You don't say...lol

[westwall]

Most often they are found by statisticians

And these statisticians that find most of the mistakes and correct the climate scientists believe that AGW is a sham? Can you show some evidence of your claim?

They don't "believe" anything. That is the realm of religion. What they observe (that's what science does) does not comport to what we have been told. I can go back throughout history and in no place do I find anything happening now, that is inconsistent with what has happened before. And in fact, this era is by far the most stable we have experienced since the Medieval Warming Period.

I suggest you actually look at some real science and educate yourself so that you can better discuss things.

 

[Confounding]

So yo, not confused, you going to post up that observed evidence? Or are you actually going to confirm you are confused?

I'm not going to argue the science with a bunch of nobodies on a political forum. If you have an honest curiosity (you don't) go talk to a climate scientist that disagrees with you and has the patience to explain why you don't know what you're talking about.

Just as I thought you backed out. You are truly confused, you don’t even expect evidence and have none. It must suck to be called out and you ain’t got any

Whatever helps you sleep at night, Sparky.

 

[Confounding]

They don't "believe" anything.

You're being pedantic and you didn't give me what I asked for. I requested proof of these people that according to you make "most of" the corrections to the work of climate scientists. Would these people revising the work of climate scientists say that AGW isn't backed up by real science?

 

[jc456]

So yo, not confused, you going to post up that observed evidence? Or are you actually going to confirm you are confused?

I'm not going to argue the science with a bunch of nobodies on a political forum. If you have an honest curiosity (you don't) go talk to a climate scientist that disagrees with you and has the patience to explain why you don't know what you're talking about.

Just as I thought you backed out. You are truly confused, you don’t even expect evidence and have none. It must suck to be called out and you ain’t got any

Whatever helps you sleep at night, Sparky.

I do enjoy winning , thanks loser. All you had to do was provide one of your dream scientists and post their evidence. And you couldn’t , defeatist

 

[Confounding]

I do enjoy winning , thanks loser

 

[jc456]

I do enjoy winning , thanks loser

Your inner idiot is at full blossom

 

[jc456]

All those scientists, all of them and these loser punks can’t post one of them with observed evidence man is at fault. Not one of em. And they have the audacity to call us confused. Simply pure idiots

 

[Billy_Bob]

you lack the wit to question your programming.

I bet you couldn't even read and comprehend work done by actual climate scientists.

Most of us skeptics have spent a great deal of time reviewing what passes for science in the field of climatology...it's why we are skeptics. Have the studies which found that skeptics have a better grasp of science than AGW believers escaped you?

Do you think you have a better understanding of science than climate scientists the world over?

Some of us do... You obviously couldn't tell us what the basic premise of AGW is... Yet you believe...

 

[Billy_Bob]

"almost all climate scientists have come to a general agreement". Care to prove that statement?

Go to any place of science on Earth and start having conversations with real scientists. I'll tell you what I told SSDD. Please make sure it's on video when you start arguing with them about how science works. I wonder how many Youtube hits a video of you being laughed out of the room will get.

LOL..

I argue with PhD's on a daily basis.. You sir, are an idiot. You would be laughed out of the room as a pompous ass and I would love every minuet of it.

Tell me, what is the basic premise of AGW.

 

[flacaltenn]

Shoot out a headline...then try and cover your tracks.

Greenland’s ‘Record Temperature’ denied – the data was wrong

From the “But, but, wait! Our algorithms can adjust for that!” department comes this tale of alarmist woe. Greenland’s all-time record temperature wasn’t a record at all, and it never got above freezing there.

Greenland’s ‘Record Temperature’ denied – the data was wrong

Seems like the Danish Met Society has some high scruples... NOAA would have waited a month or two to put out the retraction.. If you want REAL Arctic reporting -- DMS is completely reliable...

 

[flacaltenn]

These kinds of perspectives always seem to come from agenda driven sites like wattsupwiththat.com.

Got anything better? I'll even take Fox News.

You denying that the DMS put out that retraction?? You'd lose that bet very badly.. Attack the TRUTH, not the source... The fact you didn't SEE the retraction on the same level of reporting tells you WADS about the bias in most "mainstream" sources.. THEY should be checked as well... MORESO than the DMS.....

 

[Confounding]

You denying that the DMS put out that retraction??

No, I'm criticizing the way wattsupwiththat.com is bending the narrative to make it look like real scientists are shooting holes in the AGW hoax. The scientists involved in that retraction are not opponents of scientists that believe AGW is happening. They are also scientists that believe AGW is happening. This is simply science self-correcting and working as intended.

 

[flacaltenn]

You denying that the DMS put out that retraction??

No, I'm criticizing the way wattsupwiththat.com is bending the narrative to make it look like real scientists are shooting holes in the AGW hoax. The scientists involved in that retraction are not opponents of scientists that believe AGW is happening. They are also scientists that believe AGW is happening. This is simply science self-correcting and working as intended.

No one HERE is SURPRISED that the major media runs that fake story to death but never retracts... We're NOT using it to indict the science. We follow the science and love it.. But the public has been SEVERELY misled and propagandized for DECADES now and THAT'S what we're and WUWT are upset about...


"A good lie can make it 1/2 way around the world before the truth even gets its pants on" My all time favorite author....

 

[Confounding]

We're NOT using it to indict the science.

Maybe you're not. Did you read the whole thread? The intention of the article was to perpetuate distrust in AGW science.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You denying that the DMS put out that retraction??

No, I'm criticizing the way wattsupwiththat.com is bending the narrative to make it look like real scientists are shooting holes in the AGW hoax. The scientists involved in that retraction are not opponents of scientists that believe AGW is happening. They are also scientists that believe AGW is happening. This is simply science self-correcting and working as intended.

Real scientists are shooting gaping holes in the hypothesis. Your just to stupid to see it. You are aware that many of the commenters on Anthony's site are retired scientist from NASA, NOAA, and many, many colleges, dont you? They are PhD's, Masters degree holders and many others Like Ross McKitrick who is a PhD statistician among others. These people are experts in their fields.

THEY ARE REAL SCIENTISTS and they are blowing major holes in the hypothesis daily..

 

[flacaltenn]

That in fact is WHY we go read WUWT, because you'd NEVER KNOW it was a fake story from the MSM...

Probably 100Mill people heard or read those stories over breakfast or on the train, but only probably 2 Mill will ever know "the rest of the story"...

This AIN'T our 1st rodeo with that rope-a-dope shit....

 

[flacaltenn]

We're NOT using it to indict the science.

Maybe you're not. Did you read the whole thread? The intention of the article was to perpetuate distrust in AGW science.

Complete and utter bullshit.. The INTENTION was to FURTHER acknowledge the intentional dishonest and demented motives of MSM journalism on GW/CC....

Bottom line of the VERY SHORT article at WUWT

Shoot out the headlines first, ask questions later.

Share this:

 

[Confounding]

We're NOT using it to indict the science.

Maybe you're not. Did you read the whole thread? The intention of the article was to perpetuate distrust in AGW science.

Complete and utter bullshit.. The INTENTION was to FURTHER acknowledge the intentional dishonest and demented motives of MSM journalism on GW/CC....

Do you think scientists the world over are floating a bullshit conspiracy with no evidence to support it? Do you think they don't know how science works? Most of the people I'm arguing with in this thread believe that. I think websites like WUWT intend to bend things in a way that supplies ignorant people with reinforcement of their belief that we can't trust the AGW scientists.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Do you think scientists the world over are floating a bullshit conspiracy with no evidence to support it?

in a word, Yes!

But its worse than that, they know data has been manufactured and still push the deception.

Michael Mann is a great example of this. His hockey stick has been shown a fraud and to this day he remains hiding his data from real scientist to keep the lie alive. Thousands of papers built on his deceptions. What do you think will happen when his work is exposed and his fraud confirmed?

 

[flacaltenn]

We're NOT using it to indict the science.

Maybe you're not. Did you read the whole thread? The intention of the article was to perpetuate distrust in AGW science.

Complete and utter bullshit.. The INTENTION was to FURTHER acknowledge the intentional dishonest and demented motives of MSM journalism on GW/CC....

Do you think scientists the world over are floating a bullshit conspiracy with no evidence to support it? Do you think they don't know how science works? Most of the people I'm arguing with in this thread believe that. I think websites like WUWT intend to bend things in a way that supplies ignorant people with reinforcement of their belief that we can't trust the AGW scientists.

No.. I think the politicos and most ALL of the media are HYPING AND PURPOSELY MISREPRESENTING the actual science...

Even deniers mostly believe that Earth is in a minor warming cycle.. About 0.6DegC in your lifetime. And most all of them (including me) acknowledge the potential of CO2 as a GHouse to cause warming and admit man is guilty for SOME FRACTION of the 0.6DegC in your lifetime...

What I DON'T BELIEVE is the marginal "catastrophic" adjunct theories attached to GW science. The theories that attribute SUPERPOWERS to CO2 above and beyond the basic physics and chemistry of the atmosphere..

I reject in whole on in part those catastrophic theories that PREDICT accelerated warming due to all positive feedbacks, "runaway" global warming, or the idea of a 1.5DegC "trigger point" at which there is NOTHING WE CAN DO to prevent planetary destruction...

You're way to far behind to understand these nuances, but those are by NO MEANS settled science or have any kind of consensus.. Because in science you have consensus for EACH very concise question and GW/CC has at least 100 critical questions eligible for " consensus"... NOT ALL OF THEM are "settled science".. And the media depiction is that ALL OF THIS WORK is settled.. It's not ... Far from it...