Where Did ’97 Percent’ Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From?

[IanC]

I really don't care what you think. If you want to assume falsehoods because you just too lazy to look for yourself, that's your problem.

I did look, that's the part you don't seem to understand. There is no raw data before 1979 in those links you posted. If you say you found some, post it. This should be a very simple way to prove me wrong, so why not just do that?


(because you can't, that's why)

I was very excited when Muller announced his intention to produce a new temp dataset with open access to all available station info. It was supposed to have a list of the different types of adjustments so that the public could mix and match to see different variations. That didn't happen, not even the easily accessible raw data.

 

[mamooth]

With all the money being dumped into global warming we should at least carry out an independent audit to verify station data and see if the adjustments are doing what they are supposed to do.

I had forgotten about McIntyre's bungle with the "smelter". When was that, 2009? This stuff just never dies.

It's funny, the effort still being expended to discredit the surface temp record, especially given that the satellite records match the surface records so closely. Keep rearranging those deck chairs.

 

[asterism]

I really don't care what you think. If you want to assume falsehoods because you just too lazy to look for yourself, that's your problem.

I did look, that's the part you don't seem to understand. There is no raw data before 1979 in those links you posted. If you say you found some, post it. This should be a very simple way to prove me wrong, so why not just do that?


(because you can't, that's why)

I was very excited when Muller announced his intention to produce a new temp dataset with open access to all available station info. It was supposed to have a list of the different types of adjustments so that the public could mix and match to see different variations. That didn't happen, not even the easily accessible raw data.

Same here.

Apparently we're too stupid to look at this stuff. I'm still trying to figure out the special computer systems and data management experience Phil Jones and Keith Briffa have.

 

[Crick]

The oft repeated claim that no data or code are available has now been shown to be the yammering of the ignorant. Or lies. Your choice.

If you say you've looked at all that data - itself a difficult claim to swallow - and have not found any data older than 1979, I know for a fact you are lying out one side of your mouth or the other.

Have a nice night.

 

[mamooth]

I'm still trying to figure out the special computer systems and data management experience Phil Jones and Keith Briffa have.

I'm trying to figure out why you give us links to these incomprehensible conspiracy theories. I suppose they make some kind of sense to the cultists who understand the cult lingo, but everyone else just scratches their heads.

And actually, I do know why you do that. Since the science and data disagree with your cult dogma, those conspiracy theories are all you've got.

 

[asterism]

The oft repeated claim that no data or code are available has now been shown to be the yammering of the ignorant. Or lies. Your choice.

If you say you've looked at all that data - itself a difficult claim to swallow - and have not found any data older than 1979, I know for a fact you are lying out one side of your mouth or the other.

Have a nice night.

No "raw data" before 1979. That's the part you don't seem to understand. But then again, you say you found some and have not posted it. Why is that?

 

[asterism]

I'm still trying to figure out the special computer systems and data management experience Phil Jones and Keith Briffa have.

I'm trying to figure out why you give us links to these incomprehensible conspiracy theories. I suppose they make some kind of sense to the cultists who understand the cult lingo, but everyone else just scratches their heads.

And actually, I do know why you do that. Since the science and data disagree with your cult dogma, those conspiracy theories are all you've got.

It's the other way around, but you'll never want to know the truth because it disagrees with your cult dogma.

 

[Crick]

Our belief is not cult dogma, it is the holding of a very strong majority of mainstream science. If, by "cult dogma", you mean the proscribed and unquestioned doctrine of a sect or group bound together by a common but unusual and unsupportable belief... that would be YOURS.

 

[westwall]

The oft repeated claim that no data or code are available has now been shown to be the yammering of the ignorant. Or lies. Your choice.

If you say you've looked at all that data - itself a difficult claim to swallow - and have not found any data older than 1979, I know for a fact you are lying out one side of your mouth or the other.

Have a nice night.

No "raw data" before 1979. That's the part you don't seem to understand. But then again, you say you found some and have not posted it. Why is that?

Actually there is raw data from satellites going back to 1970....but it was colder back then so they leave that unfortunate section off. Helps them with their "narrative" don't you know...

 

[westwall]

Our belief is not cult dogma, it is the holding of a very strong majority of mainstream science. If, by "cult dogma", you mean the proscribed and unquestioned doctrine of a sect or group bound together by a common but unusual and unsupportable belief... that would be YOURS.

No, the majority of your believers are very much involved in a cult, they're just too embarrassed to call it that. Others, like the rich bankers, the oil barons, the "green" energy barons, the politicians and of course the actors like Ed Begley and Co. all know it's a fraud, they're just in it for the money.

Like any good criminal.

 

[Crick]

It's one thing to hold a minority viewpoint. It's quite another to suffer the delusion that everyone agrees with you; to lose the fact that yours IS a minority position. Climate scientists, by more than a ten to one ratio, say you're wrong. Try to keep hold of the facts. Try to keep hold of reality. You don't want to go out like this.

 

[mamooth]

Actually there is raw data from satellites going back to 1970....but it was colder back then so they leave that unfortunate section off. Helps them with their "narrative" don't you know...

Poor Westwall. There doesn't appear to be any conspiracy theory anywhere that he hasn't fallen hard for.

Westwall, you might have had a brain at one point, but that was before you deliberately destroyed your own ability to reason on the orders of your political cult. I hope the emotional satisfaction you get from your herd identity is worth the lifetime of humiliation you've signed on for.