What is the testable AGW Hypothesis?

[Billy_Bob]

SSDD, you and Billy are now only interesting as examples of abnormal psychology and cult behavior. Otherwise, you're just boring. Do you think I haven't had gay stalkers before, and learned how to brush them off? (My stalkers seem to regard me as a stern daddy-figure who will punish them appropriately.)

Now, if you'd like to discuss the issues, don't do it by pointing to Monckton's inane Gish Gallop, since the use of that tactic is an admission of defeat. If you have a specific point to make, you should be capable of stating that point clearly in your own words. But if you have nothing, you can just keep pointing to Monckton's avalanche o' crap.

Funny that you us adhom bull shit to attack and never once offer up reasonable data, methods, or empirical evidence to support your outright fabrications and lies.. Try some facts for once...at least Monckton uses facts and math.. you rely on your faith in cult worship and AGW. Monckton has credibility you do not..

 

[xband]

Testable means that many scientists from many different countries have to repeat the experiment with the same results and vote into Law by peer review.

 

[mamooth]

Funny that you us adhom bull shit to attack and never once offer up reasonable data, methods, or empirical evidence to support your outright fabrications and lies.. Try some facts for once...at least Monckton uses facts and math.. you rely on your faith in cult worship and AGW. Monckton has credibility you do not..

So despite me asking directly, both you and SSDD still flat out refuse to discuss any specific point from Monckton. All you can do is rage that his Gish Gallup was the mostest perfect thing ever.

That is, you're both fanatical Monckton cultists, and particularly unhinged ones at that.

Now, I'd be delighted to point out specific cases of Monckton's data faking, but you two clearly don't want to actually discuss Monckton (proclaiming him to be God is not discussion). If you do ever locate your courage, pick out one specific point from Monckton and present it to us in your own words.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In lieu of a repeatable experiment, we get Mockton.

Who is Mockton anyway, the only time I hear about him is when the Warmers need to deflect from their lack of evidence

 

[SSDD]

So despite me asking directly, both you and SSDD still flat out refuse to discuss any specific point from Monckton. All you can do is rage that his Gish Gallup was the mostest perfect thing ever.

Sorry old woman...it is you who can't keep up your end of the discussion...you were asked for any observed, measured data that refutes Monkton...you can't deliver...imaginary errors...or computer generated errors are all you can manage....reality simply refuses to cooperate with you and yours.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So despite me asking directly, both you and SSDD still flat out refuse to discuss any specific point from Monckton. All you can do is rage that his Gish Gallup was the mostest perfect thing ever.

Sorry old woman...it is you who can't keep up your end of the discussion...you were asked for any observed, measured data that refutes Monkton...you can't deliver...imaginary errors...or computer generated errors are all you can manage....reality simply refuses to cooperate with you and yours.

Clearly, reality is a DENIER!!!!

 

[mamooth]

It's so hilariously easy now to debunk Monckton.

1. Everything Monckton did was based on the RSS data set.

2. The RSS data set was just corrected to show much more warming.

3. Therefore, everything Monckton did is now totally wrong.

No, I don't feel sorry the deniers concerning their current state of humiliation, given that I warned them that the satellite data sets were reporting too cool, and that those corrections would be coming. You'd think that they'd learn to listen to me, but no, they're choosing the path of failure instead, purely out of spite.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Testable means that many scientists from many different countries have to repeat the experiment with the same results and vote into Law by peer review.

NO..

Consensus is not science..

Repeatable by multiple different disciplines of science.. this means that even statistical analysis must show it is not only reasonable but the repetition has close proximity to the original experiment.

Peer review has become a circle jerk of best pals checking each others work... there is no credibility in that..

 

[Billy_Bob]

It's so hilariously easy now to debunk Monckton.

1. Everything Monckton did was based on the RSS data set.

funny; no proof, no data, no math... LIAR

2. The RSS data set was just corrected to show much more warming.

Again, another lie with nothing to back this LIE up..

3. Therefore, everything Monckton did is now totally wrong.

Again you have no proof, just your mumbling and drooling crap coming from your mouth. Pure conjecture and lies...

No, I don't feel sorry the deniers concerning their current state of humiliation, given that I warned them that the satellite data sets were reporting too cool, and that those corrections would be coming. You'd think that they'd learn to listen to me, but no, they're choosing the path of failure instead, purely out of spite.

More adhom and character attack without a shred of proof..

 

[SSDD]

It's so hilariously easy now to debunk Monckton.

1. Everything Monckton did was based on the RSS data set.

2. The RSS data set was just corrected to show much more warming.

3. Therefore, everything Monckton did is now totally wrong.

No, I don't feel sorry the deniers concerning their current state of humiliation, given that I warned them that the satellite data sets were reporting too cool, and that those corrections would be coming. You'd think that they'd learn to listen to me, but no, they're choosing the path of failure instead, purely out of spite.

You forgot to put quotation marks around corrected...when talking about adjustments to the temperature record...the correct form is "corrected"....it is also acceptable to add emphasis such as or or even to any mention of temperature "adjustments".

 

[Crick]

It was "corrected" by it's fucking creators, so CORRECTED will do just fine, numbnuts.

 

[Billy_Bob]

It was "corrected" by it's fucking creators, so CORRECTED will do just fine, numbnuts.

"corrected" to their expectations of rising numbers... What do you call it when the "expectation" becomes the sole reason for the correction?

One word; FRAUD

 

[CrusaderFrank]

corrected because the uncorrected data was a DENIER!!!!!

 

[IanC]

It's so hilariously easy now to debunk Monckton.

1. Everything Monckton did was based on the RSS data set.

2. The RSS data set was just corrected to show much more warming.

3. Therefore, everything Monckton did is now totally wrong.

No, I don't feel sorry the deniers concerning their current state of humiliation, given that I warned them that the satellite data sets were reporting too cool, and that those corrections would be coming. You'd think that they'd learn to listen to me, but no, they're choosing the path of failure instead, purely out of spite.

what a foolish thing to say. obviously you have strayed from your usual talking points provided by others.

I have often pointed out that climate science papers are outdated by the time they are published because the temperature data, etc have been constantly reworked by the main dataset providers. in fact old papers are one of the best resources for old datasets because GISS, HadCRU, etc simply remove old datasets once they have been updated.

by mamooth's logic.....

1. Everything Mann did was based on the Briffa data sets.

2. Briffa's data sets have corrected to show far less recent warming and much less of a hockeystick shape.

3. Therefore, everything Mann did is now totally wrong.

 

[IanC]

It was "corrected" by it's fucking creators, so CORRECTED will do just fine, numbnuts.

perhaps 'changed' is a better description.

UAH's Spencer and Christy were asked to peer review RSS's latest paper which has boosted the warming in the Mid-Troposphere, and will eventually change the values for the Lower-Troposphere. while they did not recommend rejection, obviously someone else did because JGR did reject it. the paper was resubmitted to Journal of Climate and accepted.

apparently most of the change arises from how the transition from the NOAA-14 to NOAA-15 instruments is handled. previously the NOAA-14 MSU was considered somewhat faulty and corrected. now it is not.

from Comments on New RSS v4 Pause-Busting Global Temperature Dataset « Roy Spencer, PhD

I dont profess to understand the intricasies of satellite calculations. perhaps what was once considered a failure in NOAA-14 is now considered a feature, because it gives the 'right' answer.

I expect there will be a lot more said about this paper.

 

[IanC]

It was "corrected" by it's fucking creators, so CORRECTED will do just fine, numbnuts.

"corrected" to their expectations of rising numbers... What do you call it when the "expectation" becomes the sole reason for the correction?

One word; FRAUD

the problem is....it's not really fraud. discretionary decisions abound in climate science. especially in temperature datasets. 'there are a thousand ways to skin a cat', and all that. any adjustment can have cases made for both inclusion and exclusion, which allows for plausible deniability for those involved.

 

[mamooth]

by mamooth's logic.....

1. Everything Mann did was based on the Briffa data sets.

But since that's just your crazy claim, one contradicted by reality, your false equivalence fallacy there crashes before it gets off the ground.

I suggest you stick solely with your "all the data is faked!" conspiracies, like your last post.

 

[jc456]

corrected because the uncorrected data was a DENIER!!!!!

you mean the actual data.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

corrected because the uncorrected data was a DENIER!!!!!

you mean the actual data.

Yes! the so called "Actual" data was nothing but a Lord Mockton shill refusing to believe in Manmade global climate warming change, so it HAD to get adjusted

 

[SSDD]

It was "corrected" by it's fucking creators, so CORRECTED will do just fine, numbnuts.

Climate science creates surface temperatures?....I thought that they simply recorded the temperatures... and then adjust them to support their ongoing narrative of imminent catastrophe.....tell me more about how climate science actually creates temperatures.