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

[IanC]

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Yup. How much is the benefit from increased crop yields and resistance to drought?

 

[RealDave]

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

That's right, the scientists only looked at one tree ring. Asshole.

 

[RealDave]

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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]

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

That's right, the scientists only looked at one tree ring. Asshole.

Who are these "scientists"?

Mann finally dumps all his AGW Data

 

[IanC]

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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]

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]

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?

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.

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.

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?

That's right, the scientists only looked at one tree ring. Asshole.

Who are these "scientists"?

Mann finally dumps all his AGW Data

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]

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Yup. How much is the benefit from increased crop yields and resistance to drought?

You can't talk about benefits.
Don't even mention fewer winter deaths.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

That's right, the scientists only looked at one tree ring. Asshole.

Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann is an asshole.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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?

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]

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.

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]

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.

So, Mann complied with the court order to turn over his data?

Really?

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

So, Mann complied with the court order to turn over his data?

Really?

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]

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"OMG OMG OMG OMG NO DATA!!!! NO DATA !!! OMG OMG OMG"

Ha ha ha ha ha.

You people are fucking morons.

 

[RealDave]

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?

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.

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.

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?

That's right, the scientists only looked at one tree ring. Asshole.

Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann is an asshole.

Spoken like the asshole you have proven youserlf to be.