To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[westwall]

Global temperatures for 2015 are at a record high. The accusation that the dataholders are modifying their records without justification has yet to receive a single iota of supporting evidence. As the thread title states, to be a denier is to be paranoid.

How about some of that evidence about how McIntyre is such a clown. You babble about it, but it never materializes.

 

[Crick]

Global temperatures for 2015 are at a record high. The accusation that the dataholders are modifying their records without justification has yet to receive a single iota of supporting evidence. As the thread title states, to be a denier is to be paranoid.

How about some of that evidence about how McIntyre is such a clown. You babble about it, but it never materializes.

How about some evidence - like some actual hard science - that the corrections and adjustments aren't justified - or the confession of someone involved that they are being deceptive to make warming look worse than it is. Cause, without any of that, all we've got - all we've EVER had here - is denier paranoia.

 

[westwall]

Global temperatures for 2015 are at a record high. The accusation that the dataholders are modifying their records without justification has yet to receive a single iota of supporting evidence. As the thread title states, to be a denier is to be paranoid.

How about some of that evidence about how McIntyre is such a clown. You babble about it, but it never materializes.

How about some evidence - like some actual hard science - that the corrections and adjustments aren't justified - or the confession of someone involved that they are being deceptive to make warming look worse than it is. Cause, without any of that, all we've got - all we've EVER had here - is denier paranoia.

That's NOT how science works jackass. YOU have to justify "altering" (falsifying) 50 year old data to conform to your fraud.

 

[mamooth]

No, you have to justify your wild double standards.

That is, why do you love "alterations" to the satellite data?

Why do you adore "alterations" to data in any field outside climate science?

And why do you lie outright and claim the "alterations" to surface data make warming look bigger, when those changes actually make the warming look smaller?

Given how the corrections to the data make the warming look smaller, the fundamental denier conspiracy theory is plainly flagrantly dishonest nonsense, and every real scientist knows it. Given how deniers have been caught trying to pass off a yet another crazy conspiracy theory, why shouldn't they be written off as paranoid cult cranks?

 

[flacaltenn]

And it still leaps skyward in the 20th century.

Bit too drama queen -- dontcha think??? Specifically, THIS STUDY used a TOTAL of 54 proxies to cover the ENTIRE N.Hemi. And purports to be accurate to tenths of a degree.. AND THEN -- (because I know you didn't read the study) ---- when they got to the 20th Century, they dropped all but maybe 8 or 10 samples out of the data set. (because there weren't a lot of useful newly dead trees in the study)... So THEIR hockey stick suffers greatly from NON-UNIFORM sampling. And using 8 trees to determine the determine the 20th century temp to tenths of degree was JUST LUCK?? That would be my guess... It's bullshit.

 

[westwall]

No, you have to justify your wild double standards.

That is, why do you love "alterations" to the satellite data?

Why do you adore "alterations" to data in any field outside climate science?

And why do you lie outright and claim the "alterations" to surface data make warming look bigger, when those changes actually make the warming look smaller?

Given how the corrections to the data make the warming look smaller, the fundamental denier conspiracy theory is plainly flagrantly dishonest nonsense, and every real scientist knows it. Given how deniers have been caught trying to pass off a yet another crazy conspiracy theory, why shouldn't they be written off as paranoid cult cranks?

I have no double standards silly boy. I have one. Adhere to the scientific method. Period. You people wipe your ass with the principles that far smarter people than us hammered out over centuries. The only anti science assholes are you and yours.

 

[Crick]

Explain. How are climate scientists violating the scientific method?

 

[westwall]

Explain. How are climate scientists violating the scientific method?

They are falsifying 50 years old and older records to support their now failed theory. If they were altering for a real reason some records would go up instead of all of them going cooler. It is widespread academic fraud.

That is by definition a violation of the scientific method.

 

[Crick]

Explain. How are climate scientists violating the scientific method?

They are falsifying 50 years old and older records to support their now failed theory. If they were altering for a real reason some records would go up instead of all of them going cooler. It is widespread academic fraud.

That is by definition a violation of the scientific method.

The adjustments are not all going in the same direction. You have ZERO evidence of fraud and thus have ZERO evidence that climate scientists are violating the scientific method.

 

[jc456]

Soooooo..

Satellites have excellent correlation to balloon data sets which are used to verify the findings and calculations and are done globally.

US-CRN Matches the near surface temps of both the balloons and satellite measurements,

The HCN is off by almost 2 deg C in positive trend. The Historical Climate Network was decreased by 2 deg C prior to 1990 in an effort to make the HCN look accurate to the USCRN which showed the many and always upward adjustments fraud and in an effort to make today's warming trend look worse than it really is.. All in effort to keep the lie of AGW alive and well. But their models far exceed even their massive adjustments upward.

How much longer do we listen to these liars and frauds?

I stopped many years ago

 

[jc456]

Global temperatures for 2015 are at a record high. The accusation that the dataholders are modifying their records without justification has yet to receive a single iota of supporting evidence. As the thread title states, to be a denier is to be paranoid.

How about some of that evidence about how McIntyre is such a clown. You babble about it, but it never materializes.

How about some evidence - like some actual hard science - that the corrections and adjustments aren't justified - or the confession of someone involved that they are being deceptive to make warming look worse than it is. Cause, without any of that, all we've got - all we've EVER had here - is denier paranoia.

So, you can't explain the adjustments. Figures

 

[jc456]

Explain. How are climate scientists violating the scientific method?

They are falsifying 50 years old and older records to support their now failed theory. If they were altering for a real reason some records would go up instead of all of them going cooler. It is widespread academic fraud.

That is by definition a violation of the scientific method.

The adjustments are not all going in the same direction. You have ZERO evidence of fraud and thus have ZERO evidence that climate scientists are violating the scientific method.

Just explain the need

 

[IanC]

Explain. How are climate scientists violating the scientific method?

As one of the paper's authors once said. "You have to pick cherries if you want to make cherry pie". I believe cherrypicking data and datasets is a violation of scientific principles. Discarding unwanted data is also a violation. Stating your methodology and then doing something else is also a violation.

I could go on if you'd like. Stating conclusions that are unsupported by the evidence provided, also a violation. Etc, etc

 

[Crick]

Explain. How are climate scientists violating the scientific method?

As one of the paper's authors once said. "You have to pick cherries if you want to make cherry pie". I believe cherrypicking data and datasets is a violation of scientific principles. Discarding unwanted data is also a violation. Stating your methodology and then doing something else is also a violation.

I could go on if you'd like. Stating conclusions that are unsupported by the evidence provided, also a violation. Etc, etc

If you're on a hunt for cherry pickers, we both know you'd be a great deal more successful looking on the denier side of this argument. You'd also have a great deal more luck looking for misrepresentations of the facts in those fields. The deceptive model comparison you repeatedly put up here from Spencer and Christy is a good example. Then we could examine the work of Mark Stern, Richard Llindzen, Tim Ball, Nils-Axel Morner, Don Easterbrook, William Happer, Chris DeFreitas, David Legates, Fred Singer, Craig Idso and Willie Soon. I think we should have no difficulty whatsoever, finding cherry-picking, ignoring troublesome data, scientific incompetence and simple, outright lying among this group.

 

[mamooth]

How about some of that evidence about how McIntyre is such a clown. You babble about it, but it never materializes.

Sure. Here's just one example.

McIntyre loudly and repeatedly claimed that a "fudge factor" was used to fake data. He does it here in a formal report to parliament.

Uncorrected Evidence 32

Obviously, no such thing ever happened. The "fudge factor" was only used for calibration and testing, as had been explained to McIntyre. The code that led to the published results is available, and that code did not use the fudge factor. McIntyre was lying his ass off, he's never corrected the lie, and he's shown no remorse for telling it.

Naturally, I don't expect deniers to be honest and admit DearLeaderMcIntyre lied. Instead, they'll form ranks and lie in unison with him. That's how cults work, all the cultists obediently chanting cult dogma in unison. The cultists can pretend to believe it, but everyone outside the cult knows with 100% certainty that DearLeaderMcIntyre and the cultists are lying about it. And given that they'll proudly lie right to your face about that, it's a safe assumption that they lie about many things.

 

[jc456]

How about some of that evidence about how McIntyre is such a clown. You babble about it, but it never materializes.

Sure. Here's just one example.

McIntyre loudly and repeatedly claimed that a "fudge factor" was used to fake data. He does it here in a formal report to parliament.

Uncorrected Evidence 32

Obviously, no such thing ever happened. The "fudge factor" was only used for calibration and testing, as had been explained to McIntyre. The code that led to the published results is available, and that code did not use the fudge factor. McIntyre was lying his ass off, he's never corrected the lie, and he's shown no remorse for telling it.

Naturally, I don't expect deniers to be honest and admit DearLeaderMcIntyre lied. Instead, they'll form ranks and lie in unison with him. That's how cults work, all the cultists obediently chanting cult dogma in unison. The cultists can pretend to believe it, but everyone outside the cult knows with 100% certainty that DearLeaderMcIntyre and the cultists are lying about it. And given that they'll proudly lie right to your face about that, it's a safe assumption that they lie about many things.

dude/ dudette, curious, the code that was used was calibrated using the "fudge factor" correct?

 

[mamooth]

Yes, it was "correct", as far as a program that processes data can be called "correct". That is, it did what it was intended to do.

Though "calibrate" may have been the wrong term. "Sanity check" is probably better. You enter some extreme values, and then check the program responds as expected.

 

[jc456]

Yes, it was "correct", as far as a program that processes data can be called "correct". That is, it did what it was intended to do.

Though "calibrate" may have been the wrong term. "Sanity check" is probably better. You enter some extreme values, and then check the program responds as expected.

so in other words the calibration was fudged which in turn made every data output fudged, and McIntyre correct. Thanks for playing.

 

[mamooth]

so in other words the calibration was fudged which in turn made every data output fudged, and McIntyre correct. Thanks for playing.

I notice none of the deniers responded to the content showing McIntyre to be a fraud and liar. They're just mindlessly raging and making crap up, as I predicted. I mean, if they were honest, they wouldn't be deniers.

Now run along, as your services are required. DearLeaderMcIntyre needs a new coat of saliva on his boots.

 

[jc456]

so in other words the calibration was fudged which in turn made every data output fudged, and McIntyre correct. Thanks for playing.

I notice none of the deniers responded to the content showing McIntyre to be a fraud and liar. They're just mindlessly raging and making crap up, as I predicted. I mean, if they were honest, they wouldn't be deniers.

Now run along, as your services are required. DearLeaderMcIntyre needs a new coat of saliva on his boots.

McIntyre......................W I N N I N G
Skeptics.....................W I N N I N G
Warmer Paranoia....................W I N N I N G