Analysis shows climate modeling fraud.. Pal Review by Journals

[mamooth]

Sorry hairball...just because you are a congenital liar doesn't mean everyone else is.

In all my years here, I've never lied once. The people who claim I've lied have never been able to point to a lie, which demonstrates that such people are supremely butthurt because I keep humiliating them. They know I'm going to keep humiliating them with facts and data, and they're helpless to stop it, so they just scream at me hysterically.

You faked the temperature scenarios, got caught, and yet you're not sorry at all about pushing that fraud. You're actually glad you got busted for fraud, because being publicly humiliated earns you brownie points with your cult.

...and by "cherry picking" do you mean using graphs of actual regional temperatures

Yes, that's kind of the definition of cherrypicking. And it's all you're capable of, because the data as a whole says you're lying your ass off.

rather than the highly manipulated, homogenized, infilled global record

The adjusted data shows _less_ warming. Everyone familiar with the actual knows knows taht, and thus knows your conspiracy theory is pathologically dishonest cult mewling.

produced by people who will lose their funding if there isn't a crisis?

No, scientists get paid the same no matter what, and only the most pathetic conspiracy wankers still try to pretend otherwise.

In contrast, denier shills don't get paid unless they shill denier lies. All of the bribery and fraud is on the denier side, which is why all of the corruption is on the denier side.

I don't know why you chose to become a corrupt cult wimp, held in open contempt by the whole planet. I don't know why you get a sexual thrill from being humiliated by us and from being shit on by your masters. And I don't really care anymore. The rain falls, the birds sing, and deniers lie. It's a fact of reality. I'm just asking you to keep your perverse lifestyle away from decent people.

 

[mamooth]

Globally there is OBSERVED evidence of global glaciation.

Red is retreating glaciers, blue is advancing glaciers. That's based on measurements, not models.

Global Glacier Changes: facts and figures > Graphics

So, what evidence do you have for your insane reality-defying claim? REmember, a cherrypick isn't evidence, because we know a few glaciers are advancing. The point is that most glaciers are retreating, not advancing, and that glacial mass as a whole is declining.

 

[westwall]

Globally there is OBSERVED evidence of global glaciation.

Red is retreating glaciers, blue is advancing glaciers. That's based on measurements, not models.

Global Glacier Changes: facts and figures > Graphics

So, what evidence do you have for your insane reality-defying claim? REmember, a cherrypick isn't evidence, because we know a few glaciers are advancing. The point is that most glaciers are retreating, not advancing, and that glacial mass as a whole is declining.

We're talking about an ancient extinction event silly kitty. Do try and keep up....

 

[mamooth]

We're talking about an ancient extinction event silly kitty. Do try and keep up....

Sorry. I got confused with your usual conspiracy blather about advancing glaciers.

However, you seem more confused.

You invoked global glaciation to counter the evidence for greenhouse gases driving the P-T extinction. Why? What does one have to do with the other? What stops both from happening at different geological times?

You also tried deflecting with a conspiracy theory about the paper being "computer derivied fiction". Can you show us the evidence for that? Preferably something beyond your usual, "I don't like the data, so it must be fake."

 

[westwall]

We're talking about an ancient extinction event silly kitty. Do try and keep up....

Sorry. I got confused with your usual conspiracy blather about advancing glaciers.

However, you seem more confused.

You invoked global glaciation to counter the evidence for greenhouse gases driving the P-T extinction. Why? What does one have to do with the other? What stops both from happening at different geological times?

You also tried deflecting with a conspiracy theory about the paper being "computer derivied fiction". Can you show us the evidence for that? Preferably something beyond your usual, "I don't like the data, so it must be fake."

Yes, we know you live in a perpetual state of confusion. Seems to be a problem with you. The graphs you posted are in error as anyone who is conversant with the LIA knows. They have been "massaged" by your hero's to try and remove both the LIA and the MWP signatures to try and prop up that failed hockey stick graph.

 

[SSDD]

In all my years here, I've never lied once. The people who claim I've lied have never been able to point to a lie, which demonstrates that such people are supremely butthurt because I keep humiliating them.

And chalk up another lie to the hairball...and so it goes with congenital lars. I bet in many cases, you actually believe the lies you tell.

Off the top of my head, I can think of at least one lie that you have repeated ad nauseum..which is enough to prove your claim of not lying to, in fact, be a lie.

Here you go hairball.. a lie that you have told over and over.

I ask...

The absolute best argument to use against the AGW argument is to simply ask warmers to provide a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the hypothesis..

and you reply:

The best case a lay person can make against AGW

And we've given it to you, over and over.

How many times have you told that lie hairball? Care to take a guess? Not one piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability has ever been presented here because no such evidence exists...and yet, you keep repeating the lie.

So you can either bring a piece of the evidence you claim has been presented over and over and explain how you believe it supports AGW over natural variability...and vindicate yourself in this particular instance....or you can not and in doing so acknowledge that you are in fact a lie, and that good old SSDD has proven it for you and anyone else who cares to look.

Yes, that's kind of the definition of cherrypicking. And it's all you're capable of, because the data as a whole says you're lying your ass off.

No hairball.....ignoring regional record after regional record that shows no significant warming in the relatively recent past in favor of a highly manipulated, homogenized, infilled record that disagrees with most of the regional records is cherry picking...your highly manipulated, homogenized, infilled record is the ultimate cherry as it disagrees with most regional records which demonstrate that the "globe" is not warming...some areas are warming, some are cooling and a great many are not doing much of anything...that precludes the claim that the "globe" is doing anything.

 

[SSDD]

We're talking about an ancient extinction event silly kitty. Do try and keep up....

Keeping up isn't the hairball's best thing.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Mr. Westwall, why don't you link to an article in a peer reviewed journal that states that? WUWT is not a peer reviewed journal, just thought I might let you know, LOL. Why don't you show up in New Orleans, and blow all the scientists away with your brilliant expose of how these many thousands of real scientists have got it all wrong. LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

The measurements of the alpine glaciers worldwide, the retreat of the Arctic Sea Ice, the melting of the Greenland glacier, none of these are models. They are measured evidence and observations. All the flap yap about models ignores the fact that we have been measuring atmospheric temperatures for over 100 years, and ocean temperatures for half that, and both are going up by those measurements. As is the amount of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere.

 

[mamooth]

Yes, we know you live in a perpetual state of confusion. Seems to be a problem with you.

So, when faced with a direct question about the topic being discussed, you're deflecting and running. And nobody is surprised. Let's do what you hate most, and get back to the science that you're running from.

You invoked global glaciation to counter the evidence for greenhouse gases driving the P-T extinction. Why? What does one have to do with the other? What stops both from happening at different geological times?

The graphs you posted are in error as anyone who is conversant with the LIA knows.

You're clearly confused on multiple levels.

First, that graph went back to 1845, and the glacial melt doesn't start until 1885. The most charitable references extend the LIA to 1850, meaning the glacial melt has nothing to do with the LIA. That is, unless you're invoking the "but ... but ... we're still just recovering from the LIA!" conspiracy, which is a particularly stupid one, given how temps have shot up far past where temps were before the LIA.

Second, you just told me those graphs have nothing to do with the issue being discussed, the P-T extinction, yet now you've suddenly decided they relate to the topic somehow.

They have been "massaged" by your hero's to try and remove both the LIA and the MWP signatures to try and prop up that failed hockey stick graph.

Third, I asked you not to use your usual "I don't like the data, so it must be fake!" tactic. That flies with your fellow cultists, but rational people demand data, and you never have any. All you have is cult conspiracy theories.

 

[mamooth]

Here you go hairball.. a lie that you have told over and over.

Given that we have shown you the evidence over and over, and everyone has seen it, I thank you for proving my point. You and everyone who accuses me of lying has been revealed to be a pathologically dishonest authoritarian cultist, enraged at me for my consistent support of liberty, democracy, capitalism and rationality.

Again, when your theories requires that the entire planet be conspiring against you, it means you're a paranoid conspiracy cult bedwetter.

Your theories requires that, hence you _are_ a paranoid conspiracy cult bedwetter.

In older times, you'd be standing on a street corner with a sandwich board. You should be grateful for the internet. It allows you to be a paranoid conspiracy cult Stalinist in comfort. On the downside, the People's Revolutionary Bookstore has closed, so you can't go there for a kaffeeklatsch on destroying democracy with your fellow beard-and-sandals commies

Now, go look for more cherries to pick. It's not like you're capable of anything else, and everyone knows it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Your peer review cries are just pure BS...

 

[SSDD]

Given that we have shown you the evidence over and over, and everyone has seen it, I thank you for proving my point.

And you just keep on telling the lie...and why? Because not one shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence exists that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...nor does a single actual piece of evidence exist that demonstrates a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

I predicted that no such evidence would be forthcoming to vindicate yourself and in doing so, you prove yourself to be a liar.

You and everyone who accuses me of lying has been revealed to be a pathologically dishonest authoritarian cultist, enraged at me for my consistent support of liberty, democracy, capitalism and rationality.

The only thing revealed here is that you are a congenital liar who apparently believes her own lies. You could have brought forth a single piece of the sort of evidence I asked for and proved that you were being honest...you didn't, even though you claim a plethora of such evidence has been presented. Perhaps in that twisted knot of fishing line you call a brain you actually believe such evidence has been presented...but your failure to bring any of it here with which to vindicate yourself is nothing but evidence that you are a liar.

Again, when your theories requires that the entire planet be conspiring against you, it means you're a paranoid conspiracy cult bedwetter.

Name calling in an effort to divert attention from the fact that you have been called on a lie that you repeat often, and in fact have repeated in that very post is about as weak, and can not prove you didn't lieis as it gets hairball...

Your theories requires that, hence you _are_ a paranoid conspiracy cult bedwetter.

I have no theory...I am asking for the smallest shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports yours over natural variability...you claimed such evidence has been provided over and over..it has not...I pointed out that you were a liar and could prove that you weren't by bringing forward a single piece of that evidence to show that you didn't lie...I have predicted often that no such evidence would be forthcoming and I predict it again...because the claim is nothing but a lie told by a bald faced, congenital liar.

In older times, you'd be standing on a street corner with a sandwich board. You should be grateful for the internet. It allows you to be a paranoid conspiracy cult Stalinist in comfort. On the downside, the People's Revolutionary Bookstore has closed, so you can't go there for a kaffeeklatsch on destroying democracy with your fellow beard-and-sandals commies

More name calling, and still, not the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports your hypothesis over natural variability...All you are doing is further proving that you are a liar...if you weren't, you would provide a single piece of the evidence you claim has been presented in such quantity and slap me down...but you won't. All you will do is twist, writhe, and gyrate in but hurt agony trying to convince others that you aren't in fact, a BALD FACED LIAR.

Good luck with that hairball...the fact that you are a liar is already general knowledge on the board...the only people who will believe you are the other congenital liars who are also well known as liars on the board.

 

[Crick]

And a warmer inadvertently posts up the modeling failure reality..

LOL... Nick Stokes posts up the failure and deviation from reality. and this is even a new one with the convergence point move forward (from 1996 to 2008) to remove the deviation.

Where do you see a failure here Mr Atmospheric Physicist?

That dark squiggly line that shows the models to be horribly inaccurate would be my guess, but you people view the world through the eyes of the religious fanatic so I can't help you with that problem.

"Horribly inaccurate"? Is that some sort of technical term exclusive to atmospheric physicists?

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, for atmospheric physicists that make their living flipping burgers. LOL The models have been pretty accurate, compared to the deniers that first said no warming at all, then, when it was apparent in eveyone's back yard that it was warming, changed it to natural cycles. But never explained what those natural cycles are. LOL

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No fraud found or committed. The most extensively researched theory in the history of mankind's continues chugging along and becomes stronger every day.

 

[skookerasbil]

Well, for atmospheric physicists that make their living flipping burgers. LOL The models have been pretty accurate, compared to the deniers that first said no warming at all, then, when it was apparent in eveyone's back yard that it was warming, changed it to natural cycles. But never explained what those natural cycles are. LOL

Yada....yada.....but the science from the atmospheric physicists flipping burgers is what is being embraced in the real world!!

The members of the religion are very uppety and arrogant about their science club but many thousands of very highly educated scientists call bs on the very tiny climate science club.

Saying the models have been "mostly accurate" = utter folklore. And let's face it it is very clear that the people in Western governments that decide on climate change policy agree the models are bogus. When exactly is the last time we've seen climate change legislation in the United States?

Evidently they are agreeing with the burger flippers s0n!! Hysterical....

 

[Billy_Bob]

And a warmer inadvertently posts up the modeling failure reality..

LOL... Nick Stokes posts up the failure and deviation from reality. and this is even a new one with the convergence point move forward (from 1996 to 2008) to remove the deviation.

Where do you see a failure here Mr Atmospheric Physicist?

That dark squiggly line that shows the models to be horribly inaccurate would be my guess, but you people view the world through the eyes of the religious fanatic so I can't help you with that problem.

"Horribly inaccurate"? Is that some sort of technical term exclusive to atmospheric physicists?

LOL

Your using models that have been " trained" since 2013... this means that they have "trained" away the divergence and failure. You use deception to try and give yourself credibility.

This isn't science its a damn parlor trick hoping no one will check the facts.

 

[Crick]

The proper term for the process you describe as "trained" would be the improvement of models to more accurately reflect real world climate system behavior. That's something you'd think an atmospheric physicist might understand. But, not this one, I guess.

 

[Crick]

Did you think model-makers SHOULDN'T attempt to improve their models? Or just that they didn't?