Thread to Talk Shit about Global Warming

[BS Filter]

Is that what you actually meant to say? Perhaps you meant "Utah HAS the biggest snowpack..."

And I'm not certain what you're addressing here. Do you mean to say that the world isn't getting warmer because Utah has a lot of snow?

Yes. The world may be getting warmer, but there's nothing anyone can do about it. The earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years before humans were around.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Out of ten thousand human beings from every nation on the planet, you don't think one would expose a conspiracy like that? Use your freaking head Todd.

Conspiracy?

a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

It certainly is harmful to stop critics from publishing, but it isn't unlawful.
Canceling anyone who speaks up against the AGW idiocy is harmful, but it's far from secret.

 

[Crick]

Conspiracy?

a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

It certainly is harmful to stop critics from publishing, but it isn't unlawful.
Canceling anyone who speaks up against the AGW idiocy is harmful, but it's far from secret.

I'm getting tired of this Todd. Your buddies here have been claiming a perfect conspiracy of all climate scientists on the planet to lie to the public to make themselves rich. It doesn't pass a sanity test no matter how you try to reword it. So, do us a favor and get real.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm getting tired of this Todd. Your buddies here have been claiming a perfect conspiracy of all climate scientists on the planet to lie to the public to make themselves rich. It doesn't pass a sanity test no matter how you try to reword it. So, do us a favor and get real.

Your buddies here have been claiming a perfect conspiracy of all climate scientists on the planet to lie to the public to make themselves rich.

Some of the liars on your side do get rich. Like Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann.

Most climate scientists won't get rich, no matter how frantically they wave their arms
and scream that we're doomed unless we waste $X trillions on this stupid green idea
or waste $Y trillions on that other stupid green idea.

But most of them know they'll be scrambling for a job if they came out and said, "The planet is warming a bit, we're partially responsible, but overall, it won't amount to much"

So, do us a favor and get real.

Coming from the guy who didn't understand, until I showed you a few months ago, that US CO2 emissions are only down because of fracking......that's hilarious!!!

 

[Crick]

Your buddies here have been claiming a perfect conspiracy of all climate scientists on the planet to lie to the public to make themselves rich.

Some of the liars on your side do get rich. Like Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann.

Michael Mann is not a liar. And compared to the executive level employees at, say, Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, Saudi Aramco, Chevron and others, he is an absolute pauper. It is THEY whose financial well being is threatened, not Mann's. It is THEY who are motivated to mislead, not Mann. It is THEY who have been SHOWN to mislead, spending hundreds of millions of dollars annually to produce bullshit pseudo science and PR into which you've all bought.

Most climate scientists won't get rich, no matter how frantically they wave their arms
and scream that we're doomed unless we waste $X trillions on this stupid green idea
or waste $Y trillions on that other stupid green idea.

And how much of those trillions of dollars will go into the pockets of climate scientists? Almost none. So what, Todd, would be their motivation to lie? And if you're going to claim that they're all lying, you need to explain to us what is wrong with their science besides the solution costs a lot of money.

But most of them know they'll be scrambling for a job if they came out and said, "The planet is warming a bit, we're partially responsible, but overall, it won't amount to much"

So, you think THAT is the truth and what they ARE saying is a lie. What do you mean by "warming a bit", what do you mean they are partially responsible and exactly what will be the results of it not amounting to much?

So, do us a favor and get real.

Coming from the guy who didn't understand, until I showed you a few months ago, that US CO2 emissions are only down because of fracking......that's hilarious!!!

So solarPV fields did nothing? So thousands of wind turbines did nothing? So over a million EV and millions of hybrids did nothing? So LED lighting did nothing? Decreased coal consumption did nothing? I'm aware that switching from coal to natural gas cuts emissions, not it is not all that has cut emissions. Switching from coal to solar or wind cuts emissions infinitely more than natural gas. And, finally, we had natural gas before anyone ever tried fracking. It is not necessary to frack to get natural gas.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Michael Mann is not a liar. And compared to the executive level employees at, say, Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, Saudi Aramco, Chevron and others, he is an absolute pauper. It is THEY whose financial well being is threatened, not Mann's. It is THEY who are motivated to mislead, not Mann. It is THEY who have been SHOWN to mislead, spending hundreds of millions of dollars annually to produce bullshit pseudo science and PR into which you've all bought.

And how much of those trillions of dollars will go into the pockets of climate scientists? Almost none. So what, Todd, would be their motivation to lie? And if you're going to claim that they're all lying, you need to explain to us what is wrong with their science besides the solution costs a lot of money.

So, you think THAT is the truth and what they ARE saying is a lie. What do you mean by "warming a bit", what do you mean they are partially responsible and exactly what will be the results of it not amounting to much?

So solarPV fields did nothing? So thousands of wind turbines did nothing? So over a million EV and millions of hybrids did nothing? So LED lighting did nothing? Decreased coal consumption did nothing? I'm aware that switching from coal to natural gas cuts emissions, not it is not all that has cut emissions. Switching from coal to solar or wind cuts emissions infinitely more than natural gas. And, finally, we had natural gas before anyone ever tried fracking. It is not necessary to frack to get natural gas.

Michael Mann is not a liar.

Really? Have you seen his Nobel Prize?

And how much of those trillions of dollars will go into the pockets of climate scientists?

Too many, but the important thing is they're wasted.

So what, Todd, would be their motivation to lie?

Money for nothin', chicks for free.
Plus, you get canceled if you tell the truth.

What do you mean by "warming a bit", what do you mean they are partially responsible and exactly what will be the results of it not amounting to much?

Exactly that. Nothing that merits wasting tens of trillions.
Nothing that merits the extra deaths that will be caused by all the green idiocy.

So solarPV fields did nothing? So thousands of wind turbines did nothing? So over a million EV and millions of hybrids did nothing?

A tiny fraction of the benefit from fracking.

Decreased coal consumption did nothing?

Cheap natural gas displacing coal is just about the only thing that did anything.

 

[ding]

Mountains of empirical data gathered by professional, published climate scientists tells us that the world is getting warmer rapidly when it had been cooling off for the last 5,000 years. It tells us that the cause of that warming is the greenhouse effect acting on the CO2 and other greenhouse gases that humans have put into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. That increased temperature has caused sea level to rise both from thermal expansion and melting land-borne ice The warming is going to fuck with us six ways from Sunday but there are still a small collection of idiots (roughly 10% of the US population) who reject all that science and think its some sort of hoax by people trying to get rich or to destroy our country or the world cause, you know, that motivates a lot of people these days. In fact, from the PoV of these particular individuals, an unquenchable desire to destroy everything is an identifying characteristic of democrats.

So, based on the conclusions of more than 10,000 PhD, published, actively researching climate scientists, I'm convinced that the conclusions of the IPCC are the best idea we have right now as to what's going to happen. Some of you disagree. Bring your evidence cause I'm gonna bring mine.

Geologic record says otherwise.

 

[ReinyDays]

Michael Mann is not a liar ...

Then he needs to publish his data and let others work the numbers ... he won't because he know he's wrong ... this is why Dr Mann's slander lawsuit was dismissed ...

 

[Crick]

Then he needs to publish his data and let others work the numbers ... he won't because he know he's wrong ... this is why Dr Mann's slander lawsuit was dismissed ...

Mann's lawsuit against CEI has been dismissed but that dismissal had nothing whatsoever to do with Mann's data. His lawsuit against Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn is still active.

 

[ReinyDays]

Mann's lawsuit against CEI has been dismissed but that dismissal had nothing whatsoever to do with Mann's data. His lawsuit against Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn is still active.

Mann needs to publish his data ... then we'll know for sure if he's lying ...

How would you know even if he was lying? ... are you really sure you want to discuss this with me? ... I thought I made my opinions of you known ...

STUPID MOTHERFUCKING LIAR ... color coded for easier understanding ...

 

[Crick]

Mann needs to publish his data ... then we'll know for sure if he's lying ...

How would you know even if he was lying? ... are you really sure you want to discuss this with me? ... I thought I made my opinions of you known ...

STUPID MOTHERFUCKING LIAR ... color coded for easier understanding ...

Since you claimed that Mann's lawsuit had been dismissed and it hadn't and you claimed that it had been dismissed because he refused to release his data, which it hadn't, the one demonstrably lying here is you.

So ... did any of the video make sense? ... I've worked around a PDP/11 ... like sweeping the floor and stuff ... just wondering if you'd ever been involved with fluid dynamic modelling ... you have strong opinions about the results, I thought you might have some insight others may not have ...

Yesterday, from you to me.

I begin to see why you might have been able to engage EMH in conversation.

 

[Crick]

​

I have been attempting to identify the actual data that you are all claiming Professor Mann has refused to release. I have a sketchy memory that there were data used in MBH98 that he simply did not have the right or permission to release, but I am unaware of anything else. I have been searching and there are piles of articles about Mann, but I can find nowhere the specific data you believe he has refused to release. Since you're all ready to shoot him for it, I'm certain you must know spot on what it might be. So, what is it if you please?

And in case anyone wanted some objective information on the development of the hockey stick graphs, here's a good section from Wikipedia.

From the Wikipedia article on Michael E Mann​

​

Postdoctoral research: the hockey stick graph
​

From 1996 to 1998, after defending his PhD thesis at Yale, Mann carried out paleoclimatology research at the University of Massachusetts Amherst funded by a United States Department of Energy postdoctoral fellowship. He collaborated with Raymond S. Bradley and Bradley's colleague Malcolm K. Hughes, a Professor of Dendrochronology at the University of Arizona, with the aim of developing and applying an improved statistical approach to climate proxy reconstructions. He taught a course in Data Analysis and Climate Change in 1997 and became a Research Assistant Professor the following year.[1][17]

The first truly quantitative reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperatures had been published in 1993 by Bradley and Phil Jones, but it and subsequent reconstructions compiled averages for decades, covering the whole hemisphere. Mann wanted temperatures of individual years showing differences between regions, to find spatial patterns showing natural oscillations and the effect of events such as volcanic eruptions. Sophisticated statistical methods had already been applied to dendroclimatology, but to get wider geographical coverage these tree ring records had to be related to sparser proxies such as ice cores, corals and lake sediments. To avoid giving too much weight to the more numerous tree data, Mann, Bradley and Hughes used the statistical procedure of principal component analysis to represent these larger datasets in terms of a small number of representative series and compare them to the sparser proxy records. The same procedure was also used to represent key information in the instrumental temperature record for comparison with the proxy series, enabling validation of the reconstruction. They chose the period 1902–1980 for calibration, leaving the previous 50 years of instrumental data for validation. This showed that the statistical reconstructions were only skillful (statistically meaningful) back to 1400.[18]

Their study highlighted interesting findings, such as confirming anecdotal evidence that there had been a strong El Niño in 1791, and finding that in 1816 the "Year Without a Summer" in Eurasia and much of North America had been offset by warmer than usual temperatures in Labrador and the Middle East. It was also an advance on earlier reconstructions in that it went back further, showed individual years, and showed uncertainty with error bars.[19] "Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries" (MBH98) was published on April 23, 1998, in the journal Nature. In it, "Spatially resolved global reconstructions of annual surface temperature patterns" were related to "changes in greenhouse-gas concentrations, solar irradiance, and volcanic aerosols" leading to the conclusion that "each of these factors has contributed to the climate variability of the past 400 years, with greenhouse gases emerging as the dominant forcing during the twentieth century. Northern Hemisphere mean annual temperatures for three of the past eight years are warmer than any other year since (at least) AD 1400.[20] The last point received most media attention. Mann was surprised by the extent of coverage which may have been due to the chance release of the paper on Earth Day in an unusually warm year. In a CNN interview, John Roberts repeatedly asked him if it proved that humans were responsible for global warming, to which he would go no further than that it was "highly suggestive" of that inference.[21]

In May 1998, Jones, Briffa and colleagues published a reconstruction going back a thousand years, but not specifically estimating uncertainties. As Bradley recalls, Mann's initial reaction to the paper was "Look at this. This is rubbish. You can't do this. There isn't enough information. There's too much uncertainty." Bradley suggested using the MBH98 methodology to go further back. Within a few weeks, Mann responded that to his surprise, "There is a certain amount of skill. We can actually say something, although there are large uncertainties."[22][23] Mann carried out a series of statistical sensitivity tests on 24 long term datasets, in which he statistically "censored" each proxy in turn to see the effect its removal had on the result. He found that a dataset which would otherwise have been reliable diverged from 1800 until around 1900, suggesting that it had been affected for that time by the CO2 "fertilisation effect". Using this dataset corrected in comparisons with other tree series, their reconstruction passed the validation tests for the extended period, but they were cautious about the increased uncertainties involved.[24]

The Mann, Bradley and Hughes reconstruction covering 1,000 years (MBH99) was published by Geophysical Research Letters in March 1999 with the cautious title Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations.[23][25] Mann said that "As you go back farther in time, the data becomes sketchier. One can't quite pin things down as well, but, our results do reveal that significant changes have occurred, and temperatures in the latter 20th century have been exceptionally warm compared to the preceding 900 years. Though substantial uncertainties exist in the estimates, these are nonetheless startling revelations."[26] When Mann gave a talk about the study to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, climatologist Jerry D. Mahlman nicknamed the graph the "hockey stick".[23]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

​

I have been attempting to identify the actual data that you are all claiming Professor Mann has refused to release. I have a sketchy memory that there were data used in MBH98 that he simply did not have the right or permission to release, but I am unaware of anything else. I have been searching and there are piles of articles about Mann, but I can find nowhere the specific data you believe he has refused to release. Since you're all ready to shoot him for it, I'm certain you must know spot on what it might be. So, what is it if you please?

And in case anyone wanted some objective information on the development of the hockey stick graphs, here's a good section from Wikipedia.

From the Wikipedia article on Michael E Mann​

​

Postdoctoral research: the hockey stick graph​

​

From 1996 to 1998, after defending his PhD thesis at Yale, Mann carried out paleoclimatology research at the University of Massachusetts Amherst funded by a United States Department of Energy postdoctoral fellowship. He collaborated with Raymond S. Bradley and Bradley's colleague Malcolm K. Hughes, a Professor of Dendrochronology at the University of Arizona, with the aim of developing and applying an improved statistical approach to climate proxy reconstructions. He taught a course in Data Analysis and Climate Change in 1997 and became a Research Assistant Professor the following year.[1][17]

The first truly quantitative reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperatures had been published in 1993 by Bradley and Phil Jones, but it and subsequent reconstructions compiled averages for decades, covering the whole hemisphere. Mann wanted temperatures of individual years showing differences between regions, to find spatial patterns showing natural oscillations and the effect of events such as volcanic eruptions. Sophisticated statistical methods had already been applied to dendroclimatology, but to get wider geographical coverage these tree ring records had to be related to sparser proxies such as ice cores, corals and lake sediments. To avoid giving too much weight to the more numerous tree data, Mann, Bradley and Hughes used the statistical procedure of principal component analysis to represent these larger datasets in terms of a small number of representative series and compare them to the sparser proxy records. The same procedure was also used to represent key information in the instrumental temperature record for comparison with the proxy series, enabling validation of the reconstruction. They chose the period 1902–1980 for calibration, leaving the previous 50 years of instrumental data for validation. This showed that the statistical reconstructions were only skillful (statistically meaningful) back to 1400.[18]

Their study highlighted interesting findings, such as confirming anecdotal evidence that there had been a strong El Niño in 1791, and finding that in 1816 the "Year Without a Summer" in Eurasia and much of North America had been offset by warmer than usual temperatures in Labrador and the Middle East. It was also an advance on earlier reconstructions in that it went back further, showed individual years, and showed uncertainty with error bars.[19] "Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries" (MBH98) was published on April 23, 1998, in the journal Nature. In it, "Spatially resolved global reconstructions of annual surface temperature patterns" were related to "changes in greenhouse-gas concentrations, solar irradiance, and volcanic aerosols" leading to the conclusion that "each of these factors has contributed to the climate variability of the past 400 years, with greenhouse gases emerging as the dominant forcing during the twentieth century. Northern Hemisphere mean annual temperatures for three of the past eight years are warmer than any other year since (at least) AD 1400.[20] The last point received most media attention. Mann was surprised by the extent of coverage which may have been due to the chance release of the paper on Earth Day in an unusually warm year. In a CNN interview, John Roberts repeatedly asked him if it proved that humans were responsible for global warming, to which he would go no further than that it was "highly suggestive" of that inference.[21]

In May 1998, Jones, Briffa and colleagues published a reconstruction going back a thousand years, but not specifically estimating uncertainties. As Bradley recalls, Mann's initial reaction to the paper was "Look at this. This is rubbish. You can't do this. There isn't enough information. There's too much uncertainty." Bradley suggested using the MBH98 methodology to go further back. Within a few weeks, Mann responded that to his surprise, "There is a certain amount of skill. We can actually say something, although there are large uncertainties."[22][23] Mann carried out a series of statistical sensitivity tests on 24 long term datasets, in which he statistically "censored" each proxy in turn to see the effect its removal had on the result. He found that a dataset which would otherwise have been reliable diverged from 1800 until around 1900, suggesting that it had been affected for that time by the CO2 "fertilisation effect". Using this dataset corrected in comparisons with other tree series, their reconstruction passed the validation tests for the extended period, but they were cautious about the increased uncertainties involved.[24]

The Mann, Bradley and Hughes reconstruction covering 1,000 years (MBH99) was published by Geophysical Research Letters in March 1999 with the cautious title Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations.[23][25] Mann said that "As you go back farther in time, the data becomes sketchier. One can't quite pin things down as well, but, our results do reveal that significant changes have occurred, and temperatures in the latter 20th century have been exceptionally warm compared to the preceding 900 years. Though substantial uncertainties exist in the estimates, these are nonetheless startling revelations."[26] When Mann gave a talk about the study to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, climatologist Jerry D. Mahlman nicknamed the graph the "hockey stick".[23]

I have a sketchy memory that there were data used in MBH98 that he simply did not have the right or permission to release, but I am unaware of anything else.

Why does he need permission?

I have been searching and there are piles of articles about Mann, but I can find nowhere the specific data you believe he has refused to release.

LOL!

 

[Crick]

I have a sketchy memory that there were data used in MBH98 that he simply did not have the right or permission to release, but I am unaware of anything else.

Why does he need permission?

Because someone else owns it, via copyright.

I have been searching and there are piles of articles about Mann, but I can find nowhere the specific data you believe he has refused to release.


View attachment 780791

LOL!

So you don't know either. Got it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because someone else owns it, via copyright.

So you don't know either. Got it.

Because someone else owns it, via copyright.

Who owns it?

So you don't know either. Got it.

He's a lying scumbag, but at least he has a Nobel Prize, right?

 

[Crick]

Because someone else owns it, via copyright.

Who owns it?

I don't know. I thought I made that clear when I first mentioned it.

So you don't know either. Got it.

He's a lying scumbag, but at least he has a Nobel Prize, right?

What has he done that makes you think he has lied and is a scumbag?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't know. I thought I made that clear when I first mentioned it.

What has he done that makes you think he has lied and is a scumbag?

You know he lied about winning a Nobel Prize, right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't know. I thought I made that clear when I first mentioned it.

What has he done that makes you think he has lied and is a scumbag?

I don't know. I thought I made that clear when I first mentioned it.

You said someone else owns it, but you don't know who?
How do you know someone else owns it?

 

[Crick]

You know he lied about winning a Nobel Prize, right?

Is that it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is that it?

He wasn't lying?

https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/Hockeystick-global-temperature/Mcintyre-Mckitrick-2005_GRL.pdf

Interesting!

If only Mann could stop articles like this from being published, eh?