Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What brilliant repartee.
You didn't read their explanation, did you. How come? What was the problem? What prevented you?
What brilliant repartee.
You didn't read their explanation, did you. How come? What was the problem? What prevented you?
Oh I read it alright, and it read like the excuse of a 14 year old who just got busted mounting the family dog. These two knew they got caught, and were throwing out excuses.
The AGW cult is a fraud, and cannot survive the light of day. Like cockroaches, your priests and prophets scurry any time the light of legitimate research is shined on them.
Takes a lot of faith to go against 90% of the worlds scientist.
So what other fruitcake conspiracy theories do you subscribe to?
What extinction rate? Last time I checked there were thousands of new species being discovered yearly...
Top 10 New Species - 2012 | International Institute for Species Exploration
http://species.asu.edu/files/SOS2010.pdf
Funny how they bring up the extinction rate. I have asked numerous times for one of them to name a species whose demise could be linked directly to climate change. Zero so far.
Raptors, bats, and miagratory birds may be among the first because I suppose extinction due to windmills could be laid at the feed of climate change...or warmist wackos at least.
I already posted a link to the paper by McIntyre that proves Mann is a con artist. Of course, you declined to read it. Then you demand proof again of Mann's methodological errors.
I treat you as a threat to my children's well being because that is exactly what you are.
Here's the word from Wikipedia on the slugfest between businessman McIntyre and climate scientist Mann.
Only a gullible moron would accept Wikipedia as a valid source on any issue that is remotely political. Leftwingers have gone through every entering related to global warming and edited them to reflect the warmist dogma.
Takes a lot of faith to go against 90% of the worlds scientist.
If it was indeed 90% of the worlds scientists I might agree with you, but, as that number is entirely fictitious, I am confident that the cult of AGW is on its way out.
Takes a lot of faith to go against 90% of the worlds scientist.
It's easier when the 90% is a made up number.
If you believe that business believes anything but make more money regardless of the cost to others, you've been had.
Al Gore earned $5,247 (some say $6,000 currently) per minute for his 2007 speech. An hour of Al Gore's environmental speech would cost you a minimum of $314,820 at his 2007 rate. (based on a British £ is equivalent to approximately $1.59 US Dollars currently.)Al Gore is criticised for lining his own pockets after £3,300-per-minute green speech | Mail Online
Educators in a number of countries refused free videos of his speech due to 9 inaccuracies (not cited in article), which is against educational principles universally, plus his use of exaggeration and omission is considered misleading by many scientists, not to mention honest journalists. Some of his work is accurate, but his use of political negativity against rivals was another reason cited by some countries' educational societies that would harm their children by poisoning the well of their minds in future decision-making.
Before accusing conservatives and conservationists of littering the landscape with discarded beer bottles, many of us have never done such a thing in our whole lives, and many of us turn off lights and fans when we leave a room and have done so for a lifetime.
Forcing societies to bankrupt their governments so unproved theories can be exercised can result in a lot of human misery. In my book, that is unnecessary, unwise, foolhardy.
So if profit is bad for conservatives, why are three thousand speeches by Al Gore that netted him half a billion dollars okay? Do tell.
Edit: Also, some of us are not amused that wind turbines kill millions of birds per year across the planet; because of them, the osprey count in the bird count surveys has declined as have other birds whose migratory paths fall where windfarms have arisen. Who speaks for them? The green community is mute on death by windfarm for birds and death by tidal turbines on aquatic mammals and fish and other sea species.
What's your stance on the extinction rate caused by a different climate? What's the record from previous climate change events?
What extinction rate? Last time I checked there were thousands of new species being discovered yearly...
Top 10 New Species - 2012 | International Institute for Species Exploration
http://species.asu.edu/files/SOS2010.pdf
Here's the word from Wikipedia on the slugfest between businessman McIntyre and climate scientist Mann.
Only a gullible moron would accept Wikipedia as a valid source on any issue that is remotely political. Leftwingers have gone through every entering related to global warming and edited them to reflect the warmist dogma.
Certainly the people in charge of recruiting and training the conservative army know that exposure to knowledge is counter productive to their mission.
They have had historically a two prong attack on the knowledge threat. Wikipedia and IPCC denial.
Personally I think that their plan failed. Promoting ignorance most always does.
Now the conservative army is widely regarded as a mob of ignorant yahoos, and has been rendered irrelevant.
Ultimately, in a democracy, political groups have to be electable to impose the wants of the movement on others.
Now even the GOP wants to disassociate itself from the yahoo army.
The end is in sight.
Takes a lot of faith to go against 90% of the worlds scientist.
It's easier when the 90% is a made up number.
It is. A more exact number is 97 percent.
The fact that you are here 24/7 makes it obvious that you don't work. You are either an unemployed loser or a kid still living with your parents....so what the hell would you know about business?
Try retired after a long and successful engineering career.
Sounds to me like you've completely run out if anti science arguments.
No, I'M retired after a long environmental geology career....and I am on here a third of the time you are. You either have no life, or you are being paid to spew here.
Takes a lot of faith to go against 90% of the worlds scientist.
It's easier when the 90% is a made up number.
It is. A more exact number is 97 percent.
I already posted a link to the paper by McIntyre that proves Mann is a con artist. Of course, you declined to read it. Then you demand proof again of Mann's methodological errors.
I treat you as a threat to my children's well being because that is exactly what you are.
Here's the word from Wikipedia on the slugfest between businessman McIntyre and climate scientist Mann.
'' The North Report was a 2006 report evaluating reconstructions of the temperature record of the past two millennia, providing an overview of the state of the science and the implications for understanding of global warming. It was produced by a National Research Council committee, chaired by Gerald North, at the request of Representative Sherwood Boehlert as chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science.''
''These reconstructions had been dubbed "hockey stick graphs" after the 1999 reconstruction by Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH99), which used the methodology of their 1998 reconstruction covering 600 years (MBH98). A graph based on MBH99 was featured prominently in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), and became a focus of the global warming controversy over the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. It was disputed by various contrarians, and in the politicisation of this hockey stick controversy the New York Times of 14 February 2005 hailed a paper by businessman Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick (MM05) as undermining the scientific consensus behind the Kyoto agreement. On 23 June 2005, Rep. Joe Barton, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, with Ed Whitfield, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, wrote joint letters referring to issues raised by the Wall Street Journal article, and demanding that Mann, Bradley and Hughes provide full records on their data and methods, finances and careers, information about grants provided to the institutions they had worked for, and the exact computer codes used to generate their results.[1][2] Boehlert said this was a "misguided and illegitimate investigation" into something that should properly be under the jurisdiction of the Science Committee, and in November 2005 after Barton dismissed the offer of an independent investigation organised by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Boehlert requested the review which became the North Report.[3]''
''The North Report went through a rigorous review process,[4] and was published on 22 June 2006.[5] It concluded "with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries", justified by consistent evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies, but "Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from 900 to 1600".[6] It broadly agreed with the basic findings of the original MBH studies which had subsequently been supported by other reconstructions and proxy records, while emphasising uncertainties over earlier periods.[7] Principal component analysis methodology which had been contested by McIntyre and McKitrick had a small tendency to bias results so was not recommended, but it had little influence on the final reconstructions, and other methods produced similar results.[8][9]''
If I was a betting man, my money would be on Mann having a field day in court.
Considering that Mann is flirting with contempt of court in Canada now, because of his refusal to release documents in Discovery, and his well known propensity for shooting his mouth off in inappropriate manner, I will take your bet.
Mann is going to lose, and lose big. The question is how many of the rats are going to go down with his little ship of fools...
It's easier when the 90% is a made up number.
It is. A more exact number is 97 percent.
98.3% of all made up statistics have an impossibly high level of precision.
Here's the word from Wikipedia on the slugfest between businessman McIntyre and climate scientist Mann.
'' The North Report was a 2006 report evaluating reconstructions of the temperature record of the past two millennia, providing an overview of the state of the science and the implications for understanding of global warming. It was produced by a National Research Council committee, chaired by Gerald North, at the request of Representative Sherwood Boehlert as chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science.''
''These reconstructions had been dubbed "hockey stick graphs" after the 1999 reconstruction by Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH99), which used the methodology of their 1998 reconstruction covering 600 years (MBH98). A graph based on MBH99 was featured prominently in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), and became a focus of the global warming controversy over the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. It was disputed by various contrarians, and in the politicisation of this hockey stick controversy the New York Times of 14 February 2005 hailed a paper by businessman Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick (MM05) as undermining the scientific consensus behind the Kyoto agreement. On 23 June 2005, Rep. Joe Barton, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, with Ed Whitfield, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, wrote joint letters referring to issues raised by the Wall Street Journal article, and demanding that Mann, Bradley and Hughes provide full records on their data and methods, finances and careers, information about grants provided to the institutions they had worked for, and the exact computer codes used to generate their results.[1][2] Boehlert said this was a "misguided and illegitimate investigation" into something that should properly be under the jurisdiction of the Science Committee, and in November 2005 after Barton dismissed the offer of an independent investigation organised by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Boehlert requested the review which became the North Report.[3]''
''The North Report went through a rigorous review process,[4] and was published on 22 June 2006.[5] It concluded "with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries", justified by consistent evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies, but "Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from 900 to 1600".[6] It broadly agreed with the basic findings of the original MBH studies which had subsequently been supported by other reconstructions and proxy records, while emphasising uncertainties over earlier periods.[7] Principal component analysis methodology which had been contested by McIntyre and McKitrick had a small tendency to bias results so was not recommended, but it had little influence on the final reconstructions, and other methods produced similar results.[8][9]''
If I was a betting man, my money would be on Mann having a field day in court.
Considering that Mann is flirting with contempt of court in Canada now, because of his refusal to release documents in Discovery, and his well known propensity for shooting his mouth off in inappropriate manner, I will take your bet.
Mann is going to lose, and lose big. The question is how many of the rats are going to go down with his little ship of fools...
Let's see, a businessman vs a scientist in a suit based on science.
Who do you suppose is paying for McIntyre's legal bills? What organization.
It is. A more exact number is 97 percent.
98.3% of all made up statistics have an impossibly high level of precision.
100 percent of people who don't know statistics, get fooled by them.
It's easier when the 90% is a made up number.
It is. A more exact number is 97 percent.
How many believe CO2 is to blame for Katrina?
Here's the word from Wikipedia on the slugfest between businessman McIntyre and climate scientist Mann.
'' The North Report was a 2006 report evaluating reconstructions of the temperature record of the past two millennia, providing an overview of the state of the science and the implications for understanding of global warming. It was produced by a National Research Council committee, chaired by Gerald North, at the request of Representative Sherwood Boehlert as chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science.''
''These reconstructions had been dubbed "hockey stick graphs" after the 1999 reconstruction by Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH99), which used the methodology of their 1998 reconstruction covering 600 years (MBH98). A graph based on MBH99 was featured prominently in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), and became a focus of the global warming controversy over the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. It was disputed by various contrarians, and in the politicisation of this hockey stick controversy the New York Times of 14 February 2005 hailed a paper by businessman Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick (MM05) as undermining the scientific consensus behind the Kyoto agreement. On 23 June 2005, Rep. Joe Barton, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, with Ed Whitfield, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, wrote joint letters referring to issues raised by the Wall Street Journal article, and demanding that Mann, Bradley and Hughes provide full records on their data and methods, finances and careers, information about grants provided to the institutions they had worked for, and the exact computer codes used to generate their results.[1][2] Boehlert said this was a "misguided and illegitimate investigation" into something that should properly be under the jurisdiction of the Science Committee, and in November 2005 after Barton dismissed the offer of an independent investigation organised by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Boehlert requested the review which became the North Report.[3]''
''The North Report went through a rigorous review process,[4] and was published on 22 June 2006.[5] It concluded "with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries", justified by consistent evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies, but "Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from 900 to 1600".[6] It broadly agreed with the basic findings of the original MBH studies which had subsequently been supported by other reconstructions and proxy records, while emphasising uncertainties over earlier periods.[7] Principal component analysis methodology which had been contested by McIntyre and McKitrick had a small tendency to bias results so was not recommended, but it had little influence on the final reconstructions, and other methods produced similar results.[8][9]''
If I was a betting man, my money would be on Mann having a field day in court.
Considering that Mann is flirting with contempt of court in Canada now, because of his refusal to release documents in Discovery, and his well known propensity for shooting his mouth off in inappropriate manner, I will take your bet.
Mann is going to lose, and lose big. The question is how many of the rats are going to go down with his little ship of fools...
Let's see, a businessman vs a scientist in a suit based on science.
Who do you suppose is paying for McIntyre's legal bills? What organization.
