The Global Warmers Have Lost the War

[orogenicman]

It is amusing that you believe it to be so irreducibly complex, considering when we were talking about it earlier (and had the ground water conversation), you said it was all very simple. You are a creationist. Don't pretend that you are not. We've had conversations on several threads about evolution, and from those conversations, your position was very clear that you don't believe in evolution. We've also had several conversations on atheism, and your religious beliefs were made clear there as well.

No, I stated that ground water is comparatively simple. With groundwater the only variables are with the media that the water is traveling through. We KNOW every aspect of water and it's properties. Your outright lies about my agnosticism, (you seem to conflate a respect for people of religion with having a religious viewpoint) and support of the theory of evolution are amusing. Let's see you present a single post I have made where I do ONE thing that you just claimed olfraud. Just one.

Right. That explains why you never solved the challenge I presented to you. Because it is simple.

What challenge was that olfraud? You didn't give nearly enough information to elicit a response.

I was very specific in my challenge. And wally. I don't make a habit of repeating myself. My post is in his thread. I suggest you review it so you don't look more foolish than you already look.

No, you weren't. It was a generalized problem dealing with water transport through karst. There was nothing specific. When we make models of aquifers we have actually done seismic surveys so we at least have a modicum of an idea of what we are dealing with.

You gave no details at all.

Demonstrating that you haven't read the post. My challenge was very specific, bubba. And even if it was more generalized than you prefer, so what? Many generalized problems are solved using science and mathematics. Have at it, or admit that you are wrong. Funny, though, that you have no problems with modeling ground water or seismic phenomenon, but are dead set against climate models because you see them as being unscientific. Why is that, Mr. PhD?

 

[orogenicman]

Not according to real scientists

In Westwall's mind, a "real scientist" being anyone who agrees with his religious beliefs.

A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.

Global Warming Bombshell MIT Technology Review

Denier pseudoscience never dies. They just keep repeating it, forever, no matter how many times it gets debunked. McIntyre and McKitrick didn't use random noise, and followed by cherrypicking the 1% of their results that gave hockey sticks. They then spun about and lied brazenly that all random noise produced hockey sticks. That's why the real scientists consider them to be clowns and frauds.

Sure thing bunky, that's why McIntyre has been the cause of how many of your pets paper retractions? Hmmm? The problem you have is the warmists are so bad at basic math that a mere statistician has shown them to be wrong on so many occasions they are now terrified whenever he even glances at one of their papers.

To my knowledge, McInTyred wrote one peer reviewed paper related to climate science. In it, he found a small statistical problem that led to a revision in the original paper. However, that revision amounted to a hill of beans because it made no difference whatsoever in the outcome. Next.

Your knowledge of the subject is remarkably limited then. Here are three of a bunch. Enjoy!

Paper claiming hottest 60-year-span in 1 000 years put on hold after being published online - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

That paper was retracted after the author himself found data processing errors. McInTyred did not find nor originally report the errors. Nor, apparently, does he even know what the errors were. His only pony in the show was in trying to gain access to the database itself. It was coincidentally when he requested the data that the author retracted the paper.

Controversial paper linking conspiracy ideation to climate change skepticism formally retracted - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

That wasn't even a climate science paper, bubba. It was a psychology paper. Getting desperate, are we? Moreover, according to the pubisher:

"This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study. It did, however, determine that the legal context is insufficiently clear and therefore Frontiers wishes to retract the published article. The authors understand this decision, while they stand by their article and regret the limitations on academic freedom which can be caused by legal factors."

 

[westwall]

Not according to real scientists

In Westwall's mind, a "real scientist" being anyone who agrees with his religious beliefs.

A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.

Global Warming Bombshell MIT Technology Review

Denier pseudoscience never dies. They just keep repeating it, forever, no matter how many times it gets debunked. McIntyre and McKitrick didn't use random noise, and followed by cherrypicking the 1% of their results that gave hockey sticks. They then spun about and lied brazenly that all random noise produced hockey sticks. That's why the real scientists consider them to be clowns and frauds.

Sure thing bunky, that's why McIntyre has been the cause of how many of your pets paper retractions? Hmmm? The problem you have is the warmists are so bad at basic math that a mere statistician has shown them to be wrong on so many occasions they are now terrified whenever he even glances at one of their papers.

To my knowledge, McInTyred wrote one peer reviewed paper related to climate science. In it, he found a small statistical problem that led to a revision in the original paper. However, that revision amounted to a hill of beans because it made no difference whatsoever in the outcome. Next.

Your knowledge of the subject is remarkably limited then. Here are three of a bunch. Enjoy!

Paper claiming hottest 60-year-span in 1 000 years put on hold after being published online - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

That paper was retracted after the author himself found data processing errors. McInTyred did not find nor originally report the errors. Nor, apparently, does he even know what the errors were. His only pony in the show was in trying to gain access to the database itself. It was coincidentally when he requested the data that the author retracted the paper.

Controversial paper linking conspiracy ideation to climate change skepticism formally retracted - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

That wasn't even a climate science paper, bubba. It was a psychology paper. Getting desperate, are we? Moreover, according to the pubisher:

"This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study. It did, however, determine that the legal context is insufficiently clear and therefore Frontiers wishes to retract the published article. The authors understand this decision, while they stand by their article and regret the limitations on academic freedom which can be caused by legal factors."

I suggest you read the material more clearly then. Both papers were retracted thanks to work that McIntyre did. Funny, you claim to be so uninterested in his work that he is almost a non-entity but your support for the bad science is immediate.

Funny how you propagandists work. And, no, your challenge had no specifics at all. In fact you completely ignored bedding planes, which in a karst topography are one of the most important aspects. Specific my butt, you didn't even cover the bare basics.

 

[mamooth]

Sure thing bunky, that's why McIntyre has been the cause of how many of your pets paper retractions?

Zero, as has already been pointed out.

I notice you working hard to evade the issue of McIntyre's incompetence, cherrypicking and fraud.

The way he didn't detrend his data, so that the noise still had signal in it.

The way he cherrypicked 1% of his results, only picking the ones that showed hockeysticks.

The first was just an error. The second is deliberate fraud.

And you kiss the keister of that fraudster. To hardcore denier cultists, fraud is a resume builder.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Not according to real scientists

In Westwall's mind, a "real scientist" being anyone who agrees with his religious beliefs.

A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.

Global Warming Bombshell MIT Technology Review

Denier pseudoscience never dies. They just keep repeating it, forever, no matter how many times it gets debunked. McIntyre and McKitrick didn't use random noise, and followed by cherrypicking the 1% of their results that gave hockey sticks. They then spun about and lied brazenly that all random noise produced hockey sticks. That's why the real scientists consider them to be clowns and frauds.

Sure thing bunky, that's why McIntyre has been the cause of how many of your pets paper retractions? Hmmm? The problem you have is the warmists are so bad at basic math that a mere statistician has shown them to be wrong on so many occasions they are now terrified whenever he even glances at one of their papers.

To my knowledge, McInTyred wrote one peer reviewed paper related to climate science. In it, he found a small statistical problem that led to a revision in the original paper. However, that revision amounted to a hill of beans because it made no difference whatsoever in the outcome. Next.

Your knowledge of the subject is remarkably limited then. Here are three of a bunch. Enjoy!

Paper claiming hottest 60-year-span in 1 000 years put on hold after being published online - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

Controversial paper linking conspiracy ideation to climate change skepticism formally retracted - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

Frontiers Retraction Recursive fury Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation Personality and Social Psychology

Now that is Funny... Every single attempt to create a "link" so that they can scream that they have the high ground goes down in flames simply because they make up shit which has no basis in fact or science.. You would have thought that the failure of CAGW would have lent them a clue about who they are trying to belittle and marginalize..

The public has become desensitized to the Alyinsky tactics of marginalization and look beyond the hyperbole at the facts now. Alarmists have no where to hide now... and that simply makes me laugh at their stupid asses..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Zero, as has already been pointed out.

I notice you working hard to evade the issue of McIntyre's incompetence, cherrypicking and fraud.

The way he didn't detrend his data, so that the noise still had signal in it.

The way he cherrypicked 1% of his results, only picking the ones that showed hockeysticks.

The first was just an error. The second is deliberate fraud.

And you kiss the keister of that fraudster. To hardcore denier cultists, fraud is a resume builder.

Wow... Clueless ^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[orogenicman]

In Westwall's mind, a "real scientist" being anyone who agrees with his religious beliefs.

Denier pseudoscience never dies. They just keep repeating it, forever, no matter how many times it gets debunked. McIntyre and McKitrick didn't use random noise, and followed by cherrypicking the 1% of their results that gave hockey sticks. They then spun about and lied brazenly that all random noise produced hockey sticks. That's why the real scientists consider them to be clowns and frauds.

Sure thing bunky, that's why McIntyre has been the cause of how many of your pets paper retractions? Hmmm? The problem you have is the warmists are so bad at basic math that a mere statistician has shown them to be wrong on so many occasions they are now terrified whenever he even glances at one of their papers.

To my knowledge, McInTyred wrote one peer reviewed paper related to climate science. In it, he found a small statistical problem that led to a revision in the original paper. However, that revision amounted to a hill of beans because it made no difference whatsoever in the outcome. Next.

Your knowledge of the subject is remarkably limited then. Here are three of a bunch. Enjoy!

Paper claiming hottest 60-year-span in 1 000 years put on hold after being published online - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

That paper was retracted after the author himself found data processing errors. McInTyred did not find nor originally report the errors. Nor, apparently, does he even know what the errors were. His only pony in the show was in trying to gain access to the database itself. It was coincidentally when he requested the data that the author retracted the paper.

Controversial paper linking conspiracy ideation to climate change skepticism formally retracted - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

That wasn't even a climate science paper, bubba. It was a psychology paper. Getting desperate, are we? Moreover, according to the pubisher:

"This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study. It did, however, determine that the legal context is insufficiently clear and therefore Frontiers wishes to retract the published article. The authors understand this decision, while they stand by their article and regret the limitations on academic freedom which can be caused by legal factors."

I suggest you read the material more clearly then. Both papers were retracted thanks to work that McIntyre did. Funny, you claim to be so uninterested in his work that he is almost a non-entity but your support for the bad science is immediate.

Funny how you propagandists work. And, no, your challenge had no specifics at all. In fact you completely ignored bedding planes, which in a karst topography are one of the most important aspects. Specific my butt, you didn't even cover the bare basics.

Utter bullshit. McInTyred only reported that the paper have been pulled by the publisher. He found no errors himself. He published no peer reviewed work pointing out the errors. By his own admission, he didn't even gain access to the database that he wanted because the paper was pulled. He didn't even know there were errors until the publication was pulled. The second work was not even related to climate change. Why you thought it was worthwhile posting is the mystery. As for that paper, the publisher pulled it for legal reasons ONLY, but the university in Australia where the work was done, stood by the work because they weren't so concerned about the legal ramifications or of hurting the feel bads of you poor deniers.

In fact, I did mention them in subsequent posts. But that was for you to work out on your own, bubba. That was part of the challenge, which you have yet to do. If you are a PhD geologist, as you say, you should have no problem determining the "simple" fate of those contaminants. Hell, you didn't even know that they were denser than water, and so tend to sink to the bottom of the aquifer (part of determining the fate of contaminants is knowing where to look for them). Go back and read the post and try, if you dare, to determine the likely fate of those contaminants in your "simple" ground water regime.

 

[orogenicman]

Not according to real scientists

In Westwall's mind, a "real scientist" being anyone who agrees with his religious beliefs.

A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.

Global Warming Bombshell MIT Technology Review

Denier pseudoscience never dies. They just keep repeating it, forever, no matter how many times it gets debunked. McIntyre and McKitrick didn't use random noise, and followed by cherrypicking the 1% of their results that gave hockey sticks. They then spun about and lied brazenly that all random noise produced hockey sticks. That's why the real scientists consider them to be clowns and frauds.

Sure thing bunky, that's why McIntyre has been the cause of how many of your pets paper retractions? Hmmm? The problem you have is the warmists are so bad at basic math that a mere statistician has shown them to be wrong on so many occasions they are now terrified whenever he even glances at one of their papers.

To my knowledge, McInTyred wrote one peer reviewed paper related to climate science. In it, he found a small statistical problem that led to a revision in the original paper. However, that revision amounted to a hill of beans because it made no difference whatsoever in the outcome. Next.

Your knowledge of the subject is remarkably limited then. Here are three of a bunch. Enjoy!

Paper claiming hottest 60-year-span in 1 000 years put on hold after being published online - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

Controversial paper linking conspiracy ideation to climate change skepticism formally retracted - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

Frontiers Retraction Recursive fury Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation Personality and Social Psychology

Now that is Funny... Every single attempt to create a "link" so that they can scream that they have the high ground goes down in flames simply because they make up shit which has no basis in fact or science.. You would have thought that the failure of CAGW would have lent them a clue about who they are trying to belittle and marginalize..

The public has become desensitized to the Alyinsky tactics of marginalization and look beyond the hyperbole at the facts now. Alarmists have no where to hide now... and that simply makes me laugh at their stupid asses..

Oh Billy Bob, we are well aware of who you deniers are, and what your motives are.

 

[Leweman]

Do people actually believe in man made global warming? Wow! Is this the 1300's still or what.

 

[bripat9643]

The Global Warming Hoax's gold standard has long been the "Hockey stick graph". In Al Gore's Riefenstahlian propaganda film, "an inconvenient truth", the audience audibly gasps!! when the Hockey Stick graph is revealed. It sure looks DRAMATIC!! OMFG!! One can only conclude that (gasp!) Humans are ruining the climate!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!...RUN!!! ........ (but only after we advance our political agenda!)

But it turns out that the entire thing was a hoax. Just a "Michael Mann" made fable. There was no hockey stick. The data was fake. The entire statistical foundation upon which the Global warming hoax was built on was nothing but a miasma of lies, deceit, and malfeasance. They lied for $$$ and to advance a political agenda.

Despicable.

What is despicable is that you are one ignorant liar. The Hockey Stick Graph has been confirmed by over a dozen different studies using many different proxies.

What evidence is there for the hockey stick

Of course, these examples only go back around 500 years - this doesn't even cover theMedieval Warm Period. When you combine all the various proxies, including ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites, it's possible to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures without tree-ring proxies going back 1,300 years (Mann 2008). The result is that temperatures in recent decades exceed the maximumproxy estimate (including uncertainty range) for the past 1,300 years. When you include tree-ring data, the same result holds for the past 1,700 years.

Figure 6: Composite Northern Hemisphere land and land plus ocean temperaturereconstructions and estimated 95% confidence intervals. Shown for comparison are published Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (Mann 2008).

Paleoclimatology draws upon a range of proxies and methodologies to calculate past temperatures. This allows independent confirmation of the basic hockey stick result: that the past few decades are the hottest in the past 1,300 years.

The Hockey Stick has been proven to be a fraud, and that includes versions II, III and IV. The so-called "studies" that support the hockey stick are all done by Mann cronies who are in on the con. Their studies are also proven frauds.

 

[Zander]

AGW theory states- man-made greenhouse gases are causing climate change. increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, caused by humans, is raising global temperatures.. If CO2 concentration hits 350ppm, we are all doomed!! The seas will rise!! Ice caps will melt!! IT WILL BE DOOMSDAY!!!! Therefore "You" must give up your SUV!!! YOU must sacrifice!!! (that "you" means the little sheeple, not the elites and high priests of the AGW Cult. They have important places to go and need their private jets!)

Well sheeple, we are now at 400 ppm and have had no statistically significant warming in over 18 years. The theory is a BUST!!

To continue to believe in AGW theory requires "a willful suspension of disbelief"....

The war is over, the Global Warmers have lost.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Not according to real scientists.


Global Warming Bombshell
A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.

Global Warming Bombshell MIT Technology Review

The link led to:
Global Warming Bombshell
A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.

• By Richard Muller on October 15, 2004

Here is the same "Real Scientist" shy of seven years later

BYJOE ROMM POSTED ON MARCH 20, 2011 AT 12:05 PM

Exclusive: Berkeley temperature study results “confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU”


BREAKING UPDATE: The head of the Berkeley team, Richard Muller, confirmed at a public talk on Saturday that they have started writing a draft report and based on their preliminary analysis, “We are seeing substantial global warming” and “None of the effects raised by the [skeptics] is going to have anything more than a marginal effect on the amount of global warming.”

 

[westwall]

Not according to real scientists.


Global Warming Bombshell
A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.

Global Warming Bombshell MIT Technology Review

The link led to:
Global Warming Bombshell
A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.

• By Richard Muller on October 15, 2004

Here is the same "Real Scientist" shy of seven years later

BYJOE ROMM POSTED ON MARCH 20, 2011 AT 12:05 PM

Exclusive: Berkeley temperature study results “confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU”


BREAKING UPDATE: The head of the Berkeley team, Richard Muller, confirmed at a public talk on Saturday that they have started writing a draft report and based on their preliminary analysis, “We are seeing substantial global warming” and “None of the effects raised by the [skeptics] is going to have anything more than a marginal effect on the amount of global warming.”

Yes, but have you looked at the story of the BEST reports. Muller is a real scientist, however he is also a firm warmist, he is not a reformed sceptic as the media would have you believe. He has been the owner of a sustainability company for decades. He has made some terrible decisions as regards the BEST work which you will discover for yourself should you decide to open that particular Pandora's box.

 

[jc456]

In Westwall's mind, a "real scientist" being anyone who agrees with his religious beliefs.

Denier pseudoscience never dies. They just keep repeating it, forever, no matter how many times it gets debunked. McIntyre and McKitrick didn't use random noise, and followed by cherrypicking the 1% of their results that gave hockey sticks. They then spun about and lied brazenly that all random noise produced hockey sticks. That's why the real scientists consider them to be clowns and frauds.

Sure thing bunky, that's why McIntyre has been the cause of how many of your pets paper retractions? Hmmm? The problem you have is the warmists are so bad at basic math that a mere statistician has shown them to be wrong on so many occasions they are now terrified whenever he even glances at one of their papers.

To my knowledge, McInTyred wrote one peer reviewed paper related to climate science. In it, he found a small statistical problem that led to a revision in the original paper. However, that revision amounted to a hill of beans because it made no difference whatsoever in the outcome. Next.

Your knowledge of the subject is remarkably limited then. Here are three of a bunch. Enjoy!

Paper claiming hottest 60-year-span in 1 000 years put on hold after being published online - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

Controversial paper linking conspiracy ideation to climate change skepticism formally retracted - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

Frontiers Retraction Recursive fury Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation Personality and Social Psychology

Now that is Funny... Every single attempt to create a "link" so that they can scream that they have the high ground goes down in flames simply because they make up shit which has no basis in fact or science.. You would have thought that the failure of CAGW would have lent them a clue about who they are trying to belittle and marginalize..

The public has become desensitized to the Alyinsky tactics of marginalization and look beyond the hyperbole at the facts now. Alarmists have no where to hide now... and that simply makes me laugh at their stupid asses..

Oh Billy Bob, we are well aware of who you deniers are, and what your motives are.

Help me what are his motives?

 

[Billy_Bob]

In Westwall's mind, a "real scientist" being anyone who agrees with his religious beliefs.

Denier pseudoscience never dies. They just keep repeating it, forever, no matter how many times it gets debunked. McIntyre and McKitrick didn't use random noise, and followed by cherrypicking the 1% of their results that gave hockey sticks. They then spun about and lied brazenly that all random noise produced hockey sticks. That's why the real scientists consider them to be clowns and frauds.

Sure thing bunky, that's why McIntyre has been the cause of how many of your pets paper retractions? Hmmm? The problem you have is the warmists are so bad at basic math that a mere statistician has shown them to be wrong on so many occasions they are now terrified whenever he even glances at one of their papers.

To my knowledge, McInTyred wrote one peer reviewed paper related to climate science. In it, he found a small statistical problem that led to a revision in the original paper. However, that revision amounted to a hill of beans because it made no difference whatsoever in the outcome. Next.

Your knowledge of the subject is remarkably limited then. Here are three of a bunch. Enjoy!

Paper claiming hottest 60-year-span in 1 000 years put on hold after being published online - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

Controversial paper linking conspiracy ideation to climate change skepticism formally retracted - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

Frontiers Retraction Recursive fury Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation Personality and Social Psychology

Now that is Funny... Every single attempt to create a "link" so that they can scream that they have the high ground goes down in flames simply because they make up shit which has no basis in fact or science.. You would have thought that the failure of CAGW would have lent them a clue about who they are trying to belittle and marginalize..

The public has become desensitized to the Alyinsky tactics of marginalization and look beyond the hyperbole at the facts now. Alarmists have no where to hide now... and that simply makes me laugh at their stupid asses..

Oh Billy Bob, we are well aware of who you deniers are, and what your motives are.

Ok sooth-sayer; what are my motives? I'm betting your clairvoyance is impeded by crap..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Not according to real scientists.


Global Warming Bombshell
A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.

Global Warming Bombshell MIT Technology Review

The link led to:
Global Warming Bombshell
A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.

• By Richard Muller on October 15, 2004

Here is the same "Real Scientist" shy of seven years later

BYJOE ROMM POSTED ON MARCH 20, 2011 AT 12:05 PM

Exclusive: Berkeley temperature study results “confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU”


BREAKING UPDATE: The head of the Berkeley team, Richard Muller, confirmed at a public talk on Saturday that they have started writing a draft report and based on their preliminary analysis, “We are seeing substantial global warming” and “None of the effects raised by the [skeptics] is going to have anything more than a marginal effect on the amount of global warming.”

Your using Muller and Romm, two avid alarmists, Pal reviewing each others work as credible? You really need to open this book and see how their work has been tainted and directed. Dis-credidation of most of their work has already been done. BEST is no longer considered the best by any real scientists in the field.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Not according to real scientists.


Global Warming Bombshell
A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.

Global Warming Bombshell MIT Technology Review

The link led to:
Global Warming Bombshell
A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.

• By Richard Muller on October 15, 2004

Here is the same "Real Scientist" shy of seven years later

BYJOE ROMM POSTED ON MARCH 20, 2011 AT 12:05 PM

Exclusive: Berkeley temperature study results “confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU”


BREAKING UPDATE: The head of the Berkeley team, Richard Muller, confirmed at a public talk on Saturday that they have started writing a draft report and based on their preliminary analysis, “We are seeing substantial global warming” and “None of the effects raised by the [skeptics] is going to have anything more than a marginal effect on the amount of global warming.”

Yes, but have you looked at the story of the BEST reports. Muller is a real scientist, however he is also a firm warmist, he is not a reformed sceptic as the media would have you believe. He has been the owner of a sustainability company for decades. He has made some terrible decisions as regards the BEST work which you will discover for yourself should you decide to open that particular Pandora's box.

He was the author you introduced as real...

 

[orogenicman]

The Global Warming Hoax's gold standard has long been the "Hockey stick graph". In Al Gore's Riefenstahlian propaganda film, "an inconvenient truth", the audience audibly gasps!! when the Hockey Stick graph is revealed. It sure looks DRAMATIC!! OMFG!! One can only conclude that (gasp!) Humans are ruining the climate!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!...RUN!!! ........ (but only after we advance our political agenda!)

But it turns out that the entire thing was a hoax. Just a "Michael Mann" made fable. There was no hockey stick. The data was fake. The entire statistical foundation upon which the Global warming hoax was built on was nothing but a miasma of lies, deceit, and malfeasance. They lied for $$$ and to advance a political agenda.

Despicable.

What is despicable is that you are one ignorant liar. The Hockey Stick Graph has been confirmed by over a dozen different studies using many different proxies.

What evidence is there for the hockey stick

Of course, these examples only go back around 500 years - this doesn't even cover theMedieval Warm Period. When you combine all the various proxies, including ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites, it's possible to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures without tree-ring proxies going back 1,300 years (Mann 2008). The result is that temperatures in recent decades exceed the maximumproxy estimate (including uncertainty range) for the past 1,300 years. When you include tree-ring data, the same result holds for the past 1,700 years.

Figure 6: Composite Northern Hemisphere land and land plus ocean temperaturereconstructions and estimated 95% confidence intervals. Shown for comparison are published Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (Mann 2008).

Paleoclimatology draws upon a range of proxies and methodologies to calculate past temperatures. This allows independent confirmation of the basic hockey stick result: that the past few decades are the hottest in the past 1,300 years.

The Hockey Stick has been proven to be a fraud, and that includes versions II, III and IV. The so-called "studies" that support the hockey stick are all done by Mann cronies who are in on the con. Their studies are also proven frauds.

Actually, no matter how many times you deniers make that claim, it is still not true. None of it. Nowhere in the peer reviewed literature is there any substantive paper that puts to bed the so-called hockey stick. And it is still being referenced in other works. Moreover, Mann isn't the only one who has generated such a pattern from various climate data. Again, none of your claims are true, but then, they rarely are.

 

[orogenicman]

Sure thing bunky, that's why McIntyre has been the cause of how many of your pets paper retractions? Hmmm? The problem you have is the warmists are so bad at basic math that a mere statistician has shown them to be wrong on so many occasions they are now terrified whenever he even glances at one of their papers.

To my knowledge, McInTyred wrote one peer reviewed paper related to climate science. In it, he found a small statistical problem that led to a revision in the original paper. However, that revision amounted to a hill of beans because it made no difference whatsoever in the outcome. Next.

Your knowledge of the subject is remarkably limited then. Here are three of a bunch. Enjoy!

Paper claiming hottest 60-year-span in 1 000 years put on hold after being published online - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

Controversial paper linking conspiracy ideation to climate change skepticism formally retracted - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

Frontiers Retraction Recursive fury Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation Personality and Social Psychology

Now that is Funny... Every single attempt to create a "link" so that they can scream that they have the high ground goes down in flames simply because they make up shit which has no basis in fact or science.. You would have thought that the failure of CAGW would have lent them a clue about who they are trying to belittle and marginalize..

The public has become desensitized to the Alyinsky tactics of marginalization and look beyond the hyperbole at the facts now. Alarmists have no where to hide now... and that simply makes me laugh at their stupid asses..

Oh Billy Bob, we are well aware of who you deniers are, and what your motives are.

Ok sooth-sayer; what are my motives? I'm betting your clairvoyance is impeded by crap..

As with every other denier here, your motives are rather transparent. I'll quote from the Six aspects of Denial,

Six Aspects of Denial Watching the Deniers

"For libertarians and free market advocates, climate change is a direct challenge to their assumption of unlimited growth. Any response to climate change will involve government intervention and global governance structures (such as a binding treaty to limit CO2 emissions). To such ideologues, it is axiomatic that such responses are “bad”. And yet the “market” can’t fix climate. Caught between accepting the science and what it entails and rejecting it in favour of their faith in the market, they reject the science. The same could be said of religious conservatives: like evolution, climate change is a direct challenge to the idea that a god/s has a governance role and is directly responsible for managing the day-to-day affairs of the world. That a god/s would let climate change happen and not intervene is deeply challenging to the idea that a) they would allow such “evil” and b) the god/s is omnipotent."

And so, in order to combat such "evil liberal trappings", you people follow these rules:

1) Doubt the science – This is the standard tactic of all denial movements. Creationists attack evolution and geology as they contradict the belief a god/s created the world just under 10,000 years ago. Alternative health practitioners claim the science that demonstrates the lack of effectiveness of their treatments is at fault. On web sites, in books and on internet forums deniers attack the science by cherry picking data, misrepresenting research or making bogus claims.

2) Question the motives and integrity of scientists – This is the favourite tactic of the climate change denial movement. They claim the scientists are engaged in fraud, or are being pressured by governments to make up the results. They make up vast conspiracy theories in order to cast aspersions on the motives of climate scientists, physicists and biologists whose work confirms the reality of climate change. They use the “follow the money” argument, stating scientists are making up climate change in order to get research funding. All of these are simply ad hominem attacks: playing the man.

3) Magnify disagreements among scientists and cite gadflies – Again, one of the favourite tactics of the denial movement. The tiny percentage of actual scientists who express scepticism (Plimer, Lindzen) are dwarfed by the thousands of scientists who agree with the consensus that climate change is happening. But the denial movement exploits the media’s tendency to present “both sides” of the argument and thus help perpetrate the myth scientists are still debating climate change when in fact there is near unanimous agreement.

4) Exaggerate potential harm – This normally takes the form of “harming” the economy if the government intervenes. This is why opposition to cap-and-trade (or emissions trading schemes) are anathema to some parts of the denial movement. They also claim a climate change is an excuse to usher in a “world government”. The denial movement plays up to these fears, playing on the anxiety that they will lose their freedoms (see below).

5) Appeal to personal freedom – One of the great fears of the denial movements is a loss of freedom. Whether economic or political, they have a paranoid fear that someone (government, scientists, greens, politicians) are going to restrict their right to unlimited consumption or their freedom of speech. But reality is not a democracy. We don’t get to choose the truth about climate change, just as a popular debate about evolution does not decide the scientific facts. The denial movement loves to frame this as a “debate” when none exists, claiming they have a right to doubt the science. Of course they do. But it does not mean they are correct.

There isn't a single denier on this forum who doesn't do these things. Not a one.

 

[bripat9643]

The Global Warming Hoax's gold standard has long been the "Hockey stick graph". In Al Gore's Riefenstahlian propaganda film, "an inconvenient truth", the audience audibly gasps!! when the Hockey Stick graph is revealed. It sure looks DRAMATIC!! OMFG!! One can only conclude that (gasp!) Humans are ruining the climate!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!...RUN!!! ........ (but only after we advance our political agenda!)

But it turns out that the entire thing was a hoax. Just a "Michael Mann" made fable. There was no hockey stick. The data was fake. The entire statistical foundation upon which the Global warming hoax was built on was nothing but a miasma of lies, deceit, and malfeasance. They lied for $$$ and to advance a political agenda.

Despicable.

What is despicable is that you are one ignorant liar. The Hockey Stick Graph has been confirmed by over a dozen different studies using many different proxies.

What evidence is there for the hockey stick

Of course, these examples only go back around 500 years - this doesn't even cover theMedieval Warm Period. When you combine all the various proxies, including ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites, it's possible to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures without tree-ring proxies going back 1,300 years (Mann 2008). The result is that temperatures in recent decades exceed the maximumproxy estimate (including uncertainty range) for the past 1,300 years. When you include tree-ring data, the same result holds for the past 1,700 years.

Figure 6: Composite Northern Hemisphere land and land plus ocean temperaturereconstructions and estimated 95% confidence intervals. Shown for comparison are published Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (Mann 2008).

Paleoclimatology draws upon a range of proxies and methodologies to calculate past temperatures. This allows independent confirmation of the basic hockey stick result: that the past few decades are the hottest in the past 1,300 years.

The Hockey Stick has been proven to be a fraud, and that includes versions II, III and IV. The so-called "studies" that support the hockey stick are all done by Mann cronies who are in on the con. Their studies are also proven frauds.

Actually, no matter how many times you deniers make that claim, it is still not true. None of it. Nowhere in the peer reviewed literature is there any substantive paper that puts to bed the so-called hockey stick. And it is still being referenced in other works. Moreover, Mann isn't the only one who has generated such a pattern from various climate data. Again, none of your claims are true, but then, they rarely are.

All that shows is that the peer review process is utterly corrupt. That's why they call it PAL review. The "peers" doing the reviewing are the good buddies of the authors of the papers being reviewed. It's all a tight little clique of hacks with a conflict of interest.

Steve McIntyre demonstrated that the Hockey Stick was a fraud, and the NAS agreed with him.