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

[mamooth]

I only wish that guys like Steve McIntyre could have an intern to track down information and do some of the grunt work.

There's your problem. You've sworn allegiance to guru McIntyre, and sworn vengeance on all the evildoers who dare disagree with him. For example, you're pretty much required to declare Tamino and Gavin Schmidt are possessed by Satan.

Trouble is, McIntyre is much better at conspiracy theories than he is at statistics. His dishonest quote mining of the CRU emails was especially contemptible, as was all of his disgraceful behavior during the climategate faux-scandal. That sleaze even topped his previous record for bad behavior, his lie campaign against Keith Briffa.

As far as cash goes, he's board president of a mining company which is very interested in pushing denialism.

Currently, his favorite activity is FOIA-harassing honest scientists, and complaining about a conspiracy of hiding data that he already has.

Oh, when Patrick Michaels was caught red-handed falsifying data about Mann, McIntyre rushed to Michaels' defense. McIntyre loves that data distortion, as long as it's his side doing it. No matter. He's a hero to a movement now, and can do no wrong in their eyes.

 

[westwall]

I only wish that guys like Steve McIntyre could have an intern to track down information and do some of the grunt work.

There's your problem. You've sworn allegiance to guru McIntyre, and sworn vengeance on all the evildoers who dare disagree with him. For example, you're pretty much required to declare Tamino and Gavin Schmidt are possessed by Satan.

Trouble is, McIntyre is much better at conspiracy theories than he is at statistics. His dishonest quote mining of the CRU emails was especially contemptible, as was all of his disgraceful behavior during the climategate faux-scandal. That sleaze even topped his previous record for bad behavior, his lie campaign against Keith Briffa.

As far as cash goes, he's board president of a mining company which is very interested in pushing denialism.

Currently, his favorite activity is FOIA-harassing honest scientists, and complaining about a conspiracy of hiding data that he already has.

Oh, when Patrick Michaels was caught red-handed falsifying data about Mann, McIntyre rushed to Michaels' defense. McIntyre loves that data distortion, as long as it's his side doing it. No matter. He's a hero to a movement now, and can do no wrong in their eyes.

And there's YOUR problem. Gergis et al went through YOUR peer review, you guys passed it out as A-OK and McIntyre and Co. destroyed it in ten hours. You're just pissed off that a non climatologist made all of you look like ignorant monkeys.

Just imagine how quickly McIntyre and Co. could disassemble your whole house of cards....if only he had money to do it...

It's a fact that whenever a sceptic takes a look at ANY claim you science deniers make, it falls apart within days if not hours....that's a fact.

If the sceptics were as well funded as you claim you would be out of a job.

 

[itfitzme]

There is the only AWG claim I care about.

It starts here;

Find a Station | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Viewing Met Office Integrated Data Archive System (MIDAS) Land and Marine Surface Stations Data (1853-current)

Gets compiled to here, where (T2+ error2)-(T1+error1) = detla_T21+error21 and error21<error2 and error21<error1

Temperature data (HadCRUT4)

Presented more cleanly here;

Then gets run through a prediction filter that produces this;

The rest is just noise.

And as long the long term trend is up, global warming. *When the long term trend isn't up any more, then no warming. *So far, its about 100 years of up. *So it's gonna have to be down a lot for a long time before it is not warmimg.

 

[westwall]

Those are computer model generated graphs. That makes them every bit as useful as a Harry Potter novel.

Congrats, you are so anti-science is that you will accept fiction over factual data.

 

[itfitzme]

Those are computer model generated graphs. *That makes them every bit as useful as a Harry Potter novel.

Congrats, you are so anti-science is that you will accept fiction over factual data.

Your brain creates models that you use as if it was real. *From the very moment signals propogate from the back of your eyeball, down the optic nerve, it's all just a model of the info recieved as light is focused on your two dimensional retina. *And yet, you actually act as if you are perceiving a 3-D world.

That makes your eyes every bit as useful as a Harry Potter novel.

Can someone please tell me where the published callabration numbers are for my eyes RGB cells and eyeball paralax/retina-focus to 3-D perception? *

Can someone please tell me what the noise limit value is for when a stationary signal on my retina gets treated as internal neuron noise instead of external stimulus?

I have to have these numbers or I can't trust my eyes. *I haven't left my room for days because I might bump into something.

It's all so confusing.

 

[PMZ]

Now Walleyes, you claim a Phd in Geology. Now I attended the university three quarters this last school year, and never met any professor as ill informed as you are.

Those that can...do. Those that can't.....well you know the rest. Or maybe you don't.

Those ivory towers, contrary to your belief are not where the best and brightest reside.

Tell, where do the best and brightest reside? Fox News?

 

[PMZ]

OK, dumb fuck, so once again, the increase is not a linear line, but superimposed over the natural variations. And, with all ten of the warmest years on record since 1998, I would hardly state that it is cooling at present. You can see that right here;

Cooling's coming rocks....how long must the trend continue before it sinks through your thick skull? How far are you behind the curve...really?

Here's, more of the SS. Predictions of the future.

 

[PMZ]

Exactly the same PR crowd that denied smoking causes cancer now works for the AGW denialists. As in the very same people.

Yes, there are professional propagandists out there, and they work for the denialist side. And why wouldn't they? That's where 99% of the money is. You have to take a pay cut to work on the honest side, which is another thing that gives the AGW side credibility.

who is getting rich on the skeptic side? most of the most influential skeptics actually pay out of their own pocket to get their message out. I only wish that guys like Steve McIntyre could have an intern to track down information and do some of the grunt work.

I don't know of a skeptics side. Skepticism is merely the same non-objective denial with a back door.

 

[PMZ]

do you think I am a 'denier'?



as far as my sig- I will give an example that is widely known, even amongst people who don't follow the climate wars. for the past couple of years skeptics have been saying that warming has stopped. initially the warmers went ballistic and reported that not only was the warming still happening but it was happening at an ever increasing rate. Phil Jones got sandbagged with the question "is it significant", and to his credit he answered "no". but the pitbulls at SkS, Tamino, etc went to ever increasing lengths to torture the data to fit the warming dogma. bit-by-bit they have all started to admit that there is a problem, at least with the models. you would think most reasonable people would be happy that imminent disaster is not tomorrow anyways.

people notice when someone is assuring them that their position is the truth, then get hysterical and defensive when it doesn't work out, then meekly admit that they were wrong. if you are still in the defensive mode that is your right. but you better start planning on how to back down without losing too much face.

As you spend all of your time trying to find reasons to deny the conclusions of 97% of qualified climate scientists, yes, I think that you are a 'denier'.

I suppose one could apply your logic to all science research. That somebody with deep pockets benefits from virtually every finding, so could be funding those whose conclusions support what benefits them.

I, personally believe that it is much less likely to happen in science than in business where the only rule is, make more money regardless of the cost to others.

I'm also trying to figure out how such a massive conspiracy would work in the real world. Scientists from all over the world deciding jointly to fudge the results of their measurements and experiments in such a way that they all lead to the same false conclusion.

You'd think that among the thousands of researchers involved there would probably be one tattle tail.

massive conspiracy? no such thing. group think and herd instinct? definitely. there are procedures in my workplace that I don't agree with but I follow them anyways.

as far as denying.... I agree that there has been warming, I agree that CO2 has had an impact even if the magnitude is unknown, and I agree that climate is changeable just as it always has been. what do I deny? the conclusions of catastrophe that are based on assumptions that are very unlikely to happen. what am I pissed off about? people like Marcott who wrote a sensible PhD paper on interglacial temps, only to be talked into adding incommensurate recent data to it and re-releasing it to public acclaim as the 'next greatest hockey stick'. it was torn to shreds in the open scientific marketplace, as was Marcott's reputation. why did it happen? because co-author Shakur wanted to try again after his own paper on CO2 induced warming was mascerated.

CO2 theory starts with legitimate and reasonable underpinnings but ends with an error cascade of obnoxious declarations of doom that any thinking person should be very dubious about.

So you agree with the science behind AGW, but you don't agree that the resulting ice melt will raise sea level, or the less stable atmosphere will redistribute rain fall and cause more extreme weather, and that the unfreezing of tundra won't compound GHG concentrations?

 

[PMZ]

You have to wonder if he bothered to notice the cooling trend clearly indicated at the end of his graph. The AGW hypothesis is failing so badly that the warmers can't even manage to come up with faked data to support it.

OK, dumb fuck, so once again, the increase is not a linear line, but superimposed over the natural variations. And, with all ten of the warmest years on record since 1998, I would hardly state that it is cooling at present. You can see that right here;

UAH Global Temperature Update for May 2013: +0.07 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

Are you that surprised when stocks hit "all time highs" consecutively when the DOw is above 15000??? Expect that to happen when the DOw is at 13,000?

Think the Dow hitting monthly "all time highs" is ANY INDICATION of future positive performance?

I don't care about "3rd warmest on record".. I understand where those numbers are coming from. Apparently you don't...

About those "natural variations".. As I pointed out to Mamooth in another thread --- A rational person would see that if a "natural variation" can swamp the projected increase from GHGas theory, -- why then --- WHY isn't it a bigger part of the modeling?

No excuse for finding the temp rise stalled due to well-known and quantified NATURAL variations.. Except maybe sloppy science eh?

What are the odds that 97% of the qualified climate scientists in the world are sloppy, and you are not?

 

[PMZ]

Yeah.. That post had all the fingerprints of literal statistical genius..*

Say WHAT???

You have to wonder if he bothered to notice the cooling trend clearly indicated at the end of his graph. *The AGW hypothesis is failing so badly that the warmers can't even manage to come up with faked data to support it.

*There's no denying it any more. Cat's out of the bag. *Might just as well let everyone in on the secret. *The recent 16 year pause is just made up to let the real temp catch up.

It's a been a conspiracy by The Queen, The Rothchilds, The Gettys, and Colonol Sanders. *It really is all pretend so we can meet once every five years in Copenhagen for pony rides and ice cream.

Sorry, you weren't invited.

Yeah, that't it, yeah

Col Sanders too?????

 

[itfitzme]

Steve McIntyre loves the attention. *The David Koresh of climate change denial. *It's great to have a following...so validating. *Where can I donate?

 

[PMZ]

There is the only AWG claim I care about.

It starts here;

Find a Station | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Viewing Met Office Integrated Data Archive System (MIDAS) Land and Marine Surface Stations Data (1853-current)

Gets compiled to here, where (T2+ error2)-(T1+error1) = detla_T21+error21 and error21<error2 and error21<error1

Temperature data (HadCRUT4)

Presented more cleanly here;

Then gets run through a prediction filter that produces this;

The rest is just noise.

And as long the long term trend is up, global warming. *When the long term trend isn't up any more, then no warming. *So far, its about 100 years of up. *So it's gonna have to be down a lot for a long time before it is not warmimg.

The mindset of the climate reactionaries is that for AGW to exist every new molecule of GHG in the atmosphere results in an immediate and perceptible increase in global average temperature.

 

[PMZ]

Those are computer model generated graphs. That makes them every bit as useful as a Harry Potter novel.

Congrats, you are so anti-science is that you will accept fiction over factual data.

AGW is a plot by computers against humans.

 

[itfitzme]

You have to wonder if he bothered to notice the cooling trend clearly indicated at the end of his graph. The AGW hypothesis is failing so badly that the warmers can't even manage to come up with faked data to support it.

There's no denying it any more. Cat's out of the bag. Might just as well let everyone in on the secret. The recent 16 year pause is just made up to let the real temp catch up.

It's a been a conspiracy by The Queen, The Rothchilds, The Gettys, and Colonol Sanders. *It really is all pretend so we can meet once every five years in Copenhagen for pony rides and ice cream.

Sorry, you weren't invited.

Yeah, that's it, yeah

Col Sanders too?????

Yep, puts an addictive substance in his chicken to cause you to crave it fortnightly.

The conspiracy is revealed in the Movie "I Married An Axe Murderer", written by comedian Mike Meyers. The father, Tony Mackenzie, of the main character, Stuart Mackenzie, was patterned after Meyer's real father. Growing up, Mike Meyer's dad clued Mike into it. Mike worked it into the script.

"Stuart Mackenzie: Well, it's a well known fact, Sonny Jim, that there's a secret society of the five wealthiest people in the world, known as the Pentavirate, who run everything in the world, including the newspapers, and meet tri-annually at a secret country mansion in Colorado, known as The Meadows.

Tony Giardino: So who's in this Pentavirate?

Stuart Mackenzie: The Queen, the Vatican, the Gettys, the Rothschilds, and Colonel Sanders before he went tets-up. Oh, I hated the Colonel with is wee beady eyes! And that smug look on his face, "Oh, you're gonna buy my chicken! Ohhhhh!"

Charlie Mackenzie: Dad, how can you hate the Colonel?

Stuart Mackenzie: Because he puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes ya crave it fortnightly, smartarse!

Charlie Mackenzie: Interesting.... Coo-coo."

Apparently, the Pentavirate, also run the Federal Reserve, the BLS, and the BEA. They skew the CPI, GDP and Unemployment rate numbers. You can tell because the numbers get revised within a month of fitst reporting. See, just like how the IPCC revises it's numbers. It happens all the time. That's how you know.

The Pentavirate are into everything, even NASA, the NOAA, MET, IPCC, FBI, NSA, CIA, everything. They control the masses by controlling the media and the banks. It's huge.

If Meyer's hadn't put the secret message in his movie, I'd never have known.

The only news you can really trust are the tabloids, like The National Enquirer, The Sun, and The Star.

So I Married an Axe Murderer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So I Married an Axe Murderer - Wikiquote

 

[itfitzme]

There is the only AWG claim I care about.

It starts here;

Find a Station | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Viewing Met Office Integrated Data Archive System (MIDAS) Land and Marine Surface Stations Data (1853-current)

Gets compiled to here, where (T2+ error2)-(T1+error1) = detla_T21+error21 and error21<error2 and error21<error1

Temperature data (HadCRUT4)

Presented more cleanly here;

Then gets run through a prediction filter that produces this;

The rest is just noise.

And as long the long term trend is up, global warming. *When the long term trend isn't up any more, then no warming. *So far, its about 100 years of up. *So it's gonna have to be down a lot for a long time before it is not warmimg.

The mindset of the climate reactionaries is that for AGW to exist every new molecule of GHG in the atmosphere results in an immediate and perceptible increase in global average temperature.

You can't prove which molecules reflect IR. *(or is that absorb and re-emit).

How are they going to prove which ones? *Have they actually seen a CO2 molecule reflecting a photon? *In the atmosphere?

 

[itfitzme]

Off topic, but fun to watch

See physics phenomenon of self siphoning beads - The Feed Blog - CBS News

Try modelling that with a computer.

 

[PMZ]

There is the only AWG claim I care about.

It starts here;

Find a Station | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Viewing Met Office Integrated Data Archive System (MIDAS) Land and Marine Surface Stations Data (1853-current)

Gets compiled to here, where (T2+ error2)-(T1+error1) = detla_T21+error21 and error21<error2 and error21<error1

Temperature data (HadCRUT4)

Presented more cleanly here;

Then gets run through a prediction filter that produces this;

The rest is just noise.

And as long the long term trend is up, global warming. *When the long term trend isn't up any more, then no warming. *So far, its about 100 years of up. *So it's gonna have to be down a lot for a long time before it is not warmimg.

The mindset of the climate reactionaries is that for AGW to exist every new molecule of GHG in the atmosphere results in an immediate and perceptible increase in global average temperature.

You can't prove which molecules reflect IR. *(or is that absorb and re-emit).

How are they going to prove which ones? *Have they actually seen a CO2 molecule reflecting a photon? *In the atmosphere?

How do they even know that it's CO2? Could be CO3 or CO2.456. It's all a guess.

 

[itfitzme]

If you haven't seen it, you should watch*LIAR, LIAR | Brain Games | National Geographic Channel

Also, Stephan Pinker, "How The Mind Works".

How the Mind Works - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The human brain is a biological computer that constructs a model of the world. And the really amazing thing is that there is insufficient imformation to actually solve for a definitive comclusion. *The brain makes assumptions about missing data. It's like having four equations with three unknowns and making assumptions about the missing variable.

From the very basis, we make hundreds of assumptions to get to

And it starts from the very point that light hits our retina. *Frankly, I more trust a linear regression of data than my own eyes. *I just won't wait for someone to input the train velocity as it's speeding towards a broken bridge. *

How much accuracy and precision is needed depends on the consequences of failing to act. *And as I've never personally been in a car accident, I go with the published data and wear a seatbelt.

So far,*

just isn't looking good.

And the published error on this

Made by

On this

is better than I can get out*

 

[gslack]

ifitzpmzpoopiepants sock, your spamming the board isn't helping your story. In fact it's showing your BS for what it is. You're a troll..