybegan said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > TMI Chernobyl  Japan....
> ...


4th generation  molten salt reactors will be able to use so-called nuclear waste.  

Molten Salt Reactors - World Nuclear Association

Sent from my iPhone 25S GT Turbo


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 10, 2017)




----------



## RealDave (Jul 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> aoxomoxoa said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


  Yep that's it.  Warmers are all stupid & only you deniers are smart.    The researchers just aren't doing it correctly.   

Political goals?  What the fuck?   Of course a Trumpette would call science Fake News while embracing the oil funded deniers pushed by Republican leadership.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 10, 2017)

aoxomoxoa said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


bring 'em on.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 10, 2017)

RealDave said:


> aoxomoxoa said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Mann wrote IPCC Third Assessment.  Since he's not showing the data, how do you have any confidence at all that he didn't just make it all up?






"You mean Mann just made it all up? WTF am I doing in this stupid scuba suit?"


----------



## RealDave (Jul 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > No, I am saying you are a joke by claiming that there has not been any data or any observation.    There are many factors into our climate & especially as to warming.  For you, to claim it is impossible that man to be a cause is not only ridiculous, it is against everything you just wrote in your post.
> ...



So, there is no science behind MMGW?  And you are so naive & call me duped.

I'll put my education up against yours any day.  

But hey, keep standing on the sidelines & throwing stones.  According to you, you can call MMGW false with absolutely no proof.  Where the fuck is your data, Mr PhD in Dumbassology?    Where is your scientific method?

Aren't you at least a little embarrassed that you align with Rush Limbaugh, Infowars &  The Dumpster?

We have a theory at there.  You stomp your feet, whine & writhe on the floor in a tantrum screaming  " NO NO NO".  WHERE IS YOUR FUCKING PROOF.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 10, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > TMI Chernobyl  Japan....
> ...




I said CO2 will make your kids lives more difficult.   

I am sure if you hate your children so much as condemn them to that life, you won't care if they have deformed children because a nuclear reactor failed during an earthquake out west or a train carrying the waste you love derails down the street.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 10, 2017)

*I said CO2 will make your kids lives more difficult.* 

More difficult, how?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 10, 2017)

AGW, it wasn't lies, it was bullshit. they took the liberty of bullshitting us


----------



## aoxomoxoa (Jul 10, 2017)

RealDave said:


> aoxomoxoa said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


They are  coming,  Bill Gates' company is testing a prototype in China.  

TWR TerraPower

Sent from my iPhone 25S GT Turbo


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Yep that's it.  Warmers are all stupid & only you deniers are smart.    The researchers just aren't doing it correctly.



More logical fallacy...more meaningless twaddle.  Either you can produce that single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that mankind is altering the global climate or you can't...which is it?  Can you or can't you.  Yes or no question...even you should be able to handle such an easy question.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2017)

RealDave said:


> I said CO2 will make your kids lives more difficult.



Got a single shred of observed, measured, quantified data to support that claim?...anything?



RealDave said:


> I am sure if you hate your children so much as condemn them to that life, you won't care if they have deformed children because a nuclear reactor failed during an earthquake out west or a train carrying the waste you love derails down the street.



More logical fallacy...appeals to emotion...one of the weakest of the logical fallacies.  You are pitiful realdave....a pitiful dupe who isn't even able to question why you can't just step out to the WWW and grab a single shred of actual evidence with which to support your belief.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2017)

RealDave said:


> So, there is no science behind MMGW?  And you are so naive & call me duped.



You keep saying that...while at the same time, you aren't coming up with that single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.  I keep asking and you keep not delivering and making meaningless arguments rather than simply slapping me down with just one piece of all that data that you seem to think is out there....and you call me naive and duped?  You are laughable...


This has been going on for how many posts now?  I'm still asking for that single piece of data and you aren't delivering and are apparently not bright enough to even wonder why you aren't able to simply post it.




RealDave said:


> I'll put my education up against yours any day.



You will lose, but aside from that, what sort of even reasonably educated person believes in a scientific hypothesis without the first piece of actual evidence in support of it?...What sort of reasonably educated person doesn't wonder why he is unable to even provide a single scrap of observed, measured, quantified evidence to support a hypothesis that is about an observable, measurable, quantifiable entity like the atmosphere?




RealDave said:


> But hey, keep standing on the sidelines & throwing stones.  According to you, you can call MMGW false with absolutely no proof.  Where the fuck is your data, Mr PhD in Dumbassology?    Where is your scientific method?



Sorry realdave, but it is you who is on the sidelines...it is you who is throwing impotent little pebbles rather than bitch slapping me with that single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...


It has become very evident over the past page or two of talking with you that logic isn't your best thing...and perhaps not your thing at all since you seem to engage in at least one logical fallacy per post....pretty pathetic but I am going to try and help you out with a bit of logic regarding your request for evidence that we are not altering the global climate.


*Evidence of absence *is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist.

Per the traditional aphorism, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", positive evidence of this kind is distinct from a lack of evidence or ignorance[1] of that which should have been found already, had it existed.[2] In this regard Irving Copi writes:

*In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.*

*— Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95*


> My data is your abject lack of it.  If the hypothesis had any merit at all, you could provide at least one piece of real data to support it...you can't.  I can and have provided actual data demonstrating that there is nothing unusual going on in our climate...I have provided real data that shows that the present is actually considerably cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years...I can provide data to support my claims, and at this point, I can provide post after post after post of data from our conversation demonstrating that you can't even provide a single piece of data that supports your hypothesis over natural variability.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 10, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Welcome to climate "science"  Data?We don't need no stinking data! we have consensus!



Yeah...97% of scientists....oh wait 97 of scientists surveyed (unscientifically....the irony is incredible) say that !


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 10, 2017)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Welcome to climate "science"  Data?We don't need no stinking data! we have consensus!
> ...



75/77......very serious!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 10, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


What happened to the other 16,944 papers?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 10, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



Probably destroyed.
Something to do with the force field preventing photons emitted by cooler matter from striking warmer matter.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 10, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You really don't understand why cooler matter can not warm a warmer object..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Toddster believes in the magic as well...and believes that objects such as photons (assuming there is any such thing as a photon) must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics...Guess he also thinks that rocks must be intelligent enough to know which way to fall when dropped.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 10, 2017)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Welcome to climate "science"  Data?We don't need no stinking data! we have consensus!
> ...



Did they scrutinize Mann's data?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 10, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Before we discuss warming, are you saying the photon can hit the warmer matter?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*believes that objects such as photons (assuming there is any such thing as a photon) must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics*

And you believe the laws of physics requires photons that can sense the temperature of matter across both space and time.


----------



## polarbear (Jul 10, 2017)

aoxomoxoa said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > aoxomoxoa said:
> ...


*"They are  coming,  Bill Gates' company is testing a prototype in China. "*
Is testing? "Is" means he* is doing* it...but he is not...he is hoping to...actually it's even more tentative than hoping, he said* China* might:.( not him )...
Bill Gates says China is the best place to pursue next-generation nuclear power




The whole thing is nothing more than a clever tax evasion scheme that's why in China where it is beyond scrutiny...and if it turns out as a nothing burger it was China....and not Gates.
He is a slick lawyer and nothing else
This reactor is as bogus as the cold fusion fake news,  all of them turned out to be a scam.
Terra power claims to use depleted *U238 as a fuel* but if you look at their "reactor" which so far is only a Bill Gates Microsoft Windows paintbrush jpeg it turns out that they need U235 to as they say "kickstart" the reaction.
If you knew anything about physics then you would also know that U238 is not a fuel because it takes over 1 MeV to split it and there are not enough Neutrons produced by that fission to continue a chain reaction.
The only thing spent Uranium is good for is for armor penetrating ammo, trim weights or sailboat keels.
It can also be used to make Plutonium in breeder reactors that in turn can produce power which has been done for quite some time...and has nothing to do with this so called TWReaction.
It's just another scam riding piggyback on the main scam and neither one has any proof of concept, not just that but the mother of all scams outright refuses to disclose the data and prefers to face contempt of court charges. The only difference between Bill Gates and Michael Mann are 84 billion dollars he ripped off , but in the scam&swindle category it's too close to call it, Fck you people are gullible fools !!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 11, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Didn't Einstein discover that time stops at the speed of light? How then does a photon experience time?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 11, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



It is also said that photons exist simultaneously at every point along their path...so to a photon, the distance to anywhere is zero, and the time to get there is zero....that being the case, they are already at the cooler area before they leave the warmer area....


----------



## Markle (Jul 11, 2017)

RealDave said:


> The experiment had two containers. One got more CO2.
> 
> Man has changed the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.



Interesting reading!

*Is the Airborne Fraction of Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Increasing?*
ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

[…]

To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.

Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide increasing?


----------



## Markle (Jul 11, 2017)

RealDave said:


> What is your plan for the waste?



As you should know it was petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama who halted work on the Yucca Repository after billions of dollars had already been spent. 

It is now eight years behind where it was when President Obama took office and he halted construction.  About a month ago, the Republic Congress voted to begin work on it again so all the nuclear waste piling up at dozens of locations in our country can be transported to a safe storage facility.


----------



## peach174 (Jul 11, 2017)

RealDave said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



LOL
Smart people?
We haven't had any smart people for the last 50 years!!


----------



## SSDD (Jul 11, 2017)

Markle said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > What is your plan for the waste?
> ...



Now come on...be fair.  Every good liberal knows that it was Bush's fault that obama halted work on the Yucca Repository.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 11, 2017)

peach174 said:


> LOL
> Smart people?
> We haven't had any smart people for the last 50 years!!



All liberals believe that government attracts the best and brightest...demonstrating that liberals don't know jack.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 11, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Photons are smart....because they don't experience time?
How does that let them predict the future and measure temperatures across the universe?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*that being the case, they are already at the cooler area before they leave the warmer area....*

That must be the reason they travel from the cooler surface of the Sun to the much hotter corona.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 11, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Hit?  YES

Retain/absorbe and have effect?  NO


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 11, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


The corona itself defies our laws of physics, so how can we confidently claim that we know what takes place there


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 11, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



They hit but aren't absorbed? Why not?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 11, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*The corona itself defies our laws of physics*

How so?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 11, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That must be the reason they travel from the cooler surface of the Sun to the much hotter corona.



If you are an entity that doesn't experience distance or time, you don't "travel" in any way that relates to us, and you don't have to "predict" anything.  I know it is hard to wrap such a little mind around, but if you accept the existence of photons, you must also accept their state of being...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > That must be the reason they travel from the cooler surface of the Sun to the much hotter corona.
> ...



*you don't have to "predict" anything*

Right, that's how they know the temperature of matter, billions of years in the future, billions of light years away.

*if you accept the existence of photons, you must also accept their state of being...*

No one else accepts your photon fantasy, why should I?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 11, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Seriously?  It's 200 times hotter than the supposed heat source.


----------



## IanC (Jul 11, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Hahahaha. It's all relative.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 11, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Great. Why do you feel that violates any laws of physics?

And more importantly, why can we see the Sun's surface (that means we see photons from the surface) if "cool matter photons" never travel toward, let alone through,  hotter matter?


----------



## IanC (Jul 11, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Mathematically it could be true. Just like there could be more than 3 physical dimensions.

A long time ago I read a paper on how bees dance to show other bees the direction of food. It makes perfect sense if you consider it a shadow in four dimensional space.


----------



## IanC (Jul 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > That must be the reason they travel from the cooler surface of the Sun to the much hotter corona.
> ...




The reference frame for speed of light objects is different than our own. 

That said, in our reference frame light has a finite speed, and takes time to travel.

Then again, it is hard to make magnetism and electric force understandable without a timeless, distanceless photon. Virtual photons working under uncertainty rules and carrying force are fundamentally different than plain jane photons that only carry energy.


----------



## IanC (Jul 11, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Emissivity. Most of the Sun's surface radiation travels through the Corona unaffected. The Earth also has a high energy, high temperature component to its atmosphere. But it is so rarified that it would be considered an almost perfect vacuum on the surface.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 11, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



What powers the corona, magic beans?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 11, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> What powers the corona, magic beans?



Magnetic re-connection seems to be the best theory explaining it.

If you've got a point somewhere, you should probably state it. If you don't, you look like you're just trolling.

NASA has one satellite cluster in Earth's magnetic field exploring how magnetic reconnection works around Earth. There's definitely a large energy transfer involved with it.

Magnetospheric Multiscale About MMS


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 11, 2017)

IanC said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



*Most of the Sun's surface radiation travels through the Corona unaffected.*

Without violating the 2nd Law. Amazing!

*The Earth also has a high energy, high temperature component to its atmosphere.*

And photons from the cooler surface still manage to escape into space. Thankfully.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 11, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



How does any possible source impact the "smart photons don't move toward hotter matter" theory?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jul 11, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



magic beans

can every buddy remember when past prezbo Obama

promised the world "Magic solar energy Beans"

to solve our fossil fuel crisis 

--LOL


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 11, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The correct answer was, "I literally don't have the first idea what powers the corona"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 11, 2017)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > What powers the corona, magic beans?
> ...



Magnetic re-connection is just another way of saying, "the corona is there and we literally have no explanation whatsoever as to what powers it"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 11, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



I have literally no idea how the corona's power source has anything to do with SSDD's smart photon claims.

Please explain how any particular power source allows photons to travel from cooler to hotter, while leaving SSDD's theory intact.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


  Great plan that Yucca Mountain.

Lets haul nuclear waste across the country.  Nothing bad could happen then, right?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 11, 2017)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



As opposed to letting it stack up in warehouses?...good plan.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 11, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Will you first acknowledge that given our current understanding of physics, the Suns corona should not be anywhere near as hot as it is?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 11, 2017)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



Have you seen the containers they transport it in?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 11, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Ok.
How does that save SSDD's theory?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 11, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I have no idea. You picked the one anomalous area in the Universe where our laws of physics completely breakdown.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 11, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Ohhh....there is only one instance where photons can go from cooler to warmer, the surface of the Sun.

You believe that photons can look into the distant future, into distant space before "deciding" to be emitted?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jul 11, 2017)

spooky action at a distance


----------



## RealDave (Jul 11, 2017)

jon_berzerk said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So, you think solar has not made any progress?

Even China is producing a lot of electricity by solar.

Try pulling your head of of El Cheeto's ass once in a while.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



If we have containers safe enough to travel by truck or rail, they must be safe enough to keep on site,.

How about we quit producing the shit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 11, 2017)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Or we could build reactors that use it for fuel........


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 11, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Photons aren't bound by our fiction of time


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jul 11, 2017)

RealDave said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




*you leftard fuckheads* are all alike

where the fuck did i say solar energy has not made advances

currently my shop and both garages run completely on solar energy

with the grid as back up within a year or so

the house will be on my power plant as well

so i cant say this strong enough

go fuck yourself shit for brains


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 11, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



So they can see the future?


----------



## IanC (Jul 11, 2017)

jon_berzerk said:


> spooky action at a distance




Yes, spooky action at a distance.

But only for the type of photon that carries force instead of just energy.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2017)

IanC said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > spooky action at a distance
> ...


Still talking about them as if they were real...and as if you had the slightest idea of what they are doing at any particular time...

I think you are completely incapable of separating real from imaginary.  There is a name for that....look it up.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 12, 2017)

jon_berzerk said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...




You appeared to be attacking Obama for pushing solar energy.  True or not true?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2017)

RealDave said:


> You appeared to be attacking Obama for pushing solar energy.  True or not true?



Have you perhaps started wondering why you couldn't find a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability, or aren't you smart enough to wonder about things like that?


----------



## IanC (Jul 12, 2017)

RealDave said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




I think more people should have attacked Obama for choosing Holdren as his scientific advisor.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 12, 2017)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > You appeared to be attacking Obama for pushing solar energy.  True or not true?
> ...


No.  I've read & seen enough.

1)  The greenhouse effect is proven science
2)  Have you seen any grafts should our rise in average global temperatures.
3)  Have you seen the charts of the From for CO2?
4)  Have you seen the stat that says global emissions of greenhouse gases the past three decades is more than the past two centuries?
5) What natural phenomenon  are you claim did this?

I don't sit around with my thumb up my ass, ignore the scientific literature,  and wonder about things.  I research & read & find out.


----------



## IanC (Jul 12, 2017)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




You can never read and see enough.

Your post is somewhat garbled but I think I get the gist.

Do you know the calculated increased surface temperature for doubling CO2? 

Do you know why that figure is turned into something like 3C or more in climate models?

Do you know that climate sensitivity estimates for doubling CO2 have dropped considerably in the last decade?

Why don't the climate models reflect this drop?


The figures for catastrophic AGW used in making predictions of doom do not match the reality of the data, even with the ongoing 'adjustments' to any dataset that is showing embarrassing results.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 12, 2017)

IanC said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 I guess you think that CO2 is the sole factor in the climate.

Otherwise you would not be sofa king stupid top think that each change in CO2 has to cause an exact, calculated change to the ave temperature.

The greenhouse effect is just one factor.  It could be that any warming by the greenhouse effect is counter balanced by a factor that would normally have a cooling effect.

I see you now change it to catastrophic AGW.  Really?  You think that a warming of 2C means nothing bad happens?   

Models change as factors change.  You can't go back & use a 1970 model & claim "OMG OMG look how off it was".

AGW is real.  The effects will not be good.  The effects could be catastrophic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 12, 2017)

RealDave said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



*The greenhouse effect is just one factor. It could be that any warming by the greenhouse effect is counter balanced by a factor that would normally have a cooling effect.*

Wow, you don't sound like a dumbass here.
Did someone smart hack you account?

*I see you now change it to catastrophic AGW.*

If it's not catastrophic, why do warmers want us to waste...err...invest 10s of trillions to fix it?


----------



## IanC (Jul 12, 2017)

RealDave said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




The Greenhouse Effect is real. The CO2 component of the Greenhouse Effect is real, and calculated to be about 1C/doubling.

Climate sensitivity has gone from over 3C to less than 2C in the last decade, and is still dropping.

The IPCC commissioned a report that found no attribution of weather extremes to CO2 and its warming influence.

So far the only things that can be blamed on CO2 are increased crop yields and greening of the planet.

Predictions of the future are still made from models that produce 3C of warming for 2xCO2. The models are obviously wrong, they should be fixed to realign with reality


----------



## mamooth (Jul 12, 2017)

IanC said:


> Climate sensitivity has gone from over 3C to less than 2C in the last decade, and is still dropping.



Nobody says sensitivity is < 2C, being that reality flatly contradicts such a claim.

Half a doubling of CO2 has caused 1.0C of warming.

Therefore, transient climate sensitivity is 2.0C, 

Total sensitivity has to be significantly higher than transient sensitivity, so it must be significantly above 2.0C.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 12, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Who said tens of trillions?  On what????

Non catastrophic does not mean it is all good.  Are you really that stupid? 

I cut my emissions by more than 50% & save money in the process.

How much do you think it will cost to remedy the effects of higher ocean levels in our coastal cities & military bases?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2017)

RealDave said:


> 1)  The greenhouse effect is proven science



Sorry guy, but not even close.  Hell, you can't even come up with a single shred of observed, measured, quantified data that supports AGW over natural variability.  Pick a bit of "proven" science and if you look, you won't be able to avoid the observed, measured data that supports the science...that is how it got to be proven...not a single piece of observed, measured, data supporting AGW over natural variability.



RealDave said:


> 2)  Have you seen any grafts should our rise in average global temperatures.



A change in temperature is evidence of a change in temperature...not evidence of what caused the change.



RealDave said:


> 3)  Have you seen the charts of the From for CO2?



Sure...they show CO2 is increasing...although, research is being published that strongly suggests that the increase has little to do with us...and still, not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified data that demonstrates that additional CO2 does anything...there is still the fact that ice ages began with atmospheric CO2 multiple times higher than it is now.



RealDave said:


> 4)  Have you seen the stat that says global emissions of greenhouse gases the past three decades is more than the past two centuries?



Meaningless unless you have some sort of actual observed, measured, quantified data demonstrating that our CO2, or any CO2 is altering the global climate....got any?...Of course you don't because there is none.



RealDave said:


> 5) What natural phenomenon  are you claim did this?



Well, theres the thing real dave, and it should be ringing alarm bells in your head..and it would if you weren't such a dupe...we know so little about the climate, that we can't put a finger on any of the huge swings in climate that the earth has experienced over the ages...We have ideas, and hypotheses, but no real idea of what causes the climate to change.  The idea that this time it is CO2 but all the other times over billions of years that saw far more change than we have seen it was something else is idiot thinking...actually, it is just idiocy and doesn't involve thinking at all.



RealDave said:


> I don't sit around with my thumb up my ass, ignore the scientific literature,  and wonder about things.  I research & read & find out.



Of course you do.  If you were paying attention, then you would be well aware that there is absolutely zero observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.  You are apparently unaware of that fact precisely because you sit around with your thumb up your ass and ignore the scientific literature...the only thing you pay attention to, apparently is what the media tells you...and your alarmist wackjob political cronies.

And the idea that you have researched is both laughable and a bald faced lie...had you done any actual research, and actually seen any observed, measured, quantified data supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, you would have no problem bringing it here to give me a big old bitch slap with....but you haven't, because you can't, because you have never seen any such data, because you have never bothered to look at the literature...you just talk...and make pronouncements of your faith...actual evidence...you don't have it and have never seen it, and apparently aren't bright enough to wonder why you have never seen it.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2017)

RealDave said:


> I guess you think that CO2 is the sole factor in the climate.



CO2 is not a factor at all beyond its contribution to the total mass of the atmosphere...unless, of course, you would like to demonstrate that it is with some observed, measured, quantified data demonstrating that it is.



RealDave said:


> Otherwise you would not be sofa king stupid top think that each change in CO2 has to cause an exact, calculated change to the ave temperature.



Guess you must be the king of the sofa kings if you believe CO2 causes warming when ice ages have begun with atmospheric CO2 levels in excess of 2000ppm.



RealDave said:


> The greenhouse effect is just one factor.  It could be that any warming by the greenhouse effect is counter balanced by a factor that would normally have a cooling effect.



Got any actual measurements of a greenhouse effect?  Can you quantify it and support the figure with observed, measured data?  Of course you can't...Got any explanation why the calculations for the greenhouse effect don't get you even close to the temperature of any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere, and don't work here either without an ad hoc (that means made up) fudge factor?  Any idea?



RealDave said:


> Models change as factors change.  You can't go back & use a 1970 model & claim "OMG OMG look how off it was".



If the understanding of the physics of the movement of energy through our system was even accurate in the least, the models would require very little adjustment...they are failing miserably, because they still view CO2 as a player in the climate.  It isn't.  The idea of a radiative greenhouse effect in an atmosphere that is dominated by a ridiculously wide margin by convection is at least as stupid as it sounds...



RealDave said:


> AGW is real.  The effects will not be good.  The effects could be catastrophic.



Got a single shred...just one little bit...just one small piece of observed, measured quantified data to support that claim?...just one?....even just a little one?  Anything at all?  Of course you don't...and it seems that you aren't bright enough to wonder why.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 12, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


*
Who said tens of trillions? *

The IPCC said $1.9 trillion a year for 40 years.

*On what????*

Windmills, payoffs to poor countries, private plane trips to fancy meetings for bigwigs.
*
Are you really that stupid?*

No. I'm not stupid enough to waste $76 trillion for a non-catastrophe.

*I cut my emissions by more than 50% & save money in the process.*

Excellent! Stop trying to waste my money on stupid things that won't work.

*How much do you think it will cost to remedy the effects of higher ocean levels*

The same that it would cost if it had nothing to do with fossil fuels.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 12, 2017)

mamooth said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Climate sensitivity has gone from over 3C to less than 2C in the last decade, and is still dropping.
> ...



So when CO2 was 5000PPM the temperature 40C warmer?


----------



## IanC (Jul 12, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400. Three and a half doubling. 

Less than four degrees @ 1C per 2xCO2

Less than seven degrees @ the 1.6-2.0 recent climate sensitivity estimates based on real data.

Less than eleven degrees @ the IPCC median range of 3.0 

And we couldn't reach 5000 ppm CO2 if we burnt all the fossil fuel reserves tomorrow.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jul 12, 2017)

RealDave said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




solar energy is not the end all ya stupid dope 

i have a back up system 

i attacked obama energy policies because they sucked


----------



## RealDave (Jul 12, 2017)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > 1)  The greenhouse effect is proven science
> ...


----------



## RealDave (Jul 12, 2017)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Keep acting like the 5 year old brat with their hands over their years screaming.

As for calling me a liar, fuck you.

The date is out there.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 12, 2017)

jon_berzerk said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...


 Look fuckboy, I never said solar was the only answer.


----------



## IanC (Jul 12, 2017)

We have lost the topic of this thread.

M Mann testified to the NSA that he never calculated the Pearson variance (ie, the R and r^2) for his hockey stick. This is the most basic of all the tests for significance. Even if he didn't use it in his paper you can be sure he calculated it. The reason for lying about it? The r^2 was basically zero for several centuries, and low for the rest. He lied to save himself from the embarrassment of acknowledging crappy results. That is one example out of many that show his lack of integrity.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jul 12, 2017)

RealDave said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




i dont really give damn what you said 

solar energy is not even close to the answer 

the fact remains that obamas energy policies sucked


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Keep acting like the 5 year old brat with their hands over their years screaming.



And still nothing more than a weak logical fallacy in response.  This is a scientific topic...actual science requires observed, measured, quantified data to support hypotheses...there is none that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

And as to acting like a 5 year old....I am afraid that is you dave.  Adults admit when they can't support their side of an argument...5 year olds keep on howling what they believe without regard to any actual support for what they believe.  You keep claiming there is evidence and that you have seen it....all the while being completely unable to bring even one small scrap of it here.



RealDave said:


> As for calling me a liar, fuck you.



Just calling it like I see it...you claim to have done the research...if you had, one of two things would be happening here rather than your pathetically weak and impotent argument composed mostly of logical fallacies.  had you done the research and paid attention to the literature you would:

A)  realize that there is not the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability..in which case you would a) be a grown up and acknowledge that you also have not seen any or b) slink away because you know that continuing to take part in a discussion about evidence that you can't produce would just make you look more and more stupid with every post.

B) in an alternate universe operating on different physics, you might be able to provide observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting AGW over natural variability...although in that universe, this discussion wouldn't be happening with me, because I would have already seen the evidence and wouldn't be a skeptic...or at least as skeptical.



RealDave said:


> The date is out there.



No realdave...it isn't...and continuing to behave like a 5 year old brat with your hands over your ears screaming that it is, isn't going to make your case.  If it is there, and you have seen it, then bring a single piece of it here...since it isn't, you might try acting like an adult and admitting that you can't find it regardless of what you wish.  That tactic is known as facing reality.  Try it some time.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Keep acting like the 5 year old brat with their hands over their years screaming.
> ...



Your probl;em is you can see past your ignorance.  There is plenty of data.  

You can't grasp that the greenhouse effect is proven science.

You can;'t grasp that more CO2 =>  More greenhouse effect  => warming temperature.

Yet you keep running through the streets screaming " OMG OMG OMG no data  no data  OMG OMG OMG" 

Furthermore, you can't grasp the there are many factors that go into determining our climate.

What is causing our warming?  I suspect you;ll tell me contrails or cell phones.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 13, 2017)

jon_berzerk said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...


----------



## mamooth (Jul 13, 2017)

IanC said:


> We have lost the topic of this thread.



I agree. The topic is that there's zero evidence to support the claim of the OP, yet every denier declares it's true anyways, either out of pure faith, or because they're afraid to go against the other cultists by telling the truth.



> M Mann testified to the NSA



NSA? That makes no sense. Try "the House Energy and Commerce Committee". The point? Your version of reality has issues.



> that he never calculated the Pearson variance (ie, the R and r^2) for his hockey stick. This is the most basic of all the tests for significance. Even if he didn't use it in his paper you can be sure he calculated it. The reason for lying about it? The r^2 was basically zero for several centuries, and low for the rest. He lied to save himself from the embarrassment of acknowledging crappy results. That is one example out of many that show his lack of integrity.



I know that smell. It's the fetid smell of a McIntyre conspiracy theory, twisted even further into insanity by Ian.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jul 13, 2017)

RealDave said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


--LOL


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Your probl;em is you can see past your ignorance.  There is plenty of data.



Sorry realdave...the only one with a problem here is you...and the problem is that you can't see your own ignorance.  And if there is "plenty" of data that supports AGW over natural variability, then what is preventing you from bringing just a single piece of it here and giving me a good bitch slap with it?  Just one piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports AGW over natural variaibility...just one.



RealDave said:


> You can't grasp that the greenhouse effect is proven science.



And you can't provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data to support hat statement...not even one.  Tell me realdave, how did this get to be proven science with no actual data to support the claim?



RealDave said:


> You can;'t grasp that more CO2 =>  More greenhouse effect  => warming temperature.



Without observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of it, what you are claiming is just opinion...I could certainly grasp that chain of events if there were some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence to support it...there isn't...so what I am left trying to grasp is how people could be so stupid as to accept such a claim with no actual evidence that supports it.



RealDave said:


> Yet you keep running through the streets screaming " OMG OMG OMG no data  no data  OMG OMG OMG"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## jc456 (Jul 13, 2017)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > From.a engineering stand point and technical stand point
> ...


nice nothing burger.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 13, 2017)

RealDave said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


dude, too special.  all without evidence of any problem  wow.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 13, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


fact is you have no facts.  thanks for playing though.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 13, 2017)

RealDave said:


> aoxomoxoa said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


no, we are persistent to keep this about the facts.  Let us know when you have one.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 13, 2017)

mamooth said:


> aoxomoxoa said:
> 
> 
> > So then you'll be all for a red team blue team exercise ,  however the likes of Michael Mann are not so  happy.
> ...


yeah peer review with a nudge, nudge, wink, wink with it.  Yeppers, how is that climategate anyway?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 13, 2017)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


one has nothing if one uses insults for an argument.  just saying.  Post some facts.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 13, 2017)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


a typical response from someone with nothing to debate with.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 13, 2017)

mamooth said:


> aoxomoxoa said:
> 
> 
> > So then you'll be all for a red team blue team exercise ,  however the likes of Michael Mann are not so  happy.
> ...



Since Mann won't produce the data, what did they "peer review"?


----------



## RealDave (Jul 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## RealDave (Jul 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



IPCC:  
Four global warming impacts alone—hurricane damage,
real estate losses, energy costs, and water costs—will come with a price tag of 1.8
percent of U.S. GDP, or almost $1.9 trillion annually (in today’s dollars) by 2100

You fucking idiot.  The 1.9 trillion is the cost of doing nothing.

My God you are the absolute dumbest asshole on the planet.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 13, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


*
Four global warming impacts alone—hurricane damage*

What hurricanes? We've added lots of CO2 since Katrina, where did all the massive hurricanes go?

*real estate losses*

What losses?

*energy costs*

Lower in the winter.

*and water costs*

I thought global warming was going to give us more rain?

*The 1.9 trillion is the cost of doing nothing.*

No it isn't, idiot.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 13, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Mann was the lead author of the Third IPCC, can we safely conclude that it too was based on no evidence besides one tree ring?


----------



## IanC (Jul 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Yup. How much is the benefit from increased crop yields and resistance to drought?


----------



## RealDave (Jul 13, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


That's right, the scientists only looked at one tree ring.  Asshole.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I posted the quote regarding 1.9 trillion.  You were too fucking stupid to understand it.

Global warming does not necessarily mean the temps every day gop up 2 degrees C.  

Real estate losses from rising oceans.

Funny but there was this storm in NJ.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 13, 2017)

RealDave said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Who are these "scientists"?

Mann finally dumps all his AGW Data


----------



## IanC (Jul 13, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Yes. Phil Jones' infamous 'delete all AR4 correspondence' email dates to this time. Mann said he never deleted them, although he was never forced to provide them or prove that they hadn't been removed and replaced at a later date. He did pass the message along to Wahl, who did delete. When Wahl admitted to deleting his AR4 correspondence to the NASA Inspector General, they asked him why he never said anything in the past. He responded, "No one ever asked". 

There were about half a dozen Inquiries into Climategate. No one even asked the most basic question to the crime of conspiracy to the FOI.

Many say the Inquiries exonerated the scientists. I say bullshit, they were nothing but whitewashes that avoided any areas of investigation that could prove troublesome. Phil Jones' wasn't even asked if he sent the email.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 13, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Since Mann won't produce the data, what did they "peer review"?



Given how often it's been debunked, why do almost all deniers keep telling that lie?

The two sides are totally different. The rational side condemns lying, while the deniers kick people out of the cult if they won't lie.


----------



## IanC (Jul 13, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Yup. YAD061 provided about 1/3 of the northern hemisphere impact. A five sigma outlier out of a hundred trees. My experience in QC says that is not good statistical practice, and it produced shoddy science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 13, 2017)

IanC said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



You can't talk about benefits.
Don't even mention fewer winter deaths.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 13, 2017)

RealDave said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann is an asshole.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 13, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



*posted the quote regarding 1.9 trillion.*

Yes, I understand the error you posted.
*
Real estate losses from rising oceans.*

What rise? Where?

*Funny but there was this storm in NJ.*

One storm since 2005? DERP!


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2017)

RealDave said:


> IPCC:
> Four global warming impacts alone—hurricane damage,
> real estate losses, energy costs, and water costs—will come with a price tag of 1.8
> percent of U.S. GDP, or almost $1.9 trillion annually (in today’s dollars) by 2100



And the wait continues for that elusive single piece of observed, measured quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.



RealDave said:


> You fucking idiot.  The 1.9 trillion is the cost of doing nothing.



Got a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports that claim?



RealDave said:


> My God you are the absolute dumbest asshole on the planet.



No...the dumbest would be the one who has fallen for a doom and gloom scam that doesn't have the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting it.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2017)

RealDave said:


> I posted the quote regarding 1.9 trillion.  You were too fucking stupid to understand it.
> 
> Global warming does not necessarily mean the temps every day gop up 2 degrees C.
> 
> ...



Still waiting for a single shred of observed, measured, quantified data that supports your believe in AGW...just one.  What's the matter real dave?  Can't come up with even one piece of real data?  Tell me, how stupid do you have to be to believe in such a piece of pseudoscientific bullshit even after it becomes abundantly clear that you can't provide any actual evidence to support it?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 13, 2017)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Since Mann won't produce the data, what did they "peer review"?
> ...



So, Mann complied with the court order to turn over his data?

Really?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 13, 2017)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


You really are an ignorant piece of shit..

Science is about data and observations which either prove or disprove the hypothesis.  You keep babbling on about consensus and ignore the fact you have no observed empirical evidence to support your position. This tells me that you are a political hack and nothing more..  Be a good little left wing puke, take your schitck and fuck off or you can grow up and admit you don't know shit.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 13, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



That's why he was found in contempt today and is now going to have to pay all attorney fees and be disgraced as a liar in Canada.....  Mark Styne is going to have a hay day with the courts finding of criminal liability for intentional deceptions and malicious filing of law suits to hide this fact..  LMAO


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 13, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


LOL  Mann threw out the other 18 samples that said his findings were crap and only published the one that he believed in... I wonder if he had a payment pending? (he did, about 2.9 million in pending grant funding to Penn state at the time)


----------



## IanC (Jul 13, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...









Unfortunately, the climate consensus just keeps making up data to support their story. Here is five years of adjustments to Maine's temperature data. What will it look like five more years down the road?


----------



## RealDave (Jul 14, 2017)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



I see you are once again duped.  

NOAA explains why adjustments are made. 

"_Stations have moved to different locations over the past 150 years, most more than once. They have changed instruments from mercury thermometers to electronic sensors, and have changed the time they take temperature measurements from afternoon to morning. Cities have grown up around stations, and some weather stations are not ideally located. All of these issues introduce inconsistencies into the temperature record."

No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine | Dana Nuccitelli

MMGW deniers are the absolute dumbest people on the planet._


----------



## RealDave (Jul 14, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



"OMG OMG OMG OMG  NO DATA!!!! NO DATA !!! OMG OMG OMG"

Ha ha ha ha ha.

You people are fucking morons.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Spoken like the asshole you have proven youserlf to be.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2017)

RealDave said:


> "OMG OMG OMG OMG  NO DATA!!!! NO DATA !!! OMG OMG OMG"
> 
> Ha ha ha ha ha.



More logical fallacy.  Do you understand the difference between logic and irrationality?  Responding with a logical fallacy is irrational.  The logical and rational response to someone stating that there is no actual data with which to support your position is to provide the very data they are claiming you don't have...unless of course, you actually have no data, in which case, your own position is both illogical and irrational.



RealDave said:


> You people are fucking morons.



And considering the fact that you can't provide the first piece of observed, measured, quantified data with which to support your position, alas realdave, the moron is you.  Asking for data, contrary to your opinion does not make one a moron...holding a position for which you have no data in support makes you a moron.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Spoken like the asshole you have proven youserlf to be.



Guess you never saw him speak..especially when he is being confronted with his flawed data...he behaves much like you...condesending, responding with logical fallacy, pretending to be able to support his position, but knowing full well that if he actually presents the data upon which is position is based, he will be laughed out of the room.

Just like you.


----------



## IanC (Jul 14, 2017)

RealDave said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




Are we supposed to believe that NOAA didn't know about station moves, etc, before 2012?

Most of the changes in that comparitor graph are to pre-1980 data. What new information has come to light during 2012-2017 that would entail making such large changes?

And what about the large changes that were made from 2007-2012? We were given the same excuses back then. 

And the changes between 1999-2007 weren't small either.

How long will it take before we can correctly 'interpret' the temperature readings written down decades ago?






These are global temp adjustments. Gotta love how they took Santer's climategate email about removing the 40's warming blip to heart.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 14, 2017)

IanC said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


  Actually, you are expected to believe scientists & not political/fossil fuel funded hacks.

Anyone who still believes the debunked climategate bullshit is a fucking moron.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Spoken like the asshole you have proven youserlf to be.
> ...



Go fuck yourself Mr " OMG OMG OMG wherte's the data".  The data has been shared amongst those who did the perr redview.

You worse than a little crybaby.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > "OMG OMG OMG OMG  NO DATA!!!! NO DATA !!! OMG OMG OMG"
> ...


I know way more about logic than you.

The idea you think there is no data makes me laugh.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Actually, you are expected to believe scientists & not political/fossil fuel funded hacks.



Actually realdave, you aren't supposed to believe anyone if they don't have a bucket full of actual data to back them up.  Tell me realdave, can' you think of a rational, scientifically valid reason for altering temperatures from 40, 50, even 100 years ago other than to make the temperatures of the present support a particular narrative?



RealDave said:


> Anyone who still believes the debunked climategate bullshit is a fucking moron.



Anyone who believes any scientific claim not backed up by observed, measured, quantified data is a f'ing moron...lets see the observed, measured, quantified data upon which your position is based dave?  Got any?  Of course you don't...guess that makes you a moron...question is....do you keep being a moron, or do you start to question why there doesn't seem to be any observed, measured, quantified data to slap me down with?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Go fuck yourself Mr " OMG OMG OMG wherte's the data".  The data has been shared amongst those who did the perr redview.



And what?...they locked it up to keep anyone from seeing it?  The interesting thing is that there is ample observed, measured, quantified data demonstrating that the AGW hypothesis is flawed, but not a single shred supporting it over natural variability.

Explain that mr clap your hands over your ears and yell as loud as you can to keep from hearing the truth.



RealDave said:


> You worse than a little crybaby.



So again..you think asking to see data to support a scientific claim is irrational?...and questioning why there is none available is a problem?  You are even further away from any sort of rational thinking than I thought you were.  Maybe you are every bit as stupid as you are acting...all this time and not even an attempt to provide some sort of observed, measured, quantified data to support your position.  have you known all along that there was none?...but believe anyway?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2017)

RealDave said:


> I know way more about logic than you.



Which, I suppose is the reason you answer every post with at least one logical fallacy?  You know as little about logic, and rational thinking as you do about climate science...which is next to nothing.



RealDave said:


> The idea you think there is no data makes me laugh.



The idea that you think there is data when you can't seem to produce even one shred just tells me that you are an ignorant dupe operating from a position of faith.  Lets see a single scrap of that data realdave...what's the matter...you know you will look even more stupid than you already do if you show us what passes for actual evidence in that little mind of yours?


----------



## RealDave (Jul 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, you are expected to believe scientists & not political/fossil fuel funded hacks.
> ...


 They have the data.  That's the part you are whining about.

There is measured data.   Those that did the peer review saw that date.

I have news, your asshat buddies  are complaining about adjustments to the raw data.  

Which one of you are lying?

Are there adjustments or is there no data.

Its a simple question.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 14, 2017)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



This is why I fully support totally zeroing out all funding for climate "research"


----------



## RealDave (Jul 14, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


  No, you do it because hour political leaders said they want to do it.

The rest is just an excuse for you to doom future generations because you are really that fucking stupid.


----------



## IanC (Jul 14, 2017)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




There is real, raw data available. I think there are reasonable adjustments that have to be made to that data to make it usable.

Some adjustments are somewhat easy to calculate, some are not.

UHI is not easy to calculate, but you would think the general direction if not the magnitude would be possible to discern. Most temperature dataset products have a net zero adjustment for UHI, BEST actually corrects recent temperature UP for UHI. Does that seem reasonable considering UHI is usually multiple degrees of warming for any city?

There are many things that could be corrected. For instance, a Stevenson screen is painted white. Every year the paint deteriorates, adding slightly to the temperature readings. After five years it gets repainted and five years of progressive warming is reversed in one day. Homogenization techniques catch the repainting and adjust the one time cooling but miss the five years of spurious warming. This is repeated every five years. Is it better to leave the readings alone except for obvious station moves or instrument change? I think so. Homogenization has added much of the warming trend.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2017)

RealDave said:


> They have the data.  That's the part you are whining about.



So they have it but are keeping it secret?  If that is the case, I still have to ask why you believe?



RealDave said:


> There is measured data.   Those that did the peer review saw that date.



Sure, there is measured data...hell there is observed, and quantified data...but zero observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.  Hell, for decades now poor dupes like you have been showing me measured data....hell if you hold a thermometer out your door you can get some measured data...but that data doesn't do anything to tell you what caused it...or why it changes...

I am not saying that there is no data...nor have I ever said anything like that...I have said that there is no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.  The fact that there is data doesn't mean that the data supports the hypothesis....



RealDave said:


> I have news, your asshat buddies  are complaining about adjustments to the raw data.



Guess you aren't even bright enough to understand the question being put to you....



RealDave said:


> Which one of you are lying?



Think real hard here realdave....can you even start to comprehend the difference between data...and data that supports a hypothesis...Do you think that data indicating a temperature change even begins to start to demonstrate that it supports a particular reason for the change.  I have a thermometer that read 55 degrees yesterday....today it reads 88 degrees.  So you know that there was a change...does that tell you anything at all about what caused the change?

What I am asking for is some observed, measured, quantified data that supports the claim that we are causing a change in the climate rather than the natural variability that has been going on forever...nothing happening within the climate now is in any way different from the natural variability that has been happening here since....ever.



RealDave said:


> Are there adjustments or is there no data.



Whoever said that there was no data?...I have said that there is no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.  That is key realdave.  I guess it is a difficult concept for you...but don't feel bad...most of your idiot warmer buds have the same problem...hell crick went on for days claiming that there was observed, measured, quantified data supporting AGW over natural variability...when he finally produced it, it was nothing but a temperature record with an assumption tacked on that we caused the change...the sort of data I am looking for is the sort that supports the claim that we are the cause of the change...if you don't have that, then all you have is what you believe...and climate science doesn't have the first scrap of actual observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that we are causing the climate to change rather than natural variability.



RealDave said:


> Its a simple question.



Apparently not for you realdave...you don't seem to be able to understand the difference between just data and data that actually supports a claim.  You seem to be satisfied to see a temperature record and then just accept someone explanation as to why the temperature might be changing without any actual evidence to support the reason they claim that it is changing.  Sorry realdave, but I am not that gullible...if you are going to claim that I am causing a thing...and that it is going to cost big bucks to fix, I am afraid that you are going to have to provide a bit more than that it is your opinion that I am the cause...I want some actual data that demonstrates that the change is something that I caused or something that would have happened whether I was here or not.

Now we know that the climate changed wildly before we ever walked the earth...and we know that it has changed wildly after we showed up and that it continues to change...what sort of evidence do you have that we are causing the change this time...actual evidence...not just your opinion...or your assumption...or your belief...actual evidence that supports the claim that we are causing the change and that it isn't just natural variability.  

Tell me realdave...are you able to even understand what I am asking?  Do I need crayons to draw you a wee picture?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2017)

RealDave said:


> No, you do it because hour political leaders said they want to do it.



No realdave...it is because unlike you, he is able to think for himself and see that there just isn't any real data that supports the claims being made.  He doesn't accept what anyone says unless they can provide some data to back their statements up...he isn't an uneducated dupe who can't really do much more than pick a political side and then accept what that side tells him to think.



RealDave said:


> The rest is just an excuse for you to doom future generations because you are really that fucking stupid.



So lets see the actual observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports your prediction of doom.  Or are you stupid enough to believe such fairy tales without seeing some actual evidence to support them?....never mind...of course you are...you prove it with every post.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 14, 2017)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


I believe no man who asks me for money or alter my lifestyle without evidence I'm responsible.  Data is required.  I haven't seen it, so I conclude there isn't any.  you are gullible and readily hand out your dollars without questions.  that's on you bubba.  for us, we need to see justification of money.  Right now, there has been very little if any sea rise, It's been colder in the Northern hemisphere over the years, the number of hurricanes has gone done dramatically rather than up as predicted.  So what we have seen are many predictions that haven't come true, and many humans who think asking questions to see data.


----------



## IanC (Jul 14, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Actually, you are expected to believe scientists & not political/fossil fuel funded hacks.
> 
> Anyone who still believes the debunked climategate bullshit is a fucking moron.




Who are these fossil fuel funded hacks?

I read both sides, and learn from both sides. I reject, or at least give less weight to conclusions that don't make sense to me.

The climategate emails are what they are. No one has denied that they are factual. Jones did call for AR4 correspondence to be deleted. Santer did ask for help in making the 40's warming blip go away. Mann and Jones did discuss how to keep skeptical papers out of publication. Etc,etc,etc.

Your choice is to believe the Grinch's version of events and his declared motives. My choice is to reject it.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 14, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> That's why he was found in contempt today and is now going to have to pay all attorney fees and be disgraced as a liar in Canada.....



Suuuuuuuuuure he was.

Billy, why do you bother making up such stupid shit, when you know everyone knows you're just making up stupid shit?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 14, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So, Mann complied with the court order to turn over his data?



Given that it's all freely available on the internet, obviously yes.

Data Sources

So, why are you making the lunatic claim that Mann has withheld data? Yes, yes, a crazy guy writing on the PSI conspiracy blog said so, but do you have any evidence that isn't faked?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 14, 2017)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So, Mann complied with the court order to turn over his data?
> ...



So why didn't Mann offer your B.S. website as " data"?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2017)

RealDave said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



You have empirical evidence to support your fantasy?  Produce it...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Mann's waiting for realdave to make it up and post it..


----------



## mamooth (Jul 14, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So why didn't Mann offer your B.S. website as " data"?



Stuff it, troll. You've been busted for lying about Mann, and now you're crying.

It won't matter, of course. You'll still keep lying. It's what commie cultists like you and Billy do. TheParty has told you to lie, so you lie.


----------



## IanC (Jul 14, 2017)

I have a strong feeling that discovery is asking for more than just the (complete) data and methodologies for Mann 98,99. I bet the AR4 correspondence that Jones asked to be deleted is also there. 

I must admit that I am impressed that the missing details have remained hidden for so long.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 15, 2017)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So why didn't Mann offer your B.S. website as " data"?
> ...



So you're saying the court got it wrong and Mann turned over the data?

You Warmers live in an alternate reality


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 15, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



mamooth is going to rescue his Messiah by running into court and showing the judge the website


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jul 15, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


they have too 

what other choice do they have


----------



## Crick (Jul 15, 2017)

Precisely what "missing details" would those be Ian?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2017)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So why didn't Mann offer your B.S. website as " data"?
> ...



Looks like you  are the one crying hairball..."stuff it troll"?  That sounds like a deer in the headlights response hairball...you didn't see that coming and don't have a rational response so you fling some dung instead.   Your typical knee jerk reaction.


----------



## IanC (Jul 15, 2017)

Crick said:


> Precisely what "missing details" would those be Ian?




Why do you expect me to answer your questions when you typically refuse to respond to my pointed inquiries?

If the details are missing, how would I know what they are?

Climategate 1.0 was eight years ago so the specifics are getting fuzzy but one area that stands out is attachments to emails. The emails were released but that did not include the attachments. Much of the controversy over Paleo data involved which versions of datasets we're being used. ie- the long running feud between McIntyre and Briffa over releasing Siberian treering data and identification. McIntyre knew a 'bait and switch' was going on but couldn't prove it until the Journal Phil Trans B finally forced Briffa to release the data years later. At which point the Climate Team said it was 'old news' and ignored the transgression.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 15, 2017)

IanC said:


> I have a strong feeling that discovery is asking for more than just the (complete) data and methodologies for Mann 98,99. I bet the AR4 correspondence that Jones asked to be deleted is also there.
> 
> I must admit that I am impressed that the missing details have remained hidden for so long.


Mann has used the tactic of Sue and then drag it out until the funds of your opponent run out and they quit.  He picked two fights that have ample funds to defend themselves and the guts to kick him in the nut sack repeatedly.

Mann did not expect the court to make him show the Data, Methods, and communications in order to prove he was maligned and that the statements made about him were untrue.  Now he is ordered to do so and he is screaming like a little bitch and refuses to comply with the courts order to produce.

In Canada, this results in the charge of deception to create malicious court actions (both civilly and criminally).  Mann's refusal to produce the information has made him a criminal, guilty of deception to create malicious court actions. A couple of my friends in Canada tell me he could be required to pay all attorney fees, all court costs, and be required to pay punitive damages (all of which have been asked for in this case).  He will be labeled a liar and barred from any further court actions on the matter.  Mann is FUCKED as this can now be used as legal precedent in the Styne case as well.


----------



## IanC (Jul 15, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I have a strong feeling that discovery is asking for more than just the (complete) data and methodologies for Mann 98,99. I bet the AR4 correspondence that Jones asked to be deleted is also there.
> ...




Yup. Mann is the new Al Gore. Except that Gore actually did win a Nobel Prize.


----------



## Manonthestreet (Jul 15, 2017)

but its settled science.......no need for pesky facts........


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 15, 2017)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Mann was found in contempt on Tuesday this week (found guilty of ethical misconduct).  The court will hand down its rulings on what Mann will be required to pay and what the damages are going to be next month.

Mann will be unable to sue anyone in Canada on this topic again and his credibility as a witness in any cases will be ZERO.  Mann shot himself in the feet on this now. He is now labeled a liar and untrustworthy. Many of us knew that already but it is now a matter of court record.  A precedent that is going to nuke all of his suits in the US now-convicted of intentional deception and malicious prosecution. LMAO  So much for being an ethical scientist..


----------



## mamooth (Jul 15, 2017)

Just a reminder that temperature adjustments have made the warming look smaller, so the denier conspiracy theory about adjustments is flagrantly dishonest and stupid.

The two sides are completely different. The rational people are scrupulously honest. The deniers almost always lie,


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 15, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Just a reminder that temperature adjustments have made the warming look smaller, so the denier conspiracy theory about adjustments is flagrantly dishonest and stupid.
> 
> The two sides are completely different. The rational people are scrupulously honest. The deniers almost always lie,


Making the the warming of the 1930 disappear and exaggerating today's warming are not ethical or warranted changes...  You keep posting this Karl Et Al lie and we are tired of showing you a liar..


----------



## mamooth (Jul 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> ooks like you  are the one crying hairball..."stuff it troll"?  That sounds like a deer in the headlights response hairball...you didn't see that coming and don't have a rational response so you fling some dung instead.   Your typical knee jerk reaction.



You're lying about Mann. You know it, we know it, everyone knows it.

None of the denier cultists has been able to show any evidence backing up their kook claims about Mann. They're all lying. They all know they're lying, they know we know, but they still lie.

Why? Because that's what their cult expects of them. They'd rather humiliate themselves by telling such stupid lies than not bleat along with the rest of the cult sheep. That's how devoted to the cult they are.

If any of the liars wishes to claim they're not lying, then they should prove it by posting the evidence to back up their loopy claims. You know, the exact same claims that they made 3 years ago, and just recently repeated almost word-for-word. Given that 3 years have passed, they don't have the excuse that it's "too recent". So they should post that evidence. If they're not lying, it should be easy for them to do. If they are lying, they'll just scream and cry at me now.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 15, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> making the the warming of the 1930 disappear and exaggerating today's warming are not ethical or warranted changes...  You keep post this lie and we are tired of showing you a liar..



That's another reason why the world now correctly defines you as the fanatical acolyte of a liars' cult.  Whenever you're presented with actual data that debunks your corrupt religious beliefs, you auto-deny it, screaming that reality is a conspiracy against you.

That's not just done by those as openly crazy as Billy and SSDD. Even the deniers who feign rationality now rely almost exclusively on the tactic of invoking their conspiracy theory whenever they see data that contradicts their religious beliefs.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2017)

mamooth said:


> You're lying about Mann. You know it, we know it, everyone knows it.



No hairball...what everyone knows is that once again, you are trying to defend the indefensible..and excuse the inexcusable...


----------



## mamooth (Jul 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> No hairball...what everyone knows is that once again, you are trying to defend the indefensible..and excuse the inexcusable...



So, chickenshit, where's your evidence about Mann refusing a court order?

Oh look, you don't have any.

That's because it's a fictional story. All deniers are expected to repeat that lie, so you repeat it.


----------



## depotoo (Jul 15, 2017)

Yep.  I remember at least 10 years ago there were maps showing all the weather stations in the US and world and how suddenly their numbers were being reduced.
This article talks about studying the original data sets vs the -adjusted- and what they have found.
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online

Distorted data? Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming


SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, you are expected to believe scientists & not political/fossil fuel funded hacks.
> ...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 15, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No hairball...what everyone knows is that once again, you are trying to defend the indefensible..and excuse the inexcusable...
> ...


You really don't know shit about this..



> The defendant in the libel trial, the 79-year-old Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball (above, right) is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann _*did*_ act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud. Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a “hoax.”



Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann Climate Change - Easton Spectator



> Adverse Inference Jury Instruction
> 
> Now, Mr. McConchie is billed as Canada’s top libel lawyer. So, he should know the consequences of his client’s failure to “produce all documents including computer codes” by the agreed deadline.
> 
> Of course, no judge has made any ruling on that issue – yet. This is because the court must wait until Ball’s lawyers have carefully fashioned a suitable remedy before they may rubber stamp it. What Tim Ball’s choice of remedy remains to be seen. The laws in British Columbia provide Ball with some powerful options. Not least of which is invoking the ‘adverse inference’ doctrine (a remedy to make a litigant whole again in the event the opposing party contemptuously withholds/destroys data).


UPDATE: Michael Mann Doubles Down over ‘Contempt’ Issue | Climate Change Dispatch

Just waiting for the other shoe to drop and what Ball and his attorneys want as a remedy for Mann's deceptions.. It's in the millions of dollars...


----------



## depotoo (Jul 15, 2017)

I did just find map graphs showing how the stations have been reduced through the years up until 2008.  It is really telling.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 15, 2017)

*INVENTOR OF FRAUDULENT TEMPERATURE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ IS HUMILIATED IN CANADIAN COURT*



> *PUNISHMENT FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT*
> Mann’s now proven contempt of court means Ball is entitled to have the court serve upon Mann the fullest punishment. Contempt sanctions could reasonably include the judge ruling that Dr. Ball’s statement that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State’ is a precise and true statement of fact. This is because under Canada’s unique ‘Truth Defense’, Mann is now proven to have wilfully hidden his data, so the court may rule he hid it because it is fake. As such, the court must then dismiss Mann’s entire libel suit with costs awarded to Ball and his team.
> 
> The spectacular rise and fall of climate alarmism’s former golden boy is a courtroom battle with even more ramifications than the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. To much fanfare at the time, Mann had sued Ball for daring to publish the damning comment that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State.” Dr Ball brilliantly backed up his exposure of the elaborate international money-making global warming scam in his astonishing book, ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science‘.



Its going to be real ugly very soon...

Inventor Of Fraudulent Temperature ‘Hockey Stick’ Is Humiliated In Canadian Court - The Goodly Lawful Society


----------



## depotoo (Jul 15, 2017)

Having known some people on the inside through the years, they have been constantly pissed due to the manipulation they knew was going on, but valued their jobs/paychecks, since they have families, knowing the blackballing going on to anyone that dare speak out.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 15, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> You really don't know shit about this..



I know that Tim Ball and his kook attorney just making up stories. Remember, they pushed the exact same story 3 years ago. How'd that turn out?

None of the deniers have an actual source, as in a court document. All they have is the crazy stories.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 15, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > You really don't know shit about this..
> ...


You are a FACTLESS and FECKLESS troll....

Just like all of your other so called facts, you don't know shit about climate science either..


----------



## depotoo (Jul 15, 2017)

Former NOAA scientist: Colleagues manipulated climate change data for political reasons


----------



## mamooth (Jul 15, 2017)

depotoo said:


> Yep.  I remember at least 10 years ago there were maps showing all the weather stations in the US and world and how suddenly their numbers were being reduced.



And the newer dataset with the reduced stations shows  _less_ warming.

Global Update






Oh, look. Another denier conspiracy theory bites the dust.

When are you going to figure out that every denier conspiracy theory is fraudulent? Just how many times do you have to see that confirmed?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 15, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> You are a FACTLESS and FECKLESS troll....
> 
> Just like all of your other so called facts, you don't know shit about climate science either..



So, got that court document yet?

No?

That's because you're just making crap up.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 15, 2017)

depotoo said:


> Former NOAA scientist: Colleagues manipulated climate change data for political reasons



Ho hum. More denier fraud.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...ed-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study

NOAA Scientists Falsely Accused of Manipulating Climate Change Data


----------



## depotoo (Jul 15, 2017)

Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 15, 2017)

depotoo said:


> Former NOAA scientist: Colleagues manipulated climate change data for political reasons


The whole NOAA charade is now collapsing...  THe evidence of corruption and poltical agenda is now being shown in public..



> The crux of Bates’ claim is that NOAA, the federal government’s top agency in charge of climate science, published a poorly-researched but widely praised study with the political goal of disproving the controversial global warming hiatus theory, which suggests that global warming slowed down from 1998 until 2012 with little change in globally-averaged surface temperatures — a direct contrast to global warming advocates’ claim that the earth’s temperature has been constantly increasing.
> 
> *Bates accused the NOAA study’s lead author, Thomas Karl, of using unverified data sets, ignoring necessary agency procedures and failing to archive his research in a “blatant attempt to intensify the impact” of the study ahead of the climate conference.* According to Bates, there is no way to replicate Karl’s data because the computer used to store the research “suffered a complete failure.”



"*using unverified data sets, ignoring necessary agency procedures and failing to archive his research"*

SO much for NOAA's and Tom Karl's integrity..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 15, 2017)

mamooth said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > Former NOAA scientist: Colleagues manipulated climate change data for political reasons
> ...


Address the FRAUD you are perpetrating...

If I tried to use an UNVERIFIED DATA SET in my work, I would be fired on the spot. But your Gods are using the made up crap every day and you accept it without question..  What an ignorant and duped hairball..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > depotoo said:
> ...



Any amount of dishonesty....any amount of fraud...any amount of tweaking the data for political purposes is just fine with the hairball, so long as it is her side that is doing it.  She isn't interested in the science, she is interested in the twisted political goal...nothing more.  She will excuse anything her side does...it is what libs do.


----------



## depotoo (Jul 15, 2017)

Read his actual report-

Climate scientists versus climate data



mamooth said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > Former NOAA scientist: Colleagues manipulated climate change data for political reasons
> ...


----------



## mamooth (Jul 15, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> If I tried to use an UNVERIFIED DATA SET in my work, I would be fired on the spot."



Well, yeah. When the customer orders a Happy Meal, you have to use the price that the register is programmed to use. You can't just make up your own price.

So, still no court documents showing Mann did something wrong.

That's because your cult leaders faked the entire story.

A six-year-old wouldn't have fallen for such obvious fraud, but all the deniers did. Only people with busted BS detectors get sucked into the denier cult.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 15, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > If I tried to use an UNVERIFIED DATA SET in my work, I would be fired on the spot."
> ...


More clueless bull shit...

Projecting your failures again..?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > If I tried to use an UNVERIFIED DATA SET in my work, I would be fired on the spot."
> ...



You really are a top shelf denier hairball.  The shit you spew, and the excuses you make in support of your high priests should make them proud...it clearly identifies you, however, and one sad and pitiful wack job.  Mann has screwed the pooch...either he got some absolutely terrible advice from his lawyer, or more likely he figured he knew more than his lawyer and he is up to his eyeballs in his error now.  Personally, I hope that they hand him a bill for every penny his attempt to shut down his critics cost him...The tally will be more than he can earn in the rest of his life.  He is the worst sort of fraud and deserves to be broken as an example to those in the future who might try the same thing.


----------



## IanC (Jul 16, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Address the FRAUD you are perpetrating...
> 
> If I tried to use an UNVERIFIED DATA SET in my work, I would be fired on the spot. But your Gods are using the made up crap every day and you accept it without question.. What an ignorant and duped hairball..




At first glance, as I was scrolling down, I thought you said INVERTED DATA SET.

Well, sure enough, Michael Mann used proxies upside-down in his 08 paper, and therefore every paper since, that uses Mann08 as reference or for data, is also using an inverted data set.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 16, 2017)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Address the FRAUD you are perpetrating...
> ...



That would be reading the graph upside down....  No one verified his work or if they did they took graph reading classes from Crick..


----------



## IanC (Jul 16, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




Oh no, it was peer reviewed and found to be of the highest quality.

It is odd that a proxy that even the originating author said was contaminated by agriculture, and unsuitable for temperature reconstructions, ended up in Mann's work. Odder still that the contaminated end that showed a negative hockey stick was flipped over to show massive warming. And, oddest of all, how the climate science community didn't care when it was pointed out, even though Mann's results and conclusions fell apart without the substantial impact of this flawed and misused proxy.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 16, 2017)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Just gives you a warm fuzzy feeling about the integrity of the peer review process, don't it....   Pal review... Nothing less than it is acceptable for alarmists..  Old John Cook over at his web site SKS even made up fake names and peer reviewed his own work... Tried to make it look credible..  the good old 97% lie..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 20, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



The crazy cat lady is in full denial meltdown mode.  Could it be that she got just a glimpse of the handwriting on the wall and it terrified her?  What will they do when the AGW scam is shown for the bullshit it is?  How long before they have enough credibility to actually get away with any doomsday scam again?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 20, 2017)

Oh look. All the mice are crying about how mean the cat is. In response, the cat just burps.

So, going back to the OP, none of the deniers, despite repeated prompting, has been able to show any court documents backing up their lunatic claims that Mann withheld data. Their sole source is a hysterical article coming from a conspiracy blog run by the defendant, Tim Ball.

Deniers just made the story up, and everyone knows it. All the deniers know they've been busted for fraud yet another time, yet they all still brazenly push the fraud. After all, the cult commands them to never back down from a lie, no matter how crazy and dishonest clinging to the lie makes them look.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 20, 2017)

The AGW Cult can't be bothered with data or science, they have consensus


----------



## SSDD (Jul 20, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Oh look. All the mice are crying about how mean the cat is. In response, the cat just burps.
> .



Comprehension isn't your best thing...is it hairball...No one is angsting over how mean you are...you are being laughed at...you are being ridiculed for your abject stupidity...you are the butt of jokes...nothing more...but if the sort of mental masturbation that takes being the butt of jokes and converts it into some sort of awe in your mind gets you through the day, have at it...it just makes for more jokes for you to be the butt of.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 20, 2017)

SSDD, got those court documents yet?

Still no?

That's because your heroes faked the entire story. That inconvenient fact won't go away just because you keep crying at me. You tried another fraud, got busted, and now you're crying.

At this stage, the only useful purpose you only serve is as a lesson for others, about how cult devotion leads to immorality. You actually want to be be busted for fraud and humiliated. Your willingness to endure public humiliation on behalf of the cult earns you huge brownie points with the cult, and you status in the cult is now the only thing you care about.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD, got those court documents yet?
> 
> Still no?



Deny on hairball...it will just make your crash all the more enjoyable when it reaches the point that even your news sources must cover mann's defeat.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


LOL

Its already very evident in upper atmospheric temperatures and massive ICE increase in the arctic (even with failed sensors and massive sensor drift of the the primary satellites being reported as fact).  Sonar topography graphing shows the ice levels being shown by NSIDC are inaccurate by 2 million Sq Kl in the Arctic and 2.7 million Sq Kl in the antarctic.  The sensors are crap and the satellites are failing.

Sonar topography shows the Greenland ice sheet gained over 6 feet of snow and ice this year alone, a 7% increase in mass. With upper level air masses -15 deg F (below 30 year average) and snow melt all but done above 45 lat at 10,000 feet, the snow that remains is not going anywhere this year.  The polar jet has widened and is now in its winter configuration a full two months early, as the polar lows have increased in size and strength indicating cooling is now in full swing.

The atmospheric pendulum has swung and the ocean temps again have gone very cold.. Even the hurricanes this year have been ripped apart near the equator not being allowed to build up. As of today, the wind shear is so massive at the equator (which is usually about 25 deg Lat this time of year) that little or nothing will become a well organized storm in the northern hemisphere.

The change to cooling may well have happened already and the ocean buffers are the only reason we have not seen the rapid drop yet.  That has changed this year as they have no more heat to give.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 21, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Sonar topography graphing shows the ice levels being shown by NSIDC are inaccurate by 2 million Sq Kl in the Arctic and 2.7 million Sq Kl in the antarctic.



Sonar topography maps the seafloor, dumbass. It has nothing to do with sea ice measurement. Your stories keep getting dumber.



> Sonar topography shows the Greenland ice sheet gained over 6 feet of snow and ice this year alone,



Sonar topography is mapping the land now? Really? Do tell. How does that work? 

You're just a crazy stupid guy on the internet who makes stupid crap up. Only your fellow liars' cult members, such as SSDD, will still talk to you.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Sonar topography graphing shows the ice levels being shown by NSIDC are inaccurate by 2 million Sq Kl in the Arctic and 2.7 million Sq Kl in the antarctic.
> ...


Sonar can see through clouds you moron (the atmosphere is basically a liquid)... Depending on the wavelengths used and transmitted it can see surface topography. the frequencies used are different than those under water.. Sonar, using very high non-audible frequencies, even at high altitudes can be used to map.   Every brand new car these days uses this sonar in its anti-collision systems.. Even the US air force uses this in flyovers of areas and it is highly accurate.

You really are an ignorant left wing retard...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> You really are an ignorant left wing retard...



It is her best thing and she decided long ago to run with it.   To highlight what an idiot she is....yesterday she said that I was a left wing extremist....how much more wrong could a single person be without government scientists giving an assist?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 22, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The AGW Cult can't be bothered with data or science, they have consensus


Even if its made up names and credentials to make it appear as if its true..  The ends justify the means..  Dont ya know..


----------



## mamooth (Jul 22, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Sonar can see through clouds you moron (the atmosphere is basically a liquid)...



HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH. Billy actually thinks that aircraft do airborne sonar mapping.



> Every brand new car these days uses this sonar in its anti-collision systems..



With a range of ... 5 meters. Yeah, that will work well for aircraft mapping.



> Even the US air force uses this in flyovers of areas and it is highly accurate.



Then I'm sure you can point us to some references

That is, if you're not just lying again. Which you are. 

The problem is that you suck at lying. The only people you can fool are dumber-than-dogshit cult rubes like SSDD.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 22, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Sonar can see through clouds you moron (the atmosphere is basically a liquid)...
> ...


Enjoy your ignorance..  now fuck off  fool...


----------



## mamooth (Jul 22, 2017)

Anyone want to come to Billy's help here?

Anyone agree with Billy about the supposed airborne sonar mapping?

Anyone think Billy has gone to the mountain passes to shovel out SNOTEL stations?

Anyone think that Billy is working on his Ph.D. in climate science?

No?

Even the deniers know Billy is lying about everything. However, cult loyalty prevents them from saying that.

Needless to say, we on the rational side don't have such ethical issues.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 22, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...





Does he make this shit up himself or does he get it from some k00k site? I really think he does believe everything he posts!!This is somebody who got his ass smacked around in the schoolyard lots...........


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 23, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Anyone want to come to Billy's help here?
> 
> Anyone agree with Billy about the supposed airborne sonar mapping?
> 
> ...


LOL

Attacking me isn't helping your cause..  DO you even have a clue how a SNOWTEL station functions?

You Rational?  


Here is an UNCLASSIFIED version of how sonar is used...

http://www.eng.auburn.edu/files/acad_depts/csse/csse_technical_reports/csse13-03.pdf

Clip:
Abstract—GPS-denied environments pose a significant problem for unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, operating autonomously within a confined airspace. In this paper, we outline and im- plement a basic algorithm to autonomously fly a quadcopter using low-cost sonar sensors in a GPS-denied environment. Furthermore, we outline a method for using simple sonar distance data to map our environment.



How stupid are you?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 23, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Attacking me isn't helping your cause..  DO you even have a clue how a SNOWTEL station functions?



Obviously, yes. And every SNOTEL station in Colorado reports zero snow depth.

https://wcc.sc.egov.usda.gov/report...Colorado&format=SNOTEL+Snowpack+Update+Report

So why are you claiming the snow depth is 20 feet?

Oh, that's right. You're lying, and everyone knows it.



> Here is an UNCLASSIFIED version of how sonar is used...



Look at you flail. It's so cute. Now, you've decided sonar on a little drone to keep it from bumping into things means that airplanes are mapping terrain with sonar.

You lied about that too. And everyone knows it.

We let you and skook get away with lying to a certain extent, because you're just crazy bedwetter dudes on the internet. But you pushed it to far, so you got reamed for it. Try to learn from that reaming.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 23, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Attacking me isn't helping your cause..  DO you even have a clue how a SNOWTEL station functions?
> ...



Keep posting up  the fantasies...  I will take personally observed observations over your fantasy...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 24, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Keep posting up  the fantasies...  I will take personally observed observations over your fantasy...



The hairball is in full tilt denial mode...the truth must be sinking in and folks like that simply can't handle it.  Hell, she claimed that I was an extreme liberal the other day...how much further removed from reality could she get?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 24, 2017)

So, SSDD is also claiming that there's 20 feet of snow where the SNOTEL stations now report zero.

That is, he''s lying just as big as Billy is.

The more insane of the deniers here -- Billy, SSDD, skook -- now lie about everything as a reflex action. To them, it's a point of pride to be humiliated for lying, because it demonstrates how devoted to the cult they are.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 24, 2017)

mamooth said:


> So, SSDD is also claiming that there's 20 feet of snow where the SNOTEL stations now report zero.



Are you even remotely aquainted with the truth?  Care to point to the post where I have even mentioned snow...or SNOTEL?  Of course not..because I haven't...you lie even when there is nothing to be gained by it and it is obvious that your lie will be pointed out...

What is wrong with you hairball?



mamooth said:


> That is, he''s lying just as big as Billy is.



Since you won't be bringing any post of mine where I even mention snow forward..it is clear that the liar here is you.



mamooth said:


> The more insane of the deniers here -- Billy, SSDD, skook -- now lie about everything as a reflex action. To them, it's a point of pride to be humiliated for lying, because it demonstrates how devoted to the cult they are.



Sorry hairball.....but you are projecting again...it has gotten to the point that it is a pretty sure bet that when you accuse someone of....hell anything....you are doing exactly what you accuse them of doing...You are a hell of a projector...to the point that it must have some very interesting psychology attached to the tendency.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 25, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Are you even remotely aquainted with the truth?  Care to point to the post where I have even mentioned snow...or SNOTEL?



I ripped Billy for lying about SNOTEL, Billy cried, and you also responded by saying I was in denial. That certainly looks like you were defending Billy's big lie, and now you've realizedwhat a mistake that was, so you're furiously backpedaling.

We can clear this up quickly, of course. You just have to do something you've never done here before, which is give a direct answer to a simple question that gets to the heart of the issue.

Was Billy telling the truth about the SNOTEL stations in the valleys still being under 20 feet of snow, or was he lying?

jc, you should answer the question as well.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 25, 2017)

mamooth said:


> I ripped Billy for lying about SNOTEL, Billy cried, and you also responded by saying I was in denial. That certainly looks like you were defending Billy's big lie, and now you've realizedwhat a mistake that was, so you're furiously backpedaling.



You are in denial over everything hairball...and the fact that something "looks" like anything to you is irrelevant...hell you prove it every day with your claim that ciliate pseudoscience "looks" like science to you.



mamooth said:


> Was Billy telling the truth about the SNOTEL stations in the valleys still being under 20 feet of snow, or was he lying?



Unlike you, I don't talk about topics that I know nothing about.  I don't know what SNOTEL is...I had never heard of it till the topic came up on this thread.  Face it hairball.. you are a liar...you lie even when there is nothing to be gained by lying.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 25, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Unlike you, I don't talk about topics that I know nothing about.  I don't know what SNOTEL is...I had never heard of it till the topic came up on this thread.  Face it hairball.. you are a liar...you lie even when there is nothing to be gained by lying.



As expected, you're weaseling. Don't worry. You didn't disappoint anyone. You always weasel, so nobody expected you to act like a vertebrate. You always live down to everyone's expectations.

If you jump to someone's defense when they get caught lying, that means you're endorsing the lie. When you refuse to state that a particularly obvious lie is a lie, you're endorsing the lie. You did that. Hence, you're endorsing the lie.

And now you're crying about being humiliated over it. You'd think you'd have learned by now that your yapping chihuahua routine always ends with your humiliation. You must just enjoy the humiliation.

Any other ankle-biters want their turn? Mind you, I will ask you specifically whether you also endorse Billy's crazy lies. Which means the other deniers will take a pass. They all know Billy is lying, but cult rules say that a cultist may never say another cultist is lying, and that no cultist may ever admit a mistake.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 25, 2017)

mamooth said:


> As expected, you're weaseling. Don't worry. You didn't disappoint anyone. You always weasel, so nobody expected you to act like a vertebrate. You always live down to everyone's expectations.



What is weaseling about stating that I don't know what SNOTEL is?  I never said anything about the subject and you claimed that I did...you lied...you were wrong..and it is you who is weaseling in some left field attempt to claim that you didn't..and that you didn't get caught.

You are a liar...correction...you are a f'ing liar....and a crackpot...face the truth..it sucks, but at least you won't be living a lie.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 25, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Are you even remotely aquainted with the truth?  Care to point to the post where I have even mentioned snow...or SNOTEL?
> ...


Old steaming pile of shit cat woman... Too Funny...  You really are a clueless old hag with no grasp on reality.

The picture below is of Togwaatee Pass, upper valley just one week ago... 9,980 feet above sea level.






No snow in this picture.....


----------



## SSDD (Jul 26, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



She has always been a nut ball, but lately she has really fallen off the deep end.  She just makes stuff up to be argumentative...and makes statements that can be proved dishonest by looking back one or two posts.


----------

