Where is the confession?

[Crick]

Now, Frank, where is the confession of someone involved in all the illicit and unjustified data manipulation you claim has been taking place? WHERE IS THE CONFESSION?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Now, Frank, where is the confession of someone involved in all the illicit and unjustified data manipulation you claim has been taking place? WHERE IS THE CONFESSION?

I confess your posts are dreary and the cause of great ennui.

 

[Crick]

Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by global warming sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[32]John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[33] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[34][35] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[36]

Wikipedia: Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

33) Tierney, John. "E-Mail Fracas Shows Peril of Trying to Spin Science." The New York Times. 1 December 2009.
34) Randerson, James (31 March 2010). "Climate researchers 'secrecy' criticised – but MPs say science remains intact". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 26 July 2010.
35) Foley, Henry C.; Scaroni, Alan W.; Yekel, Candice A. (3 February 2010). "RA-10 Inquiry Report: Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Department of Meteorology, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University"(PDF). The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved7 February 2010.
36) "Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act | Regulatory Initiatives | Climate Change". United States Environmental Protection Agency. 29 September 2010. pp. 1.1.4. Retrieved 26 October 2010.

Temperature was a "Record high" in the middle of a 2 decade hiatus..... uh huh

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes..."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

First, there was no hiatus.
Second, your Phil Jones quote clearly shows you're ignorant of statistics.
Third, your Phil Jones quote has absolutely NOTHING to do with the "Mike's Nature trick" discussion above.

God, are you stupid Frank.

There was no hiatus? Means the IPCC must have been wrong then. It's right there in the Table of Contents for AR5. Fooled them didn't it?? You gotta be a real holy roller to believe that 1 MINI-paper (not even a full size study report) can just declare a new truth. That was done for the zealots like you -- who have no freakin' idea what's really going on in a continuing science debate..

Where is the science that supports your position Mister FiCTion?

 

[Crick]

Now, Frank, where is the confession of someone involved in all the illicit and unjustified data manipulation you claim has been taking place? WHERE IS THE CONFESSION?

I confess your posts are dreary and the cause of great ennui.

Were we supposed to be impressed? Good fucking god.

 

[SSDD]

First, there was no hiatus.p.qyite]

Of course there was and still is....you are either a pitiful dupe who actually believes that you aren't being taken for a fool, or you are a lying sack who will say anything for political reasons....my bet is that you are a lying sack as you repeatedly lie about the education that you clearly don't have as evidenced by your inability to read even a simple graph.

 

[Crick]

Abstract of Karl et al, 2015 [Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus

Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here, we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.

Full text of Karl et al 2015
Science Magazine: Sign In

When you call me a liar, asshole, you better have something better than the gelid tripe you keep between your ears to do it with.

And fix your quotes, dipshit.

 

[Crick]

2015 - or perhaps we should say the last 12 months - is not the hottest year since 1998. It's the hottest year since records began and likely even further. I''m not sure how you folks reconcile that point with your belief that there's been no warming since 1998, but I'm quite sure it involves no facts nor valid logic.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

2015 is not the hottest year since 1998. It's the hottest year since records began and likely even further.

Records date to approximately 1880. Big whoop. The Earth is at last count 4.3 billion years old.

All planets endure climate change. The concept of anthropogenic impact has nothing to do with climate, but with the centralized political control of nations.

 

[Crick]

If 1880 is a big whoop, how much value do you give a factually unsupportable contention of a trend since 1998? Not much, I'd guess. That the Earth is old is irrelevant. What matters is the span of time over which man has developed and built the current infrastructure of his society. And if you'd like me to believe that there have been no anthropogenic effects to climate, you're going to have to find an explanation for the warming of the last 150 years that makes no use of such effects.

Let us know when you're ready to do that.

Though, to be honest I wonder why you choose to respond to me.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

If 1880 is a big whoop, how much value do you give a factually unsupportable contention of a trend since 1998? Not much, I'd guess. That the Earth is old is irrelevant. What matters is the span of time over which man has developed and built the current infrastructure of his society. And if you'd like me to believe that there have been no anthropogenic effects to climate, you're going to have to find an explanation for the warming of the last 150 years that makes no use of such effects.

Let us know when you're ready to do that.

Though, to be honest I wonder why you choose to respond to me.

You are a chew-toy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Now, Frank, where is the confession of someone involved in all the illicit and unjustified data manipulation you claim has been taking place? WHERE IS THE CONFESSION?

I confess your posts are dreary and the cause of great ennui.

Phil Jones admitted there was no warming.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Abstract of Karl et al, 2015 [Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus

Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here, we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.

Full text of Karl et al 2015
Science Magazine: Sign In

When you call me a liar, asshole, you better have something better than the gelid tripe you keep between your ears to do it with.

And fix your quotes, dipshit.

Lol@ the altered data shows warming.

That's not science, that's science fiction

 

[jc456]

Now, Frank, where is the confession of someone involved in all the illicit and unjustified data manipulation you claim has been taking place? WHERE IS THE CONFESSION?

I confess your posts are dreary and the cause of great ennui.

Phil Jones admitted there was no warming.

asked and answered, thanks Frank!!!!!!

 

[SSDD]

Abstract of Karl et al, 2015 [Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus

Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here, we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.

Full text of Karl et al 2015
Science Magazine: Sign In

When you call me a liar, asshole, you better have something better than the gelid tripe you keep between your ears to do it with.

And fix your quotes, dipshit.

You are absolutely laughable....tell me, crickham....what is going to be your excuse for believing that steaming pile when NOAA is brought to congress and admits that the work was shoddy, not reproducible, and done for political effect? You know that whistleblowers are crawling out of the woodwork talking about the absolute absence of the scientific method in the production of that bit of propaganda....that is, in part, what NOAA is trying to hide....the fact that there were strenuous objections to the shoddiness of the report.....which were ignored because the propaganda campaign required the paper prior to the big shindig in france.

 

[mamooth]

Thread summary: When it was pointed out deniers only have paranoid delusions left now, a small pack of deniers responded by escalating their paranoid delusions.

Of course, that would be the summary of most threads in the Environment folder now. There's now little point in wasting time responding to the usual denier mantras, as years of experience here shows how deniers are immune to facts and logic. They weren't reasoned into their positions, so they can't be reasoned out of them.

What will work? At this point, it's time for ridicule. Deniers bitterly cling to their failed cult because of the emotional warm fuzzies that their cult affiliation brings them. If you make it so their cult membership results in more pain than pleasure, they'll leave the cult. So, we have to ignore their politically correct pleadings about how their nonsense deserves special protection from any harsh words, and keep pointing how out it's just nonsense. We need to break a hole in the wall of the denier safe space and allow the cleansing light of reality to disinfect it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by global warming sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[32]John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[33] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[34][35] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[36]

Wikipedia: Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

33) Tierney, John. "E-Mail Fracas Shows Peril of Trying to Spin Science." The New York Times. 1 December 2009.
34) Randerson, James (31 March 2010). "Climate researchers 'secrecy' criticised – but MPs say science remains intact". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 26 July 2010.
35) Foley, Henry C.; Scaroni, Alan W.; Yekel, Candice A. (3 February 2010). "RA-10 Inquiry Report: Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Department of Meteorology, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University"(PDF). The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved7 February 2010.
36) "Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act | Regulatory Initiatives | Climate Change". United States Environmental Protection Agency. 29 September 2010. pp. 1.1.4. Retrieved 26 October 2010.

Temperature was a "Record high" in the middle of a 2 decade hiatus..... uh huh

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes..."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

First, there was no hiatus.
Second, your Phil Jones quote clearly shows you're ignorant of statistics.
Third, your Phil Jones quote has absolutely NOTHING to do with the "Mike's Nature trick" discussion above.

God, are you stupid Frank.

There was no hiatus? Means the IPCC must have been wrong then. It's right there in the Table of Contents for AR5. Fooled them didn't it?? You gotta be a real holy roller to believe that 1 MINI-paper (not even a full size study report) can just declare a new truth. That was done for the zealots like you -- who have no freakin' idea what's really going on in a continuing science debate..

Where is the science that supports your position Mister FiCTion?

What "science" do you expect here? It was a devious decision to tack those 2 dissimilar data sets onto one another and claim they are the same. Most every scientist in the field realizes the misrepresentation. They write it off to political zealotry. Not science.

You wouldn't recognize it -- because you have a perfect record of never understanding the graphs you've posted for me when I asked you questions about them. They did that "trick" (from the emails) with exactly dupes like you in mind.. Wasn't a "science" decision..

 

[flacaltenn]

Now, Frank, where is the confession of someone involved in all the illicit and unjustified data manipulation you claim has been taking place? WHERE IS THE CONFESSION?

I confess your posts are dreary and the cause of great ennui.

Phil Jones admitted there was no warming.

Yes --- there was general CONSENSUS on "no significant warming" until this one little "MINI-paper" came out of a highly POLITICIZED government agency. Where's your respect of consensus now Crick.

Not just Mann --- but the your nearly god-like IPCC as well.

When's the last time we saw an ISOLATED short form paper show up in the "notes" section of a journal trying to change the public perception of GW science? OH YEAH -- "The Oceans ate my Warming" MINI-paper!!!! And how many confirming papers have been published on that since? With the same contorted "conclusions"?

There's a pattern here of "hit and run".. By chucking out a 2 or 3 page description of some earth--shattering work, getting broad headlines -- and then never been discussed since. LARGELY because --- those short form "Letters" are not ALLOWED by the journals to exceed 3 pages or so. And if you don't explain ALL the methodology in that "letter" -- no one can really comment on your results... EVEN WITH the original data set provided.

So all that breast-beating about Karl handing over EVERYTHING to the science community --- is sheer bovine scatology.

 

[Crick]

For many years, astrophysicists and astronomers were absolutely certain that the expansion of the universe was slowing. With a single finding by two different groups, they all abandoned that view and accepted the new one: for the last 8 billion years, the expansion of the universe has been accelerating.

For many years, geologists were absolutely certain that the configuration of the Earth's surface wrt continents and ocean basins was completely static. Then, practically overnight, plate tectonics became the new paradigm.

For many years, doctors were absolutely certain that the cause of peptic ulcers was gastric acidosis. Overnight, their minds were changed as a bacterial cause came to light.

Yo, Mr Self-Proclaimed Skeptic, welcome to the wonderful world of science.

 

[Crick]

You are a chew-toy.

You haven't posted one iota of relevant information. If you've only dropped by to insult me, you're late. If you want to impress us with your spiffy vocabulary, use it to support your contention. You've claimed that anthropogenic effects have had no bearing on climate change. Prove it, dipwad.

 

[Votto]

It's all about Degrowth. This is the phrase coined by Mark Levin in his new book "Plunder and Deceit". The term "Degrowth Movement" describes what the environmentalist movement has become, or perhaps always was about.
For example,, in a recent interview fanatical anticapitalist and climate activist Naomi Klein proclaimed that "Capitalism increasingly is a discredited system because it is seen as a system that venerates greed above all else. There is a benefit to climate discussion to name a system that lots of people already have problems with for other reasons. I don't know why it is important to save capitalism. It is a pretty battered brand. Just focusing on climate is getting us nowhere. Many, many more people recognize the need to change our economy. If climate can be our lens to catalyze this economic transformation that so many people need for other even more pressing reasons then that may be a winning combination. This economic system is failing the vast majority of people. Capitalism is also waging war on the planet's life support system."
Even though these "Progressives" are really "Regressive" in their pursuit to send society back to the days of horse and buggy, they are still referred to as Progressives. In fact, they define their agenda as follows: "Sustainable degrowth is a downscaling of production and consumption that increases human well being and enhances ecological conditions and equity on the planet. It calls for a future where societies live within their ecological means, with open localized economies and resources more equally distributed through new forms of democratic institutions. It is an essential economic strategy to pursue in overdeveloped country like the US, for well being of the planet, of underdeveloped pupulations, and yes, even of the sick, stressed, and overweight consumer populations of overdeveloped countries."
French economist and leading degrowther Serge Latouche asserts that, "We are currently witnessing the steady commercialization of everything in the world. Applied to every domain in this way, capitalism cannot help but destroy the planet much as it destroys society, since the very idea of the market depends on unlimited excess and domination." Serge also abhors economic growth and wealth creation, the very attributes necessary to improve the human condition and societies: "A society based on economic contraction cannot exist under capitalism."
Indeed, on July 18, 2014, scores of extreme groups throughout the world endorsed a proclamation titled "Margarita Declaration on Climate Change" (which means "changing the system not the climate").
So there you have it. Climate change activists are not so much concerned about the environment as they are embracing Marxism.