Climate Scientist: We Don't Need Data, You Can See Global Warming on TV

[Old Rocks]

And your proof that all the studies were lies is? Careful there, credible sources only

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And your proof that all the studies were lies is? Careful there, credible sources only

I'm mocking Mann, did your honest studies also leave out the MWP and the LIA?

His Nobel Prize was pretty cool. Right?

 

[Old Rocks]

And what is the difference between that and jc, SSDD, LaDexter, and Billy Bob's posts? No substance there, Todd.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And what is the difference between that and jc, SSDD, LaDexter, and Billy Bob's posts? No substance there, Todd.

Pointing out Mann's lies is like jc and SSDD's ignorance of basic physics?

Please, explain further........

Why don't you want to talk about Mann's Nobel Prize?

 

[Old Rocks]

Why don't you point out what you consider lies. You have said this several times already, without offering the slightest proof. And I have pointed out that there are more than two dozen other studies that validate his evidence. Not only that what the hell does the Nobel Prize have to do with you providing evidence for your assertations? And as far as money goes, Micheal Mann, the screen writer has made 45 million dollars for his efforts. Are you going to castigate him for his efforts?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why don't you point out what you consider lies. You have said this several times already, without offering the slightest proof. And I have pointed out that there are more than two dozen other studies that validate his evidence. Not only that what the hell does the Nobel Prize have to do with you providing evidence for your assertations? And as far as money goes, Micheal Mann, the screen writer has made 45 million dollars for his efforts. Are you going to castigate him for his efforts?

Why don't you point out what you consider lies.

Eliminating the MWP and the LIA to make the recent increase in "Average Global Temperatures" look scarier is a lie.

And I have pointed out that there are more than two dozen other studies that validate his evidence.

Did the other studies also leave out the MWP and LIA?

Not only that what the hell does the Nobel Prize have to do with you providing evidence for your assertations?

Aren't you interested in Mann's Nobel Prize?

And as far as money goes, Micheal Mann, the screen writer has made 45 million dollars for his efforts. Are you going to castigate him for his efforts?

Did he lie about science to make his money?

 

[Old Rocks]

Once again, point out where Mann lied about science. And some sources to back it up.

 

[skookerasbil]

Since I seem to see alot of references about "lying" on this thread.........



Climate guru: Brace for massive cover-up after data rigging scandal


Opinion Journal: Rigging Climate-Change Data?

The scandal of fiddled global warming data


www.pennsylvaniacrier.com/filemgmt_data/files/Rigging a Climate...


http://www.globalresearch.ca/climat...er-to-falsification-and-rigging-of-data/16448


Is World Climate Data being Manipulated to Show Warming?


Global Warming 'Fabricated' by NASA and NOAA - Breitbart


Did NASA and NOAA dramatically alter US climate history to exaggerate global warming?


http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperature/



Back by popular demand...................


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/cucumber.jpg.html][/URL]

 

[skookerasbil]

Know what I love about this forum?

I come in here for a cup of coffee each day and decimate these alarmist k00ks and they are in here day and night posting up 100 posts a day and get their clocks cleaned.

I tell ya, its a f'ing hoot!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Once again, point out where Mann lied about science. And some sources to back it up.

You see where he put the MWP and the LIA in his hockey stick? Yeah, that's where he lied.

At least he won the Nobel Prize, eh?

 

[LaDexter]

Old Rocks won't even answer the first question of Earth climate change... no need to answer his BS. The entire "warming" theory is a lie, a deliberate one...

 

[Old Rocks]

NRC Exonerates "Hockey Stick" Graph, Ending "Mann-Hunt" by Two Canadian Skeptics

More broadly, the panel examined other recent research comparing the pronounced warming trend over the last several decades with temperature shifts over the last 2,000 years. It expressed high confidence that warming over the last 25 years exceeded any peaks since 1600. And in a news conference here today, three panelists said the current warming was probably, but not certainly, beyond any peaks since the year 900.

The experts said there was no reliable way to make estimates for surface-temperature trends in the first millennium A.D.

In the report, the panel stressed that the significant remaining uncertainties about climate patterns over the last 2,000 years did not weaken the scientific case that the current warming trend was caused mainly by people, through the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

“Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence,” the report said.

The 1999 paper is part of a growing body of work trying to pull together widely disparate clues of climate conditions before the age of weather instruments.

The paper includes a graph of temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere that gained the nickname “hockey stick” because of its vivid depiction of a long period with little temperature variation for nearly 1,000 years, followed by a sharp upward hook in recent decades.

The hockey stick has become something of an environmentalist icon. It was prominently displayed in a pivotal 2001 United Nations report concluding that greenhouse gases from human activities had probably caused most of the warming measured since 1950. A version of it is in the Al Gore documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, and Representative Joe Barton, Republican of Texas, have repeatedly criticized the Mann study, citing several peer-reviewed papers challenging its methods.

The main critiques were done by Stephen McIntyre, a statistician and part-time consultant in Toronto to minerals industries, and Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph in Ontario.

They contended that Dr. Mann and his colleagues selected particular statistical methods and sets of data, like a record of rings in bristlecone pine trees, that were most apt to produce a picture of unusual recent warming. They also complained that Dr. Mann refused to share his data and techniques.

In an interview, Dr. Mann expressed muted satisfaction with the panel's findings. He said it clearly showed that the 1999 analysis has held up over time.

But he complained that the committee seemed to forget about the many caveats that were in the original paper. “Even the title of the paper on which all this has been based is as much about the caveats and uncertainties as it is about the findings,” he said.

Raymond S. Bradley, a University of Massachusetts geoscientist and one of Dr. Mann's co-authors, said that the caveats were dropped mainly as the graph was widely reproduced by others. (The other author of the 1999 paper was Malcolm K Hughes of the University of Arizona.)

NRC Exonerates "Hockey Stick" Graph, Ending "Mann-Hunt" by Two Canadian Skeptics

The period for which the original graph covers clearly shows the end of the MWP as warmer than the period which followed it. Indictations from sea sediments is that the MWP was much weaker for the rest of the world than for Europe. So Mann's graph does not achieve the accuracy of the studies that followed it, but that is normal for seminal studies. It's main premise is accurate, and Mann deserved the recognition that he has received from the scientific community. As for the 'Conservative' political community, they can go to hell. A bunch of brainless ignoramouses, soon to be a sad footnote in history, along with the 'knownothings'.

 

[LaDexter]

BAWK - another bogus "hearing" "clears" one of the fudgebaking liars.

Meanwhile, 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica continues to grow, and the ice cores show no correlation between CO2 and temps. The FRAUD had the chance to appeal, and chose not to... because court can bust FRAUD, while government "committees" never do...

 

[Weatherman2020]

NRC Exonerates "Hockey Stick" Graph, Ending "Mann-Hunt" by Two Canadian Skeptics

More broadly, the panel examined other recent research comparing the pronounced warming trend over the last several decades with temperature shifts over the last 2,000 years. It expressed high confidence that warming over the last 25 years exceeded any peaks since 1600. And in a news conference here today, three panelists said the current warming was probably, but not certainly, beyond any peaks since the year 900.

The experts said there was no reliable way to make estimates for surface-temperature trends in the first millennium A.D.

In the report, the panel stressed that the significant remaining uncertainties about climate patterns over the last 2,000 years did not weaken the scientific case that the current warming trend was caused mainly by people, through the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

“Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence,” the report said.

The 1999 paper is part of a growing body of work trying to pull together widely disparate clues of climate conditions before the age of weather instruments.

The paper includes a graph of temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere that gained the nickname “hockey stick” because of its vivid depiction of a long period with little temperature variation for nearly 1,000 years, followed by a sharp upward hook in recent decades.

The hockey stick has become something of an environmentalist icon. It was prominently displayed in a pivotal 2001 United Nations report concluding that greenhouse gases from human activities had probably caused most of the warming measured since 1950. A version of it is in the Al Gore documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, and Representative Joe Barton, Republican of Texas, have repeatedly criticized the Mann study, citing several peer-reviewed papers challenging its methods.

The main critiques were done by Stephen McIntyre, a statistician and part-time consultant in Toronto to minerals industries, and Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph in Ontario.

They contended that Dr. Mann and his colleagues selected particular statistical methods and sets of data, like a record of rings in bristlecone pine trees, that were most apt to produce a picture of unusual recent warming. They also complained that Dr. Mann refused to share his data and techniques.

In an interview, Dr. Mann expressed muted satisfaction with the panel's findings. He said it clearly showed that the 1999 analysis has held up over time.

But he complained that the committee seemed to forget about the many caveats that were in the original paper. “Even the title of the paper on which all this has been based is as much about the caveats and uncertainties as it is about the findings,” he said.

Raymond S. Bradley, a University of Massachusetts geoscientist and one of Dr. Mann's co-authors, said that the caveats were dropped mainly as the graph was widely reproduced by others. (The other author of the 1999 paper was Malcolm K Hughes of the University of Arizona.)

NRC Exonerates "Hockey Stick" Graph, Ending "Mann-Hunt" by Two Canadian Skeptics

The period for which the original graph covers clearly shows the end of the MWP as warmer than the period which followed it. Indictations from sea sediments is that the MWP was much weaker for the rest of the world than for Europe. So Mann's graph does not achieve the accuracy of the studies that followed it, but that is normal for seminal studies. It's main premise is accurate, and Mann deserved the recognition that he has received from the scientific community. As for the 'Conservative' political community, they can go to hell. A bunch of brainless ignoramouses, soon to be a sad footnote in history, along with the 'knownothings'.

Climate Change Scammers Find Climate Change Scam Valid, Film@11

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So Mann's graph does not achieve the accuracy of the studies that followed it

Or the studies before it, because he removed the MWP and the LIA.

At least he has a Nobel Prize though, eh?

 

[LaDexter]

Mann's hockey stick chart is an ALGORithm that produces a hockey stick regardless of the data input.

Michael Crichton proved that.

 

[mamooth]

You see where he put the MWP and the LIA in his hockey stick? Yeah, that's where he lied.

No, it's where you're tellling whoppers about Dr. Mann, the MWP and the LIA. That only reflects badly on you, not Dr. Mann.

You're babbling cult nonsense. Yes, it gets you accolades from your fellow cultists, but everyone outside of your cult knows it's garbage. Hence, it's pointless.

Also, you should stop obsessing about Dr. Mann. Attacking personalities obsessively instead of talking about issues is a cultist tactic, and those who use that tactic reveal themselves to be cultists. You want to hide that, not advertise it.

Oh, this too.

 

[LaDexter]

Mammooo...

how come you are not at the "Hillary's not going to prison" party???

 

[mamooth]

Good to hear from you, LaDexter. I was worried you might have offed yourself, out of utter despair that yet another one of your insane conspiracy theories fell apart.

And thanks for yet another illustration of how denialism is entirely a political movement. We're here talking about the science, and for no reason, you decide to start going off about politics

 

[oldsoul]

How arrogant of someone to state that mankind can have a significant long term effect on global climate. Are they really saying that we are more powerful than "Mother Earth"?

No. That's your loopy strawman. It's also a dumb statement because it's meaningless, unless you define "more powerful" and "Mother Earth" precisely. That is, it's fuzzy feelgood nonsense.

Just some food for thought, if you are still willing to THINK CRITICALLY, and have the ability.

You failed at thinking critically. You're relying on the logical fallacy "climate has changed naturally, therefore humans can't change climate". By that same bad logic, it's impossible for humans to cause forest fires, since forest fires used to always be natural.

Rest assured that all the scientists and rational people recognize how bad your logic is.

Really? "Strawman"? "Bad Logic"?

Yup! In spades, dumbshit. You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground....as you make very obvious.

What, pray tell, does "science" have that proves that "climate change" is more that a normal phase of cyclical climate change? How do they "know" that the change is not normal? Has earth not had this type of climate change before? Think about it, everything in climate changes, always has, what proves that the current change is caused by mankind? As far as I know there are a bunch of theories, but nothing that has been PROVEN. There are symptoms that have been proven to be linked to climate change, there have been causes that have been linked to both climate change and Mankind, but NOTHING PROVES the theory of man-made climate change. That is why it is still no more than a THEORY!

Ignorant clueless bullshit, bozo.

If you haven't seen the evidence confirming the reality of human caused global warming and its consequent climate disruptions and abrupt changes, then you have been deliberately closing your eyes to it because of your crackpot rightwingnut political and economic ideologies.

Pull your head out of your ass and look around, oldfart.

Here is about the ten thousandth scientific study confirming human caused global warming, numbnuts.

New evidence confirms human activities drive global warming
PhysOrg
February 22, 2016

I will put aside your lack common decentcy for a moment and ask you what should be a simple question, and please refrain from name calling and other means of trying to demean people who disagree with you.

If "Man-made Climate Change" is, indeed, a reality, what are the levels of CO2, CO, and other "greenhouse gasses" that would be acceptable? What levels should these gasses be at? Where would they be if man-kind had not "altered" them?

I anxiously await your numbers.