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.
That is, you're not worth reading, because you just sputter incoherentlyBilly, you've pretty much entered jc and skook territory. That is, you're not worth reading, because you just sputter incoherently.
Remember, you're only read by most people for the comic relief, to see how hilariously bad your science can get. Your mindless raging is difficult to read and not amusing, so it's not worth the effort to attempt to decipher it.
Soon's position was self funded. Grants were brought in directly by him. He even corresponded with his grant givers and called his denier publications 'deliverables'.sure it is. Do you have evidence that Soon took money from anyone other than The Smithsonian and Harvard? Show us.There IS a need for disclosure in the journals he published in! This isn't a debatable point.It's funny how when grants go to scientists who work on AGW it becomes 'greedy scientists' but when it goes to Willie Soon it's someone else's.That's not true.
Disclosures are quite clearly required when publishing in most journals, and especially in a topic this controversial, authors will not bury them unless they are trying to hide them.
Not sure about this Shakla thing, since it seems like a denier witch hunt and the 'facts' are sketchy, but the Soon issue is pretty egregious.
The Smithsonian and Harvard were the recipients of the grants. What they did with those grants was up to the institutions not Soon. So how do you project any kind of maleficence onto Soon when it was the institutions who hired Soon and paid him? Soon CLEARLY INDICATED WHOM HE WORKED FOR!
Are you going hold Mann,Trenbreth and many others to the same standard? Penn state was given 5.7 million dollars by Shell Oil for Mann's work and he failed to disclose it.. Oh thats right, it was for your agenda, so its ok...
The issue is disclosure. Don't know what your issue with Mann is, but I do not believe he's ever been hit for disclosure ethical violations- if he had, you guys would be creaming in your pants daily about it.
There was no need for disclosure... He did what was required. Now how are you going to deal with Mann and his failures? Trenbreth and his failures?
You left wing hacks are amazingly stupid.
The NAS has nothing to do with the UN, beside the fact that they both recognize the obvious, which is that AGW is going to be a terrible problem in the futureWTF?LOL. Please show me how the National Academy of Science, a body in the US which has absolutely nothing to do with the UN, is 'controlled by the UN'. Also, please let me know how the Royal Society, a UK society that dates back to the 1600s, is 'controlled by the UN'.
The above poster is right. You have some kooky ideas. Never seen you back any of them up either. I guess lies are just 'your thing'.
Your incapable of finding their funding...? No surprise there. Fools are easily duped.. The mamooth sock puppet, which only appears when mamooth does is telling..
SO lets give you a starting point... DEPS_FAQ
Four different agencies, primarily funded by the US government and FOREIGN Governments all within the UN. NO problems with objectivity there... is there...?
Nowhere does it say the NAS is funded by the UN.
OMG.. I cant help your failure at reading and basic comprehension..
LOL.
Nice tactic.
The NAS has nothing to do with the UN, beside the fact that they both recognize the obvious, which is that AGW is going to be a terrible problem in the future.
Based on what?
The NAS has nothing to do with the UN, beside the fact that they both recognize the obvious, which is that AGW is going to be a terrible problem in the futureWTF?Your incapable of finding their funding...? No surprise there. Fools are easily duped.. The mamooth sock puppet, which only appears when mamooth does is telling..
SO lets give you a starting point... DEPS_FAQ
Four different agencies, primarily funded by the US government and FOREIGN Governments all within the UN. NO problems with objectivity there... is there...?
Nowhere does it say the NAS is funded by the UN.
OMG.. I cant help your failure at reading and basic comprehension..
LOL.
Nice tactic.
The NAS has nothing to do with the UN, beside the fact that they both recognize the obvious, which is that AGW is going to be a terrible problem in the future.
Based on what?
www.ipcc.ch
Really, Kosh? Your proof that the Hockey stick is non-science is? More than a dozen studies in differant nations using differant proxies, with differant researchers has backed up Dr. Mann. All you have is flap-yappers like you spewing nonsense and vitriol.The NAS has nothing to do with the UN, beside the fact that they both recognize the obvious, which is that AGW is going to be a terrible problem in the futureWTF?
Nowhere does it say the NAS is funded by the UN.
OMG.. I cant help your failure at reading and basic comprehension..
LOL.
Nice tactic.
The NAS has nothing to do with the UN, beside the fact that they both recognize the obvious, which is that AGW is going to be a terrible problem in the future.
Based on what?
www.ipcc.ch
WOW! They link to the IPCC.. The same organization that tried legitimize the Hockey stick non science theory..
friend, how many times has it posted in this forum that using white noise gets the hockey stick as an outcome. Doh!!!!!!!Really, Kosh? Your proof that the Hockey stick is non-science is? More than a dozen studies in differant nations using differant proxies, with differant researchers has backed up Dr. Mann. All you have is flap-yappers like you spewing nonsense and vitriol.The NAS has nothing to do with the UN, beside the fact that they both recognize the obvious, which is that AGW is going to be a terrible problem in the futureOMG.. I cant help your failure at reading and basic comprehension..
LOL.
Nice tactic.
The NAS has nothing to do with the UN, beside the fact that they both recognize the obvious, which is that AGW is going to be a terrible problem in the future.
Based on what?
www.ipcc.ch
WOW! They link to the IPCC.. The same organization that tried legitimize the Hockey stick non science theory..
friend, how many times has it posted in this forum that using white noise gets the hockey stick as an outcome. Doh!!!!!!!Really, Kosh? Your proof that the Hockey stick is non-science is? More than a dozen studies in differant nations using differant proxies, with differant researchers has backed up Dr. Mann. All you have is flap-yappers like you spewing nonsense and vitriol.The NAS has nothing to do with the UN, beside the fact that they both recognize the obvious, which is that AGW is going to be a terrible problem in the futureLOL.
Nice tactic.
The NAS has nothing to do with the UN, beside the fact that they both recognize the obvious, which is that AGW is going to be a terrible problem in the future.
Based on what?
www.ipcc.ch
WOW! They link to the IPCC.. The same organization that tried legitimize the Hockey stick non science theory..
Really, Kosh? Your proof that the Hockey stick is non-science is? More than a dozen studies in differant nations using differant proxies, with differant researchers has backed up Dr. Mann. All you have is flap-yappers like you spewing nonsense and vitriol.The NAS has nothing to do with the UN, beside the fact that they both recognize the obvious, which is that AGW is going to be a terrible problem in the futureOMG.. I cant help your failure at reading and basic comprehension..
LOL.
Nice tactic.
The NAS has nothing to do with the UN, beside the fact that they both recognize the obvious, which is that AGW is going to be a terrible problem in the future.
Based on what?
www.ipcc.ch
WOW! They link to the IPCC.. The same organization that tried legitimize the Hockey stick non science theory..
Disappeared?Really, Kosh? Your proof that the Hockey stick is non-science is? More than a dozen studies in differant nations using differant proxies, with differant researchers has backed up Dr. Mann. All you have is flap-yappers like you spewing nonsense and vitriol.The NAS has nothing to do with the UN, beside the fact that they both recognize the obvious, which is that AGW is going to be a terrible problem in the futureLOL.
Nice tactic.
The NAS has nothing to do with the UN, beside the fact that they both recognize the obvious, which is that AGW is going to be a terrible problem in the future.
Based on what?
www.ipcc.ch
WOW! They link to the IPCC.. The same organization that tried legitimize the Hockey stick non science theory..
Hockey Sticks are not Science. That why it disappeared.. Anyone claiming otherwise is a true climate denier, like the AGW cult.
View attachment 52789friend, how many times has it posted in this forum that using white noise gets the hockey stick as an outcome. Doh!!!!!!!Really, Kosh? Your proof that the Hockey stick is non-science is? More than a dozen studies in differant nations using differant proxies, with differant researchers has backed up Dr. Mann. All you have is flap-yappers like you spewing nonsense and vitriol.The NAS has nothing to do with the UN, beside the fact that they both recognize the obvious, which is that AGW is going to be a terrible problem in the future
Based on what?
www.ipcc.ch
WOW! They link to the IPCC.. The same organization that tried legitimize the Hockey stick non science theory..
And it really does, with ANY data set, create a hockey stick.
Disappeared?Really, Kosh? Your proof that the Hockey stick is non-science is? More than a dozen studies in differant nations using differant proxies, with differant researchers has backed up Dr. Mann. All you have is flap-yappers like you spewing nonsense and vitriol.The NAS has nothing to do with the UN, beside the fact that they both recognize the obvious, which is that AGW is going to be a terrible problem in the future
Based on what?
www.ipcc.ch
WOW! They link to the IPCC.. The same organization that tried legitimize the Hockey stick non science theory..
Hockey Sticks are not Science. That why it disappeared.. Anyone claiming otherwise is a true climate denier, like the AGW cult.
It's been replicated multiple times.
It's been persistent in the scientific literature ever since Mann was published in 1998, and with projects like PAGES 2K, it's been confirmed worldwide with many, many more proxies and much deeper in time.
The only people who deny it are...denier blogs.
View attachment 52840
View attachment 52789friend, how many times has it posted in this forum that using white noise gets the hockey stick as an outcome. Doh!!!!!!!Really, Kosh? Your proof that the Hockey stick is non-science is? More than a dozen studies in differant nations using differant proxies, with differant researchers has backed up Dr. Mann. All you have is flap-yappers like you spewing nonsense and vitriol.
WOW! They link to the IPCC.. The same organization that tried legitimize the Hockey stick non science theory..
And it really does, with ANY data set, create a hockey stick.
Anyone who claims this doesnt understand data, graphs or basic third grade math.
And thats being generous.
Debunked where, exactly.Disappeared?Really, Kosh? Your proof that the Hockey stick is non-science is? More than a dozen studies in differant nations using differant proxies, with differant researchers has backed up Dr. Mann. All you have is flap-yappers like you spewing nonsense and vitriol.
WOW! They link to the IPCC.. The same organization that tried legitimize the Hockey stick non science theory..
Hockey Sticks are not Science. That why it disappeared.. Anyone claiming otherwise is a true climate denier, like the AGW cult.
It's been replicated multiple times.
It's been persistent in the scientific literature ever since Mann was published in 1998, and with projects like PAGES 2K, it's been confirmed worldwide with many, many more proxies and much deeper in time.
The only people who deny it are...denier blogs.
View attachment 52840
Too funny:
Over and over and over again it has been debunked and shown fraud.. SO you like to push fraud and deceit as science?
Well, I can give you a paper that CONFIRMED it. Yet again.Yes, please reference the journal paper that debunked it Billy.
nope, sorry all manufactured, show us one that had no liberal fingers on it. Let's see that would be a satellite. Yeah, let's see that one. Post it up buddy boy let's see that satellite data now.Well, I can give you a paper that CONFIRMED it. Yet again.Yes, please reference the journal paper that debunked it Billy.
Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia : Nature Geoscience
The conclusion is that the temp is higher now than anytime in the past 1400 years, which is similar to Mann's reconstruction, although that was just one hemisphere, and Marcott extends that back about 10,000 years.
Theres no question in most scientists minds - current warming is unprecedented, and the rate of warming is also alarmingly fast - with both of those trends projected to get even worse.
Debunked where, exactly.Disappeared?Really, Kosh? Your proof that the Hockey stick is non-science is? More than a dozen studies in differant nations using differant proxies, with differant researchers has backed up Dr. Mann. All you have is flap-yappers like you spewing nonsense and vitriol.WOW! They link to the IPCC.. The same organization that tried legitimize the Hockey stick non science theory..
Hockey Sticks are not Science. That why it disappeared.. Anyone claiming otherwise is a true climate denier, like the AGW cult.
It's been replicated multiple times.
It's been persistent in the scientific literature ever since Mann was published in 1998, and with projects like PAGES 2K, it's been confirmed worldwide with many, many more proxies and much deeper in time.
The only people who deny it are...denier blogs.
View attachment 52840
Too funny:
Over and over and over again it has been debunked and shown fraud.. SO you like to push fraud and deceit as science?
Please reference the journal paper.
Yes, please reference the journal paper that debunked it Billy.
No.nope, sorry all manufactured, show us one that had no liberal fingers on it. Let's see that would be a satellite. Yeah, let's see that one. Post it up buddy boy let's see that satellite data now.Well, I can give you a paper that CONFIRMED it. Yet again.Yes, please reference the journal paper that debunked it Billy.
Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia : Nature Geoscience
The conclusion is that the temp is higher now than anytime in the past 1400 years, which is similar to Mann's reconstruction, although that was just one hemisphere, and Marcott extends that back about 10,000 years.
Theres no question in most scientists minds - current warming is unprecedented, and the rate of warming is also alarmingly fast - with both of those trends projected to get even worse.
