Where is the confession?

[Crick]

The deniers on this board have claimed over and over and over again that climate scientists have manipulated data - falsified the numbers - with the aim of creating or exaggerating global warming. If this were true, someone would have spilled the beans long ago. It is simply not realistic to think that hundreds if not thousands of individuals could have carried on a deception of this magnitude and duration without either fumbling their work and giving it away or simply choosing to confess.

Yet, they have NOTHING. The only evidence deniers can provide to support their charges is that the data has been adjusted and SOME (the minority) of those adjustment have made global warming look worse than before. That's it. They have no evidence whatsoever indicating from a scientific perspective that any adjustment made by the major data holders was unjustified and, even more tellling, NOT A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL HAS EVER ADMITTED HAVING FALSIFIED THE DATA AS THEY CLAIM. Not a single fucking soul.

What are the odds?

Liar.

When you call someone a liar, it's a good idea to have some evidence. Even some proof. So let's see it.

 

[Crick]

What is stupid crick is attempting to defend the indefensible.....and lying when you know you are going to be caught out....got that empirical evidence that supports the claim that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming yet?.....of course not....since it doesn't exist.

What is it you think is indefensible SID? MBH 98? Care to show us a published paper that refutes it's conclusions?

Inventing data is indefensible....a clear admission of inventing data was made and you are still trying to defend it. Congratulations.....

Who invented data? Who admitted inventing data? Have you got a paper that refutes the conclusions of MBH 98?

 

[jillian]

But but but the deniers don't need, want or understand science so it doesn't matter anyway.

because science is just "theory"...

you know, like gravity...

 

[Crick]

There's been no warming either

Then you admit there was no decline. Good. Then there was no such decline to hide.

 

[Crick]

Being an engineer, I understand most physics. That would include the greenhouse effect, for which enormous amounts of empirical evidence exists. Being simply a normal human being, I also understand that SSDD is ignorant, antisocial and overwhelmed with issues of ego.

That would include the greenhouse effect, for which enormous amounts of empirical evidence exists.

Yeah, I'm not sure why some foes of the warmers deny back-radiation or misinterpret the 2nd Law in order to resist the watermelon agenda.

If warmers think CO2 is the worst thing ever, they'd support nuclear power to supply our high-energy use economy, instead, they try to damage our economy by pushing unreliable, expensive "green energy".
I think it's just more proof of their real agenda, and it's not reducing CO2.

Being simply a normal human being, I also understand that SSDD is ignorant, antisocial and overwhelmed with issues of ego.

Look at that, an issue we can agree on.

As I suspect you recall, I support nuclear energy. A sizable portion of those "environweenies" of yours do as well. Your generalizations fail as generalizations always do (I generalize). What would be the motive for environmentally concerned people to damage the world's economy? Solar PV, solar thermal and wind aren't unreliable technologies. They're intermittent. Neither are they expensive. Their costs are approaching and in some cases surpassing fossil fuel. Nuclear power IS expensive. I think they're all worth it because I see a much higher cost in what they help us avoid: global warming.

 

[Muhammed]

What is stupid crick is attempting to defend the indefensible.....and lying when you know you are going to be caught out....got that empirical evidence that supports the claim that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming yet?.....of course not....since it doesn't exist.

What is it you think is indefensible SID? MBH 98? Care to show us a published paper that refutes it's conclusions?

Inventing data is indefensible....a clear admission of inventing data was made and you are still trying to defend it. Congratulations.....

Who invented data? Who admitted inventing data? Have you got a paper that refutes the conclusions of MBH 98?

Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance - McIntyre - 2005 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

 

[Crick]

Read again. McIntyre didn't TOUCH MBH 98's conclusions.

 

[SSDD]

The deniers on this board have claimed over and over and over again that climate scientists have manipulated data - falsified the numbers - with the aim of creating or exaggerating global warming. If this were true, someone would have spilled the beans long ago. It is simply not realistic to think that hundreds if not thousands of individuals could have carried on a deception of this magnitude and duration without either fumbling their work and giving it away or simply choosing to confess.

Yet, they have NOTHING. The only evidence deniers can provide to support their charges is that the data has been adjusted and SOME (the minority) of those adjustment have made global warming look worse than before. That's it. They have no evidence whatsoever indicating from a scientific perspective that any adjustment made by the major data holders was unjustified and, even more tellling, NOT A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL HAS EVER ADMITTED HAVING FALSIFIED THE DATA AS THEY CLAIM. Not a single fucking soul.

What are the odds?

Liar.

When you call someone a liar, it's a good idea to have some evidence. Even some proof. So let's see it.

He already saw it....you claiming that you didn't say exactly what I had quotes of you saying....we all know you are a liar...you always have been. Hell, claiming to be an engineer when you can't even read a simple graph is probably one of your biggest and most persistent lies.

 

[Muhammed]

Read again. McIntyre didn't TOUCH MBH 98's conclusions.

Could you explain the reasoning that you used to come to that conclusion?

 

[Crick]

By your post, you've claimed that McIntrye's GRL letter refuted MBH 98's conclusion. I would assume that you know what MBH 98's conclusion was and what McIntrye's letter contended. No? Besides which, McIntyre's work has been refuted since then. MBH's PCA does not, as so often claimed by deniers, produce hockey sticks from red noise.

From MBH:

Time-dependent correlations of the reconstructions with time-series records representing changes in greenhouse-gas concentrations, solar irradiance, and volcanic aerosols suggest that each of these factors has contributed to the climate variability of the past 400 years, with greenhouse gases emerging as the dominant forcing during the twentieth century. Northern Hemisphere mean annual temperatures for three of the past eight years are warmer than any other year since (at least) ad1400.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v392/n6678/full/392779a0.html

And, from the corrigendum, added in 2004 in response to the McIntyre, McKittrick paper:

It has been drawn to our attention (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick) that the listing of the ‘proxy’ data set in the Supplementary Information published with this Article contained several errors. In Table 1 we provide a list of the records that were either mistakenly included in the Supplementary Information, or mistakenly left out. A small number of other corrections of the original listing include (see Table 1) corrections of the citations originally provided, or corrections of the start years for certain series. The full, corrected listing of the data is supplied as Supplementary Information to this corrigendum. Also provided as Supplementary Information are a documented archive of the complete data (instrumental and ‘proxy’ climate series) used in our original study, and an expanded description of the methodological details of our original study. None of these errors affect our previously published results1 .
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MBH98-corrigendum04.pdf

 

[Crick]

The complete corrigendum FYI

Corrigendum

Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley & Malcolm K. Hughes Nature 392, 779–787 (1998). ............................................................................................................................................................................
It has been drawn to our attention (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick) that the listing of the ‘proxy’ data set in the Supplementary Information published with this Article contained several errors. In Table 1 we provide a list of the records that were either mistakenly included in the Supplementary Information, or mistakenly left out. A small number of other corrections of the original listing include (see Table 1) corrections of the citations originally provided, or corrections of the start years for certain series. The full, corrected listing of the data is supplied as Supplementary Information to this corrigendum. Also provided as Supplementary Information are a documented archive of the complete data (instrumental and ‘proxy’ climate series) used in our original study, and an expanded description of the methodological details of our original study. None of these errors affect our previously published results1 .
A
1. Mann, M. E., Bradley, R. S. & Hughes, M. K. Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries. Nature 392, 779–787 (1998).
2. Bradley, R. S. & Jones, P. D. “Little ice age” summer temperature variations: their nature and relevance to recent global warming trends. The Holocene 3, 367–376 (1993).
3. Briffa, K. R. et al. Fennoscandian summers from AD500: temperature changes on short and long timescales. Clim. Dyn. 7, 111–119 (1992).
4. Stahle, D. W. et al. Experimental dendroclimatic reconstruction of the Southern Oscillation. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 79, 2137–2152 (1998).
5. Mann, M. E. et al. Global temperature patterns in past centuries: An interactive presentation. Earth Inter. 4-4, 1–29 (2000). Supplementary Information accompanies this corrigendum on www.nature.com/nature. Table 1 Errors in ‘proxy’ data set listing in ref. 1

Series (34) listed in original Supplementary Information but not used in ref. 1.* .............................................................................................................................................................................
FRAN003; ITAL015 and ITAL015X; SPAI026 and SPAI047; NEWZ056; ARGE030, ARGE060 and ARGE065; CHIL015, CHIL016, CHIL017 and CHIL018; AK006 and AK006X; CA070; CANA053, CANA053X, CANA096, CANA096X, CANA099, CANA106 and CANA110; WA019, WA025, WA027, WA033, WA039, WA041, WA071, WA074, WA086, WA088 and WA091; VAGANOV55 .............................................................................................................................................................................
Series (2) used in ref. 1 but not listed in original Supplementary Information .............................................................................................................................................................................
Unpublished Southwest US/Mexico Density series (D. W. Stahle, personal communication)
Unpublished Southwest US/Mexico Latewood Width series (D. W. Stahle, personal communication) .............................................................................................................................................................................
Additional minor corrections .............................................................................................................................................................................
(1) The Central England and Central European temperature records used by ref. 1 were the summer season versions of these series as used by ref. 2.
(2) The ‘long instrumental’ series used in ref. 1 are station temperature and precipitation station data from the NOAA Climate Data centre gridded at 58 latitude/longitude resolution.
(3) The start year for the ‘Central Europe’ series of ref. 1 is AD 1525.
(4) The ‘Western North America Dendro density’ series used in ref. 1 should properly be attributed to ref. 3.
(5) The Stahle et al. Southwestern/Mexico late wood width and maximum density data used in ref. 1 should properly be attributed to ref. 4 (the formal reference was not available at the time of ref. 1), or, in two cases, unpublished data (D. W. Stahle, personal communication).
(6) For one of the 12 ‘Northern Treeline’ records of Jacoby et al. used in ref. 1 (the ‘St Anne River’ series), the values used for AD 1400–03 were equal to the value for the first available year (AD 1404). .............................................................................................................................................................................
*These series, all of which come from the International Tree Ring Data Bank (ITRDB), met all the tests used for screening of the ITRDB data used in ref. 1 (see ref. 5), except one—namely, that in 1997, either it could not be ascertained by the authors how these series had been standardized by the original contributors, or it was known that the series had been aggressively standardized, removing multidecadal to century-scale fluctuations.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Being an engineer, I understand most physics. That would include the greenhouse effect, for which enormous amounts of empirical evidence exists. Being simply a normal human being, I also understand that SSDD is ignorant, antisocial and overwhelmed with issues of ego.

That would include the greenhouse effect, for which enormous amounts of empirical evidence exists.

Yeah, I'm not sure why some foes of the warmers deny back-radiation or misinterpret the 2nd Law in order to resist the watermelon agenda.

If warmers think CO2 is the worst thing ever, they'd support nuclear power to supply our high-energy use economy, instead, they try to damage our economy by pushing unreliable, expensive "green energy".
I think it's just more proof of their real agenda, and it's not reducing CO2.

Being simply a normal human being, I also understand that SSDD is ignorant, antisocial and overwhelmed with issues of ego.

Look at that, an issue we can agree on.

As I suspect you recall, I support nuclear energy. A sizable portion of those "environweenies" of yours do as well. Your generalizations fail as generalizations always do (I generalize). What would be the motive for environmentally concerned people to damage the world's economy? Solar PV, solar thermal and wind aren't unreliable technologies. They're intermittent. Neither are they expensive. Their costs are approaching and in some cases surpassing fossil fuel. Nuclear power IS expensive. I think they're all worth it because I see a much higher cost in what they help us avoid: global warming.

A sizable portion of those "environweenies" of yours do as well.

Sizable? 5%? Less?

What would be the motive for environmentally concerned people to damage the world's economy?

To reduce CO2.

 

[Crick]

How much support you find for nuclear power depends on how you select your "enviroweenies". After Fukushima there's plenty of antipathy towards nuclear power among the general population, deniers and environmentalists alike. So it's pointless to try to attack one side or the other with the issue.

Switching to alternative energy technology is already underway and to a point that most could not have imagined even a decade ago. The economy has not been hurt by the effort and there was never any guarantee that it wouldn't be. We aren't switching to make the economy better. We're switching to save ourselves from a far, far larger harm. That you don't see that harm is your problem. Really. It is.

 

[SSDD]

Who invented data? Who admitted inventing data? Have you got a paper that refutes the conclusions of MBH 98?

The man admitted inventing data crick.....why on earth would you continue to try to defend him....it is not defendable....he admitted it....go into court with the best lawyer on earth and admit to the crime and even the best lawyer is done...an admission is an admission....there is no question...he said he did it.....how do you think you can ever change that fact?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How much support you find for nuclear power depends on how you select your "enviroweenies". After Fukushima there's plenty of antipathy towards nuclear power among the general population, deniers and environmentalists alike. So it's pointless to try to attack one side or the other with the issue.

Switching to alternative energy technology is already underway and to a point that most could not have imagined even a decade ago. The economy has not been hurt by the effort and there was never any guarantee that it wouldn't be. We aren't switching to make the economy better. We're switching to save ourselves from a far, far larger harm. That you don't see that harm is your problem. Really. It is.

We're switching to save ourselves from a far, far larger harm.

I'm still waiting for someone to show what the ideal temperature of the planet really is.
Maybe you'll be the first?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How much support you find for nuclear power depends on how you select your "enviroweenies". After Fukushima there's plenty of antipathy towards nuclear power among the general population, deniers and environmentalists alike. So it's pointless to try to attack one side or the other with the issue.

Switching to alternative energy technology is already underway and to a point that most could not have imagined even a decade ago. The economy has not been hurt by the effort and there was never any guarantee that it wouldn't be. We aren't switching to make the economy better. We're switching to save ourselves from a far, far larger harm. That you don't see that harm is your problem. Really. It is.

We're switching to save ourselves from a far, far larger harm.

I'm still waiting for someone to show what the ideal temperature of the planet really is.
Maybe you'll be the first?

No CO2 = no climate change. Not Ever

 

[Crick]

How much support you find for nuclear power depends on how you select your "enviroweenies". After Fukushima there's plenty of antipathy towards nuclear power among the general population, deniers and environmentalists alike. So it's pointless to try to attack one side or the other with the issue.

Switching to alternative energy technology is already underway and to a point that most could not have imagined even a decade ago. The economy has not been hurt by the effort and there was never any guarantee that it wouldn't be. We aren't switching to make the economy better. We're switching to save ourselves from a far, far larger harm. That you don't see that harm is your problem. Really. It is.

We're switching to save ourselves from a far, far larger harm.

I'm still waiting for someone to show what the ideal temperature of the planet really is.
Maybe you'll be the first?

You're driving your car down the highway. There is a bridge abutment up ahead. Do you need to know the precise forces that will be produced by running into it at high speed before being able to conclude that you should not do so?

Don't waste our time. We've got things to do.

 

[Crick]

Who invented data? Who admitted inventing data? Have you got a paper that refutes the conclusions of MBH 98?

The man admitted inventing data crick.....why on earth would you continue to try to defend him....it is not defendable....he admitted it....go into court with the best lawyer on earth and admit to the crime and even the best lawyer is done...an admission is an admission....there is no question...he said he did it.....how do you think you can ever change that fact?

Data were processed in an open and appropriate manner to produce the graphic. There is nothing unusual about it. You and yours are simply using his choice of terms ("hide" and "trick") and NOTHING ELSE to accuse him of falsification. There was no decline that needed to be hidden. What he was doing and why he was doing it was and remain open knowledge with the entire field of dendrochronology. There were other conversations about this issue between Jones, Mann and others. The proof that he was talking about what he tells us he was talking about is definitive and such was the conclusion of all seven groups that reviewed this issue.

The only appropriate conclusion here is that you're a fucking idiot.

 

[Crick]

How much support you find for nuclear power depends on how you select your "enviroweenies". After Fukushima there's plenty of antipathy towards nuclear power among the general population, deniers and environmentalists alike. So it's pointless to try to attack one side or the other with the issue.

Switching to alternative energy technology is already underway and to a point that most could not have imagined even a decade ago. The economy has not been hurt by the effort and there was never any guarantee that it wouldn't be. We aren't switching to make the economy better. We're switching to save ourselves from a far, far larger harm. That you don't see that harm is your problem. Really. It is.

We're switching to save ourselves from a far, far larger harm.

I'm still waiting for someone to show what the ideal temperature of the planet really is.
Maybe you'll be the first?

No CO2 = no climate change. Not Ever

Frank, go back to sleep. When you wake up, go somewhere else. School would be a good choice.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How much support you find for nuclear power depends on how you select your "enviroweenies". After Fukushima there's plenty of antipathy towards nuclear power among the general population, deniers and environmentalists alike. So it's pointless to try to attack one side or the other with the issue.

Switching to alternative energy technology is already underway and to a point that most could not have imagined even a decade ago. The economy has not been hurt by the effort and there was never any guarantee that it wouldn't be. We aren't switching to make the economy better. We're switching to save ourselves from a far, far larger harm. That you don't see that harm is your problem. Really. It is.

We're switching to save ourselves from a far, far larger harm.

I'm still waiting for someone to show what the ideal temperature of the planet really is.
Maybe you'll be the first?

No CO2 = no climate change. Not Ever

Frank, go back to sleep. When you wake up, go somewhere else. School would be a good choice.

So you're saying CO2 does not drive climate? Can you pick a story and stick with it?