An overwhelming body of data and still we have climate deniers

[bripat9643]

What a maroon. You are just TOO easy. The real question is why did YOU, someone who claims to be a meteorologist and an atmospheric physicist tell us the storm was going to die over Hispaniola and Cuba? YOU were the one with the fucked up forecast. Every weather forecaster I read or listened to or saw down here in Florida said there was an excellent chance it would reorganize and strengthen BECAUSE OF THE HOT FUCKING WATER IN THE GULF.

My fucking god are you stupid.

Your computer models are nothing more than wild ass guesses. None of them are accurate for more than a day ahead. Yet, you believe so-called "climate scientists" can predict the temperature decades from now.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Too many times the "overwhelming data" has been found to be fudged. They wouldn't need to do that if GLOBULL warming was indeed the real deal

How do they make a thermometer ?

They calibrate it against a standard ;--)

Thats not fudging, thats calibrating, same goes for tape measures ;--)

Non sequitur. "Calibrating" isn't what they did. Fudging is what they did.

From the East Anglia archives...

"They also suggest that pro-global warming scientists fudge data to get the results they are looking for. Just over a month ago, on September 28, 2009, Tom Wigley wrote to Phil Jones of the Hadley Centre about his efforts to get the right-sized "blip" in temperatures of the 1940s:

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip.

I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip".
Global Warming Bombshell



They should be in jail.

 

[westwall]

Too many times the "overwhelming data" has been found to be fudged. They wouldn't need to do that if GLOBULL warming was indeed the real deal

How do they make a thermometer ?

They calibrate it against a standard ;--)

Thats not fudging, thats calibrating, same goes for tape measures ;--)

Ummmm, I hate to break it to ya, but you calibrate BEFORE you take measurements silly boy. You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about do you..... Sad..

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Too many times the "overwhelming data" has been found to be fudged. They wouldn't need to do that if GLOBULL warming was indeed the real deal

How do they make a thermometer ?

They calibrate it against a standard ;--)

Thats not fudging, thats calibrating, same goes for tape measures ;--)

Ummmm, I hate to break it to ya, but you calibrate BEFORE you take measurements silly boy. You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about do you..... Sad..

Good catch

 

[Boston1]

Too many times the "overwhelming data" has been found to be fudged. They wouldn't need to do that if GLOBULL warming was indeed the real deal

How do they make a thermometer ?

They calibrate it against a standard ;--)

Thats not fudging, thats calibrating, same goes for tape measures ;--)

Ummmm, I hate to break it to ya, but you calibrate BEFORE you take measurements silly boy. You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about do you..... Sad..

You guys are funny. The most technologically advanced systems take the longest and are the most difficult to calibrate. In the real world, rather than in the imaginations of deniers, scientists take their time, double and triple check everything, and then compare data with existing systems. Sometimes ;--) some systems, need a little extra effort to get them reading just right.

Its called reality, something our locals deniers are clearly not familiar with ;--)

Damn entertaining tho ;--) All the nonsense, the ridiculous graphs minus the margins of error, lacking the resolution to even remotely see todays spikes in CO2 CH4 and temp. Nice backflips though, yet not one scientifically valid rebuttal to the overwhelming body of evidence in support of the Theory of Rapid Global Climate Change ;--)

Keep trying though, and when and if you do ever come up with something, publish it ;--) if you can Hahahahahaahahahahaha

 

[Weatherman2020]

Is it cognitive dissonance or just good old fashioned ignorance that leads to the continued denial ?

The science is extremely clear on this one. Hell there's a stronger consensus concerning climate shift or the theory of rapid global climate shift than there is a consensus on gravity so how is it there exist this ideological death grip on denial ?

I've tackled the issue from a number of different angles usually starting with a review of the science, but the science is overwhelmingly in full support of the theory, at which point the deniers simply reject science, gravity ;--) a round planet ;--) little things like that and then stamp their feet insisting its all some kinda comunist hoax designed to take their rights away LOL.

So the idea with this particular thread is to draw out any deniers we might have left in the world and hear them out.

Name your poison ? inquiring minds want to know ;--)

Oh and PS, lets keep it clean and polite

No one denies climate changes.

 

[westwall]

Too many times the "overwhelming data" has been found to be fudged. They wouldn't need to do that if GLOBULL warming was indeed the real deal

How do they make a thermometer ?

They calibrate it against a standard ;--)

Thats not fudging, thats calibrating, same goes for tape measures ;--)

Ummmm, I hate to break it to ya, but you calibrate BEFORE you take measurements silly boy. You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about do you..... Sad..

You guys are funny. The most technologically advanced systems take the longest and are the most difficult to calibrate. In the real world, rather than in the imaginations of deniers, scientists take their time, double and triple check everything, and then compare data with existing systems. Sometimes ;--) some systems, need a little extra effort to get them reading just right.

Its called reality, something our locals deniers are clearly not familiar with ;--)

Damn entertaining tho ;--) All the nonsense, the ridiculous graphs minus the margins of error, lacking the resolution to even remotely see todays spikes in CO2 CH4 and temp. Nice backflips though, yet not one scientifically valid rebuttal to the overwhelming body of evidence in support of the Theory of Rapid Global Climate Change ;--)

Keep trying though, and when and if you do ever come up with something, publish it ;--) if you can Hahahahahaahahahahaha

Funny how they are "calibrating" measurements that were taken 50 years ago. Like I said dude, you know nothing about that which you are speaking and are intellectually dishonest to boot. A double whammy of dolt hood.

 

[flacaltenn]

No real good excuse for mucking DAILY with temperature records from the 30s and 40s. But that's what happening. See post 122 above for the recipe to cooking the books.

Probably just "adjusting" for rise of Nazi Germany war machine and all the "urban heat island" of it..

 

[SSDD]

Is it cognitive dissonance or just good old fashioned ignorance that leads to the continued denial ?

The science is extremely clear on this one. Hell there's a stronger consensus concerning climate shift or the theory of rapid global climate shift than there is a consensus on gravity so how is it there exist this ideological death grip on denial ?

I've tackled the issue from a number of different angles usually starting with a review of the science, but the science is overwhelmingly in full support of the theory, at which point the deniers simply reject science, gravity ;--) a round planet ;--) little things like that and then stamp their feet insisting its all some kinda comunist hoax designed to take their rights away LOL.

So the idea with this particular thread is to draw out any deniers we might have left in the world and hear them out.

Name your poison ? inquiring minds want to know ;--)

Oh and PS, lets keep it clean and polite

You claim that an overwhelming body of data support the claim that man and his CO2 emissions are altering the global climate. One would think that an overwhelming body of evidence regarding a thing that is observable, measurable and quantifiable would have plenty of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence...I have been asking for over a decade now for some observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....

You claim that it is out there in abundance....lets see some of it.

 

[SSDD]

Too many times the "overwhelming data" has been found to be fudged. They wouldn't need to do that if GLOBULL warming was indeed the real deal

How do they make a thermometer ?

They calibrate it against a standard ;--)

Thats not fudging, thats calibrating, same goes for tape measures ;--)

What thermometer did they use in...oh say 320 AD? LOL They've been caught fudging data and numbers, save your BS loon

Um, no, no ones been caught fudging data, actually they have a process called peer review to ensure that the data is accurate.

.

NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud

German Professor: NASA Has Fiddled Climate Data On 'Unbelievable' Scale

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

Wrong on all counts. Calibrating the tape measure is not the fudging data, its building a better tape measure. You can argue fudged data till you are blue in the face but what your really saying is you refuse to acknowledge that any measuring device requires calibration. The more complex the devise, the more detailed the calibration and the greater the chance the initial calibration will require adjustment ;--)

Maybe you can explain how altering temperature data from 50, 60, even more than 100 years ago has made the record more accurate. Do you think that we were incapable of making accurate temperature readings in the 60's and earlier?

 

[SSDD]

How do they make a thermometer ?

They calibrate it against a standard ;--)

Thats not fudging, thats calibrating, same goes for tape measures ;--)

What thermometer did they use in...oh say 320 AD? LOL They've been caught fudging data and numbers, save your BS loon

Um, no, no ones been caught fudging data, actually they have a process called peer review to ensure that the data is accurate.

.

NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud

German Professor: NASA Has Fiddled Climate Data On 'Unbelievable' Scale

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

NOAA Caught Fudging "Global Warming" Data AGAIN

Real science doesn't need all of that fraud. Real scientists are open to criticism and corrections to what they discover.

Real science finds overwhelming evidence supporting the theory of climate change. Your singing fraud and real scientists is hardly a viable scientific rebuttal refuting the evidence to date.

Again your position appears based on basic denial and cognitive dissonance as you nor anyone else responding to my request has even remotely detailed a scientific argument outlining a science based rebuttal of the data.

Anyone else want to play :--) I haven't played the climate denial game in a while but so far. Nothing new here

And yet...you can't seem to manage a scrap of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the A in AGW.

 

[SSDD]

Whats hilarious is that some folks are incapable of realizing that something like "the rate of change" is critical to the ecosystem

I keep hearing that from you guys...tell me, what sort of evidence do you have that would indicate that the rate of change we are seeing now...(a fraction of a degree in the past 100 years) is any different from the rate of change previous warm periods experienced?

 

[SSDD]

Yikes

You do have a penchant for ideological diatribe don't you. Any science concerning climate shift you are even aware of ?????

The site you linked to is an op ed piece from an ultra right wing climate denier who's credentials are hardly comparable to our worlds top scientists who virtually ALL agree that climate change is a serious threat

So you don't like the source?....what of it....any actual evidence that the information is wrong?

 

[SSDD]

Oh? Did the author I quoted falsely claim to be a Nobel recipient? No? I suggest it is YOU who are the political ideologue clown boy. Dude, you're not very good at this are you! Here's the deal silly boy, when you are relying for your arguments on ethically challenged people, who have been FORCED to retract claims that they have made, you have lost your mind.

It is always fun watching these guys attempt to defend the indefensible.

 

[SSDD]

LOL you are clinging with a death grip to a false accusation in leu of facing the subject at hand. Mann's site does not claim "he" won a Nobel, it claims he was a coauthor of a work that won a Nobel. You are desperately making mountains out of mole hills.

Cruise on over to Bill Clinton's web site and see how much time he spends discussing his impeachment....crooks tend to not spend much time talking about the times they got caught.

The facts are what they are, tens of thousands of scientists have all come to the same conclusion in what's the largest consensus view of any science. Hell the theory of gravity doesn't have a 98+% consensus.

That's the claim..and it is a damned interesting one...since there isn't the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...one must wonder...if this claimed consensus exists...exactly what is it based upon?

 

[Markle]

Too many times the "overwhelming data" has been found to be fudged. They wouldn't need to do that if GLOBULL warming was indeed the real deal

How do they make a thermometer ?

They calibrate it against a standard ;--)

Thats not fudging, thats calibrating, same goes for tape measures ;--)

What thermometer did they use in...oh say 320 AD? LOL They've been caught fudging data and numbers, save your BS loon

Um, no, no ones been caught fudging data, actually they have a process called peer review to ensure that the data is accurate.

What your suggesting is basically the worlds biggest conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists over hundreds of years LOL. Its simply impossible.

Why would you think its all just fudged data ? Most scientists are still eating cold pizza and drinking warm bear, trying to figure this stuff out. If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Oh and its not so hard to figure out the temp hundreds and even thousands of years ago. Multiple techniques are used each having been calibrated just like that tape measure or any newer thermometer and compared against existing data. Its really not that tricky of a process.

You really need to do a bit of UNBIASED research. Allow me to assist you.

As you know, Professor Phil Jones was the center of the Global Warming Scam at East Anglia University. Their program was considered the epitome of Global Warming Information. The disclosure of thousands of e-mails proving their efforts to conceal information discredit and even prevent opposing views from being published has wrecked the scam, hopefully forever. Data used by the United Nations IPCC and NASA findings came from EAU.



14th February, 2010


Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing (it has now been disclosed that all the “raw data” was DUMPED!

There has been no global warming since 1995

Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be.


WHAT????


[…]

Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.



Phil Jones has said that he considered suicide for his part in this worldwide scam.


Let us also recall: The e-mails leaked in the fall of 2009 allow us to trace the machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports. It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a "warming" by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them -- in violation of Freedom of Information laws. In fact, they went so far as to keep any dissenting views from being published -- by monopolizing the peer-review process, aided by ideologically cooperative editors of prestigious journals, like Science and Nature.


We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature] by applying what they termed as "tricks," and that they intimidated editors and forced out those judged to be "uncooperative." No doubt, thorough investigations, now in progress or planned, will disclose the full range of their nefarious activities. But it is clear that this small cabal was able to convince much of the world that climate disasters were impending -- unless drastic steps were taken. Not only were most of the media, public, and politicians misled, but so were many scientists, national academies of science, and professional organizations -- and even the Norwegian committee that awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the chief apostle of climate alarmism.


Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

 

[Markle]

Too many times the "overwhelming data" has been found to be fudged. They wouldn't need to do that if GLOBULL warming was indeed the real deal

How do they make a thermometer ?

They calibrate it against a standard ;--)

Thats not fudging, thats calibrating, same goes for tape measures ;--)

What thermometer did they use in...oh say 320 AD? LOL They've been caught fudging data and numbers, save your BS loon

Um, no, no ones been caught fudging data, actually they have a process called peer review to ensure that the data is accurate.

What your suggesting is basically the worlds biggest conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists over hundreds of years LOL. Its simply impossible.

Why would you think its all just fudged data ? Most scientists are still eating cold pizza and drinking warm bear, trying to figure this stuff out. If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Oh and its not so hard to figure out the temp hundreds and even thousands of years ago. Multiple techniques are used each having been calibrated just like that tape measure or any newer thermometer and compared against existing data. Its really not that tricky of a process.

If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Is that what happened to Nobel Prize winning scientist, Michael Mann?

Mann ( who I've spoken to on several occasions ) didn't misreport anything, he simple didn't include his calculations in his original, and took his time releasing them, which as I recall he eventually did.

Mann, actually has done a great job and been a real mover in the field of climate science. He won that Nobel for a reason, he's good.

Nobel Prize, impressive. Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama "won" the Nobel PEACE Prize after being in office TWO WEEKS. How many wars are we involved in today?

 

[Markle]

NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud

German Professor: NASA Has Fiddled Climate Data On 'Unbelievable' Scale

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

Wrong on all counts. Calibrating the tape measure is not the fudging data, its building a better tape measure. You can argue fudged data till you are blue in the face but what your really saying is you refuse to acknowledge that any measuring device requires calibration. The more complex the devise, the more detailed the calibration and the greater the chance the initial calibration will require adjustment ;--)

LOL You're a know nothing on an obscure message board and also a leftist twatwaffle...I'm not apt to take you serious

Interesting, so your technique is to declare the other guy a "know nothing" and bail out of the conversation. Thats a great scientific argument, lets go with that.

What would happen if attempted to publish a refutation on a paper and that was the body of your work ?

Do you think the review board would even remotely consider that a valid position ? I mean if you are all that familiar with getting work published, surely you'd present a better argument. ;--)

Maybe you can explain to us how the increase in CO2 won''t lead to warming.

I provided links....you provided your own bias opinion. You may go now I am bored with you

So links to work that isn't peer reviewed or even remotely anything other than ideology based journalism with little or no merit is what you prefer to consider rather than hard science peer reviewed and published in journals which depend on their accuracy to maintain their reputation and viability ?

Very interesting, yet you say you are familiar with history and science ?

Have you ever actually studied climate science ?

Or do you entirely depend on journalistic opinion pieces that frankly, lack in both integrity and accuracy ?

As an example your first link was written by a guy named Josh at a site called "the NO TRICK ZONE"

Really ??????

And this is the basis of your informed denial of climate change ?

This is exactly why I started the thread. So far we have denial based of a complete misrepresentation of the calibration process, and off a journalist and his conspiracy theories which he writes up at a site called the No Trick Zone.

Brilliant, simply brilliant

As you know, "peer reviewed" in the world of "Global Warming", now known as "Climate Change" since GW no longer is arguable, means nothing. The potentates prohibit articles with opposing views and suck up to each other to assure themselves grants. FOLLOW THE MONEY!

 

[Markle]

Is it cognitive dissonance or just good old fashioned ignorance that leads to the continued denial ?

The science is extremely clear on this one. Hell there's a stronger consensus concerning climate shift or the theory of rapid global climate shift than there is a consensus on gravity so how is it there exist this ideological death grip on denial ?

I've tackled the issue from a number of different angles usually starting with a review of the science, but the science is overwhelmingly in full support of the theory, at which point the deniers simply reject science, gravity ;--) a round planet ;--) little things like that and then stamp their feet insisting its all some kinda comunist hoax designed to take their rights away LOL.

So the idea with this particular thread is to draw out any deniers we might have left in the world and hear them out.

Name your poison ? inquiring minds want to know ;--)

Oh and PS, lets keep it clean and polite

All they have in the way of "data" are computer models based on estimates. As the old saying goes, garbage in/garbage out.

Why do we still deny? Well I can only speak for myself. My two best subjects in grade school, college and post-grad were science and history. I know the history of science too. Science has been more wrong than right historically. Scientists used to say that they learned a lot even when they we're wrong. There have been hoaxes committed by scientists, there have been cases of fraud, and too many times governments, kings, religious leaders, and rulers of all sorts have had influence over science.

Today, a powerful and corrupt political party has control. Scientists are human, they want the things we all want and many have college loan debt to pay. They go where the money is and the money is in climate change. They are not going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Scientists have been for sale for many many decades, probably more so now.

There has been fraud, scandal, and intimidation connected with climate change "science". These things have resulted in a great deal of non-scientific predictions that have of course fallen flat.

If you know science and history as I do, you know that climate change as it is defined today, has no basis in any real science. It's a political football, nothing more.

BZZZZZZZZZ

WRONG

they have tons and tons of data which they compare one to another to ensure accuracy. Simple laboratory tests confirm the finding well over a hundred years ago by Arrhenious of CO2 being a green house gas. All the bitter arguments to the contrary, most of the data used in the formation of climate theory is rock solid. We've come a long way since alchemy was the name of the game

So of course we know what happens when you release millions of tons of it into the atmosphere. It gets warmer ;--) its really quite simple

Your complaint about models entirely misinformed, they are quite accurate concerning climate. I think you might be confused by the terms weather and climate. Weather is subject to innumerable edge effects, climate on the other hand is relatively straight forward.

BZZZZ! Wrong. No one is claiming that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. The problem with the rest of your nonsense is that it hasn't gotten any warmer. Unless of course you continue the AGW practice of fraud and/or cherry picking the data.

You know noting apparently about CO2 sinks, nor the other natural ways the earth consumes or absorbs excess CO2.

the rest of the stuff you simply invented out of nothing.

LOL No warming eh, wow, even the deniers own temp study showed massive warming

See Berkley Earth Temp results

BERKLEY?

 

[skookerasbil]

"overwhelming" body of data from a handful of scientists!!!

Obama's '97 Percent' Climate Consensus: debunked, demolished, staked through the heart - Breitbart

The 97 Percent Solution

Where Did ’97 Percent’ Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From?


The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'


The "body of data" is rigged.........its always been rigged. We have a 1.5 trillion dollar industry connected to renewable energy. Damn straight its gonna be rigged!!

And btw......if its so "decided", why do the biggest organizations in the world that monitor temperatures keep getting caught fucking with the data?