To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[IanC]

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.

I highly recommend that people visit the link in mamooth's post. It contains many of the problems in climate science over the last decade, with links to support it. It is a good starting point to do your own investigations. Read the viewpoints from both sides and decide for yourself which positions more closely match the evidence and history.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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?

Here Ya GO!

 

[Crick]

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.

I highly recommend that people visit the link in mamooth's post. It contains many of the problems in climate science over the last decade, with links to support it. It is a good starting point to do your own investigations. Read the viewpoints from both sides and decide for yourself which positions more closely match the evidence and history.

Another McIntyre devotee. I'm sorry Ian, but that's rather pathetic of you. You talk as if McIntyre's statements are objective. The man hasn't given an objective opinion on climate science (for which he has no education and a personal history making him a close friend of fossil fuels) since he got out of training pants.

 

[westwall]

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.

I highly recommend that people visit the link in mamooth's post. It contains many of the problems in climate science over the last decade, with links to support it. It is a good starting point to do your own investigations. Read the viewpoints from both sides and decide for yourself which positions more closely match the evidence and history.

Another McIntyre devotee. I'm sorry Ian, but that's rather pathetic of you. You talk as if McIntyre's statements are objective. The man hasn't given an objective opinion on climate science (for which he has no education and a personal history making him a close friend of fossil fuels) since he got out of training pants.

And you still haven't presented a single paper that shows him to be wrong. Character assassination is the progressive shtick and the only tactic left to a desperate bunch of criminals.

 

[mamooth]

I highly recommend that people visit the link in mamooth's post. It contains many of the problems in climate science over the last decade, with links to support it. It is a good starting point to do your own investigations. Read the viewpoints from both sides and decide for yourself which positions more closely match the evidence and history.

If any deniers want to show that DearLeaderMcIntyre isn't lying, simply show the data trail from the sanity-check vector to actual published work. All the data is there. Go for it. You say fraud exists, so show where it is.

If you can, you'll be the first. But since no denier anywhere has ever shown such a thing, everyone now understands McIntyre was pushing a fraud.

Oh, check out the "Westwall standard". McIntyre claims fraud, and can't back it up in any way ... therefore the burden of prove is on ... everyone else. That's the same standard all deniers use in all their claims, that the burden of proof is always on everyone else to disprove their unsupported conspiracy theories.

 

[westwall]

I highly recommend that people visit the link in mamooth's post. It contains many of the problems in climate science over the last decade, with links to support it. It is a good starting point to do your own investigations. Read the viewpoints from both sides and decide for yourself which positions more closely match the evidence and history.

If any deniers want to show that DearLeaderMcIntyre isn't lying, simply show the data trail from the sanity-check vector to actual published work. All the data is there. Go for it. You say fraud exists, so show where it is.

If you can, you'll be the first. But since no denier anywhere has ever shown such a thing, everyone now understands McIntyre was pushing a fraud.

Oh, check out the "Westwall standard". McIntyre claims fraud, and can't back it up in any way ... therefore the burden of prove is on ... everyone else. That's the same standard all deniers use in all their claims, that the burden of proof is always on everyone else to disprove their unsupported conspiracy theories.

It's real simple. Present a paper that has been discredited by McIntyre that has then been re-submitted because he made an error.

 

[Crick]

I highly recommend that people visit the link in mamooth's post. It contains many of the problems in climate science over the last decade, with links to support it. It is a good starting point to do your own investigations. Read the viewpoints from both sides and decide for yourself which positions more closely match the evidence and history.

If any deniers want to show that DearLeaderMcIntyre isn't lying, simply show the data trail from the sanity-check vector to actual published work. All the data is there. Go for it. You say fraud exists, so show where it is.

If you can, you'll be the first. But since no denier anywhere has ever shown such a thing, everyone now understands McIntyre was pushing a fraud.

Oh, check out the "Westwall standard". McIntyre claims fraud, and can't back it up in any way ... therefore the burden of prove is on ... everyone else. That's the same standard all deniers use in all their claims, that the burden of proof is always on everyone else to disprove their unsupported conspiracy theories.

It's real simple. Present a paper that has been discredited by McIntyre that has then been re-submitted because he made an error.

It's even simpler. Show us that his "fudge factor" was ever used in a published paper. McIntyre made the charge that that is what happened. You believe him. You must believe that he identified a fudge factor in published papers. Which one(s)? Surely he's identified them for us. How hard could this be to find?

 

[westwall]

I highly recommend that people visit the link in mamooth's post. It contains many of the problems in climate science over the last decade, with links to support it. It is a good starting point to do your own investigations. Read the viewpoints from both sides and decide for yourself which positions more closely match the evidence and history.

If any deniers want to show that DearLeaderMcIntyre isn't lying, simply show the data trail from the sanity-check vector to actual published work. All the data is there. Go for it. You say fraud exists, so show where it is.

If you can, you'll be the first. But since no denier anywhere has ever shown such a thing, everyone now understands McIntyre was pushing a fraud.

Oh, check out the "Westwall standard". McIntyre claims fraud, and can't back it up in any way ... therefore the burden of prove is on ... everyone else. That's the same standard all deniers use in all their claims, that the burden of proof is always on everyone else to disprove their unsupported conspiracy theories.

It's real simple. Present a paper that has been discredited by McIntyre that has then been re-submitted because he made an error.

It's even simpler. Show us that his "fudge factor" was ever used in a published paper. McIntyre made the charge that that is what happened. You believe him. You must believe that he identified a fudge factor in published papers. Which one(s)? Surely he's identified them for us. How hard could this be to find?

We challenged you first and to date you have never produced one iota to support your pathetic attacks on McIntyre. As they say in the fight game, "put up, or shut up".

 

[Billy_Bob]

I highly recommend that people visit the link in mamooth's post. It contains many of the problems in climate science over the last decade, with links to support it. It is a good starting point to do your own investigations. Read the viewpoints from both sides and decide for yourself which positions more closely match the evidence and history.

If any deniers want to show that DearLeaderMcIntyre isn't lying, simply show the data trail from the sanity-check vector to actual published work. All the data is there. Go for it. You say fraud exists, so show where it is.

If you can, you'll be the first. But since no denier anywhere has ever shown such a thing, everyone now understands McIntyre was pushing a fraud.

Oh, check out the "Westwall standard". McIntyre claims fraud, and can't back it up in any way ... therefore the burden of prove is on ... everyone else. That's the same standard all deniers use in all their claims, that the burden of proof is always on everyone else to disprove their unsupported conspiracy theories.

It's real simple. Present a paper that has been discredited by McIntyre that has then been re-submitted because he made an error.

Several papers have been withdrawn due to McIntyre's exposing of their bad scientific methods and shoddy math. Fudge factors are a well known and consistently used by all modelers. Crick doesn't have a leg to stand on and he cant produce anything to back up his character assassinations.

 

[westwall]

I highly recommend that people visit the link in mamooth's post. It contains many of the problems in climate science over the last decade, with links to support it. It is a good starting point to do your own investigations. Read the viewpoints from both sides and decide for yourself which positions more closely match the evidence and history.

If any deniers want to show that DearLeaderMcIntyre isn't lying, simply show the data trail from the sanity-check vector to actual published work. All the data is there. Go for it. You say fraud exists, so show where it is.

If you can, you'll be the first. But since no denier anywhere has ever shown such a thing, everyone now understands McIntyre was pushing a fraud.

Oh, check out the "Westwall standard". McIntyre claims fraud, and can't back it up in any way ... therefore the burden of prove is on ... everyone else. That's the same standard all deniers use in all their claims, that the burden of proof is always on everyone else to disprove their unsupported conspiracy theories.

It's real simple. Present a paper that has been discredited by McIntyre that has then been re-submitted because he made an error.

Several papers have been withdrawn due to McIntyre's exposing of their bad scientific methods and shoddy math. Fudge factors are a well known and consistently used by all modelers. Crick doesn't have a leg to stand on and he cant produce anything to back up his character assassinations.

Yeah, I know. That's why poor old cricky here tries like hell to disparage McIntyre. He scares the piss out of the clowns because he can destroy in a few hours that which they have been fabricating for days or weeks.

 

[Crick]

Name some of the papers with the "well known and consistently used" fudge factor.

 

[westwall]

Name some of the papers with the "well known and consistently used" fudge factor.

Put up or shut up. You have been challenged first. Stop dodging and back up your crap, or leave.

 

[Crick]

Name some of the papers with the "well known and consistently used" fudge factor.

Put up or shut up. You have been challenged first. Stop dodging and back up your crap, or leave.

Leave? Ha! Looks like I really got your panties twisted.

You're the one making accusations. You're the one with the obligation to present evidence. So you're the one who's dodging. To be blunt, you're the one who's full of shit. You're the one who's lying.

Show us a published paper that uses the fudge factor you claim is well known and consistent and that McIntyre must surely have identified in droves.

Ian? You're McIntyre's biggest fan here and you actually read papers. Care to name one?

 

[westwall]

Name some of the papers with the "well known and consistently used" fudge factor.

Put up or shut up. You have been challenged first. Stop dodging and back up your crap, or leave.

Leave? Ha! Looks like I really got your panties twisted.

You're the one making accusations. You're the one with the obligation to present evidence. So you're the one who's dodging. To be blunt, you're the one who's full of shit. You're the one who's lying.

Show us a published paper that uses the fudge factor you claim is well known and consistent and that McIntyre must surely have identified in droves.

Ian? You're McIntyre's biggest fan here and you actually read papers. Care to name one?

No, silly little boy. It is yo who has made the claim. You claim that McIntyre is a fool, a liar and wrong. Yet he has had papers removed from consideration. That is a fact. You on the other hand have presented no facts to support your OPINION. So, yet again, put up or shut up.

 

[mamooth]

So according to TheWestwallStandard that some deniers are bitterly clinging to, I merely have to say "Westwall tortures puppies", and, given my proven track record of accuracy, everyone must accept that as a proven fact unless it can be disproved. And can anyone disprove it? Didn't think so. Therefore, it's settled.

And that example illustrates why deniers are ignored by the world. Denialism is like the anti-scientific method, with deniers being the perfect illustrations of how scientists should not behave.

 

[westwall]

So according to TheWestwallStandard that some deniers are bitterly clinging to, I merely have to say "Westwall tortures puppies", and, given my proven track record of accuracy, everyone must accept that as a proven fact unless it can be disproved. And can anyone disprove it? Didn't think so. Therefore, it's settled.

And that example illustrates why deniers are ignored by the world. Denialism is like the anti-scientific method, with deniers being the perfect illustrations of how scientists should not behave.

Ummmmm, no. That's not what I said at all. Though that is how you wish science could be perverted. No, the onus is on you. YOU made the claim, YOU have to back it up. That's how science works. Not that you could ever understand that.

 

[IanC]

I highly recommend that people visit the link in mamooth's post. It contains many of the problems in climate science over the last decade, with links to support it. It is a good starting point to do your own investigations. Read the viewpoints from both sides and decide for yourself which positions more closely match the evidence and history.

If any deniers want to show that DearLeaderMcIntyre isn't lying, simply show the data trail from the sanity-check vector to actual published work. All the data is there. Go for it. You say fraud exists, so show where it is.

If you can, you'll be the first. But since no denier anywhere has ever shown such a thing, everyone now understands McIntyre was pushing a fraud.

Oh, check out the "Westwall standard". McIntyre claims fraud, and can't back it up in any way ... therefore the burden of prove is on ... everyone else. That's the same standard all deniers use in all their claims, that the burden of proof is always on everyone else to disprove their unsupported conspiracy theories.

It's real simple. Present a paper that has been discredited by McIntyre that has then been re-submitted because he made an error.

It's even simpler. Show us that his "fudge factor" was ever used in a published paper. McIntyre made the charge that that is what happened. You believe him. You must believe that he identified a fudge factor in published papers. Which one(s)? Surely he's identified them for us. How hard could this be to find?

We challenged you first and to date you have never produced one iota to support your pathetic attacks on McIntyre. As they say in the fight game, "put up, or shut up".

has crick put up anything to support his hatred of McIntyre yet?

silly question of course. he hasnt in the past and he wont now. McIntyre is a pretty hard target to take down, even the secret SkepticalScience forum admitted to that.

 

[Crick]

If you don't see an oversized ego EVERY time you read anything written by Stephen McIntyre, you're working to ignore it.

So according to TheWestwallStandard that some deniers are bitterly clinging to, I merely have to say "Westwall tortures puppies", and, given my proven track record of accuracy, everyone must accept that as a proven fact unless it can be disproved. And can anyone disprove it? Didn't think so. Therefore, it's settled.

And that example illustrates why deniers are ignored by the world. Denialism is like the anti-scientific method, with deniers being the perfect illustrations of how scientists should not behave.

Let's review

McIntyre claims that a fudge factor is used in numerous models and papers. Ian, Westwall and, I guess, Frank, support McIntyre in that claim. Mamooth and I would like any of you or McIntyre to name one of these models or papers making use of a fudge factor.

The claim is not that McIntyre is a dick-head. Ian and Westwall would like us to believe that's the case because it doesn't look as if they can find any models or papers that can be shown to be using McIntyre's fudge factor and they need a distraction.

And that, boys and girls, is where we stand.











Ummmmm, no. That's not what I said at all. Though that is how you wish science could be perverted. No, the onus is on you. YOU made the claim, YOU have to back it up. That's how science works. Not that you could ever understand that.

 

[westwall]

If you don't see an oversized ego EVERY time you read anything written by Stephen McIntyre, you're working to ignore it.

So according to TheWestwallStandard that some deniers are bitterly clinging to, I merely have to say "Westwall tortures puppies", and, given my proven track record of accuracy, everyone must accept that as a proven fact unless it can be disproved. And can anyone disprove it? Didn't think so. Therefore, it's settled.

And that example illustrates why deniers are ignored by the world. Denialism is like the anti-scientific method, with deniers being the perfect illustrations of how scientists should not behave.

Let's review

McIntyre claims that a fudge factor is used in numerous models and papers. Ian, Westwall and, I guess, Frank, support McIntyre in that claim. Mamooth and I would like any of you or McIntyre to name one of these models or papers making use of a fudge factor.

The claim is not that McIntyre is a dick-head. Ian and Westwall would like us to believe that's the case because it doesn't look as if they can find any models or papers that can be shown to be using McIntyre's fudge factor and they need a distraction.

And that, boys and girls, is where we stand.











Ummmmm, no. That's not what I said at all. Though that is how you wish science could be perverted. No, the onus is on you. YOU made the claim, YOU have to back it up. That's how science works. Not that you could ever understand that.

Wow. Just wow. Every one of your hero's is an egotistical maniac and you talk about McIntyre. Want to know the difference between them? McIntyre is correct...and your hero's aren't.

Egotistical and correct beats the ever loving crap out of egotistical and wrong any day of the week.

 

[Crick]

A post of mine in this thread seems to have disappeared. Let's try again.

Let's review.

McIntyre claims that a "fudge factor" is widely and consistently used in mainstream climate models. IanC, Westwall, and I suppose, Frank, agree with McIntyre. That a fudge factor is widely used is the CLAIM currently in question, not whether or not McIntyre is generally a dickhead or I can make a case for disliking the man. Those are distractions that Ian and Westwall would very much like to pursue because they are apparently unable to actually find an example of a climate model using McIntyre's fudge factor.

There you go boys and girls.