Turns out that even the skeptics agree, the earth is warming abnormally

[bripat9643]

I'm not reading anything you can't explain yourself, sorry. I can just as easily post links to papers claiming to have refuted the McIntyre paper - but those papers come to conclusions you do not like, so you would reject them.

Clearly - you're going to post the papers that conclude what you like, and there's no need for you to actually be able to understand and explain them to others!

In other words:

"Nah nah na nah nah! I can't hear you!"

 

[Cowman]

It's geological cycles. It's been happening for millions of years. But this current crop of arrogant neanderthals comes along and decides that this just started happening?

Yes... our highly advanced scientific race are a crop of arrogant neanderthals and don't understand anything about how the world works or has worked.

The earth if 5000 years old, huh churchy?

 

[westwall]

Think I'll go with the 99.9% of scientists who believe in man made global warming, including the leading sceptic of the OP after his own investigation. Call me crazy. Same with evolution, and the ruin of the non rich and the country under Reaganomics..

Actually it was 97% of the 79 (or 74 for the mathematically challenged) climatologists who were self selected for the survey. Interesting that even with a specially selected group they STILL couldn't get 100%.

 

[westwall]

That Mann guy sure pulled one over on the world. As one of only three or four other climate scientists who have published anything in the world, and since Gore talks about him, he's the most powerful man in the world - until you guys figured out that climate has changed before. Shit man, whew! We don't need to worry about it anymore, I'm going to run out and buy an SUV today.

If Mann has the facts on his side and no other scientist disagrees, why hide the MWP?

There is no hiding of any MWP.

There sure as hell was in his stupid hockey stick graph.

 

[westwall]

That's the Hockey Stick graph. It's already been discredited and widely ridiculed.

I could have sworn his hockey stick hid the MWP.

Its right here

Actually that's the CORRECTED graph, the original was a flat line.

 

[bripat9643]

That's the Hockey Stick graph. It's already been discredited and widely ridiculed.

Its right here

Actually that's the CORRECTED graph, the original was a flat line.

According to McIntyre, it's still bogus. It still includes the Bristle-cone pine data, and it still uses the bogus "component analysis" methodology.

Notice the black line at the end? That's where Mann added in actual temperature data to cover up the decline in the temperature of the proxy data. That's where the infamous "hide the decline" line comes from. The proxy data should have been increasing when it was in fact decreasing. In other words, the proxy data was invalid. If your proxy data is going in the opposite direction as actual measured temperatures, it's not a very good proxy, is it?

 

[westwall]

e

Other than the graph doesn't look like you want it to look, what specifically about this 18 year old paper do you disagree with?

He tried to hide the MWP with his original hockey stick.

The paper doesn't state anyting about his motiviations.

SO, again, Other than the graph doesn't look like you want it to look, what specifically about this 18 year old paper do you disagree with? Tell us exactly where the authors went wrong in their method.

Methodology, conclusions, source materials, lack of scientific transparency, conspiracy to deny FOI requests, scientific fraud, I can go on but I think you get the picture.

 

[westwall]

That's the Hockey Stick graph. It's already been discredited and widely ridiculed.

Actually that's the CORRECTED graph, the original was a flat line.

According to McIntyre, it's still bogus. It still includes the Bristle-cone pine data, and it still uses the bogus "component analysis" methodology.

Notice the black line at the end? That's where Mann added in actual temperature data to cover up the decline in the temperature of the proxy data. That's where the infamous "hide the decline" line comes from. The proxy data should have been increasing when it was in fact decreasing. In other words, the proxy data was invalid. If your proxy data is going in the opposite direction as actual measured temperatures, it's not a very good proxy, is it?

Yes, he used the one tree in the grove that gave him that spike. All the other trees in the grove showed cooling.

 

[ClosedCaption]

so we have 7-8 million years of data to compare this abnormal warming to?

I hate to break it to ya.... the earth warms and cools all on its own at both slow and fast rates.

So since you dont have 8 million years of data that means what? People didnt have paper 8 million years ago?

Oh I get it, this is when you ask for something that doesnt exist and claim since you dont have that thing you must be right. They have a word for that its...uh...Intellectually lazy

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If Mann has the facts on his side and no other scientist disagrees, why hide the MWP?

There is no hiding of any MWP.

There sure as hell was in his stupid hockey stick graph.

I agree 100%. Lots of people say the MWP was really big, and anyone who makes a graph that doesn't make the peak of that period at least as big as the stupid hockey stick is clearly a fraud. We all know the MWP peak was higher, we were born knowing it, its natural. Stupid morons with their hockey sticks that al gore talks about. Al Gore's fucking FAT! DUH!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

e

He tried to hide the MWP with his original hockey stick.

The paper doesn't state anyting about his motiviations.

SO, again, Other than the graph doesn't look like you want it to look, what specifically about this 18 year old paper do you disagree with? Tell us exactly where the authors went wrong in their method.

Methodology, conclusions, source materials, lack of scientific transparency, conspiracy to deny FOI requests, scientific fraud, I can go on but I think you get the picture.

METHODOLOGY! And all that other stuff, too. There you have it. You said his methodology was wrong, and based on your word alone, I do not doubt it. Lots of other people, have said that, too, including McIntyre. I won't ask you to explain exactly how his methodology is wrong, I trust you and lots of people al gore hockey stick mann CLIMATEGATE fraudsters! I know lots of peple disagree with all that other stuff, too, I've seen it posted on the internets. What gets me is how these fraudsters think they can get away with their stupid hockey sticks! Did they think no one would hear from lots of people that they were wrong?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Other than the paper exists and Toddsterpatriot doesn't like one of the graphs, I've yet to see any evidence of "fraud".

That's because you don't want to see the evidence.

It hasn't been shown to me.


I'm not reading anything you can't explain yourself, sorry. I can just as easily post links to papers claiming to have refuted the McIntyre paper - but those papers come to conclusions you do not like, so you would reject them.

Clearly - you're going to post the papers that conclude what you like, and there's no need for you to actually be able to understand and explain them to others!

I can easily explain it, but it's complicated and would take a lot of typing.

No, you can't easily explain it. It isn't easy to explain.

It's much easier for you to just read the article at the link I posted. Anyone who isn't a complete doofus on the climate change issue is aware of the Hockey Stick scandal and how McIntyre and McKitrick totally debunked Mann's fraudulent graph.

Oh, well if people are aware of the "scandal", that's all the proof I need, no need to read anything at all. There's a scandal, people are "aware" of it - what more evidence is needed?

More sarcasm. Dude you are so bankrupt.

For what it is worth the tree ring data that Mann used to show a cooling period prior to the early 1800's was then tossed aside when that same data showed what would indicate a decline of temperatures to our time. So Man hid this continued decline of temps by replacing it with direct temperature measurements.

So now you will find some other bullshit blather to dodge any serious discussion, since you know you are right, what could you possibly gain by actually discussing this stuff with the ignorati?

Please go away and return to torturing your pets and scaring the neighborhood children, ok troll?

 

[JimBowie1958]

e

The paper doesn't state anyting about his motiviations.

SO, again, Other than the graph doesn't look like you want it to look, what specifically about this 18 year old paper do you disagree with? Tell us exactly where the authors went wrong in their method.

Methodology, conclusions, source materials, lack of scientific transparency, conspiracy to deny FOI requests, scientific fraud, I can go on but I think you get the picture.

METHODOLOGY! And all that other stuff, too. There you have it. You said his methodology was wrong, and based on your word alone, I do not doubt it. Lots of other people, have said that, too, including McIntyre. I won't ask you to explain exactly how his methodology is wrong, I trust you and lots of people al gore hockey stick mann CLIMATEGATE fraudsters! I know lots of peple disagree with all that other stuff, too, I've seen it posted on the internets. What gets me is how these fraudsters think they can get away with their stupid hockey sticks! Did they think no one would hear from lots of people that they were wrong?

And yet more sarcasm.

Folks, that is all this ass-hole has.

Why bother?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

That's because you don't want to see the evidence.

It hasn't been shown to me.


I'm not reading anything you can't explain yourself, sorry. I can just as easily post links to papers claiming to have refuted the McIntyre paper - but those papers come to conclusions you do not like, so you would reject them.

Clearly - you're going to post the papers that conclude what you like, and there's no need for you to actually be able to understand and explain them to others!



No, you can't easily explain it. It isn't easy to explain.

It's much easier for you to just read the article at the link I posted. Anyone who isn't a complete doofus on the climate change issue is aware of the Hockey Stick scandal and how McIntyre and McKitrick totally debunked Mann's fraudulent graph.

Oh, well if people are aware of the "scandal", that's all the proof I need, no need to read anything at all. There's a scandal, people are "aware" of it - what more evidence is needed?

More sarcasm. Dude you are so bankrupt.

For what it is worth the tree ring data that Mann used to show a cooling period prior to the early 1800's was then tossed aside when that same data showed what would indicate a decline of temperatures to our time. So Man hid this continued decline of temps by replacing it with direct temperature measurements.

What a MORON. Why use DIRECT MEASUREMENT when you can use a PROXY??? Clealry the direct measurements must be WRONG! Everyone KNOWS tree rings are more accurate than THERMOMETERS - Al Gore Hockey Sticks!

 

[daveman]

No one has ever explained to me when it was that consensus became part of the scientific method.

So we are just going to vote on what is considered scientific truth from now on or only special politicized cases?

Vote? Good Gaea, no. We'll have our opinions handed to us by the liberal elite, who know what's best for us.

Lol, you're right.

What was I thinking?

Thinking?! Who authorized you to think, mister? You'll believe what you're told to believe. Got it?

 

[daveman]

Dissenting viewpoints are published all the time. Just not the ones you want. You could go study the atmosphere for a dozen years or so, and publish your own stuff, but its much easier for you to be an expert on the subject based on what right wing nutbags tell you about it.

Really? Where did you get your degrees in science?

Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College
Bachelor of Science - 2000
Doctor of Philosophy - 2011

In what areas?

Well, no evidence but the Climategate emails which detail how they bastardized the peer-review process.

I've yet to see such evidence. For some reason you nut bags think the mere existence of emails between scientists means something nefarious is happening. And even is such evidence exists, do you realize that the number of active scientists publishing in this area is much, much greater than the number involved in the emails?

You don't see it because you don't want to see it. The emails quite clearly stated how the AGW high priests were controlling the peer-review process to obtain favorable results for papers approved by the cult.

As I've said before, any claim of the science being settled should be a red flag to any clear thinker.

Science just doesn't work that way. They should have taught you that.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Really? Where did you get your degrees in science?

Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College
Bachelor of Science - 2000
Doctor of Philosophy - 2011

In what areas?

Physics on both counts

You don't see it because you don't want to see it. The emails quite clearly stated how the AGW high priests were controlling the peer-review process to obtain favorable results for papers approved by the cult.

A lot of people are saying they say that, so I agree. You must be right, so many people agree with you. Some of them even have their own blog.

 

[daveman]

Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College
Bachelor of Science - 2000
Doctor of Philosophy - 2011

In what areas?

Physics on both counts

You seem to be living proof that "educated" is not synonymous with "intelligent".

You don't see it because you don't want to see it. The emails quite clearly stated how the AGW high priests were controlling the peer-review process to obtain favorable results for papers approved by the cult.

A lot of people are saying they say that, so I agree. You must be right, so many people agree with you. Some of them even have their own blog.

The difference between you and me?

You believe that a lot of people saying something -- in your case, that AGW is real -- means it's true.

I don't care how many people say it's not real. The proponents have not proven their case to my satisfaction, so I say so.

You're a sheep. I'm not.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

In what areas?

Physics on both counts

You seem to be living proof that "educated" is not synonymous with "intelligent".

Clearly, I disagree with your well informed viewpoints, so I must be really really stupid. You've read lots of stuff about this, anyone who doesn't agree with you is a dum dum.

You don't see it because you don't want to see it. The emails quite clearly stated how the AGW high priests were controlling the peer-review process to obtain favorable results for papers approved by the cult.

A lot of people are saying they say that, so I agree. You must be right, so many people agree with you. Some of them even have their own blog.

The difference between you and me?

You believe that a lot of people saying something -- in your case, that AGW is real -- means it's true.

I don't care how many people say it's not real. The proponents have not proven their case to my satisfaction, so I say so.

You're a sheep. I'm not.

Those people saying AGW is real either a) publish their stuff in that phony "peer review" journal stuff, and lots of people - some with blogs - say those journals are all in cahoots with Al Gore, so it doesn't count b) al gore.

Sorry but I think most people are saying its false. At least most of the people with nice blogs.

I mean, I can kinda just tell by looking at the hockey stick graph it must be wrong. I think I've got a link that says it, too. and climate has changed before, too, that's what these stupid scientists in the journals don't fucking get.

fuck al gore and his SUV

 

[JimBowie1958]

More sarcasm. Dude you are so bankrupt.

For what it is worth the tree ring data that Mann used to show a cooling period prior to the early 1800's was then tossed aside when that same data showed what would indicate a decline of temperatures to our time. So Man hid this continued decline of temps by replacing it with direct temperature measurements.

What a MORON. Why use DIRECT MEASUREMENT when you can use a PROXY??? Clealry the direct measurements must be WRONG! Everyone KNOWS tree rings are more accurate than THERMOMETERS - Al Gore Hockey Sticks!

Again you use sarcasm to dodge the point; if tree ring data is reliable then why does it CONTRADICT KNOWN TEMPERATURES? To go ahead and use them and then simply swap them out for data that shows the spike you want is dishonest, something you are also completely ignorant about, douchebag.