"DENIER" the term that is costing alarmists all credibility.

[IlarMeilyr]

Billy Boy has never observed the Earth's warming stopping and he has never observed any unjustified alteration of temperature records. If you'd like to show us evidence that he HAS, feel free to bring it forward. Simply asserting such with not even an effort at substantiation is utterly worthless. And posts with nothing but personal insult and invective - as were your last two - are a clear violation of the new policies for this forum.

Once again, the moron Creep -- err -- Crick addresses someone (logic suggests that it was trying to address me) but doesn't bother to indicate it clearly.

My prior post, you dimwit, did contain stuff other than insults and so forth. It attempted to educate you a little bit on the proper use of the indefinite pronoun, for instance. (Your prior posting effort had not been on that same elevated plane.)

Anyway, if the day ever comes where you practice what you preach, i might begin to think about valuing what you have to say. Until then, not so much.

To get back to the topic, we all know already, that climate data has been altered and manipulated. CF, for example, has offered proof of the falsification of data many times.

It is not necessary in these discussions to provide proof of that each and every time one posts. You certainly (once again) don't practice as you preach. There's a word for that and for you: Hypocrite.

I don't think it is necessary to call crick names, just point out the facts that they alterd data to justify the models they wanted to see. That's not science, it's something we do in manufacturing to bull shit the customer.

It is certainly not "necessary."

But when he dishes stuff out, as he does, I am happy to reciprocate.

 

[Crick]

What you have all failed to show is precisely what you claim is happening.

NOAA, Hadley, NCDC and all the rest of the data-holders have fully justified the changes they have made. I have not seen a SINGLE instance in which anyone has falsified, refuted or even disputed the explanations provided. The evidence that deniers seem to accept as proof of falsification is simply that the adjustments tended to make things look worse. Well, I've got a suggestion for you: consider the fooking possibility that they ARE worse.

 

[Billy_Bob]

What you have all failed to show is precisely what you claim is happening.

NOAA, Hadley, NCDC and all the rest of the data-holders have fully justified the changes they have made. I have not seen a SINGLE instance in which anyone has falsified, refuted or even disputed the explanations provided. The evidence that deniers seem to accept as proof of falsification is simply that the adjustments tended to make things look worse. Well, I've got a suggestion for you: consider the fooking possibility that they ARE worse.

Tell me again why all your fantasy adjustments are always upwards and always worse? Your deceptions and fantasies are tiresome..

 

[Crick]

They're not my adjustments. If you want to know why they were made, you'll have to take it up with the people who own the data and made the adjustments.

 

[mamooth]

Tell me again why all your fantasy adjustments are always upwards and always worse?

They don't. As a whole, they go the other way. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you. You're lying again.

The total global adjustments to the temperature make the warming look smaller. That's not arguable. It's also not arguable that your conspiracy theory is stupid, crazy and dishonest. Why would scientists expend great effort to make warming look smaller when they could just do nothing and make the warming look bigger?

Your deceptions and fantasies are tiresome..

Your conspiracy theory has collapsed completely.

But, your conspiracy theory is all you have.

Hence, you're going to keep lying about the adjustments, so that you can keep babbling your conspiracy theory. Admitting to so many years of total failure is not an option for you, so lying outright is now the only other option you have.

And the world will justifiably be holding you in contempt for acting that way.

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Message

If you cant do this topic without making it personal, we will issue warnings and/or close
the thread. You have had time to adjust to the Zone2 rule and we are deleting
too many posts that are solely flame and no content No comments please. You can PM your favorite Mod with questions.

 

[jc456]

No real scientist uses it and the ones who do

None do and the ones who do...

There are lots of "real scientists" who have used the term. However, the point I think you were trying to make, is valid. This topic is completely irrelevant to the validity of the science. AGW is supported by mountains of evidence. Denying the obvious conclusions of that evidence is irrational and unsupportable. Coming on a forum like this and simply insisting that one's pov is correct is a waste of everyone's time. And if it requires reposting something now and then, I think we can all live with it. If we stop putting up evidence, the value of this forum has dropped below zero. Some consistency in the moderation might be a good thing as well.

mountains of evidence that you can't seem to find. Now that continues to be funny. ha ha

 

[jc456]

You are confusing climate change with man made climate change. Their is 4.5 billion years of evidence on natural global climate change, Zippo on man made global climate change, no evidence if we weren't here would it have changed on its own.

All you have is a gut feeling with all the people, that's not science.ya say look at the colorful charts in the past 100 year's a 100 year's is nothing to 4.5 billion year's. If you could put a graph up of the actual year to year temperture of earth when it was born till today, people would think you alarmist are a Fucking freak show and laugh you out of the house.

That is incorrect. There is a mountain of evidence that the primary cause of the warming experienced over the last 150 years has been the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions. And no one on my side of this argument has ever suggested that the climate has been static prior to anthropogenic effects. Look up AR5's "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch

so take us to the mountain!!! I'm dying for some climbing. Let's see this mountain of all this data that you claim exists. Come now, you must have some somewhere right? Or was there a landslide and it all got buried?

 

[IanC]

Tell me again why all your fantasy adjustments are always upwards and always worse?

They don't. As a whole, they go the other way. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you. You're lying again.

The total global adjustments to the temperature make the warming look smaller. That's not arguable. It's also not arguable that your conspiracy theory is stupid, crazy and dishonest. Why would scientists expend great effort to make warming look smaller when they could just do nothing and make the warming look bigger?

Your deceptions and fantasies are tiresome..

Your conspiracy theory has collapsed completely.

But, your conspiracy theory is all you have.

Hence, you're going to keep lying about the adjustments, so that you can keep babbling your conspiracy theory. Admitting to so many years of total failure is not an option for you, so lying outright is now the only other option you have.

And the world will justifiably be holding you in contempt for acting that way.

The cooling adjustment mamooth is talking about is to pre-WWII ocean temps. A new guess replacing an old guess. Which replaced an even older guess. I would like to see a times series of ocean temp estimates from the last decades to see if this 'latest' guess is actually higher than previous numbers, say in the 80's or 90's. It wouldn't be the first time that adjustments were made to help model hindcasts look more realistic. Nor the last time, if Karl2015 is to be believed.

Like I said, historical ocean temps are a guestimate, land temps have large numbers of data, at least in some areas. Recent versions of all the global temp services have warped many individual stations away from measured trends and variations towards the 'expected' results. Calls for specific explanations of seemingly erratic corrections are met with silence. At one time GISS would show the intermediate steps so you could see which adjustments did what. That is no longer available, and the changes often don't seem compatible with the published methods.

Odd results from computer algorithms should be investigated. Instead we are told that it doesn't make any difference overall. Remember the Y2K bug that sat undetected for seven years until an amateur found it while investigating something else? A 0.15C difference in the US numbers. A huge fraction of the already only slight warming in the US. What was the reaction? Doesn't matter, it's only 0.005C globally.

'Mistakes' only seem to be found if they improve the global warming scenarios. Things like outdated or mistaken GPS coordinates don't seem like they are a priority even when they are pointed out. I previously commented on a Russian city that was declared rural, and used to adjust neighbouring stations. Unfortunately the original GPS coordinates now placed the station in the middle of a dam reservoir used to produce electricity for an aluminum smelter.

And so on, and so on. Every discrepancy is an opportunity to investigate problems. Unfortunately they seldom are taken.

 

[jc456]

lmfao at your link. Those are the reasons????? Talk about taking history out of context, let me guess you are 21 years old?

Laugh all you want....but I don't see you refuting it........Bwahahaha!

Here's more reasons why your idol is only good in your Bubbaland.

• Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled.

• Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.”

• Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded.

• Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future.

• Reagan did little to fight a woman’s right to chose. As governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state’s abortion laws that “resulted in more than a million abortions.”

• Reagan was a “bellicose peacenik.” He wrote in his memoirs that “[m]y dream…became a world free of nuclear weapons.”

• Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty.

• Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran. Reagan and other senior U.S. officials secretly sold arms to officials in Iran, which was subject to a an arms embargo at the time, in exchange for American hostages. Some funds from the illegal arms sales also went to fund anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua — something Congress had already prohibited the administration from doing.

• Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act. which placed sanctions on South Africa and cut off all American trade with the country. Reagan’s veto was overridden by the Republican-controlled Senate.

• Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters.
• The Truth About Ronald Reagan That Conservatives Ignore Liberaland

Listen clown, I was 14 when he became president, I thought the USA was finished after Carter, then the party was on all because of Reagan, did he make mistakes, yup but he had to deal with tippy, you clowns will never admit he had to compromise with the democrat controlled house, you Fucking hack. Life was great , he set the stage for Bush Sr. and Clinton

Yea I know you were not even around. So take your revised history and shove it up your ass

Bwahahaha....you can't deal with the truth......getting all pissy and calling names....deal with it moron, Reagan was not the "wonderful" knight in shining armor idiots like you claim he was. He was responsible for the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden and illegally funneled weapons to Iran, so he was a traitor and should have been punished. He also relied on fortune tellers to tell him what to do, the gasbag.....so take your mythical Reagan and shove him up your ass.

The Shocking Truth about Ronald and Nancy Reagan s Use of Psychic Help

You are confusing climate change with man made climate change. Their is 4.5 billion years of evidence on natural global climate change, Zippo on man made global climate change, no evidence if we weren't here would it have changed on its own.

All you have is a gut feeling with all the people, that's not science.ya say look at the colorful charts in the past 100 year's a 100 year's is nothing to 4.5 billion year's. If you could put a graph up of the actual year to year temperture of earth when it was born till today, people would think you alarmist are a Fucking freak show and laugh you out of the house.

That is incorrect. There is a mountain of evidence that the primary cause of the warming experienced over the last 150 years has been the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions. And no one on my side of this argument has ever suggested that the climate has been static prior to anthropogenic effects. Look up "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch

that's a belief not science. I believe in God but I don't care if you do or not, science has not found a test planet. Only computer models and we all know it's only as good as the numbers programmed into them. You can not predict the future with unrealble data over the past 130 year's when the earth is 4.5 billion year's old.

Its stupid.

Again I have been reading about this since 1975 , 40 year's, I go outside, I don't see shit that effects me, seems the same June today in 2015 as it was in 1975 .

You go outside and it's cold, so that is your proof that global warming is not real.....bwahahaha...no wonder you vote conservative.




Global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment. Glaciers have shrunk, ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier, plant and animal ranges have shifted and trees are flowering sooner.

Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occurring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves.


Taken as a whole, the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Effects

it's funny you all can't read, or comprehend what it is you read. Talk about your uneducated, you got you a cement pond in that there backyard? come on dude at least quote the text correctly if you wish to reply. It helps avoid posts like this. But dude, that isn't what that poster wrote so you're wrong.

Here is his post:
"Again I have been reading about this since 1975 , 40 year's, I go outside, I don't see shit that effects me, seems the same June today in 2015 as it was in 1975"

Where does it say it's cold? Please enlighten me on where you pulled that word from other than your ass.

 

[jc456]

You're not a skeptic. You're a denier. So own it. Be proud of what you are. It's not like the accurate term will go away just because you cry about it.

again, denier of what? I don't think you know what you write friend.

 

[jc456]

The left wits are so busy rewriting the climactic record that they are destroying all of their previous lies ground work. This house of cards is about to implode.

With the Earth showing up as the biggest denier of the AGW cult, it wasn't long before they had to manipulate the data, in an effort to not be shown as snake oil salesmen.

THAT was a damn fine observation!

They are pissed off at planet Earth for being an AGW (climate change) DENIER!

Just like skeptics, the earth does not deny or stop change. Its the type of change that it is doing that is showing the alarmist liars. So the term denier is not applicable to either one. hmmmmmmmmmmm

the next moron left wit to call me a 'denier' is going to be challenged to provide proof of their allegations and justification for their use of the term!

The adjustments made to the major datasets have done nothing but make them more accurate. The earth is not denying AGW, it is a planet full of evidence that AGW is precisely what is taking place. You are not a skeptic. You are... wait for it... a DENIER.

uh.....................no! nough said.

 

[jc456]

The left wits are so busy rewriting the climactic record that they are destroying all of their previous lies ground work. This house of cards is about to implode.

With the Earth showing up as the biggest denier of the AGW cult, it wasn't long before they had to manipulate the data, in an effort to not be shown as snake oil salesmen.

THAT was a damn fine observation!

They are pissed off at planet Earth for being an AGW (climate change) DENIER!

Except he has never observed what he's claiming.

and you have? hahahahahhahahahahaha do you ever read your shit before you hit post reply? or replay?

 

[jc456]

There are a number of things to note in that poll, but among them I found interesting the number of people who say they prefer a candidate who believes AGW and will act against it. A bit further down, the difference between people's views on Democrats and Republicans regarding their AGW views and priorities is interesting. The idea that the general public lines up with Republican climate denialism is certainly not supported by this poll.

so again, what do you have to stop your global warming? you going to open up your refrigerator? dude, you make all these outrageous posts, and you have yet to claim what it is you'd do or accept. What is it friend?

 

[jc456]

They're not my adjustments. If you want to know why they were made, you'll have to take it up with the people who own the data and made the adjustments.

so you admit they do it. Now that's special.

 

[Billy_Bob]

They're not my adjustments. If you want to know why they were made, you'll have to take it up with the people who own the data and made the adjustments.

so you admit they do it. Now that's special.

Crick accepts the adjustments made by his high priests without question. His cult is not about science it is about control.

This week I had a professor call me a denier, I asked him specifically what it was that I denied and to show his evidence. You could of heard a pin drop. My response stopped him dead in his tracks, in front of others. The next day, in front of others and the Dean, I presented what it was I believe and why. After using empirical evidence, showing how the models all fail with 100% certainty, and showing the unadjusted data sets in comparison with RSS, UAH and US-CRN data the professor chose not to present and publicly apologized for his use of the denigrating term equating me with a Holocaust Denier.

I asked him why he chose not to present his side and he quoted me stating "model outputs are not empirical evidence of anything" After which, the Dean and I had a closed door session. Our discussion was one about the difference between activism and science, then how to handle differing opinions between colleagues in a professional manner. Denigrating terms will be harshly dealt with now, from anyone.

Just maybe I haven't committed career suicide and this will be a positive outcome. Time will tell, but I have noticed a much more professional demeanor from all persons. There is a right way and a wrong way to deal with these people, but you must call them out on their dogma. Lesson Learned.

 

[skookerasbil]

Every move the alarmists make implodes....its netted them dick so far.............on this whole denier thing, I say, go..........go............go!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey Mamooth...........found ya an awesome site!!!


The Intellectual Appreciation of Poop Humor PoopReport.com Your 1 source for 2.


Members fond of saying, "REPORT MY POOP!!!"

Moderation Note: I'm flagging posts today -- rather than deleting them, so that everyone will have examples of Zone2 violations. Especially those posts that are all flame -- no content. It's not working just to delete them. We NEED to have this forum under "relevant content" rules to give it the respect it deserves..

FlaCalTenn

 

[Billy_Bob]

Every move the alarmists make implodes....its netted them dick so far.............on this whole denier thing, I say, go..........go............go!!!

I have a more conservative Dean, one who actually listens to arguments. Not sure how this would have ended in a Liberal utopia..

 

[mamooth]

No, you just made up a crazy story, which nobody believes. Deniers tend to do that.