how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[gslack]

Yeah sure he is socko.. We are all on your "iggy" list.. SO then who exactly are you arguing with now?

The fact is the data is not sound and further any and all attempts to reuse the data in whatever form they choose, is going to be equally suspect. A scientist gets caught being fraudulent with data once, then defends his fraudulent data until there is no doubt, then refuses to admit his error only submits new, is anti-science no matter how you look at it..

If this kind of behavior came from an anti-AGW position you guys would respond the same way we are now if not worse...

What these guys don't seem to be able to grasp is that when other scientists use thier fraudulent numbers as fact, without checking up on them, and other scientists use that data and so on and so on, the fraud becomes institutional. It is part of everything even though only a couple of scientists are actually guilty. It is called an error cascade and climate science is caught up in one and won't get out of it till it comes crashing to the ground...much like has recently happened in medical research.

They don't care to realize it. I figure anybody tech savvy enough to use a proxy to post on a simple web forum under various names, should at least be smart enough to understand how bad data is still bad data no matter how many times it's used. But somehow it escapes these socks..

They don't want to know, they don't care to know. They aren't here to learn or understand, they're just here to stir the pot and make sure that the last word read is a warmer word. Some are just here push green tech like oldrocks for instance. he just wants to sell us solar panels and equipment. Had several page discussion on AGW with him a while back and no matter what alternative energy was mentioned he went right back to solar and perhaps a little windpower to supplement it..

There's not a genuine scientific bone in any of them, they don't care what the science says, they don't care what the people they follow say, they aren't here for anything real..

 

[Foxfyre]

I have been paying attention and nobody so far has given me one shred of hope that they watched it and for damn sure not one of the quadruplets has commented on the content of it beyond the mosquitos which was not the point of the video and could have been commented on without watching the video.

If you watched it Itfitzme, what was your conclusion re what he said about the IPCC report?

 

[itfitzme]

Yeah sure he is socko.. We are all on your "iggy" list.. SO then who exactly are you arguing with now?*

The fact is the data is not sound and further any and all attempts to reuse the data in whatever form they choose, is going to be equally suspect. A scientist gets caught being fraudulent with data once, then defends his fraudulent data until there is no doubt, then refuses to admit his error only submits new, is anti-science no matter how you look at it..

If this kind of behavior came from an anti-AGW position you guys would respond the same way we are now if not worse...

What these guys don't seem to be able to grasp is that when other scientists use thier fraudulent numbers as fact, without checking up on them, and other scientists use that data and so on and so on, the fraud becomes institutional. *It is part of everything even though only a couple of scientists are actually guilty. *It is called an error cascade and climate science is caught up in one and won't get out of it till it comes crashing to the ground...much like has recently happened in medical research.

Also is the fact that 'peer review' is generally only approval that a method used to arrive at a conclusion was properly scientifically conducted. *It is not necessarily approval of the conclusion itself. *And the fallacy in peer review is that it can be claimed when you use only people who you know will approve your report no matter what is in it. * And then others cite the peer reviewed report over and over without doing the work themselves to uncover how the study or paper was flawed. * That is how an 'error cascade' can happen.

It is magnified like, as Westwall's video--you know, that video the quadruplets won't watch or comment on honestly?--shows how those scientists who initially signed on to the IPCC reports have difficulty getting their names removed when the reports become so flawed the scientists can no longer approve them.

That, plus refusal to report dissenting reports or leaving out critical information that might call the final conclusions into question, makes the whole thing smell really bad to anybody more interested in truth than in promoting falsified 'evidence' for political purposes.

It's amazing how people that can't do the work think they can be critical of people that can. *I bet you couldn't get through the first page of math in one of those peer review articles.

In fact, I bet you couldn't take that table of temps
posted by SSDD, plot a graph in Excel, and post it on this forum if your life depended on it.

 

[Foxfyre]

So what about the IPCC report as related in the video, Itfitzme. And I can make a graph in Excel which is why I know how easy it is for anybody, for any motive or purpose, can make a graph that will show anything you want to show however dishonest or made up that might be.

 

[Foxfyre]

In highschool chemistry we had to use hyper sensitive scales in an environmentally controlled room to weigh and calculate the atomic weight of a substance. I can't remember what element I was given to use--we all had different things-- but I do know for whatever reason I simply couldn't get my little bit to weigh properly so that the correct atomic weight could be calculated. The least bit of perspiration from fingers or whatever can throw it off the numbers at that level.

Solution? I finally just manipulated the actual weight so that the math worked. Problem solved. Dishonest? Yes. though I justified it that I did understand the method and that was the point of the exercise.

But that was my first lesson in how data can be manipulated.

I went on to work my way through college in part as a research assistant and have been hired as research assistant as well as being hired to do scientific polls etc. since then. I have not personally skewed any numbers or forced data to fit the desired conclusion, but I have witnessed first hand people who are willing to do that and who are committing what I consider to be bogus research.

Now magnify that thousands of times over when you add millions and millions of dollars to the mix, almost all of it paid by those who WANT and who will PROFIT from a conclusion of anthropogenic global warming and who give big money to those who will consistently support that conclusion.

I think we are all wise to proceed with due caution before we hand over our freedom, options, choices, and opportunities to those who probably don't give a rat's ass whether it is right or not as long as it can push forward their unrelated goals.

 

[itfitzme]

SSDD's last graph needs some explaining. the reason for the drop in temps in 2007 was because a skeptic, Steve McIntyre, spending his own time and money found an error in the GISS computer program that had been unnoticed since Y2K. Hansen trotted out a hurried correction that he then managed to systematically bump up to pre-2007 values almost immediately.

Actually, it doesn't. The differences are insignificant. He thinks he's found something because some symbols are different.

They are

a) the raw data has been available to anyone that wanted it. It always has been.

c) the real data is month to month, not year to year.

b) if you have a record of it, then it isn't a secret that was "uncovered".

He thinks he's found something new.

He's never actually plotted them and looked at what they really do to the data. *And they don't do anything important. *To much effort trying to prove that someone else lies in order to justify himself, instead of just doing the work. If he put in as much effort doing the real work, as he puts into trying to prove someone else is lying, he'd discover he's got nothing. But then, he wouldn't want that because he'd have to face the fact that he's that guy, the one he's so busy complaining about.

 

[itfitzme]

The last time someone fell to threats of "slander" it was someone selling perscription drugs. *Everyone knew that this person was. The landlord knew it. *They just "thought" it was legal because the perscription was hers. Frankly, I wouldn't have cared, except inevitabley, there are ancillary problems. She's got homeless drunk people coming over all pissed because I want nothing to do with it. *And, she was a chronic lier. *It was amazing. *I learned a lot about chronic liars. *They actually believe they are telling the truth. *They manipulate their own memory so that they "remember" exactly what they want to remember. *

And faced with the truth, there it was, "I'm going to sue you for slander," she says. *There is the threat. *Problem is, of it's the truth, it's not slander.

 

[itfitzme]

I have been paying attention and nobody so far has given me one shred of hope that they watched it and for damn sure not one of the quadruplets has commented on the content of it beyond the mosquitos which was not the point of the video and could have been commented on without watching the video.

If you watched it Itfitzme, what was your conclusion re what he said about the IPCC report?

It was some lady showing what a part per million looks like. And I said, "It's idiotic, at least the grains of rice one".

And I later pointed out that a theraputic dose of warfrin is like ome part per 35 million, one per like 14 million before the patient is at risk of hemophelia. It's amazing how little of something will affect a biological system.

Maybe we're talking about different videos.

 

[SSDD]

Actually, it doesn't. The differences are insignificant. He thinks he's found something because some symbols are different.

Funny that you pick that one, while ignoring the series of blatant, and inexcusable examples of data tampering. You are quickly becoming a joke.

He thinks he's found something new.

You get goofier all the time. I don't think I have found something new...I have found something old..back to the earliest days of the AGW hoax. Data manipulation in climate science isn't new....hansen has been at it for years.

He's never actually plotted them and looked at what they really do to the data. *And they don't do anything important. *To much effort trying to prove that someone else lies in order to justify himself, instead of just doing the work. If he put in as much effort doing the real work, as he puts into trying to prove someone else is lying, he'd discover he's got nothing. But then, he wouldn't want that because he'd have to face the fact that he's that guy, the one he's so busy complaining about.

Again, why focus on that particular chart when I provided you with 7 other blatant examples of data tampering? How much more obvious could you possibly be? Why not comment on these two?

This is what the GISS record looked like when published in 1999:

This is what the GISS record looked like when it was published in 2011. The alterations are blatant and clearly aimed towards making the amount of warming appear larger than it is.

This isn't just data tampering...it is deliberate fraud. Why not comment on those two or the other equally blatant examples you were provided?

 

[SSDD]

And I later pointed out that a theraputic dose of warfrin is like ome part per 35 million, one per like 14 million before the patient is at risk of hemophelia. It's amazing how little of something will affect a biological system.

Maybe we're talking about different videos.

Yes you did...and I pointed out that there was hard, observed, measured data to support the precautions that go along with the drug....then I pointed out that just because one thing in small amounts is dangerous, does not mean that all things in small amounts are dangerous...then I asked for the hard, measured, observable data to support the claim that small amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere can cause dangerous warming.

So far, the only response to that question has been the chirping of crickets

 

[westwall]

I told you Foxy, he's a troll as well. I reported his alteration of your post to the proper authorities!

 

[Foxfyre]

I told you Foxy, he's a troll as well. I reported his alteration of your post to the proper authorities!

It probably will not be ruled as a serious offense within the context, but you know and I know how dishonest it was. I sympathise with SSDD who is sufficiently interested in the topic to want to actually debate it with somebody capable of debating. Unfortunately, we don't have any active warmers who seem capable of doing that right now.

But yeah. I'm giving up. I gave them ample opportunity and made my point that they won't focus on the issues but will continue to dodge, weave, change the subject, and avoid any serious discussion of anything.

 

[SSDD]

I told you Foxy, he's a troll as well. I reported his alteration of your post to the proper authorities!

It probably will not be ruled as a serious offense within the context, but you know and I know how dishonest it was. I sympathise with SSDD who is sufficiently interested in the topic to want to actually debate it with somebody capable of debating.

None of these guys are actually capable of debating. The best you can do is counter their crap for the benefit of those who read, but don't engage the conversation. If their BS goes unchallenged, then people might get the impression that they are right. When people see them do their song and dance when confronted with actual fact, they know who the anti science people really are.

There are reasons that public interest in AGW as a topic is dropping through the basement. People visit these sorts of sites and read and see how badly the argument goes for warmers and make decisions. Public support doesn't just drop away like it has for AGW for no reason at all.

 

[Foxfyre]

I told you Foxy, he's a troll as well. I reported his alteration of your post to the proper authorities!

It probably will not be ruled as a serious offense within the context, but you know and I know how dishonest it was. I sympathise with SSDD who is sufficiently interested in the topic to want to actually debate it with somebody capable of debating.

None of these guys are actually capable of debating. The best you can do is counter their crap for the benefit of those who read, but don't engage the conversation. If their BS goes unchallenged, then people might get the impression that they are right. When people see them do their song and dance when confronted with actual fact, they know who the anti science people really are.

There are reasons that public interest in AGW as a topic is dropping through the basement. People visit these sorts of sites and read and see how badly the argument goes for warmers and make decisions. Public support doesn't just drop away like it has for AGW for no reason at all.

I hope you're right. It is a subject that interests me a great deal as almost all phenomenon that affects Planet Earth or the universe we inhabit interests me. You can't have a left leaning media reporting over and over and over again that 'the scientific consensus supports AGW' without affecting public opinion whether those responding to polls have any education on the the subject whatsoever.

But more and more I am seeing that the polling results are much less favorable for AGW depending on a) who is asking the questions and b) how the questions are asked. Ask any group of Americans whether they are worried about global warming from any cause for themselves, and fewer than 50% will say that it worries them much if at all. Ask the same group if they think it could affect other people or future people, and more will answer in the affirmative but even that is in fewer numbers than it used to be.

And I attribute that to the Westwalls, SSDDs, and Gslacks and others who are doggedly putting out solid information out there and the unwillingness of the AGW crowd to discuss that information and their almost frantic and obviously organized fervor to detract from it.

There are lots and lots and lots of idiots out there. But they aren't all idiots. I figure some are paying attention.

 

[westwall]

It probably will not be ruled as a serious offense within the context, but you know and I know how dishonest it was. I sympathise with SSDD who is sufficiently interested in the topic to want to actually debate it with somebody capable of debating.

None of these guys are actually capable of debating. The best you can do is counter their crap for the benefit of those who read, but don't engage the conversation. If their BS goes unchallenged, then people might get the impression that they are right. When people see them do their song and dance when confronted with actual fact, they know who the anti science people really are.

There are reasons that public interest in AGW as a topic is dropping through the basement. People visit these sorts of sites and read and see how badly the argument goes for warmers and make decisions. Public support doesn't just drop away like it has for AGW for no reason at all.

I hope you're right. It is a subject that interests me a great deal as almost all phenomenon that affects Planet Earth or the universe we inhabit interests me. You can't have a left leaning media reporting over and over and over again that 'the scientific consensus supports AGW' without affecting public opinion whether those responding to polls have any education on the the subject whatsoever.

But more and more I am seeing that the polling results are much less favorable for AGW depending on a) who is asking the questions and b) how the questions are asked. Ask any group of Americans whether they are worried about global warming from any cause for themselves, and fewer than 50% will say that it worries them much if at all. Ask the same group if they think it could affect other people or future people, and more will answer in the affirmative but even that is in fewer numbers than it used to be.

And I attribute that to the Westwalls, SSDDs, and Gslacks and others who are doggedly putting out solid information out there and the unwillingness of the AGW crowd to discuss that information and their almost frantic and obviously organized fervor to detract from it.

There are lots and lots and lots of idiots out there. But they aren't all idiots. I figure some are paying attention.

I agree with you Foxy. 8 years ago whenever a story on AGW was run in virtually any paper the split was around 50/50 between supporters and sceptics. Now, it is overwhelmingly sceptic. In fact the posts to the UK newspapers and the German papers are derisive at the least. There is outright mockery of the supporters now.

Whenever one of these libtards posts some BS poll that says they are winning I just laugh because they are so, so far removed from reality.

 

[gslack]

It probably will not be ruled as a serious offense within the context, but you know and I know how dishonest it was. I sympathise with SSDD who is sufficiently interested in the topic to want to actually debate it with somebody capable of debating.

None of these guys are actually capable of debating. The best you can do is counter their crap for the benefit of those who read, but don't engage the conversation. If their BS goes unchallenged, then people might get the impression that they are right. When people see them do their song and dance when confronted with actual fact, they know who the anti science people really are.

There are reasons that public interest in AGW as a topic is dropping through the basement. People visit these sorts of sites and read and see how badly the argument goes for warmers and make decisions. Public support doesn't just drop away like it has for AGW for no reason at all.

I hope you're right. It is a subject that interests me a great deal as almost all phenomenon that affects Planet Earth or the universe we inhabit interests me. You can't have a left leaning media reporting over and over and over again that 'the scientific consensus supports AGW' without affecting public opinion whether those responding to polls have any education on the the subject whatsoever.

But more and more I am seeing that the polling results are much less favorable for AGW depending on a) who is asking the questions and b) how the questions are asked. Ask any group of Americans whether they are worried about global warming from any cause for themselves, and fewer than 50% will say that it worries them much if at all. Ask the same group if they think it could affect other people or future people, and more will answer in the affirmative but even that is in fewer numbers than it used to be.

And I attribute that to the Westwalls, SSDDs, and Gslacks and others who are doggedly putting out solid information out there and the unwillingness of the AGW crowd to discuss that information and their almost frantic and obviously organized fervor to detract from it.

There are lots and lots and lots of idiots out there. But they aren't all idiots. I figure some are paying attention.

Thank you fox, but I don't have the scientific chops of westwall, SSD, or polarbear. I just been an analyst so long it's second nature to study everything I see like I have to submit a recommendation on it to somebody. It's anal retentive, annoys the crap out of my wife sometimes, and makes it really hard for my kids to pull teenage nonsense on me LOL..

I just know BS when I see, hear, read, or smell it.. Occupational hazard I suppose. Oh and I'm a genuine asshole too, that helps on the blunt and upfront side lol

 

[mamooth]

We've been encouraged by an admin on the Rubber Room thread to report anyone accusing someone of socking or otherwise blatantly trolling and breaking forum rules.

Congrats! This place has a reputation now. The mods are interested in cleaning it out. I suggest everyone try to not make themselves the one cleaned. All sock accusations, psychostalkings and crazy personal vendettas need to go into the Rubber Room thread ("Time to clean up the environment forum") from now on.

In that thread, fling them out to your little heart's content. Do it in the Environment Folder, it gets reported from now on. There will not be any further warnings. Except to noobs, which is nobody here now.

And as always, if I report someone, everyone will know it was me, because I'll announce it in a thread here. If I didn't announce it, it wasn't me.

 

[gslack]

We've been encouraged by an admin on the Rubber Room thread to report anyone accusing someone of socking or otherwise blatantly trolling and breaking forum rules.

Congrats! This place has a reputation now. The mods are interested in cleaning it out. I suggest everyone try to not make themselves the one cleaned. All sock accusations, psychostalkings and crazy personal vendettas need to go into the Rubber Room thread ("Time to clean up the environment forum") from now on.

In that thread, fling them out to your little heart's content. Do it in the Environment Folder, it gets reported from now on. There will not be any further warnings. Except to noobs, which is nobody here now.

And as always, if I report someone, everyone will know it was me, because I'll announce it in a thread here. If I didn't announce it, it wasn't me.

Funny admiral but we saw the post here in the thread to.. It has red text easy to spot.. It was a response to your post..

Sure ya will admiral just like you were so honest about the PM I sent you... Still waiting on that apology.. Any time no rush...

That thread was you and Saigon's doing, you wanted attention and you got it.

 

[flacaltenn]

SSDD's last graph needs some explaining. the reason for the drop in temps in 2007 was because a skeptic, Steve McIntyre, spending his own time and money found an error in the GISS computer program that had been unnoticed since Y2K. Hansen trotted out a hurried correction that he then managed to systematically bump up to pre-2007 values almost immediately.

Actually, it doesn't. The differences are insignificant. He thinks he's found something because some symbols are different.

They are

a) the raw data has been available to anyone that wanted it. It always has been.

c) the real data is month to month, not year to year.

b) if you have a record of it, then it isn't a secret that was "uncovered".

He thinks he's found something new.

He's never actually plotted them and looked at what they really do to the data. *And they don't do anything important. *To much effort trying to prove that someone else lies in order to justify himself, instead of just doing the work. If he put in as much effort doing the real work, as he puts into trying to prove someone else is lying, he'd discover he's got nothing. But then, he wouldn't want that because he'd have to face the fact that he's that guy, the one he's so busy complaining about.

The RAW raw station from GISS is no longer available in the new data sets. Instead, they have CULLED stations and records and purged them from future analysis..

You CAN use resources such as the "Internet WayBack Machine" to go capture the GISS book-cooking in action.. Or you can really on already tracked and archived snapshots of the data larceny.. It's so obvious that it doesn't take much to show how phoney some of these changing data preps are..

Here -- Dr. Roy Spencer takes a simple data prep of the raw data adjusted for population density and SUBTRACTS it from the OFFICIAL USHCN Temp prep for the US..

That huge blip over a period of 2 or 3 years -- is phoney as hell. THe variance in the data is noticeably different from the rest of the record.

There are examples of this kind of subtraction taking the USHCN data in 2001 and subtracting it from USHCN data in 1996 and the result produces an almost perfect "hockey stick"..

BTW: Dr. Spencer's "simple prep" of the USHCN database? It matches the satellite record MUCH BETTER than the current "official" USHCN plot...

 

[Foxfyre]

None of these guys are actually capable of debating. The best you can do is counter their crap for the benefit of those who read, but don't engage the conversation. If their BS goes unchallenged, then people might get the impression that they are right. When people see them do their song and dance when confronted with actual fact, they know who the anti science people really are.

There are reasons that public interest in AGW as a topic is dropping through the basement. People visit these sorts of sites and read and see how badly the argument goes for warmers and make decisions. Public support doesn't just drop away like it has for AGW for no reason at all.

I hope you're right. It is a subject that interests me a great deal as almost all phenomenon that affects Planet Earth or the universe we inhabit interests me. You can't have a left leaning media reporting over and over and over again that 'the scientific consensus supports AGW' without affecting public opinion whether those responding to polls have any education on the the subject whatsoever.

But more and more I am seeing that the polling results are much less favorable for AGW depending on a) who is asking the questions and b) how the questions are asked. Ask any group of Americans whether they are worried about global warming from any cause for themselves, and fewer than 50% will say that it worries them much if at all. Ask the same group if they think it could affect other people or future people, and more will answer in the affirmative but even that is in fewer numbers than it used to be.

And I attribute that to the Westwalls, SSDDs, and Gslacks and others who are doggedly putting out solid information out there and the unwillingness of the AGW crowd to discuss that information and their almost frantic and obviously organized fervor to detract from it.

There are lots and lots and lots of idiots out there. But they aren't all idiots. I figure some are paying attention.

Thank you fox, but I don't have the scientific chops of westwall, SSD, or polarbear. I just been an analyst so long it's second nature to study everything I see like I have to submit a recommendation on it to somebody. It's anal retentive, annoys the crap out of my wife sometimes, and makes it really hard for my kids to pull teenage nonsense on me LOL..

I just know BS when I see, hear, read, or smell it.. Occupational hazard I suppose. Oh and I'm a genuine asshole too, that helps on the blunt and upfront side lol

Well viva la assholes with good BS detectors. I too am only an interested observer to the high tech scientific stuff when it comes to some of these guys, but I put a high value on common sense too, as well as an appreciation for self serving political motives. And it doesn't take a scientific whiz kid to spot double speak, self contradictions, and pure fabrications. And I also am smart enough to know when a question is answered and when one is intentionally dodged.