^^I agree with you on the hurricanes (and eclipses ) but WRT to that, in the past our ability to detect hurricanes (that don't make landfall) wasn't as good as it was now. So I don't see how stating that we are currently in a very low activity cycle could be thought of as incorrect using that logic.

8/23/2011 3:36:44 PM

^^I mean, I know you're just making a joke, but there actually is evidence of intensifying extreme weather affecting tectonic plate shifts. Feel free to ignore it like the AGW skeptics ignore everything else the scientific community says.

[Edited on August 23, 2011 at 5:21 PM. Reason : :]

8/23/2011 5:20:27 PM

Quote :

" ^^no what I was saying there is you can't take temperature data collected from different methods over several thousands of years and piece them together. You need to keep it uniform. And besides, historical record of past warming/cooling events is better evidence than ice core samples. Things like settlements on Greenland, the Roman Warm period where for centuries wine was produced in Great Britain, the Thames freezing over solid every year, etc etc."

Haha I can see you are a Very Serious person when it comes to having uniform data, no doubt that's why you take the sparse accounts of a few monks, the existance of a few settlements in Greenland, and the activity of a single river, and a few other subjective accounts of temperatures in Europe and project that onto an assessment of the global climate at the time.

Yet again:

Quote :

"Big surprise, warming denialist will believe any graph drawn etched on a bathroom wall and instantly dismiss the evidence used by 97% of publishing climatologists if it doesn't jive with their preconceptions."

[Edited on August 24, 2011 at 2:57 PM. Reason : .]

8/24/2011 2:57:01 PM

^^that almost goes into the category of asking why Mars has been warming as well. Is it our fault

^please stop toting the 97% statistic that has been shown to be inaccurate and not truthful.

[Edited on August 25, 2011 at 11:02 AM. Reason : k]

8/25/2011 10:58:56 AM

I'm not saying that global warming is caused Monday's earthquake. That's fucking stupid. I'm saying that even the most hyperbolic exaggerations of AGW's effects have some factual basis. Whereas the conspiracy theories touted by the skeptics are complete and total fantasy.

And yeah, you're right, it's closer to 100%. You know, it's extremely easy to defend a point when quite literally all the facts are on my side.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

Quote :

"The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9). The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.""

8/25/2011 12:02:10 PM

Quote :

"^^that almost goes into the category of asking why Mars has been warming as well. Is it our fault "

Hey more talking points that have been proven horse shit for years now.

A bit of googling before you hit the post button would show you that

A) Mars' warming is localized, not global. Not that this is your central point, but shows again that you are un/misinformed on even matters that you mention off-hand.

B) Other planets have at the same time been cooling or staying the same temperature, so good luck blaming it on a common phenomenon like the Sun

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm

Seriously, before you make any claim, check to see if it's here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php and respond to THEIR remarks on the subject. It's really irritating having to start at square one every single time you bring up some talking point that a GOP strategist or Exxon plant cooked up 15 years ago. Those hucksters rely on your unwillingness to actually research rebuttals to their claims, and your haste to start running with any talking point the second you hear it.

Quote :

" ^please stop toting the 97% statistic that has been shown to be inaccurate and not truthful."

No, it hasn't. See Shrike's post above

[Edited on August 25, 2011 at 12:18 PM. Reason : .]

8/25/2011 12:12:36 PM

Quote :

"but i trust the peer review process and leave the analyzing up to the experts "

which is precisely the problem. The peer review process for the scientific community as a whole is probably fine, which is why the average scientist hears that climate-related stuff is "peer reviewed" and puts stock in it. The problem comes when the peer-review process has been subverted, as has been proven in the climate field.

Quote :

"Seriously, do you really think that any AGW proponent believes the climate has never warmed or cooled in the past?"

Mann's hockey stick sure fucking suggested it.

Quote :

"Nothing going on is unprecedented and unfortunately you can't directly compare today's accurate satellite data with proxy data from thousands of years ago."

especially when proxy data sets are 1) calibrated using a highly-doctored current temperature data set and 2) highly reliant on bristlecones and tree-rings, data sets which we know induce false warming signatures

Quote :

"You know, it's extremely easy to defend a point when quite literally all the facts are on my side."

Yes, after those facts are forged. DOH!!! And look, you quoted a study that wasn't even peer reviewed when it was published. how cute. Moreover, it was a study using subjective as hell processes. But that's what counts as "science" these days.

Quote :

"Seriously, before you make any claim, check to see if it's here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php"

You'll forgive me if I am skeptical of a site that even begins to suggest that Mann's hockey stick wasn't fraudulent or that people were "cleared" of wrong doing when they explicitly told others to delete emails and data in order to avoid complying with FOIA requests. There's NOTHING skeptical about that site. It's practically run by Mann and his buddies. But yes, keep directing me to a site that claims the UHI effect doesn't exist.


and, uhhh, SHrike, I'm STILL waiting for you to explain how shit like this is in any way "scientific":

Satellites that are ignored, even though they are now showing, on average, a .5C difference from ground stations.

"Corrections" consistently are up for the latter quarter of the 20th century. DOH

THen let's look at NZ's "corrections". first the original, then the "corrected" version

And how about THIS beauty of a "correction". Builders of step-pyramids LOVE it.

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=549171&page=52#14928480
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=549171&page=52#14928747

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 2:50 PM. Reason : ]

8/29/2011 2:43:27 PM

Quote :

""Corrections" consistently are up for the latter quarter of the 20th century. DOH"

Holy shit, that couldn't be for a real reason, because it disagrees with my ideological commitments!

8/29/2011 2:55:22 PM

kindly explain this one, then, McDouche:

and, when your "corrections" are consistently on the order of the actual trend you say exists, it certainly warrants questioning. It's entirely correct to apply corrections to known defects in the data, but it sure is odd when your "corrections" consistently help your claim. And then the one correction you exclude is one that is both scientifically accepted as fact and it happens to go against your claim. hmmmm

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 3:03 PM. Reason : ]

8/29/2011 3:01:20 PM

Are you seriously saying that adjusting raw data isn't "scientific"? Do you even know what science is? And you do realize that satellite data is ONE source among DOZENS that all point to the same conclusion. GTFO dude, you are nothing but a parody at this point. 99% of climate change skeptics don't even agree with your views.

8/29/2011 3:49:05 PM

Quote :

"Are you seriously saying that adjusting raw data isn't "scientific"?"

I knew you would counter with this. There's nothing wrong with adjusting data when there is a legitimate reason to do so. Now, respond to what I posted before. What do you think is the legitimate reason for introducing a fucking 2C/century upward correction to an otherwise flat raw data for the Darwin airport? explain those corrections. Or, more precisely, you don't find it slightly odd that all of the corrections for the latter half of the 20th century are UP. and what about how the "corrections" affected the HCN data sets? keep burying your head in the sand. The fraud is obvious

Quote :

"And you do realize that satellite data is ONE source among DOZENS that all point to the same conclusion"

only, not really. DOH

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 3:53 PM. Reason : ]

8/29/2011 3:52:04 PM

I'm not responding to a goddamn thing you post, other than calling you a fraud and a joke, because that's what you are. You can find someone else to help validate your delusions, because like I already said, I'm finished with you.

To add: there is no logical reason for me to continue debating with someone who totally ignores every single FACT I post, or dismisses it all as part of some grand conspiracy that he has absolutely no EVIDENCE of, and then only wants to discuss the single set of bullshit he posts. Maybe you're used to dealing with impressionable 2 year olds, but that's not me.

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 4:00 PM. Reason : :]

8/29/2011 3:54:54 PM

Quote :

"I'm not responding to a goddamn thing you post, other than calling you a fraud and a joke, because that's what you are"

I will take that as an admission of defeat. You can't fucking explain absurd "corrections" like Darwin zero. so you just call me an idiot. congrats on being like Michael Mann and his cronies: a pure fraud

Quote :

"or dismisses it all as part of some grand conspiracy that he has absolutely no EVIDENCE of"

except for the Wegman report, which clearly details the obvious group-think. or the climategate emails, which show collusion to distort the peer-review process.

Quote :

"and then only wants to discuss the single set of bullshit he posts. "

but seriously, what's "bullshit" about pointing out OBVIOUS fraud? or are you going to tell me there is a legitimate reason for that correction and the new zealand "correction". or are you going to tell me there is nothing fraudulent about a study that gives you the same results when you put in phone numbers for data?

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 4:03 PM. Reason : ]

8/29/2011 4:00:58 PM

I appreciate that you admit defeat

but hey, if the science is SO perfect, so settled, so without a doubt, then why is shit like Darwin Zero happening? If it's so settled, then did Mann have to fake a hockey stick? If it's so settled and obvious, why did Briffa make a study based on one fucking tree ring? And why are THESE STUDIES the major ones pointed to? I don't need as magic conspiracy to ask such a logical question

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 4:09 PM. Reason : ]

8/29/2011 4:07:04 PM

Quote :

"congrats on being like Michael Mann and his cronies: a pure fraud"

You haven't read anything here have you? Mann wasn't a fraud at all, his cronies aren't scattered all over the planet in every single scientific organization as part of a vast conspiracy, and independent studies have replicated and confirmed his results.

Quote :

" or the climategate emails, which show collusion to distort the peer-review process."

No, they don't. They appear that way to somebody who's only gotten his news from right-wing harpies who generated the entire manufactured Climategate by taking small quotes out of context and distorting them horrendously.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

Again, you wouldn't know any of this because you quite obviously stop following a story the second Fox News is done telling you what to think about it. That's why every talking point you use is years fucking old.

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 4:08 PM. Reason : .]

8/29/2011 4:07:10 PM

Seriously aaronburro, can we forget all about the studies and all for a moment and just discuss the logistics of your proposed conspiracy which involves literally tens of thousands of researchers, editors, publishers, students, and career climatologists being in on the secret; and the only ones who blow the whistle on the issue are also the ones who mysteriously have very few actual credentials and coincidentally have all been paid in one way or another by oil and natural gas companies?

8/29/2011 4:10:06 PM

Quote :

"You haven't read anything here have you? Mann wasn't a fraud at all,"

only, he was. and it was fucking proven. Or do you think that the phone book shows a hockey stick legitimately?

Quote :

"No, they don't. "

Yes, "I'm going to redefine peer-reviewed literature" isn't a corruption of the peer-review process.

and look, more "skepticalscience," people who dispute that the UHI effect exists. people who see nothing wrong with telling someone to delete emails and data.

Quote :

"by taking small quotes out of context and distorting them horrendously. "

tell me, what was '"distorted" about "please delete emails"? where was the context lost in that?

Quote :

"Seriously aaronburro, can we forget all about the studies and all for a moment and just discuss the logistics of your proposed conspiracy which involves literally tens of thousands of researchers, editors, publishers, students, and career climatologists being in on the secret; "

It doesn't require a conspiracy. It just requires group think. The field of AGW climatology isn't "thousands of scientists." it's a mere handful, as Wegman showed.

Quote :

"and the only ones who blow the whistle on the issue are also the ones who mysteriously have very few actual credentials "

Really? Lindzen has very few credentials?

Quote :

"and coincidentally have all been paid in one way or another by oil and natural gas companies?"

Really? THere's no money being funded by the green lobby? That is one of the LAMEST claims in the book, and you know it. and, it's reeks of ad hominem. OH MY GOD, HE GOT A SPEAKING FEE FROM EXXON!!! EVERYTHING HE SAYS IS BULLSHIT!!!

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 4:16 PM. Reason : ]

8/29/2011 4:13:51 PM

^^Because of the money man. All that sweet sweet academic research money. All those thousands of dollars and five figure salaries. Same reason for all those studies show cigarettes and saturated fat are bad for you. Won't you think of the poor multi-billion dollar oil, tobacco, and fast food industries?



[Edited on August 31, 2011 at 12:24 PM. Reason : ]

8/29/2011 4:16:58 PM

still waiting for you to explain adding 2C of corrections to a flat data set.
I'm glad to see that you have mastered copy-paste. I've informed duke about it and you can expect a suspension soon

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 4:19 PM. Reason : ]

8/29/2011 4:18:28 PM

Why , so you can create another post full of quote bubbles filled with nonsensical babble? Don't you have a job? I actually do, which is why I'm not wasting my time and just using good old ctrl+v.


hahahahhahahaha, oh no, I'm going to be suspended. what ever will i do with all my time without the thewolfweb. oh yeah, that's right, I have a job.

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 4:23 PM. Reason : :]

[Edited on August 31, 2011 at 12:24 PM. Reason : ]

8/29/2011 4:20:42 PM

Quote :

"Why , so you can create another post full of quote bubbles filled with nonsensical babble"

because it would require you to post something relevant as opposed to spamming the board with copy paste.

still waiting for you to tell me how 2C of added warming was the "right thing to do"
still waiting for you to tell me how asking others to delete emails and data should be "cleared"

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 4:24 PM. Reason : ]

8/29/2011 4:22:28 PM

Okay I'll start with Lindzen. Again, It'd do you well to read the site I've linked multiple times to actually get yourself up to date. Here are a few articles dealing specifically with Lindzen:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Aerosols-as-fudge-factor-NIPCC-vs-Lindzen.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Earth-expected-global-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-shift-synchronized-chaos.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen-Choi-2009-low-climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-case-study-of-a-climate-scientist-skeptic.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-case-study-in-climate-science-integrity.html

Here's a series precisely on Lindzen:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-1-should-have-seen-more-warming.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-2-lindzen-vs-hansen-1980s.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-3-christy-crock-5-opposing-solutions.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-4-climate-sensitivity.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-5-internal-variability.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-6-importance-of-ghgs.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-7-the-anti-galileo.html


Bottom line: Lindzen has been out of his element for a long time, protected mainly by his tenure.

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 4:40 PM. Reason : .]

8/29/2011 4:39:45 PM

Quote :

"only, he was. and it was fucking proven. Or do you think that the phone book shows a hockey stick legitimately?"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ljungqvist-broke-the-hockey-stick.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

Quote :

" Yes, "I'm going to redefine peer-reviewed literature" isn't a corruption of the peer-review process."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Peer-review-process.htm

Quote :

"tell me, what was '"distorted" about "please delete emails"? where was the context lost in that?"

That wasn't actually the quote, nobody was actually told to delete emails, and no emails were actually deleted. One researched mused that they could delete emails under certain circumstances to protect their research from rival research groups. That's the context you dumb twit, do you not understand that science is a competitive process? That's why it's so fucking dumb to think they're all working together, if one scientist came up and showed without a doubt that there was a mass conspiracy, he'd win a fucking Nobel Peace Prize. Your theory of groupthink or whatever would only make sense to somebody who has only ever been a fucking spectator to peer review.

Quote :

"It doesn't require a conspiracy. It just requires group think. The field of AGW climatology isn't "thousands of scientists." it's a mere handful, as Wegman showed."

Right "A mere handful", as reported by a single individual's paper. Do you not see how grossly unstable and biased your own standards for believability are? Did you know Wegman's paper was pulled shortly after submission because of plagiarism? http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2011-05-15-climate-study-plagiarism-Wegman_n.htm Yet you seem to trust him. Humm... Shifting standards yet again. Sure, he copied some shit from fucking Wikipedia but that doesn't mean he would misrepresent information, right? You can't discount someone's integrity just because of a little plagiarism, right??

Quote :

"Really? THere's no money being funded by the green lobby? That is one of the LAMEST claims in the book, and you know it. and, it's reeks of ad hominem. OH MY GOD, HE GOT A SPEAKING FEE FROM EXXON!!! EVERYTHING HE SAYS IS BULLSHIT!!!"

Your entire fucking argument of conspiracy is based on the idea that they're all teaming up to do this research to get those sweet, sweet, research grant dollars. To quote you:

Quote :

"That is one of the LAMEST claims in the book, and you know it. and, it's reeks of ad hominem."

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 4:53 PM. Reason : .]

8/29/2011 4:49:25 PM

OH MY GOD, HE GOT A RESEARCH GRANT!!! EVERYTHING HE SAYS IS BULLSHIT!!!

8/29/2011 4:50:57 PM

And I'm sorry I don't understand what's important about Darwin Airport, a single weather station out of thousands. If someone fallaciously adjusted it upwards, does that mean the other 5 or so global temperature measurements systems, some satellite, some oceanic, some landbased, are all wrong? You have a lot more data sets to disprove than the one at Darwin.

Why don't you provide ME with a dataset that shows no warming?

8/29/2011 5:00:33 PM

Quote :

" http://www.skepticalscience.com/ljungqvist-broke-the-hockey-stick.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm"

neither of those addresses what I asked. It's more "but he got the right answer" bullshit. I'll ask, AGAIN, do you think the New York phone book is evidence of a hockey stick?

and I'm not reading your skeptical science bullshit, because AGAIN, they see nothing wrong with Mann's original hockey stick, which puts EVERYTHING they have to say in question.

Quote :

"That wasn't actually the quote, nobody was actually told to delete emails, and no emails were actually deleted."

Umm, you might want to go back and check your sources. how about I just quote it for you:

Quote :

"Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise… Can you also email Gene [Wahl] and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. Cheers, Phil"

Mann's response?

Quote :

"Hi Phil, … I’ll contact Gene [Wahl] about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@xxx talk to you later, mike"

now, please, explain how no one was asked to delete emails?
http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/23/new-light-on-delete-any-emails/
I'm offering the link only because it references the exact words. Ignore the commentary if you like.

Quote :

"One researched mused that they could delete emails under certain circumstances to protect their research from rival research groups"

And that's a good thing? REALLY?

Quote :

"Did you know Wegman's paper was pulled shortly after submission because of plagiarism?"

Did you know that the plagiarism in no way affects the veracity of what was reported? shit.

Quote :

"Your entire fucking argument of conspiracy"

if only I said it was a major conspiracy. DOH.

Quote :

"And I'm sorry I don't understand what's important about Darwin Airport"

If you read the report on it, you find that that one station accounts for basically all the observed "warming" in Australia as documented in the IPCC report. And, if they are willing to fake the data that bad in Australia, it stands to reason that it has been done elsewhere. And we conveniently can't get access to all of the data. And why is that? Because the very people involved won't release the data.

Quote :

"You have a lot more data sets to disprove than the one at Darwin. "

Actually, the other set have equal questions in them. At least one of them is mainly reproduced from one of the others, which makes it basically the same. The satellite set shows a warming trend from the 70s, which shouldn't be a shock, given the multi-decadal trends that we can see in other sets, but it disagrees with the intensity of the warming, as a graph above shows. Another one comes from a group that can't reliably reproduce the raw data they used, and I think that one is the East Anglia one. I'll have to look for my source, as I have a bad habit of reading shit and not saving it for later reference.

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 5:46 PM. Reason : ]

8/29/2011 5:43:18 PM

hahahaha. yeah, Mann's study from 99 is never referenced. oh, shit, it's one of the headlines at this pro-AGW blog.
http://www.heatisonline.org/science.cfm
hahahaha. frauds are held up as beacons of scientific knowledge.

8/29/2011 11:42:27 PM

Quote :

"if only I said it was a major conspiracy. DOH."

Well what in the F do you say?

8/30/2011 7:42:06 AM

His explanation is a different catch-all that's fuzzy in his head: "group think"

God knows I'd love to overturn some basic assumptions of a field, but, whatever ... those sweet research dollars I guess?

8/30/2011 7:58:12 AM

Here's a great scheme: go to school for 10-11 years after high school so I can make $40,000 starting if I'm lucky enough to get a job

8/30/2011 7:59:25 AM

hey, here's a look at the US adjustments to temperature data. this is the adjustments applied to the raw data. notice anything odd? oh, right, it almost looks exactly like the supposed "trend". yep, no fudging going on here...


http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/is-the-western-climate-establishment-corrupt-part-2/

Quote :

"There are lots of ways to find “warm”. More tricks from the climate establishment: They removed inconvenient thermometers. There were nearly 6,000 thermometers in the official global network in the 1980s, but there are now just 1,079. (Nice animation of global thermometer network from 1920 to 2010. See p.10 here.) The removals increased the proportion of thermometers: At airports—which are warmer than surroundings. (From about 30% to about 50%, p.12 here.) Nearer the equator—it is hotter at the equator. (The mean distance of thermometers from the equator in degrees latitude dropped from 35° to 20°, p.13 here.) At lower altitudes—it is colder in the mountains. (The mean altitude of thermometers decreased from 480 meters above sea level to 350 meters, p.14 here.) They “adjust” the raw temperature data to increase apparent warming. This is under the guise of filling in missing data, accounting for thermometer moves, accounting for the urban heat island effect, and various technicalities. The effect is to substantially increase the warming trend (US and global, Australia). In the country with the best thermometer network, the USA, the official adjustments account for almost the entire temperature rise from the 1930s to the 1990s (from NOAA data, here). They revise the official (adjusted) temperatures after a decade or so have passed, to increase recent warming and remove any recent cooling. For example, 1965 went from being 0.3°C warmer than the 1970’s in 1976 to 0.03°C cooler by 2007, presumably to erase the cooling period around 1960 – 75 when human carbon emissions were increasing rapidly. They hide their temperature data, both their raw data and how they adjusted it. They evaded Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to make the data, which is publically owned data, available. They even claim to have lost original data! Why would the climate establishment play these tricks, if their case and data were strong? Don’t these tricks strongly imply that their case is weak or wrong, and that they know it?"

yep, the science is SO STRONG. yep.

and then there's the wonderful fact that nighttime lows are increasing much faster than daytime highs. This fact points almost exclusively to UHI, yet we are told that UHI is a bunch of baloney. We knew this in 1998. And school kids today are finding this be true in back of the napkin data analyses.
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3085&method=full
http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/record-warm-nighttime-temperatures-a-closer-look
http://conceptualmath.org/ZEclimate/index1.html

and yet, we are told not to question the scientists, because they know everything. it doesn't pass the smell test

[Edited on August 30, 2011 at 7:07 PM. Reason : ]

8/30/2011 7:00:55 PM

McIntyre's original response to criticism. scathing, to say the least.
http://climateaudit.org/2005/06/17/national-post-re-visiting-the-stick/

one of my favourite parts:

Quote :

"There has been a concerted effort by climate scientists to show that the errors in the hockey stick calculations “do not matter”. In fact, there has been much more effort by climate scientists to try and disprove our results than ever went into checking the original hockey stick. We made the process easy by publishing all our computer code, unlike the hockey stick authors who still refuse to release theirs even seven years after the original publication. They told the Wall Street Journal that to show the code they used to produce their results would be “giving in to intimidation.”"

yep, that's good science there, Mann

and then, let's remind ourselves of this excellent quote from, IIRC, Phil Jones and his crew, when someone had the nerve to ask them for them for their data and methodology, which, by the way, they are required to disclose by law:

Quote :

"We have 25 years invested in this work. Why should we let you look at it, when your only objective is to find fault with it?"

science, indeed

[Edited on August 30, 2011 at 7:44 PM. Reason : ]

8/30/2011 7:41:56 PM

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf
good description of how those crazy Canadians blew up the Hockey Stick. A description that also details dirty deeds by Mann and Nature. I doubt any of you will actually read it.


shit, ANOTHER "hide the decline" moment from none other than Keith Briffa. The pink is what was removed from the final product. Yep, that's some good science right there.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/steve-mcintyre-uncovers-another-trick/

DOH!

[Edited on August 30, 2011 at 8:21 PM. Reason : ]

8/30/2011 8:15:38 PM

aaronburro, luckily for us (and our country) the green movement has been subsiding a lot recently and the tide has turned against the warmists.

8/31/2011 8:42:02 AM

Unfortunately for you, science doesn't care about tides of opinion on Internet message boards and bombarding TWW with charts from deinalist blogs doesn't change the truth.

8/31/2011 8:46:26 AM

Well, it would be real nice if the means of production for PV cells would stay in this country and not go to China, etc. Because even if CO2 emission isn't as big an impact as some of their computer models claim, you're still going to need PV, wind, biofuels, etc to help bridge the gap when supply drops for natural resources. And it's better to start now, then wait until supply gets noticeably low.

8/31/2011 9:09:24 AM

^^fortunately for us science is on our side. You know, the scientific method and observational science. Not some computer models slapped together that don't account for cloud formation.

8/31/2011 9:59:45 AM

Quote :

"Unfortunately for you, science doesn't care about tides of opinion on Internet message boards and bombarding TWW with charts from deinalist blogs doesn't change the truth."

you are right, those things don't change the truth. But neither do fraudulent studies that are still referenced today on other blogs and parrotted in "independent studies" that magically are run by the same people involved in the original. I'm STILL waiting for you to explain how Mann's study wasn't a total fraud. I'm STILL waiting for you to tell me how asking someone to delete emails to avoid FOIA requests should be "cleared" by a university. I'm STILL waiting for you to explain how refusing open scientific inquiry is the hallmark of good science.

8/31/2011 10:05:24 AM

The problem is even if I were to grant every single claim that you've given in this thread, the case for AGW remains. The totality of evidence for AGW is not Mann's study.

8/31/2011 10:10:18 AM

I feel like there is a lot of appeal to a strawman authority in order for the blogs that aaronburro reads to debunk that authority.

I'm aware that Mann is a major figure in climate science. I get that. But he's going to make different decisions than other people who publish papers, and no matter how prominent he is, he is only one voice out of many. A researcher should handle the data sets in whatever way accomplishes the best science. We all agree there has been an urban heat island effect. Climate science researchers bicker endlessly about the objectivity of all surface temperature readings.

The idea of publishing papers isn't to solidify consensus. It is, in a way, just a really highly technical enduring discussion.

8/31/2011 11:08:40 AM

Quote :

"We all agree there has been an urban heat island effect. Climate science researchers bicker endlessly about the objectivity of all surface temperature readings."

Very well put. And there is a lot of evidence that shows the majority of these are placed in improper locations in the US.

8/31/2011 11:29:55 AM

right, and whatever direction the temperature is changing in, going up or down, is completely irrelevant of how much and how correctly we measure said temperature.

8/31/2011 12:22:57 PM

Quote :

" I'm glad to see that you have mastered copy-paste. I've informed duke about it and you can expect a suspension soon "

How about I'll be the judge of who gets suspended around here, and you concentrate on not being a fucking pussy?


and Shrike, what the fuck? What would possess you to throw a fucking internet tantrum by bombing the place with copy and paste? Stop being an infantile douchebag.

8/31/2011 12:29:28 PM

Well now you've hurt my feelings We liberals are a sensitive bunch ya know.

In all honesty, I was simply fighting fire with fire. aaronburro has been posting quite literally the same exact bullshit graphs and universally debunked arguments for about 2 years now, while the rest of us have been attempting to rationally discuss recent (and by recent, I mean shit that isn't a decade old) developments in climate science. He ignores everything that doesn't coincide with his worldview that contemporary (and by contemporary, I mean the past 30+ years) climate science is just a vast global conspiracy perpetuated by greedy academic researchers. He hasn't posted a single original thought since the inception of this thread and just re-posts crap from the sketchiest corners of the internet. His conduct is no different than the 9/11 truthers or an Obama birther. If that doesn't fit the definition of spam, I don't know what does.

[Edited on August 31, 2011 at 12:55 PM. Reason : :]

8/31/2011 12:54:51 PM

I get it, but either continue to counter him point for point or just let it go.

8/31/2011 12:59:02 PM

Quote :

"shows the majority of these are placed in improper locations in the US."

I'd be careful throwing around the word "majority" unless you'd like to provide more than that tired old site that shows a handful of poorly placed and largely irreverent stations.

8/31/2011 1:01:06 PM

Quote :

"irreverent stations."

haha

8/31/2011 1:11:42 PM

Quote :

"How about I'll be the judge of who gets suspended around here, and you concentrate on not being a fucking pussy?"

roflmao

8/31/2011 1:14:26 PM

^^ Oh wow. That looks to be the victim of auto-correct. The bottom line is that I agree that there are a few to several poorly placed stations but instead of crying "OMG THE WHOLE THING IS A HOAX!" then why not contact the fucking National Weather Service office and see what the deal is? Besides, the numbers are ridiculously small in comparison to the whole and have little bearing on the overall trends of the vast majority of monitoring stations.

[Edited on August 31, 2011 at 5:19 PM. Reason : .]

8/31/2011 5:19:06 PM

CERN recently blamed the sun. i tend to agree with them

8/31/2011 5:57:22 PM