Why do so many people deny climate change

[PMZ]

mann, by nearly eliminating the MWP created the basis for the idea of unprecedented warming....when one looks at the MWP as it was as opposed to how mann represented it, then the present warming appears positively meager. The MWP came on faster than the present warming, temperatures increased faster, and were higher.....globally.

If climate science couldn't misrepresent the MWP, then it would have never got any traction because compared to the MWP the present warming period could insight nothing more than yawns.

You are unable to see the essential point. Whatever happened during the MWP and AGW are in no way connected.

If that's the case, then why was Michael Mann trying so hard to make the MWP disappear - even to the point of jeopardizing his reputation by publishing doctored data?

He wasn't. Simple enough answer.

 

[PMZ]

That was not always the IPCC's position on the MWP. Here is how it has changed as a result of mann's work:

OMG! DR. MANN IS CLEARLY THE SECRET DICTATOR OF THE WORLD! HE COMMANDS ALL!

Cause there's a red, under my bed
And there's a little yellow man in my head
And there's a true blue inside of me
That keeps stoppin me, touchin ya, watchin ya, lovin ya

Paranoia, the destroyer.
Paranoia, the destroyer.

Like all idiots. You never know what you are talking about. Do just a bit of research....or don't.... And see who the ipcc references for their historical temperature. 3 guesses...and the first letter of his last name is m.

I'm borrowing a reference from Mamooth from another thread.

Here's the story of how McIntyre led you by the nose to the land of ignorance.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...tford-delusion/comment-page-4/#comment-181895

 

[PMZ]

How can you look at the two periods in question (the MWP and the present), note the different slope each period sports, and suggest in any way, shape or form that the MWP is a precedent for this last century's global warming?

The MWP could not have been related to human activity, AGW could not come from any other cause. It's clear to me that the whole issue McIntyre tried to sell is a complete fabrication on his part. What reason other than money would he do it?

 

[bripat9643]

You are unable to see the essential point. Whatever happened during the MWP and AGW are in no way connected.

If that's the case, then why was Michael Mann trying so hard to make the MWP disappear - even to the point of jeopardizing his reputation by publishing doctored data?

He wasn't. Simple enough answer.

Simple answers from simpletons. He was. Prior to Mann's hockey stick, the IPPC graph of world temperatures showed a WMP that was considerably warmer than current temperatures. That kind of picture does not inspire terror in the minds of the voters. Only a fool would believe that Mann didn't intend to eliminate the evidence of prior warm climate.

 

[PMZ]

Tell me what would the scientific method say regarding a paper or two who find a slight MPW restricted to a small region vs hundreds that find otherwise. What does the scientific method suggest in such a circumstance?

That you're lying about such a thing happening. Okay, not lying. You're just being a total 'effin 'tard.

You denialist website (a group funded by the fossil fuel industry) doesn't show any actual papers. It only shows their own spin on various papers. The actual papers are nowhere to be found. They don't ever link to the original paper. Not once in any of your 45 or whatever links did they show where the original paper could be found.

Funny, eh? I mean, if the papers actually said what they claimed, you think they'd definitely want to link to or show the original paper. But they don't. Not ever. They only show their own creative interpretation, and they hide the actual paper. They appear to be making crap up, then working to hide their fudging. They even try to make their fudging look like the paper's abstract, as part of their attempt to deceive.

Fooled you, of course. You were played. And you'll go back for more.

So, you currently have zero papers refuting anything. Keep trying.

To stupid to raed the titles and authors of the studies? Each and every one lists the title of the study, the authors, and the journal in which it was punished and the date or issue number.

Why do you lie about everything?

Anyone providing a straight forward reference would have provided a link.

 

[flacaltenn]

How can you look at the two periods in question (the MWP and the present), note the different slope each period sports, and suggest in any way, shape or form that the MWP is a precedent for this last century's global warming?

Where did that gem get flushed from??? There are 100s of proxy studies.. you can graph anything you like.. If you IGNORE ENOUGH OF THEM --- you can get results like that..

Problem is --- Reconstructing a GLOBAL AVERAGE from proxy studies that IGNORE 70% of the earth's surface is a FOOLISH ASS thing to do..

Better to look at the 100s of studies and REALIZE that most of them post temp results HIGHER than the common era and distributed world-wide..
Without the theatrical effort to produce a STONE STUPID "Global Average" for the 1200s.

If you wait a month --- the next IPCC will also correct itself and you on this persistent lie.

 

[flacaltenn]

Tell me what would the scientific method say regarding a paper or two who find a slight MPW restricted to a small region vs hundreds that find otherwise. What does the scientific method suggest in such a circumstance?

That you're lying about such a thing happening. Okay, not lying. You're just being a total 'effin 'tard.

You denialist website (a group funded by the fossil fuel industry) doesn't show any actual papers. It only shows their own spin on various papers. The actual papers are nowhere to be found. They don't ever link to the original paper. Not once in any of your 45 or whatever links did they show where the original paper could be found.

Funny, eh? I mean, if the papers actually said what they claimed, you think they'd definitely want to link to or show the original paper. But they don't. Not ever. They only show their own creative interpretation, and they hide the actual paper. They appear to be making crap up, then working to hide their fudging. They even try to make their fudging look like the paper's abstract, as part of their attempt to deceive.

Fooled you, of course. You were played. And you'll go back for more.

So, you currently have zero papers refuting anything. Keep trying.

To stupid to raed the titles and authors of the studies? Each and every one lists the title of the study, the authors, and the journal in which it was punished and the date or issue number.

Why do you lie about everything?

Mammoth has a large list of problems. ONe is -- he's only interested in impeaching the source -- not working to disprove the source..

I've successfully traced back 6 or 8 of those studies listed.. They all checked out.. Minimal effort..

For example..

Reference
Black, D. E., Thunell, R. C., Kaplan, A., Peterson, L. C. and Tappa, E. J. 2004. A 2000-year record of Caribbean and tropical North Atlantic hydrographic variability. Paleoceanography 19, PA2022, doi:10.1029/2003PA000982.
Description
High-resolution d18O records generated from seasonally representative planktic foraminifera were obtained from two ocean sediment cores extracted from the Cariaco Basin off the coast of Venezuela (~ 10.65°N, 64.66°W) to produce a temperature/salinity reconstruction in this region of the Caribbean/tropical North Atlantic over the last 2000 years. Results indicate a general trend toward cooler and perhaps more saline waters over the length of the record. Because of this trend, the authors describe discussion of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age as "complicated," but they nonetheless acknowledge their record reveals "an interval of warmer [sea surface temperatures] prior to ~ A.D. 1600-1900" where the d18O data "correctly sequence the relative temperature change between the so-called MWP and LIA." In viewing the authors' graph of G. bulloides d18O (25-year mean, reproduced below), and their stated relationship that a d18O change of 1.0‰ is equivalent to a 4.2°C change in temperature, we calculate the difference in peak warmth between the MWP and CWP to be 1.05°C, with the MWP being the warmer of the two periods.

How many more can't you trace back Mamooth??

 

[PMZ]

That you're lying about such a thing happening. Okay, not lying. You're just being a total 'effin 'tard.

You denialist website (a group funded by the fossil fuel industry) doesn't show any actual papers. It only shows their own spin on various papers. The actual papers are nowhere to be found. They don't ever link to the original paper. Not once in any of your 45 or whatever links did they show where the original paper could be found.

Funny, eh? I mean, if the papers actually said what they claimed, you think they'd definitely want to link to or show the original paper. But they don't. Not ever. They only show their own creative interpretation, and they hide the actual paper. They appear to be making crap up, then working to hide their fudging. They even try to make their fudging look like the paper's abstract, as part of their attempt to deceive.

Fooled you, of course. You were played. And you'll go back for more.

So, you currently have zero papers refuting anything. Keep trying.

To stupid to raed the titles and authors of the studies? Each and every one lists the title of the study, the authors, and the journal in which it was punished and the date or issue number.

Why do you lie about everything?

Mammoth has a large list of problems. ONe is -- he's only interested in impeaching the source -- not working to disprove the source..

I've successfully traced back 6 or 8 of those studies listed.. They all checked out.. Minimal effort..

For example..

Reference
Black, D. E., Thunell, R. C., Kaplan, A., Peterson, L. C. and Tappa, E. J. 2004. A 2000-year record of Caribbean and tropical North Atlantic hydrographic variability. Paleoceanography 19, PA2022, doi:10.1029/2003PA000982.
Description
High-resolution d18O records generated from seasonally representative planktic foraminifera were obtained from two ocean sediment cores extracted from the Cariaco Basin off the coast of Venezuela (~ 10.65°N, 64.66°W) to produce a temperature/salinity reconstruction in this region of the Caribbean/tropical North Atlantic over the last 2000 years. Results indicate a general trend toward cooler and perhaps more saline waters over the length of the record. Because of this trend, the authors describe discussion of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age as "complicated," but they nonetheless acknowledge their record reveals "an interval of warmer [sea surface temperatures] prior to ~ A.D. 1600-1900" where the d18O data "correctly sequence the relative temperature change between the so-called MWP and LIA." In viewing the authors' graph of G. bulloides d18O (25-year mean, reproduced below), and their stated relationship that a d18O change of 1.0‰ is equivalent to a 4.2°C change in temperature, we calculate the difference in peak warmth between the MWP and CWP to be 1.05°C, with the MWP being the warmer of the two periods.

How many more can't you trace back Mamooth??

But what did the paper say? Not what the Web site said that it said.

 

[PMZ]

If that's the case, then why was Michael Mann trying so hard to make the MWP disappear - even to the point of jeopardizing his reputation by publishing doctored data?

He wasn't. Simple enough answer.

Simple answers from simpletons. He was. Prior to Mann's hockey stick, the IPPC graph of world temperatures showed a WMP that was considerably warmer than current temperatures. That kind of picture does not inspire terror in the minds of the voters. Only a fool would believe that Mann didn't intend to eliminate the evidence of prior warm climate.

No. Only a conspiracy theorist would make up a plot with zero evidence.

 

[PMZ]

How can you look at the two periods in question (the MWP and the present), note the different slope each period sports, and suggest in any way, shape or form that the MWP is a precedent for this last century's global warming?

Where did that gem get flushed from??? There are 100s of proxy studies.. you can graph anything you like.. If you IGNORE ENOUGH OF THEM --- you can get results like that..

Problem is --- Reconstructing a GLOBAL AVERAGE from proxy studies that IGNORE 70% of the earth's surface is a FOOLISH ASS thing to do..

Better to look at the 100s of studies and REALIZE that most of them post temp results HIGHER than the common era and distributed world-wide..
Without the theatrical effort to produce a STONE STUPID "Global Average" for the 1200s.

If you wait a month --- the next IPCC will also correct itself and you on this persistent lie.

That’s funny. You telling climate scientists how to do what they are educated for and you are not.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Think what the country would have been like in 2008 if the Supreme Court had gone with the popular vote and Gore/Lieberman in 2000 rather than paying their debt to the old Bushman by giving his son more responsibility than he could handle.

Gore undoubtedly would have continued Clinton's paying down the debt policy rather than the Bushman's gift to friends and family, tax cuts for the rich. According to the CBO the country would have been debt free by 2006. We'd probably have a big surplus by now to invest in sustainable energy.

And we wouldn't have every Muslim in the world trying to terrorize us.

Why would the Supreme Court go with the popular vote, you silly idiot.

 

[mamooth]

Each and every one lists the title of the study, the authors, and the journal in which it was punished and the date or issue number.

Then it should have been trivial for them to show or link to the actual study. They deliberately did not do that. Instead, they wrote up fake abstracts and tried to pass them off as the actual abstracts.

It's not complicated. Ethical people don't write up fake abstracts and then try to pass them off as the real abstracts. Ethical people will show the actual abstract of the paper, and not make up a fake one. They will make every effort to show or link to the actual paper, instead of conveniently forgetting to do so and then telling everyone what it really said.

Your heroes are bald-face liars, and you fully approve. 'Nuff said. For your cult, the ends always justify the means.

(And Flac, declaring you did the research and then copying a faked abstract from the website isn't doing wonders for your credibility either.)

 

[bripat9643]

How can you look at the two periods in question (the MWP and the present), note the different slope each period sports, and suggest in any way, shape or form that the MWP is a precedent for this last century's global warming?

Where did that gem get flushed from??? There are 100s of proxy studies.. you can graph anything you like.. If you IGNORE ENOUGH OF THEM --- you can get results like that..

Problem is --- Reconstructing a GLOBAL AVERAGE from proxy studies that IGNORE 70% of the earth's surface is a FOOLISH ASS thing to do..

Better to look at the 100s of studies and REALIZE that most of them post temp results HIGHER than the common era and distributed world-wide..
Without the theatrical effort to produce a STONE STUPID "Global Average" for the 1200s.

If you wait a month --- the next IPCC will also correct itself and you on this persistent lie.

I believe this graph is called MBH99 on McIntyre's site. The original Hockey Stick graph is called MBH98. This newer version suffers from all the errors that the earlier one suffered. McIntyre tears it to shreds on his site. One piece of chicanery you will note is the black line at the end. That represents global average temperatures supposedly derived from actual recorded temperatures. So what Mann is doing is combing proxy temperatures with actual temperatures. Anyone knowledgeable in statistics would tell you that such a procedure is totally illegitimate.

This maneuver is how Mann performed the "trick" known as "hide the decline." If you examine the proxy graphs you'll not that they all show a downturn towards the end. That doesn't look very menacing when you're trying to scare taxpayers into coughing up $73 trillion dollars. So what Mann does is overlay the graph of averaged recorded temperatures on top of the graphs of the proxies. That's how he "hides the decline."

This graph is proof that Michael Mann is a con artist who is deliberate publishing bogus data. Anyone who falls for this stuff is terminally gullible.

 

[mamooth]

So what Mann is doing is combing proxy temperatures with actual temperatures.

We got a live one here! A TrueBeliever of the CultOfMcIntyre. DearLeader has spoken, and that settles it. If DearLeaderMcIntyre said it, Bri believes it with all his cultist heart and soul. And as Bri is a pure and devoted acolyte, you will never see him tempted by any data from heretical sources. If the HolyWrit (Climate Audit) was good enough for Jesus, it's all Bri needs.

Now, Bri has no idea of what any of it means, but that's okay. DearLeader told him what it all means, namely that DearLeader is always right, and the rest of the world is engaging in a vast socialist conspiracy to forge all the data. And that doesn't make Bri look crazy and paranoid at all. Oh wait, it does. Oh well.

Anyone knowledgeable in statistics would tell you that such a procedure is totally illegitimate.

Anyone knowledgeable in statistics knows that McIntyre fails a lot at statistics. And then screams "fraud!" at anyone who doesn't fail.

So Bri, please report your koolaid consumption. Feel free to round to the nearest hundred gallons.

 

[Abraham3]

Patrick, given that you're an expert on these matters, how would you join a proxy dataset of with an instrumented dataset? What's the proper technique that those knowledgeable in statistics would agree was legitimate?

 

[bripat9643]

Patrick, given that you're an expert on these matters, how would you join a proxy dataset of with an instrumented dataset? What's the proper technique that those knowledgeable in statistics would agree was legitimate?

You don't. If you display them on the same chart, then you damn well better put that information on the chart. Failure to do so is deliberate deception.

 

[PMZ]

If that's the case, then why was Michael Mann trying so hard to make the MWP disappear - even to the point of jeopardizing his reputation by publishing doctored data?

He wasn't. Simple enough answer.

Simple answers from simpletons. He was. Prior to Mann's hockey stick, the IPPC graph of world temperatures showed a WMP that was considerably warmer than current temperatures. That kind of picture does not inspire terror in the minds of the voters. Only a fool would believe that Mann didn't intend to eliminate the evidence of prior warm climate.

Only a fool would follow an obviously well paid big oil hit man.

 

[PMZ]

Think what the country would have been like in 2008 if the Supreme Court had gone with the popular vote and Gore/Lieberman in 2000 rather than paying their debt to the old Bushman by giving his son more responsibility than he could handle.

Gore undoubtedly would have continued Clinton's paying down the debt policy rather than the Bushman's gift to friends and family, tax cuts for the rich. According to the CBO the country would have been debt free by 2006. We'd probably have a big surplus by now to invest in sustainable energy.

And we wouldn't have every Muslim in the world trying to terrorize us.

Why would the Supreme Court go with the popular vote, you silly idiot.

Why would anybody have voted for who turned out to be the worst President in American history?

 

[PMZ]

Patrick, given that you're an expert on these matters, how would you join a proxy dataset of with an instrumented dataset? What's the proper technique that those knowledgeable in statistics would agree was legitimate?

You don't. If you display them on the same chart, then you damn well better put that information on the chart. Failure to do so is deliberate deception.

In other words, you avoid science. You maintain ignorance so you can avoid solving the problem.

Good for conservatives but a failure for those building a better future.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Think what the country would have been like in 2008 if the Supreme Court had gone with the popular vote and Gore/Lieberman in 2000 rather than paying their debt to the old Bushman by giving his son more responsibility than he could handle.

Gore undoubtedly would have continued Clinton's paying down the debt policy rather than the Bushman's gift to friends and family, tax cuts for the rich. According to the CBO the country would have been debt free by 2006. We'd probably have a big surplus by now to invest in sustainable energy.

And we wouldn't have every Muslim in the world trying to terrorize us.

Why would the Supreme Court go with the popular vote, you silly idiot.

Why would anybody have voted for who turned out to be the worst President in American history?

I don't know why anybody voted for Obama.