How far have we already gone?

[westwall]

Now that you can do that in public, go over 'hockey stick,' come up with a consensus, and get back to work, birther-poofters.

Your gayness should no longer terrify you, you have issues and may need professional hlep

Say, Crosstard, what's 'hlep?' I've been making do, typing with the ballgame on TV, and I read Trakar and O.R., when they have time for any of this. None of us is gay, wingpunk. We just do this because we have time for it. If I were better at tennis, I'd be outside, right now.

Wanna spell out my issues for me, or is that too challenging? Want some 'hlep?'

Meanwhile, you neglected to 'hlep' your circle-jerking wingpunk Intestinalwall, so he keeps changing his definition of 'hockey stick,' and you at least have that stupid remark at the bottom of every one of your posts, which should qualify you to eat your foot and feed the leftovers, to Intestinalwally.

Dude, you're so homophobic you MUST be gay. And that's OK. Embrace who you are. You'll feel better for it.

 

[bobgnote]

Your gayness should no longer terrify you, you have issues and may need professional hlep

Say, Crosstard, what's 'hlep?' I've been making do, typing with the ballgame on TV, and I read Trakar and O.R., when they have time for any of this. None of us is gay, wingpunk. We just do this because we have time for it. If I were better at tennis, I'd be outside, right now.

Wanna spell out my issues for me, or is that too challenging? Want some 'hlep?'

Meanwhile, you neglected to 'hlep' your circle-jerking wingpunk Intestinalwall, so he keeps changing his definition of 'hockey stick,' and you at least have that stupid remark at the bottom of every one of your posts, which should qualify you to eat your foot and feed the leftovers, to Intestinalwally.

Dude, you're so homophobic you MUST be gay. And that's OK. Embrace who you are. You'll feel better for it.

Typical punk position. I knew you were experienced at daisy chains and blow-buddy.

But you are also a dose-purveyor, which is exactly where closets and Log Cabin punk-spectrum run off to. You want the planet to catch a hot-house dose of CO2 poisoning, and damn the sequestered methane, so we should all read your fake science shit, about spectral analysis, which is crudely done, by stupid shits, you and your blow-buddies.

You are so fake, the only thing you could be is queer. And your brand of queer is not gay, like Quantum Windbag admitted, but queer, as a three-dollar-bill, worthless, to any but your own kind. Fuck yourself, shitter. You are exactly like fruity-pies who wanted to keep tricking and shooting speed, when HIV was discovered, and many died.

So you think I'm afraid, instead of understanding? You blown-out shitter! Fear the queen, over there? Fuck you, queen of shitters, and your bogus sphinctrum-analysis.

 

[wirebender]

You are a piece of shit, who made a claim about how the stick comes from your stupid tree, I didn't buy it, so now you stink, you stupid, lying, con-gaming piece of shit. You are a punk Mr.Hankey is the only science you know. Howwwdy Ho! Shit.

Geez guy, you have to be one of the stupidest socks on the board. Are you really unaware of the methodology used to arrive at the hockey stick?

 

[Old Rocks]

And, you, Bent, pretend to be unaware of the fact that over a dozen independent studies, using other proxies, have come up with the same graph. Here is one published by our National Academy of Science;

Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia

 

[IanC]

And, you, Bent, pretend to be unaware of the fact that over a dozen independent studies, using other proxies, have come up with the same graph. Here is one published by our National Academy of Science;

Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia

hahahahahahahaha.

you're pulling our leg, right?

what? you're not kidding?!?

you think that citing Mann08, of Tiljander fame, is an independant study?

the one where Mann (and his buddies Bradley and Hughes are there too) uses the same tawdry treering proxies to show a (reduced) hockey stick, then takes them out and uses the upsidedown Tiljander cores and makes another (reduced) hockey stick?

you can't be serious.

Mann's response to being caught using an upsidedown proxy-

Their non-dendro network uses some data with the axes upside down, e.g. Korttajarvi sediments, which are also compromised by agricultural impact (Tiljander, pers. comm.)
To which Mann replied:

The claim that ‘‘upside down’ data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use.

why didnt he show a non-dendro, non-Tiljander graph? because it wouldnt be a hockey stick. the versions without one or the other showed a reduced HS, with neither there is no HS.

 

[bobgnote]

You are a piece of shit, who made a claim about how the stick comes from your stupid tree, I didn't buy it, so now you stink, you stupid, lying, con-gaming piece of shit. You are a punk Mr.Hankey is the only science you know. Howwwdy Ho! Shit.

Geez guy, you have to be one of the stupidest socks on the board. Are you really unaware of the methodology used to arrive at the hockey stick?

Shove your Jesus in your gay asshole.

You claimed a tree was used to get the data for the 'hockey stick' graph. You are a foil-hat geek, spamming this forum, with your shit. If you don't refer to the upswing in warming, then let's hear all about your theory, since your theory is shit, and it isn't even the same shit your wingpunks are driving.

Your shit is gay in traffic, so eat it and die, punk. Es verdad. Your pants are on fire, and so is the planet.

 

[wirebender]

You claimed a tree was used to get the data for the 'hockey stick' graph. You are a foil-hat geek, spamming this forum, with your shit. If you don't refer to the upswing in warming, then let's hear all about your theory, since your theory is shit, and it isn't even the same shit your wingpunks are driving.

Sorry guy, but this is all way over your head and it doesn't appear that there is much to be done for it. Do you have any idea what the term proxy data means? The hockey stick is ased on proxy data. Inappropriate proxy data according to the National Academy and various other panels that investigated the research. In the case of the hockey stick, the proxy used was tree ring data and it is all hinged on a single tree designated YAD06 and as a result, that single tree has come to be known as the most influential tree in the world.

Here, have yourself a read if indeed you can read.

Climategate reveals 'the most influential tree in the world' - Telegraph

YAD06 – the Most Influential Tree in the World « Climate Audit

‘The Most Influential Tree in the World’ - By Edward John Craig - Planet Gore - National Review Online

 

[bobgnote]

Sorry guy, but this is all way over your head and it doesn't appear that there is much to be done for it. Do you have any idea what the term proxy data means? The hockey stick is ased on proxy data. Inappropriate proxy data according to the National Academy and various other panels that investigated the research. In the case of the hockey stick, the proxy used was tree ring data and it is all hinged on a single tree designated YAD06 and as a result, that single tree has come to be known as the most influential tree in the world.

Here, have yourself a read if indeed you can read.

Climategate reveals 'the most influential tree in the world' - Telegraph

YAD06 – the Most Influential Tree in the World « Climate Audit

‘The Most Influential Tree in the World’ - By Edward John Craig - Planet Gore - National Review Online

Oh. You mean your complete bullshit is euphemistically "(sic)ased on proxy data," instead of facts. Since you are using circular or non-logic, to loop bogus media in favor of your bogus objective, you insert "proxy" shit, in lieu of facts and related issues. You are busted, like Zimmy, punkhole. Your references are fucktard-skeptic media, which does not refer to the ongoing upswing in warming, from methane release:

Vast methane 'plumes' seen in Arctic ocean as sea ice retreats - Science - News - The Independent

Flood Maps

Coastal Zones and Sea Level Rise | Climate Change - Health and Environmental Effects | U.S. EPA

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/s...sing-sea-levels-a-risk-to-coastal-states.html

Warming is accelerating: "If the pace of the rise accelerates as much as expected, researchers found, coastal flooding at levels that were once exceedingly rare could become an every-few-years occurrence by the middle of this century."

You are a hooking, lying, fucktard piece of shit, so get off the ice and into the box:

Climate wars heat up over global warming - Video on msnbc.com

Hockey stick controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yet More Studies Back Hockey Stick: Recent Global Warming Is Unprecedented In Magnitude And Speed And Cause | ThinkProgress

You know how to hook, but you suck, at cross-checking and slapping puckey. Get on the stick, or shut the fuck up.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wait. Global warming is melting the ocean floor in the Arctic?

Are you sure about that?

How does that work?

 

[bobgnote]

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

Where do the scientific organizations get their funding from? Where do the scientists who run the organizations get their funding from? Oh yeah, that's right....they get it from the taxpayers. They get their money based on how dire their predictions are. I wonder when they will actually get a prediction correct? So far they've had 30 year and 100 billion dollars to make some wonderful predictions but instead, we get Hansen and his prediction which is 300% off. But in olfrauds world that is considered pretty accurate.

And you clowns wonder why you're losing.

Tardwally, close up your boozey rants, with the text of your quote, so your post doesn't take up half a page, for no gain, but repeating O.R.'s post.

Scientific organizations don't do any 'swing' thinking, which is why governments are in no hurry to cut emissions, start aggressive biomass, and re-green, simultaneously. I don't see organizations putting up cumulative human stewardship effect-estimates or biomass and re-greening suggestions. So that leaves a lot of media, for fucktards, like you, and here you are!

Remember, Christians kept evolution out of schools, until 1958, when oil-exporting Soviets put up Sputnik. Wait till tards for Jesus all find out about re-green, or die! We are liable to lose our habitat, already.

I don't know what your excuse is, Wally, since you don't seem like a Christian; You're just dumb as Christians, aren't you. In fact, you're so stupid, I'd wail, if I had time.

 

[wirebender]

Oh. You mean your complete bullshit is euphemistically "(sic)ased on proxy data," instead of facts. Since you are using circular or non-logic, to loop bogus media in favor of your bogus objective, you insert "proxy" shit, in lieu of facts and related issues. You are busted, like Zimmy, punkhole. Your references are fucktard-skeptic media, which does not refer to the ongoing upswing in warming, from methane release:

Dude, your writing, and apparently your thinking as well is so disorganized that I don't have the slightest clue as to what you are talking about. It is as if you have nothing to say so you toss in a liberal helping of impotent ad hominem with an equally liberal helping of nonsense and apparently believe you have said something worth note and reply.

Alas you have not. Let me know when you feel able to speak coherently. Maybe we can actually discuss the topic.

 

[wirebender]

Wait. Global warming is melting the ocean floor in the Arctic?

Are you sure about that?

How does that work?

Do you have any idea what he is talking about? Do you get the impression that he believes the hockey stick is about methane and is not based on proxy data cherry picked from tree cores?

I have talked to some rambling, incoherent people in my time, but that guy takes the cake and he is so homophobic that he must be a highly frustrated closet drag queen or some such. Perhaps a self loathing pedophile for all the anger he is apparently unable to contain.

 

[bobgnote]

Wait. Global warming is melting the ocean floor in the Arctic? Are you sure about that? How does that work?

Once again, Crosstard, you have a browser, with Google or Ask on it, so hit search. All melted glacial and permafrost areas give up sequestered methane, as does the bottom of bodies of water, which are warming, frozen or not. Then along comes the hockey stick!

There's all kinds of this information for you to read, but you have to search for yourself.

 

[bobgnote]

Oh. You mean your complete bullshit is euphemistically "(sic)ased on proxy data," instead of facts. Since you are using circular or non-logic, to loop bogus media in favor of your bogus objective, you insert "proxy" shit, in lieu of facts and related issues. You are busted, like Zimmy, punkhole. Your references are fucktard-skeptic media, which does not refer to the ongoing upswing in warming, from methane release:

Dude, your writing, and apparently your thinking as well is so disorganized that I don't have the slightest clue as to what you are talking about. It is as if you have nothing to say so you toss in a liberal helping of impotent ad hominem with an equally liberal helping of nonsense and apparently believe you have said something worth note and reply.

Alas you have not. Let me know when you feel able to speak coherently. Maybe we can actually discuss the topic.

Asshole! Look up the links, Wikipedia and the other one, about 'hockey stick:'

Hockey stick controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's another one:

Live Q&A: Climate scientist Michael Mann on the 'hockey stick' controversy | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Read it, bitch! Your punk talk about 'cherry-picked' applies to YOU, and your crap about 'proxy data,' which represents something not evident or generally accepted. Read! Your proxy shit about the tree is from your own retarded busload of wingpunks.

'Alas' you are queer, watching RuPaul and telling me about it, but you don't read, search, or hit links, even. Stupid bitch.

 

[IanC]

And, you, Bent, pretend to be unaware of the fact that over a dozen independent studies, using other proxies, have come up with the same graph. Here is one published by our National Academy of Science;

Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia

hahahahahahahaha.

you're pulling our leg, right?

what? you're not kidding?!?

you think that citing Mann08, of Tiljander fame, is an independant study?

the one where Mann (and his buddies Bradley and Hughes are there too) uses the same tawdry treering proxies to show a (reduced) hockey stick, then takes them out and uses the upsidedown Tiljander cores and makes another (reduced) hockey stick?

you can't be serious.

Mann's response to being caught using an upsidedown proxy-

Their non-dendro network uses some data with the axes upside down, e.g. Korttajarvi sediments, which are also compromised by agricultural impact (Tiljander, pers. comm.)
To which Mann replied:

The claim that ‘‘upside down’ data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use.

why didnt he show a non-dendro, non-Tiljander graph? because it wouldnt be a hockey stick. the versions without one or the other showed a reduced HS, with neither there is no HS.

I looked into Mann08 a little more. it turns out that if you take out either the dendro or the cores(Tiljander) then the temp reconstruction is not valid pre 1750, as per Gavin Schmidt. why then was Mann, the hockey team and the rest of the warmist world shouting to high heaven that they had a paper proving the exceptional present warmth without using contested proxies? why do these guys lie so much? why does the media believe them?

by a happy coincidence CA had an article on Mann's use of the Law Dome ice cores today. how many times have the skeptics complained about climate science using outdated or suspiciously truncated proxies? I bet you can figure out what is coming next right?

Mann08 uses a truncated version of Law Dome with mysterious adjustments from 1997 instead of the full version from 2003 even though he had it.

same old story

 

[wirebender]

Read it, bitch! Your punk talk about 'cherry-picked' applies to YOU, and your crap about 'proxy data,' which represents something not evident or generally accepted. Read! Your proxy shit about the tree is from your own retarded busload of wingpunks.

Still not coherent huh? Maybe if you got back on your meds you would make sense. It is worth a shot, don't you think?

Maybe if you read your links for comprehension, you would begin to grasp that the hockey stick is based on highly selected proxy data; specifically tree cores.

Here are some clips from your own links. Do try to comprehend what the words mean.

CLIP: Mann carried out a series of statistical sensitivity tests, removing each proxy in turn to see the effect its removal had on the result. He found that certain proxies were critical to the reliability of the reconstruction, particularly one tree ring dataset collected by Gordon Jacoby and Rosanne D'Arrigo in a part of North America Bradley's earlier research had identified as a key region

CLIP: The report said that MBH method creates a PC1 statistic dominated by bristlecone and foxtail pine tree ring series (closely related species). However there is evidence in the literature, that the use of the bristlecone pine series as a temperature proxy may not be valid (suppressing "warm period" in the hockey stick handle); and that bristlecones do exhibit CO2-fertilized growth over the last 150 years (enhancing warming in the hockey stick blade).

CLIP: Mann said, "Ten years ago, the availability of data became quite sparse by the time you got back to 1,000 AD, and what we had then was weighted towards tree-ring data

CLIP: Mr Mann, Don't you think that a very good test of the validity of a proxy is that it matches the instrumental temperature record? Given this is the case, doesn't the divergence problem tell you that tree rings aren't a very good proxy for temperature?

Do at least try to read the references and gain at least a rudementary understanding of the material. Mann's hockey stick fraud was based on tree ring studies and trees that the chairman of the national academy of science panel, the head of the royal academy statistical society, and the American Statistical Society all agreed that the method by which mann produced the hockey stick was scientifically unsound. Here is an exchange from the House Energy and Commerce Committee:

CHAIRMAN BARTON: Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?
DR. NORTH [Head of the NAS panel]: No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

DR. BLOOMFIELD [Head of the Royal Statistical Society]: Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

WALLACE [of the American Statistical Association]: ‘the two reports [Wegman's and NAS] were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.’

This is some of what the NAS had to say regarding mann's methodology and conclusions:

The NAS indicated that the hockey stick method systematically underestimated the uncertainties in the data (p. 107).

NAS agreed with the M&M assertion that the hockey stick had no statistical significance, and was no more informative about the distant past than a table of random numbers. The NAS found that Mann's methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero.

M&M argued that the hockey stick relied for its shape on the inclusion of a small set of invalid proxy data (called bristlecone, or “strip-bark” records). If they are removed, the conclusion that the 20th century is unusually warm compared to the pre-1450 interval is reversed. Hence the conclusion of unique late 20th century warmth is not robust—in other word it does not hold up under minor variations in data or methods. The NAS panel agreed, saying Mann’s results are “strongly dependent” on the strip-bark data (pp. 106-107), and they went further, warning that strip-bark data should not be used in this type of research (p. 50).

The NAS said " Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions", i.e. produce hockey sticks from baseball statistics, telephone book numbers, and monte carlo random numbers.

 

[IanC]

it really is amazing that both sides walked away from the NAS, Wegman and North panels saying they had won. in reality, science lost.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wait. Global warming is melting the ocean floor in the Arctic?

Are you sure about that?

How does that work?

Do you have any idea what he is talking about? Do you get the impression that he believes the hockey stick is about methane and is not based on proxy data cherry picked from tree cores?

I have talked to some rambling, incoherent people in my time, but that guy takes the cake and he is so homophobic that he must be a highly frustrated closet drag queen or some such. Perhaps a self loathing pedophile for all the anger he is apparently unable to contain.

I consider Bob to be the spokesperson for the Warmers and Decline Hiders. You learn so much by just listening sometimes

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wait. Global warming is melting the ocean floor in the Arctic? Are you sure about that? How does that work?

Once again, Crosstard, you have a browser, with Google or Ask on it, so hit search. All melted glacial and permafrost areas give up sequestered methane, as does the bottom of bodies of water, which are warming, frozen or not. Then along comes the hockey stick!

There's all kinds of this information for you to read, but you have to search for yourself.

And global warming is causing the undersea volcanic activity?

Is that how it works?

 

[bobgnote]

I consider Bob to be the spokesperson for the Warmers and Decline Hiders. You learn so much by just listening sometimes

You punks parade this guy Mann and your shit about tree-rings, like modern hockey players should all put down their sticks because Lord Stanley isn't alive, anymore.

Assholes, the hockey stick is a generic concept. But since your assholes have this guy Mann up a tree, you keep barking, and the temperatures and acidity will keep rising.

This time of writing and reading will pass. When it gets hot enough, it's off to the pool. And if some tribe of hunter-gatherers roasts up some wingpunk, in the future, the dog might have to eat some.