Climate change: 2015 will be the hottest year on record 'by a mile', experts say

[threegoofs]

Peer review has certainly had a lot of black eyes lately. The Gergis paper that went into limbo after being fully accepted was actually a success in a way. Paper that are accepted and printed seldom get retracted in climate science no matter how bad the discovered mistakes. Of course PAGES2K used it anyways.

Peer review is like democracy - (ANALOGY ALERT!) : it's the worst system ever invented, except for all others.

I'm sure your retracted paper was probably covered by all your denier blogs, but again, a single paper is just a piece of the mountain of evidence that is literally growing monthly.

 

[IanC]

Dude! You're pretty full of yourself,eh?

Straw man analogy is a shorthand description that gets the point across quite nicely. Your analogy is false, and meant only demean.

No. Straw man arguments are logical fallacies.

Analogies are analogies. And mine was spot on. It is only demeaning to you because it exposed a truth.

Hahahahaha, what a colossal waste of time you are.

 

[threegoofs]

Dude! You're pretty full of yourself,eh?

Straw man analogy is a shorthand description that gets the point across quite nicely. Your analogy is false, and meant only demean.

No. Straw man arguments are logical fallacies.

Analogies are analogies. And mine was spot on. It is only demeaning to you because it exposed a truth.

Hahahahaha, what a colossal waste of time you are.

Yeah. It sucks when someone pegs you for the know knotting fraud you are, doesn't it?

I wonder if you'll ever acknowledge that there is a clear consensus, instead of whining about 'strawmen' that...aren't.

 

[IanC]

Peer review has certainly had a lot of black eyes lately. The Gergis paper that went into limbo after being fully accepted was actually a success in a way. Paper that are accepted and printed seldom get retracted in climate science no matter how bad the discovered mistakes. Of course PAGES2K used it anyways.

Peer review is like democracy - (ANALOGY ALERT!) : it's the worst system ever invented, except for all others.

I'm sure your retracted paper was probably covered by all your denier blogs, but again, a single paper is just a piece of the mountain of evidence that is literally growing monthly.

Peer review has certainly had a lot of black eyes lately. The Gergis paper that went into limbo after being fully accepted was actually a success in a way. Paper that are accepted and printed seldom get retracted in climate science no matter how bad the discovered mistakes. Of course PAGES2K used it anyways.

Peer review is like democracy - (ANALOGY ALERT!) : it's the worst system ever invented, except for all others.

I'm sure your retracted paper was probably covered by all your denier blogs, but again, a single paper is just a piece of the mountain of evidence that is literally growing monthly.

I find it odd and somewhat disconcerting that mistakes found in climate science papers are handwaved away as unimportant rather than seen as an opportunity to improve the science and future publications.

 

[threegoofs]

Peer review has certainly had a lot of black eyes lately. The Gergis paper that went into limbo after being fully accepted was actually a success in a way. Paper that are accepted and printed seldom get retracted in climate science no matter how bad the discovered mistakes. Of course PAGES2K used it anyways.

Peer review is like democracy - (ANALOGY ALERT!) : it's the worst system ever invented, except for all others.

I'm sure your retracted paper was probably covered by all your denier blogs, but again, a single paper is just a piece of the mountain of evidence that is literally growing monthly.

Peer review has certainly had a lot of black eyes lately. The Gergis paper that went into limbo after being fully accepted was actually a success in a way. Paper that are accepted and printed seldom get retracted in climate science no matter how bad the discovered mistakes. Of course PAGES2K used it anyways.

Peer review is like democracy - (ANALOGY ALERT!) : it's the worst system ever invented, except for all others.

I'm sure your retracted paper was probably covered by all your denier blogs, but again, a single paper is just a piece of the mountain of evidence that is literally growing monthly.

I find it odd and somewhat disconcerting that mistakes found in climate science papers are handwaved away as unimportant rather than seen as an opportunity to improve the science and future publications.

They certainly are used as opportunities for improvement.

But I find it odd that the deniers seize on this minority of papers often with minor errors and pretend it is generalizable to all of science.

The M&M fiasco with Manns original Nature paper illustrates this in spades.

 

[IanC]

Dude! You're pretty full of yourself,eh?

Straw man analogy is a shorthand description that gets the point across quite nicely. Your analogy is false, and meant only demean.

No. Straw man arguments are logical fallacies.

Analogies are analogies. And mine was spot on. It is only demeaning to you because it exposed a truth.

Hahahahaha, what a colossal waste of time you are.

Yeah. It sucks when someone pegs you for the know knotting fraud you are, doesn't it?

I wonder if you'll ever acknowledge that there is a clear consensus, instead of whining about 'strawmen' that...aren't.

Honestly, it's your loss. I like ideas, but they have to pass inspection. The 97% consensus is an obvious exaggeration that doesn't stand up.

 

[IanC]

Peer review has certainly had a lot of black eyes lately. The Gergis paper that went into limbo after being fully accepted was actually a success in a way. Paper that are accepted and printed seldom get retracted in climate science no matter how bad the discovered mistakes. Of course PAGES2K used it anyways.

Peer review is like democracy - (ANALOGY ALERT!) : it's the worst system ever invented, except for all others.

I'm sure your retracted paper was probably covered by all your denier blogs, but again, a single paper is just a piece of the mountain of evidence that is literally growing monthly.

Peer review has certainly had a lot of black eyes lately. The Gergis paper that went into limbo after being fully accepted was actually a success in a way. Paper that are accepted and printed seldom get retracted in climate science no matter how bad the discovered mistakes. Of course PAGES2K used it anyways.

Peer review is like democracy - (ANALOGY ALERT!) : it's the worst system ever invented, except for all others.

I'm sure your retracted paper was probably covered by all your denier blogs, but again, a single paper is just a piece of the mountain of evidence that is literally growing monthly.

I find it odd and somewhat disconcerting that mistakes found in climate science papers are handwaved away as unimportant rather than seen as an opportunity to improve the science and future publications.

They certainly are used as opportunities for improvement.

But I find it odd that the deniers seize on this minority of papers often with minor errors and pretend it is generalizable to all of science.

The M&M fiasco with Manns original Nature paper illustrates this in spades.

Well it certainly was a fiasco. Mann reminds me of the Month Python Black Knight that refuses to admit failure even after all his limbs have been hacked off.

Without the sympathetic character of course. Mann has caused irreparable damage to the world, the Black Knight was just a self deluded joke.

 

[threegoofs]

Peer review has certainly had a lot of black eyes lately. The Gergis paper that went into limbo after being fully accepted was actually a success in a way. Paper that are accepted and printed seldom get retracted in climate science no matter how bad the discovered mistakes. Of course PAGES2K used it anyways.

Peer review is like democracy - (ANALOGY ALERT!) : it's the worst system ever invented, except for all others.

I'm sure your retracted paper was probably covered by all your denier blogs, but again, a single paper is just a piece of the mountain of evidence that is literally growing monthly.

Peer review has certainly had a lot of black eyes lately. The Gergis paper that went into limbo after being fully accepted was actually a success in a way. Paper that are accepted and printed seldom get retracted in climate science no matter how bad the discovered mistakes. Of course PAGES2K used it anyways.

Peer review is like democracy - (ANALOGY ALERT!) : it's the worst system ever invented, except for all others.

I'm sure your retracted paper was probably covered by all your denier blogs, but again, a single paper is just a piece of the mountain of evidence that is literally growing monthly.

I find it odd and somewhat disconcerting that mistakes found in climate science papers are handwaved away as unimportant rather than seen as an opportunity to improve the science and future publications.

They certainly are used as opportunities for improvement.

But I find it odd that the deniers seize on this minority of papers often with minor errors and pretend it is generalizable to all of science.

The M&M fiasco with Manns original Nature paper illustrates this in spades.

Well it certainly was a fiasco. Mann reminds me of the Month Python Black Knight that refuses to admit failure even after all his limbs have been hacked off.

The fiasco is that Manns original findings have been confirmed, expanded upon, and verified a half dozen times, and MBH 98 rightly stands as pioneering work in the field of paleoclimatology.

But guys like you pretend his proxy methods and findings were 'failure', even though almost no one in the paleoclimatology community would remotely agree.

 

[IanC]

Peer review has certainly had a lot of black eyes lately. The Gergis paper that went into limbo after being fully accepted was actually a success in a way. Paper that are accepted and printed seldom get retracted in climate science no matter how bad the discovered mistakes. Of course PAGES2K used it anyways.

Peer review is like democracy - (ANALOGY ALERT!) : it's the worst system ever invented, except for all others.

I'm sure your retracted paper was probably covered by all your denier blogs, but again, a single paper is just a piece of the mountain of evidence that is literally growing monthly.

Peer review has certainly had a lot of black eyes lately. The Gergis paper that went into limbo after being fully accepted was actually a success in a way. Paper that are accepted and printed seldom get retracted in climate science no matter how bad the discovered mistakes. Of course PAGES2K used it anyways.

Peer review is like democracy - (ANALOGY ALERT!) : it's the worst system ever invented, except for all others.

I'm sure your retracted paper was probably covered by all your denier blogs, but again, a single paper is just a piece of the mountain of evidence that is literally growing monthly.

I find it odd and somewhat disconcerting that mistakes found in climate science papers are handwaved away as unimportant rather than seen as an opportunity to improve the science and future publications.

They certainly are used as opportunities for improvement.

But I find it odd that the deniers seize on this minority of papers often with minor errors and pretend it is generalizable to all of science.

The M&M fiasco with Manns original Nature paper illustrates this in spades.

Well it certainly was a fiasco. Mann reminds me of the Month Python Black Knight that refuses to admit failure even after all his limbs have been hacked off.

The fiasco is that Manns original findings have been confirmed, expanded upon, and verified a half dozen times, and MBH 98 rightly stands as pioneering work in the field of paleoclimatology.

But guys like you pretend his proxy methods and findings were 'failure', even though almost no one in the paleoclimatology community would remotely agree.

I have fought this battle a hundred times over the last five years. It's boring now. You guys simply ignore the moral and scientific lapses of Mann. He is as fake as the Nobel Prize certificate he hangs in his office.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really? The subject is the hockey stick graph, and it has been repeatedly verified. Mann will be remembered as a pioneering scientist when his detractors are not even notes on the bottom of the page.

 

[threegoofs]

Peer review is like democracy - (ANALOGY ALERT!) : it's the worst system ever invented, except for all others.

I'm sure your retracted paper was probably covered by all your denier blogs, but again, a single paper is just a piece of the mountain of evidence that is literally growing monthly.

Peer review is like democracy - (ANALOGY ALERT!) : it's the worst system ever invented, except for all others.

I'm sure your retracted paper was probably covered by all your denier blogs, but again, a single paper is just a piece of the mountain of evidence that is literally growing monthly.

I find it odd and somewhat disconcerting that mistakes found in climate science papers are handwaved away as unimportant rather than seen as an opportunity to improve the science and future publications.

They certainly are used as opportunities for improvement.

But I find it odd that the deniers seize on this minority of papers often with minor errors and pretend it is generalizable to all of science.

The M&M fiasco with Manns original Nature paper illustrates this in spades.

Well it certainly was a fiasco. Mann reminds me of the Month Python Black Knight that refuses to admit failure even after all his limbs have been hacked off.

The fiasco is that Manns original findings have been confirmed, expanded upon, and verified a half dozen times, and MBH 98 rightly stands as pioneering work in the field of paleoclimatology.

But guys like you pretend his proxy methods and findings were 'failure', even though almost no one in the paleoclimatology community would remotely agree.

I have fought this battle a hundred times over the last five years. It's boring now. You guys simply ignore the moral and scientific lapses of Mann. He is as fake as the Nobel Prize certificate he hangs in his office.

Well, it's a losing battle.


But Mann is irrelevant. Multiple studies have confirmed those findings with better and more comprehensive data, going back much farther.

But logic and reason don't seem to make a difference to some.

 

[Crick]

I find it odd and somewhat disconcerting that mistakes found in climate science papers are handwaved away as unimportant rather than seen as an opportunity to improve the science and future publications.

They certainly are used as opportunities for improvement.

But I find it odd that the deniers seize on this minority of papers often with minor errors and pretend it is generalizable to all of science.

The M&M fiasco with Manns original Nature paper illustrates this in spades.

Well it certainly was a fiasco. Mann reminds me of the Month Python Black Knight that refuses to admit failure even after all his limbs have been hacked off.

The fiasco is that Manns original findings have been confirmed, expanded upon, and verified a half dozen times, and MBH 98 rightly stands as pioneering work in the field of paleoclimatology.

But guys like you pretend his proxy methods and findings were 'failure', even though almost no one in the paleoclimatology community would remotely agree.

I have fought this battle a hundred times over the last five years. It's boring now. You guys simply ignore the moral and scientific lapses of Mann. He is as fake as the Nobel Prize certificate he hangs in his office.

Well, it's a losing battle.


But Mann is irrelevant. Multiple studies have confirmed those findings with better and more comprehensive data, going back much farther.

But logic and reason don't seem to make a difference to some.

Mann is no more irrelevant than any other scientist expanding our knowledge base. That he has been selected for untold heaps of completely unjustified vilification is clear proof of the moral and scientific bankruptcy of deniers.

 

[threegoofs]

They certainly are used as opportunities for improvement.

But I find it odd that the deniers seize on this minority of papers often with minor errors and pretend it is generalizable to all of science.

The M&M fiasco with Manns original Nature paper illustrates this in spades.

Well it certainly was a fiasco. Mann reminds me of the Month Python Black Knight that refuses to admit failure even after all his limbs have been hacked off.

The fiasco is that Manns original findings have been confirmed, expanded upon, and verified a half dozen times, and MBH 98 rightly stands as pioneering work in the field of paleoclimatology.

But guys like you pretend his proxy methods and findings were 'failure', even though almost no one in the paleoclimatology community would remotely agree.

I have fought this battle a hundred times over the last five years. It's boring now. You guys simply ignore the moral and scientific lapses of Mann. He is as fake as the Nobel Prize certificate he hangs in his office.

Well, it's a losing battle.


But Mann is irrelevant. Multiple studies have confirmed those findings with better and more comprehensive data, going back much farther.

But logic and reason don't seem to make a difference to some.

Mann is no more irrelevant than any other scientist expanding our knowledge base. That he has been selected for untold heaps of completely unjustified vilification is clear proof of the moral and scientific bankruptcy of deniers.

True. But I mean that his original work is irrelevant, since it has been reproduced and solidified
many times.

The simple fact is, the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, and we now know this is happening faster than we have ever seen in the history of civilization.

It's unclear whether the effects will be, but any fool can guess that they will not be good.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Really? The subject is the hockey stick graph, and it has been repeatedly verified. Mann will be remembered as a pioneering scientist when his detractors are not even notes on the bottom of the page.

You can feed white noise into the model and get a hockey stick, that's not science

 

[threegoofs]

Really? The subject is the hockey stick graph, and it has been repeatedly verified. Mann will be remembered as a pioneering scientist when his detractors are not even notes on the bottom of the page.

You can feed white noise into the model and get a hockey stick, that's not science

Not sure if you understand that the graphs are plotting temperature and time. One can't feed random temperatures and get a defined plot every time.

But that's third grade science, you might not have gotten that far.

 

[skookerasbil]

rigged data placed on a bogus graph is ghey

 

[threegoofs]

rigged data placed on a bogus graph is ghey

Behold the average deniers mental firepower!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Really? The subject is the hockey stick graph, and it has been repeatedly verified. Mann will be remembered as a pioneering scientist when his detractors are not even notes on the bottom of the page.

You can feed white noise into the model and get a hockey stick, that's not science

Not sure if you understand that the graphs are plotting temperature and time. One can't feed random temperatures and get a defined plot every time.

But that's third grade science, you might not have gotten that far.

You have temperature readings from the year 2100?

How did you get them?

Did you understand the graph you posted showed projected temperature?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That's the last we'll see of threegoofs

 

[threegoofs]

Really? The subject is the hockey stick graph, and it has been repeatedly verified. Mann will be remembered as a pioneering scientist when his detractors are not even notes on the bottom of the page.

You can feed white noise into the model and get a hockey stick, that's not science

Not sure if you understand that the graphs are plotting temperature and time. One can't feed random temperatures and get a defined plot every time.

But that's third grade science, you might not have gotten that far.

You have temperature readings from the year 2100?

How did you get them?

Did you understand the graph you posted showed projected temperature?

I understand exactly what I posted. See the red line? Thats actual temperatures. And theres no indication its heading anywhere but up, given the graph is a few years old and the last couple years have been some of the warmest in history, with even warmer years expected in the near future.

So you really think you can plot random temperatures and somehow get them to plot out in the same graph every time because of some 'method'? Or are you just parroting some denier who told you that and you didnt bother to think about how absurd that statement is?