Thread to Talk Shit about Global Warming

[Crick]

He wasn't lying?

View attachment 780803

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?

No, he did not lie. He made a mistake and Stephen McIntyre chose to be an asshole about it.

In looking for the data that could not be released, I came across a discussion that said Mann had freely shared data with professional colleagues but was not willing to spend hours assembling data to pass to amateurs with no background in the actual study subject (this would be McIntyre and McKittrick)and whose only aim was to nitpick MBH for essentially political reasons. Ten other scientists have reproduced the hockey stick graph with independent work. The only change in MBH's plot produced by correcting what M&M found was a slight improvement in the visibility of the MWP and the LIA. McIntyre's comments that Mann's processing would produce hockey stick shaped graphs out of noise was bullshit.

Some informed commentary from someone that dealt personally with Stephen McIntyre.

McIntyre's irrational demands | ScienceBlogs

In a comment to post on the Barton letters, Ed Snack claimed that Michael Mann made an error in MBH98, he confused the square root of the cosine of the latitude with the cosine Now if you look at MBH98, cosine latitude is only mentioned here:

scienceblogs.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, he did not lie. He made a mistake and Stephen McIntyre chose to be an asshole about it.

In looking for the data that could not be released, I came across a discussion that said Mann had freely shared data with professional colleagues but was not willing to spend hours assembling data to pass to amateurs with no background in the actual study subject (this would be McIntyre and McKittrick)and whose only aim was to nitpick MBH for essentially political reasons. Ten other scientists have reproduced the hockey stick graph with independent work. The only change in MBH's plot produced by correcting what M&M found was a slight improvement in the visibility of the MWP and the LIA. McIntyre's comments that Mann's processing would produce hockey stick shaped graphs out of noise was bullshit.

Some informed commentary from someone that dealt personally with Stephen McIntyre.

McIntyre's irrational demands | ScienceBlogs

In a comment to post on the Barton letters, Ed Snack claimed that Michael Mann made an error in MBH98, he confused the square root of the cosine of the latitude with the cosine Now if you look at MBH98, cosine latitude is only mentioned here:

scienceblogs.com

He made a mistake and Stephen McIntyre chose to be an asshole about it.

What mistake did he make?

I came across a discussion that said Mann had freely shared data with professional colleagues but was not willing to spend hours assembling data to pass to amateurs with no background in the actual study subject

Or to a court of law, apparently.

(this would be McIntyre and McKittrick)and whose only aim was to nitpick MBH for essentially political reasons.

If your data and methodology can't stand up to scrutiny, who cares if the reason was political?

Ten other scientists have reproduced the hockey stick graph with independent work.

Independent work? With no taxpayer funds involved? Awesome!

McIntyre's comments that Mann's processing would produce hockey stick shaped graphs out of noise was bullshit.


Comments? Looks like they actually analyzed the code. Input random data.
How is that bullshit?

Hell of a guy that Mann.

So, was he lying about his Nobel Prize, or not?

 

[Crick]

He made a mistake and Stephen McIntyre chose to be an asshole about it.

What mistake did he make?

I came across a discussion that said Mann had freely shared data with professional colleagues but was not willing to spend hours assembling data to pass to amateurs with no background in the actual study subject

Or to a court of law, apparently.

(this would be McIntyre and McKittrick)and whose only aim was to nitpick MBH for essentially political reasons.

If your data and methodology can't stand up to scrutiny, who cares if the reason was political?

Ten other scientists have reproduced the hockey stick graph with independent work.

Independent work? With no taxpayer funds involved? Awesome!

McIntyre's comments that Mann's processing would produce hockey stick shaped graphs out of noise was bullshit.


Comments? Looks like they actually analyzed the code. Input random data.
How is that bullshit?

View attachment 780817

Hell of a guy that Mann.

So, was he lying about his Nobel Prize, or not?

I'm quite certain that every asshole has a flattering version of their interactions with other people. So far I have not looked at Mann's comments about McIntyre. The opinions I've posted came from other people that had also dealt with him.

So, do you have some other lie that you believe Mann has told or is your vitriol all the result of his having taken some personal claim to the IPCC's Nobel? Because the Nobel thing doesn't makes someone "a lying scumbag".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm quite certain that every asshole has a flattering version of their interactions with other people. So far I have not looked at Mann's comments about McIntyre. The opinions I've posted came from other people that had also dealt with him.

So, do you have some other lie that you believe Mann has told or is your vitriol all the result of his having taking some personal claim to the IPCC's Nobel? Because the Nobel thing doesn't makes someone "a lying scumbag".

Tell me about Mann's "dirty laundry.

LOL!

 

[Crick]

Tell me about Mann's "dirty laundry.

LOL!

LOL!!!

That you should hold such hatred for Mann when you have no more than that is really, really disapointing Todd. A bit of an eye-opener I guess.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

LOL!!!

That you should hold such hatred for Mann when you have no more than that is really, really disapointing Todd. A bit of an eye-opener I guess.

His bullshit hockey stick makes him a scumbag.
Stopping people from getting published makes him a scumbag.
Mike's Nature Trick makes him a scumbag.
Dragging out his lawsuits for over a decade makes him a scumbag.
Refusing to produce his data and methods makes him a scumbag.
Refusing to pay the legal judgement against him makes him a scumbag.
His Nobel Prize makes him a scumbag.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

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.

NASA. The people that send men to the Moon and safely brought them back. What do they say?

Climate Change - NASA Science

NASA is a global leader in studying Earth’s changing climate.

climate.nasa.gov

 

[Dante Reawakened]

LOL!!!

That you should hold such hatred for Mann when you have no more than that is really, really disapointing Todd. A bit of an eye-opener I guess.

It's a healthy, respectful encounter.



Dennis brings up (starts at 4:37), the Phil Jones/Michael Mann thing.

“In fact, the email was an entirely innocent and appropriate conversation between scientists,” Mann states in this week’s BBC Four documentary, Climategate: Science of a Scandal. He and Jones were merely trying to find appropriate ways of illustrating a graph of global temperature changes.

This view was not shared by Sarah Palin: the former US vice-presidential candidate wrote a Washington Post op-ed article that claimed the emails “reveal that leading climate ‘experts’ … manipulated data to hide the decline in global temperatures”.

British climate science was subjected to huge scrutiny by the world’s best journalists and it stood up to the test

Subsequent investigations by journalists showed these claims were unsupportable, however. Guardian writer Fred Pearce studied the leaked emails and produced a book, The Climate Files, from his research. “Have the Climategate revelations undermined the case that we are experiencing made-made climate change? Absolutely not,” says Pearce. “Nothing uncovered in the emails destroys the argument that humans are warming the planet.”

Climategate 10 years on: what lessons have we learned?

A series of leaked emails was leapt on by climate-change deniers to discredit the data, but their efforts may have only slowed the search for solutions

www.theguardian.com

The "decline" is about northern tree-rings, not global temperature​

Phil Jones' email is often cited as evidence of an attempt to "hide the decline in global temperatures". This claim is patently false and shows ignorance of the science discussed. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations since 1960.


Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature. Hence, tree-rings are used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem". Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.

The "decline" has nothing to do with "Mike's trick".​

Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'

<p>'Mike's Nature trick' refers to the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

skepticalscience.com

But it's about science, not the environment alone. And Miller brings up 'settled science' and gets schooled smoothly, and with respect (beginning of video pre-4:30).

 

[skookerasbil]

But wait...

Where is there any hard evidence that people care about the "mountains of empirical data"??

d0y

What climate crusaders have never understood for 25 years is that the science has never transcended beyond the scientific community and a fringe group of obsessed nutters who tend to the hysterical.

So...it still holds...the science isn't mattering.

 

[Crick]

But wait...

Where is there any hard evidence that people care about the "mountains of empirical data"??

d0y

What climate crusaders have never understood for 25 years is that the science has never transcended beyond the scientific community and a fringe group of obsessed nutters who tend to the hysterical.

So...it still holds...the science isn't mattering.

Read the OP for thread US Opinions Regarding Global Warming. It says you're wrong.

 

[jc456]

Still waiting on the empirical evidence

 

[Crick]

Still waiting on the empirical evidence

So you're changing the topic? Sort of like a troll, aren't you.

 

[jc456]

So you're changing the topic? Sort of like a troll, aren't you.

Mountains of empirical data gathered by professional, published climate scientists tells

Hmmm opening sentence

 

[Crick]

Hmmm opening sentence

OHHH!! I am TERRIBLY sorry. I got you confused with Skookerasbil. Please forgive me.

Now, what was it you wanted? Empirical evidence? Scroll through any of the threads in this forum till you find graphs of temperature and graphs of CO2. Those are empirical evidence. Easy peasy pudding and pie.

 

[jc456]

OHHH!! I am TERRIBLY sorry. I got you confused with Skookerasbil. Please forgive me.

Now, what was it you wanted? Empirical evidence? Scroll through any of the threads in this forum till you find graphs of temperature and graphs of CO2. Those are empirical evidence. Easy peasy pudding and pie.

Well give me something other than the IPCC report

 

[Crick]

Well give me something other than the IPCC report

I just did.

 

[jc456]

I just did.

I didn’t find any empirical evidence from you or anyone else

 

[Crick]

I didn’t find any empirical evidence from you or anyone else

Now you're just lying. You and I both know that this forum is filled with temperature and CO2 graphs. Almost every single one is pure empirical data. What's the problem?

 

[jc456]

Now you're just lying. You and I both know that this forum is filled with temperature and CO2 graphs. Almost every single one is pure empirical data. What's the problem?

Can’t disagree with that, but nothing related to empirical facts! I’m always open to review such data and nothing is ever provided. In fact I’ve asked you multiple times to show a place on earth climate change occurs in your life and you shrivel up

 

[ding]

NASA. The people that send men to the Moon and safely brought them back. What do they say?

Climate Change - NASA Science

NASA is a global leader in studying Earth’s changing climate.

climate.nasa.gov

Whatever they are told to say.