The Global Warmers Have Lost the War

[jc456]

The Global Warming movement is just a pretext to establish totalitarian World Government.

Just sayin'.

You should take that argument to the conspiracy theory forum where people give a shit about it.

You are a moron.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With all due respect, I'm not the one seeing Delvian vipers beneath every scientific result.

nope, you see something else that isn't present. Liar, post the article that was Watt's, see the one you claimed was someone else's as I stated. AS I FNNNNN STATED!!!!

Show some integrity!

 

[orogenicman]

Here is a link to an article that FULLY explains "hide the decline"

Caspar and the Jesus Paper

Quite an illuminating read......

Andrew Montford? Really? He is not a scientist - and his politically motivated rants have been ignored by everyone but the few pundants he has left in his bed chamber.

 

[orogenicman]

The "deleted" data (aka the real data) tells a completely different story.....best to use "Mike's Nature Trick" so as not to ..."potentially distract/detract from the reasonably consensus viewpoint we'd like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al series"....

That's great. Now all you have to do is write a paper and have it published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Good luck with that.

 

[orogenicman]

It's "Mann" Made Global Warming!!

More political drivel.

Yes, the hockey stick graph was pure politics. They faked the data.

There are at least a dozen papers that validate Mann's original work. Claim that it is a conspiracy all you want. It only makes you look even more foolish.

And those "papers" were "peer reviewed" by other "climate scientists" of course?

It's not me who looks foolish bub....

Right. Because we all know that science is better served by having people with no science education at all review all those technical papers. No doubt, your will be arguing next for allowing diesel mechanics to perform brain surgery.

 

[jc456]

The "deleted" data (aka the real data) tells a completely different story.....best to use "Mike's Nature Trick" so as not to ..."potentially distract/detract from the reasonably consensus viewpoint we'd like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al series"....

That's great. Now all you have to do is write a paper and have it published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Good luck with that.

peer review is for the warmer club. you know, that one that states if it don't fit you must acquit?

 

[orogenicman]

The Global Warming movement is just a pretext to establish totalitarian World Government.

Just sayin'.

You should take that argument to the conspiracy theory forum where people give a shit about it.

You are a moron.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With all due respect, I'm not the one seeing Delvian vipers beneath every scientific result.

nope, you see something else that isn't present. Liar, post the article that was Watt's, see the one you claimed was someone else's as I stated. AS I FNNNNN STATED!!!!

Show some integrity!

You posted a graph with an http that linked back to wattsupwiththat. You didn't know this? huh.

Here, take a look at the http for your graph:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/clip_image004_thumb4.jpg?w=633&h=431

Now, don't you feel silly?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Losing" would be resorting to delusional nonsense like "no warming for 18 years". Losing would be having every bit of the data saying your fringe kook political cult is just nuts. Yep, the deniers.

Winners don't have to lie, fake data, and babble conspiracy theories about the VastGlobalSocialistConspiracy. Deniers do have to do those things.

Zander, why did you think you could try to pass off a cult kook lie like that and not get mocked for it? If your goal was to demonstrate your conspiracy cult has no regard for truth, you've succeeded.

Denier is a cult secret handshake word. Real scientist never call anyone a denier

 

[jc456]

It's "Mann" Made Global Warming!!

More political drivel.

Yes, the hockey stick graph was pure politics. They faked the data.

There are at least a dozen papers that validate Mann's original work. Claim that it is a conspiracy all you want. It only makes you look even more foolish.

And those "papers" were "peer reviewed" by other "climate scientists" of course?

It's not me who looks foolish bub....

Right. Because we all know that science is better served by having people with no science education at all review all those technical papers. No doubt, your will be arguing next for allowing diesel mechanics to perform brain surgery.

no, everyone wants the papers to go to the deniers club. There is so much integrity there. Peer review, peer review. Right? sit around have a cocktail and pat your buddies on the back and make deals on their work. Yep, those are the people we should entrust. Funny thing, they never claim to tell us how they expect to fix the so called AGW they so righteously believe in. Tell us the solution to the problem.

Where's the peer papers that show us this?

 

[jc456]

The Global Warming movement is just a pretext to establish totalitarian World Government.

Just sayin'.

You should take that argument to the conspiracy theory forum where people give a shit about it.

You are a moron.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With all due respect, I'm not the one seeing Delvian vipers beneath every scientific result.

nope, you see something else that isn't present. Liar, post the article that was Watt's, see the one you claimed was someone else's as I stated. AS I FNNNNN STATED!!!!

Show some integrity!

You posted a graph with an http that linked back to wattsupwiththat. You didn't know this? huh.

Here, take a look at the http for your graph:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/clip_image004_thumb4.jpg?w=633&h=431

Now, don't you feel silly?

no I didn't. Perhaps you should blink and look at the name again on that post. I never posted a graph in this thread.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The "deleted" data (aka the real data) tells a completely different story.....best to use "Mike's Nature Trick" so as not to ..."potentially distract/detract from the reasonably consensus viewpoint we'd like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al series"....

That's great. Now all you have to do is write a paper and have it published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Good luck with that.

...tell them how the Pacific Blob is melting the Oregon oysters

 

[orogenicman]

The "deleted" data (aka the real data) tells a completely different story.....best to use "Mike's Nature Trick" so as not to ..."potentially distract/detract from the reasonably consensus viewpoint we'd like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al series"....

That's great. Now all you have to do is write a paper and have it published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Good luck with that.

peer review is for the warmer club. you know, that one that states if it don't fit you must acquit?

Peer review is required by all scientific disciplines, even the scientists who make your anti-psychotic meds. You didn't know this? huh.

 

[jc456]

The Global Warming movement is just a pretext to establish totalitarian World Government.

Just sayin'.

You should take that argument to the conspiracy theory forum where people give a shit about it.

You are a moron.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With all due respect, I'm not the one seeing Delvian vipers beneath every scientific result.

nope, you see something else that isn't present. Liar, post the article that was Watt's, see the one you claimed was someone else's as I stated. AS I FNNNNN STATED!!!!

Show some integrity!

You posted a graph with an http that linked back to wattsupwiththat. You didn't know this? huh.

Here, take a look at the http for your graph:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/clip_image004_thumb4.jpg?w=633&h=431

Now, don't you feel silly?

BTW, I gave you the article that that graph came from and it wasn't WATT. so you don't understand his web site. You think he writes everything on it I supposed. What a loser. I'll accept an apology btw!

 

[jc456]

The "deleted" data (aka the real data) tells a completely different story.....best to use "Mike's Nature Trick" so as not to ..."potentially distract/detract from the reasonably consensus viewpoint we'd like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al series"....

That's great. Now all you have to do is write a paper and have it published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Good luck with that.

peer review is for the warmer club. you know, that one that states if it don't fit you must acquit?

Peer review is required by all scientific disciplines, even the scientists who make your anti-psychotic meds. You didn't know this? huh.

Peer review is their club. That's why they're losing ground, everyone has figured out that the good old boys club is corrupt!

 

[orogenicman]

You should take that argument to the conspiracy theory forum where people give a shit about it.

You are a moron.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With all due respect, I'm not the one seeing Delvian vipers beneath every scientific result.

nope, you see something else that isn't present. Liar, post the article that was Watt's, see the one you claimed was someone else's as I stated. AS I FNNNNN STATED!!!!

Show some integrity!

You posted a graph with an http that linked back to wattsupwiththat. You didn't know this? huh.

Here, take a look at the http for your graph:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/clip_image004_thumb4.jpg?w=633&h=431

Now, don't you feel silly?

BTW, I gave you the article that that graph came from and it wasn't WATT. so you don't understand his web site. You think he writes everything on it I supposed. What a loser. I'll accept an apology btw!

Hmm. First you say that you didn't post the graph. Now you are saying that you did. Make up your mind, bubba. The graph that you, or whoever, posted, about which I responded, originated from Anthony Watt's web site, as the link above makes very clear. I posted the ACTUAL graph from the original paper. Next.

 

[westwall]

Excellent point.
I will wait for the warmers to provide both numbers.

One can guarantee no deniers will put forth any numbers, whilst ignoring the 100 year history of approx 1 °C per century. It's what they do.

Funny how you ignore the fact that the Little Ice Age ended in 1850. We are STILL recovering from that low temperature. But never let a anti science silly person acknowlege real facts.

 

[orogenicman]

With all due respect, I'm not the one seeing Delvian vipers beneath every scientific result.

nope, you see something else that isn't present. Liar, post the article that was Watt's, see the one you claimed was someone else's as I stated. AS I FNNNNN STATED!!!!

Show some integrity!

You posted a graph with an http that linked back to wattsupwiththat. You didn't know this? huh.

Here, take a look at the http for your graph:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/clip_image004_thumb4.jpg?w=633&h=431

Now, don't you feel silly?

no I didn't. Perhaps you should blink and look at the name again on that post. I never posted a graph in this thread.

Then you have no dog in the fight. Go away, now, puppy. Let the adults talk.

you're all miscombobulated now i see. Why not just admit you made a mistake and move on. instead you look like a boob.

That graph originated from wattsupwiththat.com. I posted the original. You do this every time you are caught with your pants down and your head up your arse. It must be embarrassing to be you.

 

[jc456]

nope, you see something else that isn't present. Liar, post the article that was Watt's, see the one you claimed was someone else's as I stated. AS I FNNNNN STATED!!!!

Show some integrity!

You posted a graph with an http that linked back to wattsupwiththat. You didn't know this? huh.

Here, take a look at the http for your graph:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/clip_image004_thumb4.jpg?w=633&h=431

Now, don't you feel silly?

no I didn't. Perhaps you should blink and look at the name again on that post. I never posted a graph in this thread.

Then you have no dog in the fight. Go away, now, puppy. Let the adults talk.

BTW, what is it I have no fight in? let's hear this one.I need another laugh!!!

You have nothing here. Trolling, as you are seem intent on doing, is childish, wastes everyone's time, as you well know. That's the only reason you are here.

still can't admit your lie. would you prefer I re post it for you? I'd be happy to.

 

[jc456]

nope, you see something else that isn't present. Liar, post the article that was Watt's, see the one you claimed was someone else's as I stated. AS I FNNNNN STATED!!!!

Show some integrity!

You posted a graph with an http that linked back to wattsupwiththat. You didn't know this? huh.

Here, take a look at the http for your graph:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/clip_image004_thumb4.jpg?w=633&h=431

Now, don't you feel silly?

no I didn't. Perhaps you should blink and look at the name again on that post. I never posted a graph in this thread.

Then you have no dog in the fight. Go away, now, puppy. Let the adults talk.

you're all miscombobulated now i see. Why not just admit you made a mistake and move on. instead you look like a boob.

That graph originated from wattsupwiththat.com. I posted the original. You do this every time you are caught with your pants down and your head up your arse. It must be embarrassing to be you.

Yes it did, very good, but that isn't what you wrote fool. You wrote it was his paper and it wasn't. So you had no idea and talking out your ass. So you can't admit now because you are ashamed of your inability to do research first before spitting out words on a page.

still can't walk the walk.

 

[orogenicman]

With all due respect, I'm not the one seeing Delvian vipers beneath every scientific result.

nope, you see something else that isn't present. Liar, post the article that was Watt's, see the one you claimed was someone else's as I stated. AS I FNNNNN STATED!!!!

Show some integrity!

You posted a graph with an http that linked back to wattsupwiththat. You didn't know this? huh.

Here, take a look at the http for your graph:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/clip_image004_thumb4.jpg?w=633&h=431

Now, don't you feel silly?

BTW, I gave you the article that that graph came from and it wasn't WATT. so you don't understand his web site. You think he writes everything on it I supposed. What a loser. I'll accept an apology btw!

Hmm. First you say that you didn't post the graph. Now you are saying that you did. Make up your mind, bubba. The graph that you, or whoever, posted, about which I responded, originated from Anthony Watt's web site, as the link above makes very clear. I posted the ACTUAL graph from the original paper. Next.

where, admit your mistake. be a man for once in your pathetic life.

I see you still haven't gone back and reread the thread. OMG what a lard. please move away from the fire. You might fall in. dude, you stated Watt wrote the paper. you made that statement. Untrue, I showed you it was untrue. I was saving another poster time. Your lie. your post and you can't admit it. lard.

Now look who is lying. I made no statement that Watt wrote anything. I showed unambiguously that that graph originated from his web site. Whether or not he plotted it is irrelevant to the fact that it was not the original graph published in the paper.

 

[orogenicman]

Excellent point.
I will wait for the warmers to provide both numbers.

One can guarantee no deniers will put forth any numbers, whilst ignoring the 100 year history of approx 1 °C per century. It's what they do.

Funny how you ignore the fact that the Little Ice Age ended in 1850. We are STILL recovering from that low temperature. But never let a anti science silly person acknowlege real facts.

Gee, another denialist talking point. Now, let's see the peer reviewed paper that demonstrates that your claim refutes AGW.