'Climategate' review clears scientists of dishonesty

[Catatonic]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/07/07/climategate.email.review/index.html?hpt=T2


London, England (CNN) -- An independent report released Wednesday into the leaked "Climategate" e-mails found no evidence to question the "rigor and honesty" of scientists involved.

The scandal fueled skepticism about the case for global warming just weeks before world leaders met to agree a global deal on climate change at a United Nations conference in Copenhagen last December.

The seven-month review, led by Muir Russell, found scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) did not unduly influence reports detailing the scale of the threat of global warming produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

"We went through this very carefully and we concluded that these behaviors did not damage our judgment of the integrity, the honesty, the rigor with which they had operated as scientists," Russell said.

[CCTelander]

No big surprise.

[BetaMale]

Whatever. Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

[idirtify]

No big surprise.

Yeah. This is the second news report of this nature. The previous one actually had the nerve to claim that when Phil Jones instructed to “hide the decline”, that he really meant to “discard erroneous data”. They must think we are idiots. Or they really don’t care if we believe it or not.

[CCTelander]

Yeah. This is the second news report of this nature. The previous one actually had the nerve to claim that when Phil Jones instructed to “hide the decline”, that he really meant to “discard erroneous data”. They must think we are idiots. Or they really don’t care if we believe it or not.


Clearly there are things going on here that we mere mundanes are incapable of comprehending ... NOT.

[Catatonic]

Whatever. Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

Daily Mail is kind of a crappy source. I hear its more or less considered a tabloid. Any better sources for this?

[BetaMale]

Daily Mail is kind of a crappy source. I hear its more or less considered a tabloid. Any better sources for this?

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/15/global-warming-insignificant-years-admits-uks-climate-scientist/

It was a BBC interview

[michaelwise]

Don't get me started on Climategate. I've been on that issue since the House Bill was up for passage in the house of Representatives and have been working the science blogs since.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/ The #1 science blog
http://www.climatedepot.com/
http://www.spaceweather.com/

[Catatonic]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/15/global-warming-insignificant-years-admits-uks-climate-scientist/

It was a BBC interview

Thanks. In his defense, I believe he was speaking about the troposphere, not surface temperatures.

[YumYum]

Don't get me started on Climategate. I've been on that issue since the House Bill was up for passage in the house of Representatives and have been working the science blogs since.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/ The #1 science blog
http://www.climatedepot.com/
http://www.spaceweather.com/

And what did you determine?

[sailingaway]

The wall street journal did a multiple issue write up including discussion of a 'how to deal with climate skeptics' get together for journalists where they were saying it is wrong to report neutrally. Meaning, it is the journalist's job to sell a single position (pro-warmist).

[WaltM]

Whatever. Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

CONTEXT. (if you're so lazy to watch 10 minutes, skip to 2:30)

YouTube - Flogging the Scientists (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp-iB6jwjUc)

as for climategate, it's NOT news that it DOESN'T incriminate anybody (or, it's pretty clear now that no e-mails incriminate anybody), but it's not kosher to discuss it here.

[WaltM]

Yeah. This is the second news report of this nature. The previous one actually had the nerve to claim that when Phil Jones instructed to “hide the decline”, that he really meant to “discard erroneous data”. They must think we are idiots. Or they really don’t care if we believe it or not.

Yes, climate change deniers are like creationists, they will lie, cherry pick, mock and think you're an idiot.

[WaltM]

Daily Mail is kind of a crappy source. I hear its more or less considered a tabloid. Any better sources for this?

http://www.youtube.com/greenman3610

he's got lots of videos that will point you to primary sources, and why Lord Monckton, Climategaters, are full of shit.

[michaelwise]

And what did you determine?We are winning on the subject.

[michaelwise]

CONTEXT. (if you're so lazy to watch 10 minutes, skip to 2:30)

YouTube - Flogging the Scientists (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp-iB6jwjUc)

as for climategate, it's NOT news that it DOESN'T incriminate anybody (or, it's pretty clear now that no e-mails incriminate anybody), but it's not kosher to discuss it here.This video uses many ad hominem attacks. This is the first tactic to be identified in order to determine if what the writer is saying is credible. This author is not credible and thus can be determined to be total propangada.

[michaelwise]

This video uses many ad hominem attacks. This is the first tactic to be identified in order to determine if what the writer is saying is credible. This author is not credible and thus can be determined to be total propaganda.Did you notice how they hashed out MIT's Richard Lindzen's face in the clip? Another deeming tactic the propagandists use.

[michaelwise]

http://www.youtube.com/greenman3610

he's got lots of videos that will point you to primary sources, and why Lord Monckton, Climategaters, are full of shit.I think I have identified the Troll that joined January 2010. Boy I'm good.

[WaltM]

I think I have identified the Troll that joined January 2010. Boy I'm good.

what's the ad hominem attack?

(telling people that scientific journals generally don't advertise buying gold and self defense is ad hominem?)

Or calling people "deniers" is ad hominem? (no, it's not, it's warranted if you actually look at the information)

oh, I guess I was right, challenging the sacred cow of climate change denial makes me a troll.

[WaltM]

We are winning on the subject.

what (contest) are you winning? what do you win (as the prize)?

[michaelwise]

what's the ad hominem attack?

(telling people that scientific journals generally don't advertise buying gold and self defense is ad hominem?)

oh, I guess I was right, challenging the sacred cow of climate change denial makes me a troll.Either that or an un educated child. I would forgive you for the latter.

Ad hominem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Research the extended solar minimum that is in it's third year.

I look forward to the thousands more deaths this coming winter due to the greater freezing conditions in the northern hemisphere just like last year, if for nothing else but to prove a point.

[michaelwise]

what (contest) are you winning? what do you win (as the prize)?The prize is the death of global carbon(CO2) taxes.

[WaltM]

Either that or an un educated child. I would forgive you for the latter.


what makes you more educated?

tell me about the extended solar minimum, please.

[WaltM]

The prize is the death of global carbon(CO2) taxes.

so if there's no carbon taxes, or any global warming related tax, you wouldn't care what people believe about climate change?

I find this quite .... unimpressive, that ultimately people admit, they don't care about the science, they just don't want the taxes and regulations, they'll do what they can to convince people of either misleading information, or lies, as long as they get their goal.

[michaelwise]

what makes you more educated?

tell me about the extended solar minimum, please.Ok, I forgive you.
The Sun's cycles run on an average cycle of 11 years. The Sun's output should have ramped up about 3 years ago but it just kind of stayed in a sleepy slumber. It's the Sun stupid.

Sunspot number: 22
Updated 06 July 2010

Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 0 days
2010 total: 35 days (19%)
2009 total: 260 days (71%)
Since 2004: 803 days
Typical Solar Min: 486 days
http://www.spaceweather.com/

Sun spots are an indication of solar output that heats the Earth.
As you can see the typical spotless days lasts 486 days. Our current spotless days in the current cycle is 803.

Fewer tornadoes and hurricanes can be expected this year just as happened last year.

[michaelwise]

so if there's no carbon taxes, or any global warming related tax, you wouldn't care what people believe about climate change?I wouldn't care as much, that's for sure.

You should also know when people use the words "climate change" without pre-qualifying those words by putting the words "Man-Made" before those words just like QE2 did, those people are just trying to trick people with word games.

[michaelwise]

'Hide The Decline" was the name of this video before it was censored.
YouTube - Censoring The Decrease in Global Temperatures (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAlMomLvu_4)

YouTube - Hide The Decline II - The Sequel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrd3HYU80Dk&feature=related)

[WaltM]

Ok, I forgive you.
The Sun's cycles run on an average cycle of 11 years. The Sun's output should have ramped up about 3 years ago but it just kind of stayed in a sleepy slumber. It's the Sun stupid.


You disappoint me, I actually heard this one, I just can't believe you still buy it.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

So up to now you've failed to
1) support climategate accusations
2) refute the fact that Phil Jones was quoted out of context

Then accuse me of ignorance, stupidity, and trolling, when you're the one who's posting cliche.

[WaltM]

'Hide The Decline" was the name of this video before it was censored.


If you think "hide the decline" meant any form of hiding, lying, misrepresentation of data (it didn't even refer to temperature!) , I can tell you don't know the context. Which is exactly what climategaters do, they read the words they want.

YouTube - Climategate: Global Warming Denial & Hacked Emails (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IdFVTTq8hc)

[michaelwise]

You sound like an idiot, just like the Queen of England at the UN, when you say the words “Climate Change” when you really mean “Man-Made Climate Change”. Those are two completely different concepts. Climate Change has been happening for millions of years and nobody can stop it, period.

[WaltM]

I wouldn't care as much, that's for sure.

You should also know when people use the words "climate change" without pre-qualifying those words by putting the words "Man-Made" before those words just like QE2 did, those people are just trying to trick people with word games.

No, just the opposite.

I don't qualify them so I can honestly identify what people are denying.

Deniers range from
"the globe just isn't warming"
to
"even if it was true, and its man made, it's too late to act anyway"
to
"even if we can fix the problem, freedom is more important"

But for you, I think the discussion is over, you call me ignorant, stupid, while then you dismiss the video I posted as "ad hominem", then later, YOU post 2 song videos with ZERO research (solely quoted from news sensation), you've proven you don't even know climategate (which makes it unnecessary to ask whether you actually know climate change).

[michaelwise]

If you think "hide the decline" meant any form of hiding, lying, misrepresentation of data (it didn't even refer to temperature!) , I can tell you don't know the context. Which is exactly what climategaters do, they read the words they want.

YouTube - Climategate: Global Warming Denial & Hacked Emails (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IdFVTTq8hc)Wow, you disappoint me. I've been banned from all the man-made global warming blogs, but I still am allowed to post on WUWT along with all the warmists who are not censored their. You should try that blog if you want a real debate. If you don't post profanity, you can post just about anything there as long as it is on topic. They allow me to post OT some times like the recent RP "What Kind of War is This Anyway" video.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/

[michaelwise]

No, just the opposite.

I don't qualify them so I can honestly identify what people are denying.

Deniers range from
"the globe just isn't warming"
to
"even if it was true, and its man made, it's too late to act anyway"
to
"even if we can fix the problem, freedom is more important"

But for you, I think the discussion is over, you call me ignorant, stupid, while then you dismiss the video I posted as "ad hominem", then later, YOU post 2 song videos with ZERO research (solely quoted from news sensation), you've proven you don't even know climategate (which makes it unnecessary to ask whether you actually know climate change).The globe warms, the globe cools. It happens naturally. Extremes happen over thousands of years and nobody can stop it.

And I do know all about climategate, it goes something like this;
YouTube - Enron Andersen's Christmas party (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFORqXz46qM)

[WaltM]

The globe warms, the globe cools. It happens naturally. Extremes happen over thousands of years and nobody can stop it.


It happens naturally says your denial.





And I do know all about climategate, it goes something like this;


you've proven once again you're not serious about discussion, you won't even admit you don't know what you're talking about. Any surprise you're banned from blogs? Sure, every site and community has a rule about staying on topic, but you're not even trying.

[awake]

Looking at last weeks weather reports can not predict the weather 3 weeks from now. Their models can only make one prediction 100% of the time, that prediction is that it will be wrong.

Their climate models do not and can not take into account the incalculable variables.

They instead take historical data and try to project future outcomes. Historical recordings are subject to factors that combine to create them at that time, not at any other time.

These climate scientists are like establishment economists -they have been wrong for a long time and make excuses for their bad predictions. At this point if we want to see if climate change is a true theory we can wait and see, then make slow adaptation to the prevailing conditions as we always have.

Otherwise you are going to concede a perverse power to the governments of this world; the power to arbitrarily 'manage' any behavior deemed not green.

[Dr.3D]

Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=469DD8F9-802A-23AD-4459-CC5C23C24651)

[demolama]

I'm with George Carlin in this debate... the earth will be fine... it's just the people are fucked. 90% of all species that lived on this earth were not killed by man... soon we'll be one of them. That's the circle of life. The earth has a way to fix itself. Just enjoy life... you'll be long by the time earth gets rid of humans... which may come not from “global warming” but from a huge ass meteor impacting on the planet causing major upheaval. No one can predict the future… stop trying

[Bruno]

Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=469DD8F9-802A-23AD-4459-CC5C23C24651)

Ridiculous to think the sun warms the earth. :rolleyes: :D

[jmdrake]

http://www.youtube.com/greenman3610

he's got lots of videos that will point you to primary sources, and why Lord Monckton, Climategaters, are full of shit.

And what do you think of Mike Hulme?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/13/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider/#ixzz0t5vXsY7I


The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.

“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”

Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia – the university of Climategate fame — is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC’s co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters.

Hulme’s depiction of IPCC’s exaggeration of the number of scientists who backed its claim about man-made climate change can be found on pages 10 and 11 of his paper, found here.

http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf

[Dr.3D]

And what do you think of Mike Hulme?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/13/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider/#ixzz0t5vXsY7I


The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.

“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”

Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia – the university of Climategate fame — is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC’s co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters.

Hulme’s depiction of IPCC’s exaggeration of the number of scientists who backed its claim about man-made climate change can be found on pages 10 and 11 of his paper, found here.

http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf



Well, it's good to see at least one of them has finally come forward to bring out the truth.

[idirtify]

And what do you think of Mike Hulme?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/13/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider/#ixzz0t5vXsY7I


The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.

“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”

Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia – the university of Climategate fame — is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC’s co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters.

Hulme’s depiction of IPCC’s exaggeration of the number of scientists who backed its claim about man-made climate change can be found on pages 10 and 11 of his paper, found here.

http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf


Never underestimate the State’s power of “knowledge production” and “truth creation”.

[WaltM]

Looking at last weeks weather reports can not predict the weather 3 weeks from now. Their models can only make one prediction 100% of the time, that prediction is that it will be wrong.

Their climate models do not and can not take into account the incalculable variables.

They instead take historical data and try to project future outcomes. Historical recordings are subject to factors that combine to create them at that time, not at any other time.

These climate scientists are like establishment economists -they have been wrong for a long time and make excuses for their bad predictions. At this point if we want to see if climate change is a true theory we can wait and see, then make slow adaptation to the prevailing conditions as we always have.

Otherwise you are going to concede a perverse power to the governments of this world; the power to arbitrarily 'manage' any behavior deemed not green.

so basically, weather is the same as climate, nothing will convince you of man made climate change, and nothing will get you to support policy changes, regulations, because your freedom comes before the quality of life of the rest of the planet.

[WaltM]

And what do you think of Mike Hulme?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/13/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider/#ixzz0t5vXsY7I


The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.

“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”

Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia – the university of Climategate fame — is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC’s co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters.

Hulme’s depiction of IPCC’s exaggeration of the number of scientists who backed its claim about man-made climate change can be found on pages 10 and 11 of his paper, found here.

http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf


a) I don't know much about Hulme
b) I don't rely on IPCC for consensus on AGW
c) he says 2500 is disingenuous, but I don't find the details as to how many disagree and how, and why
d) if a man didn't come out with this opinion, people like you will say "see? they're all in on a conspiracy", if one man does, no matter how little he disagree, you'll say "see? there's proof they don't 100% agree". Not all scientists and expert have equal vote, so when somebody says that somebody else disagrees, I want to see who, and what their data is.

this doesn't look like "forward to bring out the truth", and this is all we ever hear from "climate skeptics", opinions of some, or second hand observations. Not data.

[awake]

so basically, weather is the same as climate, nothing will convince you of man made climate change, and nothing will get you to support policy changes, regulations, because your freedom comes before the quality of life of the rest of the planet.

Government policies have not been the reason that we as a species have managed to evolve and prosper.

When heat waves are pointed out as evidence of global warming then daily weather indeed is interlinked in this debate. Where do you think the climate model data sets came from? ... daily historical recordings of weather.

And I do believe the climate changes, I do not believe the government can do any thing but hurt our ability as a species to adapt. If the government taxes every cent I make to stop climate change disaster, whats left for me to protect myself..?

Inflation and the business cycles are the cause of wholesale mal-investments and monumental waste of labor - all of it is caused by government benevolence and 'good intentions'. You want the apparatus responsible for these crisis to manage the environment?

[jmdrake]

a) I don't know much about Hulme
b) I don't rely on IPCC for consensus on AGW
c) he says 2500 is disingenuous, but I don't find the details as to how many disagree and how, and why
d) if a man didn't come out with this opinion, people like you will say "see? they're all in on a conspiracy", if one man does, no matter how little he disagree, you'll say "see? there's proof they don't 100% agree". Not all scientists and expert have equal vote, so when somebody says that somebody else disagrees, I want to see who, and what their data is.

this doesn't look like "forward to bring out the truth", and this is all we ever hear from "climate skeptics", opinions of some, or second hand observations. Not data.

LOL. I just asked you a question. You protesteth too much. :p Climate change must be as much of a "religion" to you as Christianity, or Judaism is to others. I used to be steeped in the Climate change religion myself until I started questioning and followed the facts where they led. I've given you a starting point if you want to go on your own truth seeking journey. If you want to stick with the "Temple of Gore" that's your choice too.

[WaltM]

LOL. I just asked you a question. You protesteth too much.


I answered I don't know of him much.




:p Climate change must be as much of a "religion" to you as Christianity, or Judaism is to others.


No it isn't.

Unless your comparison is that climate change consensus adheres to scientific principles strictly, is "religious" as religions adhere to their principles.

The keyword is principles, not opinions, beliefs and agendas.



I used to be steeped in the Climate change religion myself until I started questioning and followed the facts where they led. I've given you a starting point if you want to go on your own truth seeking journey. If you want to stick with the "Temple of Gore" that's your choice too.

Fuck Gore. He's an opportunist and hypocrite.
I don't care what "you used to be", people flipping sides provides nothing without some context and background information.

So when I responded to why I don't find the "doubt" of consensus very informative, you call me religious and laugh, without any details to follow up.

[WaltM]

Government policies have not been the reason that we as a species have managed to evolve and prosper.

When heat waves are pointed out as evidence of global warming then daily weather indeed is interlinked in this debate. Where do you think the climate model data sets came from? ... daily historical recordings of weather.

And I do believe the climate changes, I do not believe the government can do any thing but hurt our ability as a species to adapt.


aha!



If the government taxes every cent I make to stop climate change disaster, whats left for me to protect myself..?


IF they tax every cent you make.
You assume they can, will and you won't work in an industry that benefits from it.




Inflation and the business cycles are the cause of wholesale mal-investments and monumental waste of labor - all of it is caused by government benevolence and 'good intentions'. You want the apparatus responsible for these crisis to manage the environment?

No, I don't. But the government is not one group of people.

You don't want tyranny any more than you want democracy, because neither is perfect.

[fisharmor]

this doesn't look like "forward to bring out the truth", and this is all we ever hear from "climate skeptics", opinions of some, or second hand observations. Not data.

I wish there was a standard logical fallacy for this but I haven't run into a name yet.

The burden of proof is not on the skeptics.

All the skeptics need to do is poke holes in the evidence offered by the climate scaremongers. That's all. They don't need to offer counter-data. All they need to do is cast doubt on the data and information presented by the Cult of Gore.

If the climate skeptics were ignoring the evidence, that would be different. But they aren't. They're pointing out how the evidence doesn't work. That's all it takes.

The scaremongers made their case. They got a multi-billion dollar budget, the cooperation of Hollywood, a complicit news media, most pop artists, and individual empty cans the world over to rattle about this.

It didn't take. It's over now. Get over it.

[awake]

aha!



IF they tax every cent you make.
You assume they can, will and you won't work in an industry that benefits from it.





No, I don't. But the government is not one group of people.

You don't want tyranny any more than you want democracy, because neither is perfect.

Inflation is the governments main weapon, it is a tax. The end stages of hyperinflation is full taxation, complete confiscation. And they are capable of doing it.

[awake]

"And I do believe the climate changes, I do not believe the government can do any thing but hurt our ability as a species to adapt."

And before you finish your happy dance let me be clear; A fact of life on this planet, changing weather, is not a cause to invoke further steps toward socialism.

Science can say the climate changes - that's it. The further statement that humans cause it is an arbitrary judgment to help pave the way for government intervention.

[WaltM]

I wish there was a standard logical fallacy for this but I haven't run into a name yet.

The burden of proof is not on the skeptics.


It IS, because they have to show "at what point will I admit I'm wrong" when 99.9% (if not more) scientists have produce consistent data.




All the skeptics need to do is poke holes in the evidence offered by the climate scaremongers.


Which proves nothing other than, "we don't believe you, haha"



That's all. They don't need to offer counter-data. All they need to do is cast doubt on the data and information presented by the Cult of Gore.


Gore is not a scientist, he doesn't speak for them, he doesn't represent researchers. SO calling it "cult of Gore" is fallacious, it's no more representative to call skeptics and deniers "tools of Marshall" or "tools of oil, coal".






If the climate skeptics were ignoring the evidence, that would be different. But they aren't. They're pointing out how the evidence doesn't work. That's all it takes.


hahah, no, they ARE IGNORING THE EVIDENCE.

(most are, the ones that are not are forced to admit their doubt is insignificant)

Climategate is a clear example of people not even reading context of what THEY CLAIM TO PROVE SOMETHING.

(please tell me climategate doesn't represent climate skeptics, I'd love to hear who does, Monckton? Crighton? Hulme?)



The scaremongers made their case. They got a multi-billion dollar budget, the cooperation of Hollywood, a complicit news media, most pop artists, and individual empty cans the world over to rattle about this.

It didn't take. It's over now. Get over it.

And George C Marshall didn't fund any of the other side (yeah right).
Complicit news media my ass, how many blew out climategate?
Pop artists & Hollywood are hardly taken seriously for anything.
Well, Jenny McCarthy and Pamela Anderson did good things, right?

The only rant I've not heard yet here, is that AGW is a Jewish conspiracy to make Arab oil less profitable. People who doubt AGW, and it's policies are helping oil and coal industries whether you like or know it (and I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S A BAD THING)

[WaltM]

Inflation is the governments main weapon, it is a tax. The end stages of hyperinflation is full taxation, complete confiscation. And they are capable of doing it.

explain to me who benefits from this?

[awake]

explain to me who benefits from this?

ultimately no one...

[WaltM]

"And I do believe the climate changes, I do not believe the government can do any thing but hurt our ability as a species to adapt."

And before you finish your happy dance let me be clear; A fact of life on this planet, changing weather, is not a cause to invoke further steps toward socialism.


I don't need to happy dance, I already know you're sane person, who isn't opposed to socialism, you're only against the kinds of socialism that doesn't favor you.


Science can say the climate changes - that's it. The further statement that humans cause it is an arbitrary judgment to help pave the way for government intervention.

I agree with that. Which is why I am skeptical of policy and regulation, but not of the scientific data. It's pretty clear here, that many intentionally deny the data with the intent of blocking policy. That's like lying about 9/11 (not) happening just so you think you can convince people to stop the war in Iraq.

[WaltM]

ultimately no one...

so you believe somebody is so stupid to hurt everybody, even themselves.

:eek:

[ClayTrainor]

I don't need to happy dance, I already know you're sane person, who isn't opposed to socialism, you're only against the kinds of socialism that doesn't favor you.

That's a retarded straw man. Try honestly discussing the issues with someone sometime.

[WaltM]

That's a retarded straw man. Try honestly discussing the issues with someone sometime.

if he thinks i misrepresented him, CORRECT ME.

[ClayTrainor]

if he thinks i misrepresented him, CORRECT ME.

He's welcome to, I'm just pointing out how dishonest your style is. I've read through this whole thread, and no where did he claim that he supports any form of...

Socialism:
"a political theory advocating state ownership of industry/capital" - Princeton

[WaltM]

He's welcome to, I'm just pointing out how dishonest your style is. I've read through this whole thread, and no where did he claim that he supports any form of...

Socialism:
"a political theory advocating state ownership of industry/capital" - Princeton

he doesnt need to claim it, how can you be against state ownership of industry and capital? unless you believe there should be no state.

[ClayTrainor]

he doesnt need to claim it,

exactly! you set up a straw man.



how can you be against state ownership of industry and capital?


I'm not gonna bite your straw-man bait.


unless you believe there should be no state.

Clearly, I do. I don't speak for others, like you just tried to do.

[WaltM]

Clearly, I do. I don't speak for others.

you live in fantasy land, not appreciate the benefits you enjoy from the state.

[ClayTrainor]

you live in fantasy land, not appreciate the benefits you enjoy from the state.

And you set up straw-men, and are the most dishonest debater on this board. Have a good day! :)

[WaltM]

And you set up straw-men, and are the most dishonest debater on this board. Have a good day! :)

what's the strawman?

is it that you DO appreciate the benefits of a state, or you don't actually enjoy any?

or you actually live in the real world ?

[ClayTrainor]

This is my last post to you walt, than I'm blocking your ass. You are nothing but a waste of time.


what's the strawman?

You have got to be fucking kidding me!


I already know you're sane person, who isn't opposed to socialism, you're only against the kinds of socialism that doesn't favor you.



is it that you DO appreciate the benefits of a state, or you don't actually enjoy any?


If a guy robbed me at gun point, and then gave me a piece of candy, I still might enjoy the candy. You have no point.



or you actually live in the real world ?

Yea, I do, and in this real world, I am against the state, even if you build a straw-man and say I am for it. Eat shit. Have a nice life. :)

[silverhandorder]

Climatechange is a joke. Most of the countries already gave up on this retarded religion.

A ton of scientists came out against this theory.

[WaltM]

Climatechange is a joke. Most of the countries already gave up on this retarded religion.


what continent are these countries you're talking about?



A ton of scientists came out against this theory.

No, only 39 out of 30,000 alleged scientists are climatologists, do you know somebody or something I've not heard?

[silverhandorder]

what continent are these countries you're talking about?
Most recent Germany reneged on it's commitments.



No, only 39 out of 30,000 alleged scientists are climatologists, do you know somebody or something I've not heard?

It does not take a climatologist to see the folly of global warming. The only paper really holding them up is radioactive forcing. Which was criticized by Lindzen and Monkton.

Even their own estimates of the warming do not justify action. 5 deg if concentration doubles. Do you have any idea how much carbon that is? Probably more then we can let out in a 100 years. This is assuming technology for carbon capture does not improve or alternative fuels do not progress in 100 years.

Lastly increases in CO2 concentration are well within random error and could literally be insignificant.

[WaltM]

Most recent Germany reneged on it's commitments.


Most countries?




It does not take a climatologist to see the folly of global warming. The only paper really holding them up is radioactive forcing. Which was criticized by Lindzen and Monkton.


even though there's a ton, I see.

[silverhandorder]

Most countries?
Ok add China and Russia to there too. Don't remember about India but I am pretty sure they are also sending Al Gore the middle finger.




even though there's a ton, I see.
I haven't seen it.

[Catatonic]

Yeah. This is the second news report of this nature. The previous one actually had the nerve to claim that when Phil Jones instructed to “hide the decline”, that he really meant to “discard erroneous data”. They must think we are idiots. Or they really don’t care if we believe it or not.

I believe you are referring to Michael Mann, not Phil Jones. Not that it really matters.

But what I am wondering is, if there was so much information in those emails, you would think by now someone would be able to point out what data has been compromised. I mean, with 13 years with of emails and data files you would think something better than a few phrases would turn up if there was something truly nefarious going on.

If Mann did fake his data, he was using tree rings to study the infamous Medieval Warm Period, which is often used by those attempting to discredit AGW. Mann has actually published papers on this phenomena, so if he did fake everything, it would be a blow to the 'skeptics', since one of their most popular claims would be compromised.

[silverhandorder]

From what I heard they destroyed the original data so we have to take them at their word about it not being compromised. Keep in mind the same people talked about hiding MWP.

[WaltM]

Ok add China and Russia to there too. Don't remember about India but I am pretty sure they are also sending Al Gore the middle finger.


the fact you keep bringing up Gore just goes to show how little you know (and why you think it's a cult for Gore)




I haven't seen it.

no, YOU'RE THE ONE who said there's a ton. I'm the one who said I've not seen it.

[WaltM]

From what I heard they destroyed the original data so we have to take them at their word about it not being compromised. Keep in mind the same people talked about hiding MWP.

*facepalm*

get your facts straight.

who said they destroyed data?

same person hiding MWP? You mean Michael Mann?

[silverhandorder]

no, YOU'RE THE ONE who said there's a ton. I'm the one who said I've not seen it.

I am not going to do your research for you. Go look it up your self. Want to pay me to compile a list of scientists that are criticizing GW? I pointed out the most important criticism that is the forcing paper.


*facepalm*

get your facts straight.

who said they destroyed data?

same person hiding MWP? You mean Michael Mann?

I don't know but when data was requested the scientists in east anglia university claimed that it was erased.

[WaltM]

I am not going to do your research for you. Go look it up your self. Want to pay me to compile a list of scientists that are criticizing GW? I pointed out the most important criticism that is the forcing paper.


Thanks for proving my point, you don't know what you're talking about.

I DO know the data, and some sources, you just take 2nd hand info and pick what you want to read from it. You made the claim that "tons of scientists", so you show it.

Next time I accuse you of murder, I'll tell you to "do your own research and look up the evidence" that you did it. It's not up to me, the accuser to prove you're guilty!



I don't know but when data was requested the scientists in east anglia university claimed that it was erased.

Wow, you don't surprise me, confusing Phil Jones with Michael Mann. Same people, yeah!

[silverhandorder]

Thanks for proving my point, you don't know what you're talking about.

I DO know the data, and some sources, you just take 2nd hand info and pick what you want to read from it. You made the claim that "tons of scientists", so you show it.

Next time I accuse you of murder, I'll tell you to "do your own research and look up the evidence" that you did it. It's not up to me, the accuser to prove you're guilty!
Fair enough we will just have to disagree on the "ton" of scientists point. I am not wasting my time and you well you can remain in your bubble instead of looking at something outside of your narrow sphere of information.



Wow, you don't surprise me, confusing Phil Jones with Michael Mann. Same people, yeah!

I was talking about climategate not individual scientist that is the subject of this thread. Maybe you should read more carefully.

[WaltM]

Fair enough we will just have to disagree on the "ton" of scientists point. I am not wasting my time and you well you can remain in your bubble instead of looking at something outside of your narrow sphere of information.


I've looked, they're not good data. Do you ever ask yourself what would ever convince you you're wrong too?




I was talking about climategate not individual scientist that is the subject of this thread. Maybe you should read more carefully.

all the better, climategate is the BEST example of how people like you read what you want to read and disregard context, facts, honesty.

[silverhandorder]

I've looked, they're not good data. Do you ever ask yourself what would ever convince you you're wrong too?
Yes show me that data that shows how CO2 can bring on hockey stick graph. For that also disprove Monkton's calculations that show no warming for the past 10 years.

all the better, climategate is the BEST example of how people like you read what you want to read and disregard context, facts, honesty.

I have read that the data was destroyed. The same data that was used in the proof of hockey stick graph.

[jmdrake]

I answered I don't know of him much.

Then you went on with your "A, B, C and D" and your backhanded attack on people who disagree with you. Specifically:

if a man didn't come out with this opinion, people like you will say "see? they're all in on a conspiracy", if one man does, no matter how little he disagree, you'll say "see? there's proof they don't 100% agree". Not all scientists and expert have equal vote, so when somebody says that somebody else disagrees, I want to see who, and what their data is.

So spare me your song and dance about me calling you religious on the issue. You started the attack and did so in a pseudo religious manner. I simply gave you an example (there are many others) of someone who isn't some "conspiracy theorist" who is talking against the idea that there is a consensus on AGW. Rather than using that as a jumping off point to attack the other side for doing something that I hadn't done you could just say "Thank you for the information, I'll look into it."

[WaltM]

Yes show me that data that shows how CO2 can bring on hockey stick graph. For that also disprove Monkton's calculations that show no warming for the past 10 years.


I can show you what's convinced me.

no promise you'll buy it.
YouTube - The Big Swindle Movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boj9ccV9htk)

Monckton's "past 10 years" is likely based on the misinterpretation of Phil Jones' "since 1995, there's not a 95% confidence of warming".





I have read that the data was destroyed. The same data that was used in the proof of hockey stick graph.

Hockey stick graph wasn't based on one set of data.
It's not even based on DIRECT TEMPERATURE.

Feel free to keep replying, but I suggest you stop and read what you're talking about, you're only showing your utter ignorance to the subject (even to where you can't get the "skeptic" arguments straight).

[WaltM]

of someone who isn't some "conspiracy theorist" who is talking against the idea that there is a consensus on AGW. Rather than using that as a jumping off point to attack the other side for doing something that I hadn't done you could just say "Thank you for the information, I'll look into it."

Not only do I thank you for the information, I ask you to help me read what you want me to read.

The person himself may not be a conspiracy theorist, but he's used by conspiracy theorists to read what they want.

[silverhandorder]

Monkton made his own calculations.

Hockey stick graph suggests that there is some how a positive feedback mechanism for increase in temperatures. Radioactive forcing paper is the only one that actually defends that.

If you can't prove that to be true then which one of us is ignorant?

[WaltM]

Monkton made his own calculations.


He did?

I'd like to see what data he was looking at.

Does he know how to do 95% confidence level significance?




Hockey stick graph suggests that there is some how a positive feedback mechanism for increase in temperatures. Radioactive forcing paper is the only one that actually defends that.

If you can't prove that to be true then which one of us is ignorant?

No, it's not the only paper.

Again, you're reading what you want to read.
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg18925431.400/mg18925431.400-2_752.jpg

What's most telling about hockey stick graph is how much in the recent century, all pointers agree with each other. (even after sunspot decrease, and El Nino, La Nina has been accounted for)

[silverhandorder]

He is a scientist so I am pretty sure he knows about confidence statistics.

Maybe you should just google him and read his statement on no observed warming.

All those people you showed in the picture are using radio forcing paper as their resource. Meaning that they draw assumption that the paper is in fact correct. As you can see I don't need to disprove them at all and just address the crux of the problem.

[BenIsForRon]

Hockey stick graph wasn't based on one set of data.
It's not even based on DIRECT TEMPERATURE.


Dude, it doesn't matter if it was based on 2,000 sets of independently gathered data, 90% of the people on this forum will still say it's all a globally orchestrated conspiracy, where the elites somehow payed off thousands of scientists across the globe.

You're going to have trouble getting them to see this objectively.

Oh yeah, and if you haven't realized yet, you are in favor of an authoritarian world government. Just because you believe in man-caused climate change. Yes, I know it makes absolutely no fucking sense, as the two issues seem to be mutually exclusive. But trust me, you've already been labeled as such by the forum, and there is no going back.

[silverhandorder]

Dude, it doesn't matter if it was based on 2,000 sets of independently gathered data, 90% of the people on this forum will still say it's all a globally orchestrated conspiracy, where the elites somehow payed off thousands of scientists across the globe.

You're going to have trouble getting them to see this objectively.

Oh yeah, and if you haven't realized yet, you are in favor of an authoritarian world government. Just because you believe in man-caused climate change. Yes, I know it makes absolutely no fucking sense, as the two issues seem to be mutually exclusive. But trust me, you've already been labeled as such by the forum, and there is no going back.

Resident liberal troll opens up with lies or obvious distortions. How unexpected. :p

[WaltM]

Dude, it doesn't matter if it was based on 2,000 sets of independently gathered data, 90% of the people on this forum will still say it's all a globally orchestrated conspiracy, where the elites somehow payed off thousands of scientists across the globe.

You're going to have trouble getting them to see this objectively.


Yes, I know I'll have trouble getting them to see things honestly. Forget objective for now.




Oh yeah, and if you haven't realized yet, you are in favor of an authoritarian world government. Just because you believe in man-caused climate change. Yes, I know it makes absolutely no fucking sense, as the two issues seem to be mutually exclusive. But trust me, you've already been labeled as such by the forum, and there is no going back.

not everything has to make sense, right?

[WaltM]

He is a scientist so I am pretty sure he knows about confidence statistics.


That's not what wikipedia says!

WOW.

please see below




Maybe you should just google him and read his statement on no observed warming.


I can do a little better than that.

this first video actually address is "10 years cooling" lie, debunked by blind testing statistics.
YouTube - Debunking Lord Monckton Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfA1LpiYk2o)

YouTube - Debunking Monckton Part 2 (updated) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjhTrCgVb5U)

I guess climate change deniers can't dig up this kind of dirt on real climate scientists, or are they just being nice?




All those people you showed in the picture are using radio forcing paper as their resource. Meaning that they draw assumption that the paper is in fact correct. As you can see I don't need to disprove them at all and just address the crux of the problem.

Uhh, no, you can't disprove them all, and you've NOT address the crux of the problem. I've in contrast addressed pretty much every non-question you've posed.

You don't even know the crux of climategate.

[silverhandorder]

Monkton Responded to "debunking" of him. So maybe you should watch that too? Besides he is a scientist in every sense of the word. He uses the scientific method to acquire knowledge.

Ok so tell me what is radio forcing data. Now show me one paper that does not quote it amongst the ones you have shown.

And please do tell what is the crux of global warming and climate gate.

[jmdrake]

Not only do I thank you for the information, I ask you to help me read what you want me to read.

The person himself may not be a conspiracy theorist, but he's used by conspiracy theorists to read what they want.

Fair enough. That's all the information I have on him at the moment. I heard about him on talk radio and did a Google search. I know he's been interviewed for at least one movie on AGW that's coming out. When I know more I'll post it here.

[WaltM]

Fair enough. That's all the information I have on him at the moment. I heard about him on talk radio and did a Google search. I know he's been interviewed for at least one movie on AGW that's coming out. When I know more I'll post it here.

thanks.

[WaltM]

And please do tell what is the crux of global warming and climate gate.

I'll answer this one first, even though I have already.

Climategate alleges less than 6 e-mails incriminate scientists, the soundbites are as follows

"trick"
"it is a travesty"
"Hide the decline"

all of which are taken out of context, to the point people who quote climategate as "evidence" don't even know what "decline" was referring to.

YouTube - 6. Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg)

[silverhandorder]

That is what climate change defenders decided to respond to. This is by no way what all the accusations are about.

[WaltM]

That is what climate change defenders decided to respond to. This is by no way what all the accusations are about.

what else are the accusations about?

DO TELL!!

[silverhandorder]

what else are the accusations about?

DO TELL!!

I already did. The data was destroyed.

[jmdrake]

what else are the accusations about?

DO TELL!!

It wasn't just the emails that were leaked. It's also the source code.

YouTube - Climategate - CRU Source Code Confirms AGW Fraud From Hacked Documents (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYxk7pnmMFw)

I read through some of it. That was a while back though.

Here's some analysis of the code.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/

[WaltM]

It wasn't just the emails that were leaked. It's also the source code.

YouTube - Climategate - CRU Source Code Confirms AGW Fraud From Hacked Documents (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYxk7pnmMFw)

I read through some of it. That was a while back though.

Here's some analysis of the code.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/

Spin that, spin it to the moon if you want. I’ll believe programmer notes over the word of somebody who stands to gain from suggesting there’s nothing “untowards” about it.

Either the data tells the story of nature or it does not. Data that has been “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” is false data, yielding a false result.

I guess he's saying, cherry picking and anything other than reading raw data discredits an argument?? I wonder if he applies this to "global cooling" advocates or "coorelation doesn't prove causation" advocates.

[jmdrake]

Spin that, spin it to the moon if you want. I’ll believe programmer notes over the word of somebody who stands to gain from suggesting there’s nothing “untowards” about it.

Either the data tells the story of nature or it does not. Data that has been “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” is false data, yielding a false result.

I guess he's saying, cherry picking and anything other than reading raw data discredits an argument?? I wonder if he applies this to "global cooling" advocates or "coorelation doesn't prove causation" advocates.

The "global cooling advocates" from the 1970s are today's "global warming advocates".

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_RwdH5DTKRas/SZJbAkE0e6I/AAAAAAAABas/q4mDRF8ooK4/s400/global+cooling+global+warming+time.jpg

http://leatherhead.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/global-cooling-time.gif

And each time (no pun intended) fossil fuels were supposedly to blame.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-2,00.html
Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

[WaltM]

The "global cooling advocates" from the 1970s are today's "global warming advocates".


And during the past 40 years, new data and methods have been used, science CORRECTS AND ADVANCES.

If they didn't, you'll say "they're just dense and dogmatic of their beliefs"

What are today's "cooling advocates" are they wrong today?




http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_RwdH5DTKRas/SZJbAkE0e6I/AAAAAAAABas/q4mDRF8ooK4/s400/global+cooling+global+warming+time.jpg

http://leatherhead.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/global-cooling-time.gif

And each time (no pun intended) fossil fuels were supposedly to blame.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-2,00.html
Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.


Yes, each time they scapegoat the same boogeyman, if they changed, you'll say "they're just flipping sides whenever the data says something else, they'll never admit it's the sun".

if your argument is 1970s people were wrong about cooling, today, they're probably wrong about warming (and why its warming). Then by this standard "end time predictors" are wrong, "hyperinflation scaremongers" are wrong, "world government warners" are wrong, everything that was predicted and perceived in 1970, and still hasn't fully happened today, IS PROBABLY WRONG, EITHER A BROKEN RECORD OR A REPACKAGED LIE.

[jmdrake]

And during the past 40 years, new data and methods have been used, science CORRECTS AND ADVANCES.

If they didn't, you'll say "they're just dense and dogmatic of their beliefs"

What are today's "cooling advocates" are they wrong today?




Yes, each time they scapegoat the same boogeyman, if they changed, you'll say "they're just flipping sides whenever the data says something else, they'll never admit it's the sun".

if your argument is 1970s people were wrong about cooling, today, they're probably wrong about warming (and why its warming). Then by this standard "end time predictors" are wrong, "hyperinflation scaremongers" are wrong, "world government warners" are wrong, everything that was predicted and perceived in 1970, and still hasn't fully happened today, IS PROBABLY WRONG, EITHER A BROKEN RECORD OR A REPACKAGED LIE.

Oh come now WaltM. You're an atheist. So do you give credence to "end time predictors" or do you say "They're wrong before so they're probably wrong now"? :rolleyes:

[WaltM]

CONTEXT. (if you're so lazy to watch 10 minutes, skip to 2:30)

YouTube - Flogging the Scientists (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp-iB6jwjUc)

as for climategate, it's NOT news that it DOESN'T incriminate anybody (or, it's pretty clear now that no e-mails incriminate anybody), but it's not kosher to discuss it here.

I even went ahead and read a "rebuttal" for you

http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/07/rebuttal-to-flogging-scientists.html

It's mostly rant though, the only papers they cite are from "Energy & Environment" *yawn*

They retwist the "no warming since 1995" line AGAIN! (by leaving out the important context that it's ONLY saying it's not at 95% confidence).

No, Sinclair did NOT imply it was Lindzen who was denying a trend of warming (and the quote saying he acknowledges it starts 1988, wow, surprise!), he said that he asked the question KNOWING WHAT THE ANSWER WAS (like a lawyer), and then the transcript was free to be stripped of context later on.

Fair enough that Sinclair is wrong about South Dakota's legislation (he, like defenders of evolution, naturally word things wrong about misunderstandings in legislation when it comes to things such as "academic freedom").

[jmdrake]

I even went ahead and read a "rebuttal" for you

http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/07/rebuttal-to-flogging-scientists.html

It's mostly rant though, the only papers they cite are from "Energy & Environment" *yawn*

They retwist the "no warming since 1995" line AGAIN! (by leaving out the important context that it's ONLY saying it's not at 95% confidence).

No, Sinclair did NOT imply it was Lindzen who was denying a trend of warming (and the quote saying he acknowledges it starts 1988, wow, surprise!), he said that he asked the question KNOWING WHAT THE ANSWER WAS (like a lawyer), and then the transcript was free to be stripped of context later on.

Fair enough that Sinclair is wrong about South Dakota's legislation (he, like defenders of evolution, naturally word things wrong about misunderstandings in legislation when it comes to things such as "academic freedom").

Now you're responding to yourself? :eek:

[WaltM]

Now you're responding to yourself? :eek:

no, just telling people I read a response, so they don't say "hey, don't you read rebuttals to your own arguments"

[Poptech]

Rebuttal to "Flogging the Scientists" (http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/07/rebuttal-to-flogging-scientists.html)


I even went ahead and read a "rebuttal" for you

http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/07/rebuttal-to-flogging-scientists.html

It's mostly rant though, the only papers they cite are from "Energy & Environment" *yawn*
No only one paper from the academically peer-reviewed journal Energy & Environment is cited and in that same part, a Nature article is cited completely discrediting Sinclair's fear mongering of 6ft of sea-level rise as not even the IPCC is touting that nonsense. The IPCC predicts no more than 23 inches (max) over the next century. Sinclair gets called out on all counts.


They retwist the "no warming since 1995" line AGAIN! (by leaving out the important context that it's ONLY saying it's not at 95% confidence).
That is not important, that is an excuse. The context is the same. Jones admitted because he had no choice that there has been no statistically significant warming in the last 15 years. The not at 95% confidence level was for his positive trend of 0.12C per decade. He cannot say this trend is statistically significant or rather that the margin of error cannot account for it, thus no statistically significant warming for 15 years! Everything after his answer of "Yes" is an excuse and does not change the skeptic's position.


No, Sinclair did NOT imply it was Lindzen who was denying a trend of warming (and the quote saying he acknowledges it starts 1988, wow, surprise!), he said that he asked the question KNOWING WHAT THE ANSWER WAS (like a lawyer), and then the transcript was free to be stripped of context later on.
No Sinclair did not make it clear whether Lindzen believed there has been a mild warming trend over the last 100 years. Sinclair was actually doing the same thing to Lindzen what he accused Lindzen of doing. The quote does not say he acknowledges that it starts in 1988 rather that is the date when climate scientists agreed that there was a mild warming trend that started at the end of 19th century.

[thehunter]

It's interesting to observe the trend over the past couple of decades from journalists being some of the most highly respected professionals to some of the most distrusted folks in any industry -- given some of the recent issues with Climategate, among others, I wonder if we're heading into a future where researchers/academics will soon be met with a similar degree of skepticism?

[Poptech]

a) I don't know much about Hulme

c) he says 2500 is disingenuous, but I don't find the details as to how many disagree and how, and why
That is all detailed here,

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968) (Canada Free Press)

[Poptech]

If Mann did fake his data, he was using tree rings to study the infamous Medieval Warm Period, which is often used by those attempting to discredit AGW. Mann has actually published papers on this phenomena, so if he did fake everything, it would be a blow to the 'skeptics', since one of their most popular claims would be compromised.
Mann's Hockey Stick has been thoroughly discredited, the emails (in relation to the hockey stick) just confirmed the collusion by scientists to keep this discredited work alive,

What is the 'Hockey Stick' Debate About? (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/APEC-hockey.pdf) (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics, April 4, 2005)
Caspar and the Jesus paper (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/caspar_and_jesus.pdf) (PDF) (Andrew W. Montford, B.Sc. Chemistry, August 11, 2008)

Mann's work has been discredited in multiple peer-reviewed papers,

Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/r27321306377t46n/) (PDF (http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre-mckitrick.pdf))
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/w152x48065n16q43/) (PDF (http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-ee-2005.pdf))
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL021750.shtml) (PDF (http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-grl-2005.pdf))
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 3, February 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shape...

Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The "Hockey-Stick" Affair and Its Implications (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/b277x817wj021671/) (PDF (http://www.klimarealistene.com/Holland(2007).pdf))
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 951-983, December 2007)
- David Holland

The claim is not only compromised but completely discredited.

[Poptech]

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg18925431.400/mg18925431.400-2_752.jpg

What's most telling about hockey stick graph is how much in the recent century, all pointers agree with each other. (even after sunspot decrease, and El Nino, La Nina has been accounted for)
What is telling is you understand nothing about the graphs you are looking at. The top hockey stick has been completely discredited. On the bottom you have a thermometer record grafted onto proxy reconstructions and all those showing a warmer 20th century than the MWP include the same proxies that have been documented to be unreliable, bristlecones and the yamal series tree-ring proxies. Others do no extend back to the MWP.

YouTube - What is Normal? Climate Video Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LUHNYznNXI)

A recent paper using non-tree ring proxies came up with a very different result,

A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/dxk28g4662481342/) (PDF (http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Loehle-2000-year-non-treering-temp-reconstruction-Energy-and-Environment.pdf))
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
- Craig Loehle

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/loehle_fig2.JPG

[jmdrake]

You're just trying to confuse global warming zealots with the facts. Shame on you. ;)


Mann's Hockey Stick has been thoroughly discredited, the emails (in relation to the hockey stick) just confirmed the collusion by scientists to keep this discredited work alive,

What is the 'Hockey Stick' Debate About? (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/APEC-hockey.pdf) (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics, April 4, 2005)
Caspar and the Jesus paper (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/caspar_and_jesus.pdf) (PDF) (Andrew W. Montford, B.Sc. Chemistry, August 11, 2008)

Mann's work has been discredited in multiple peer-reviewed papers,

Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/r27321306377t46n/) (PDF (http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre-mckitrick.pdf))
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/w152x48065n16q43/) (PDF (http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-ee-2005.pdf))
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL021750.shtml) (PDF (http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-grl-2005.pdf))
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 3, February 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick


Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The "Hockey-Stick" Affair and Its Implications (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/b277x817wj021671/) (PDF (http://www.klimarealistene.com/Holland(2007).pdf))
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 951-983, December 2007)
- David Holland

The claim is not only compromised but completely discredited.

[ninepointfive]

I see walt was banned. Boy did he take this issue personally. It's not a debate when one has invested in these ideas and issues like a religion.

The CRU needs to start collecting a new dataset. Anyone who claims the hockey stick data is accurate is an idiot. Without the source data, there is no proof. How hard is that to understand? Especially combined with the occlusion of dissenting viewpoints and papers expressed by the e-mails for the "peer review" process.

[WaltM]

You're just trying to confuse global warming zealots with the facts. Shame on you. ;)



No, he's not confusing me with facts.

I'm not a zealot, but seems like you automatically take what matches your "skepticism" as facts. And the fact I see the diference between skepticism and "denial" makes me a zealot? So be it.

Is it a coincidence he almost ONLY cites papers from Energy & Environment?

Oh, duh! He's the owner of the site PopularTechnology, a site that debunks 9/11 conspiracy theories and believes marijuana is harmful. (Or maybe he's just writing and linking to make money, quite typical of anti-AGW sites).

The one that actually ISN'T from E&E is here
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Hockey%20Stick2004GL012750%5B1%5D.pdf
(they're only disputing 15th century based on MBH98, as far as I can tell.)
I even saved a screencap of goodies for you
http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/7450/mbh98fingers.png (http://img202.imageshack.us/i/mbh98fingers.png/)

[WaltM]

It's interesting to observe the trend over the past couple of decades from journalists being some of the most highly respected professionals to some of the most distrusted folks in any industry -- given some of the recent issues with Climategate, among others, I wonder if we're heading into a future where researchers/academics will soon be met with a similar degree of skepticism?

you're missing the point, Climategate ISN'T an issue, it's a completely made up media hype.

[WaltM]

That is not important, that is an excuse. The context is the same. Jones admitted because he had no choice that there has been no statistically significant warming in the last 15 years. The not at 95% confidence level was for his positive trend of 0.12C per decade. He cannot say this trend is statistically significant or rather that the margin of error cannot account for it, thus no statistically significant warming for 15 years! Everything after his answer of "Yes" is an excuse and does not change the skeptic's position.



the fact you say "without 95% confidence, skepticism is justified" tells all. You win there.
Let's apply that standard to what your site says about marijuana, then let's do it with tobacco, drunk driving, repeat sex offenders. (the fact you don't like my extension of your logic makes you a hypocrite).

You ADMITTED that they've taken out the "significant at 95% confidence, and only just 15 years" (you just don't believe it's relevant, and why should you, it doesn't look sexy on the headline). But why quote Phil Jones anyway? He's a liar for the carbon tax lobby anyway, right? NO, deniers quote who they want, as long as it suits them. You want to talk about excuses, misinformation, YOU'VE ALREADY WON (on how much misinformation and excuses you can produce).

if you applied the standard you hold to climate change campaigners, that "political motive" "monetary motive" "opportunism" "hypocrisy" to deniers, your arguments are all dead LONG AGO.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/resources.php?peer=1

Now, how come your so called "750 peer reviewed papers" contain roughly 100 from the same credible journal by the name of "Energy & Environment"? (and a lot of others are POLICY articles!)

Out of these "750 peer reviewed papers", how many of these authors signed their names in the 30,000 of petition project (I did you a favor, there's only 39 climatologists, 121 atmospheric scientists). If the authors of these papers were not in petition project, could they be misinterpreted for denier's favor? If there's less than even 39 (or 151) different authors for these papers, what does that tell us?

Who here would accept by the same standard, that if one wrote "750 peer reviewed papers" doubting the Holocaust rememberance campaign stories
pertaining to the persecution of Jews during World War II, and 100 articles came from either "Journal of Historical Review", many others from "Barnes Review" or "Inconvenient History"?

At what point does the "debate" end? At what point does it justify ridiculing and persecuting unwarranted and dissenting opinions?

"Hockey stick is discredited" came from McKitrick & McIntyre (your mom had to tell you not to trust Irishmen, nevermind the fact one is an economist, the other works in mining for 30 years, admitted by GCMI)
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/fakeddata.html





No Sinclair did not make it clear whether Lindzen believed there has been a mild warming trend over the last 100 years. Sinclair was actually doing the same thing to Lindzen what he accused Lindzen of doing. The quote does not say he acknowledges that it starts in 1988 rather that is the date when climate scientists agreed that there was a mild warming trend that started at the end of 19th century.

Correct, he didn't make it clear, so you read what you wanted to read and called him a liar.

[WaltM]

What is telling is you understand nothing about the graphs you are looking at. The top hockey stick has been completely discredited. On the bottom you have a thermometer record grafted onto proxy reconstructions and all those showing a warmer 20th century than the MWP include the same proxies that have been documented to be unreliable, bristlecones and the yamal series tree-ring proxies. Others do no extend back to the MWP.

YouTube - What is Normal? Climate Video Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LUHNYznNXI)

A recent paper using non-tree ring proxies came up with a very different result,

A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/dxk28g4662481342/) (PDF (http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Loehle-2000-year-non-treering-temp-reconstruction-Energy-and-Environment.pdf))
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
- Craig Loehle

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/loehle_fig2.JPG


Are you kidding me dude?

Did you even read the paper?
Nice graph, you see what it says?
The "very different picture" shows 1000 vs 1800 having a 1.2 degree difference.
Given that this graph is based on non-tree data, let's look at the original hockeystick.



Start with Crowley 2000 (or Moberg 2005)
"Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data "
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html

Source data :
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/moberg2005/nhtemp-moberg2005.txt
All data are given as temperature anomalies (K) from the Northern Hemisphere annual mean
temperature 1961-90 average. Lack of data are indicated with -9.9999 "Lack of data irrelevant in this context"




1000 -0.0256 -0.0573 -0.1160 0.0013 -0.1289 0.0454 -0.1755 0.0920
1001 -0.1134 -0.0550 -0.1136 0.0036 -0.1270 0.0483 -0.1736 0.0949
1002 -0.1098 -0.0527 -0.1113 0.0058 -0.1252 0.0511 -0.1718 0.0977
1003 -0.0748 -0.0506 -0.1092 0.0079 -0.1234 0.0537 -0.1700 0.1003
1004 -0.1425 -0.0486 -0.1072 0.0100 -0.1218 0.0562 -0.1684 0.1028
1005 -0.2549 -0.0468 -0.1053 0.0118 -0.1203 0.0584 -0.1669 0.1050
1006 -0.1182 -0.0451 -0.1036 0.0135 -0.1189 0.0605 -0.1655 0.1071
1007 0.1038 -0.0434 -0.1019 0.0151 -0.1176 0.0625 -0.1642 0.1091
1008 0.0923 -0.0420 -0.1005 0.0165 -0.1164 0.0643 -0.1630 0.1109
1009 -0.0151 -0.0406 -0.0992 0.0179 -0.1153 0.0660 -0.1619 0.1126
1010 -0.0344 -0.0395 -0.0980 0.0189 -0.1144 0.0673 -0.1610 0.1139


vs


1796 -0.4648 -0.4770 -0.5717 -0.3824 -0.6647 -0.3439 -0.7113 -0.2973
1797 -0.3553 -0.4770 -0.5719 -0.3821 -0.6651 -0.3437 -0.7117 -0.2971
1798 -0.3773 -0.4770 -0.5722 -0.3818 -0.6654 -0.3435 -0.7120 -0.2969
1799 -0.3586 -0.4770 -0.5725 -0.3816 -0.6658 -0.3432 -0.7124 -0.2966
1800 -0.3798 -0.4771 -0.5729 -0.3813 -0.6662 -0.3431 -0.7128 -0.2965
1801 -0.4200 -0.4772 -0.5732 -0.3811 -0.6666 -0.3429 -0.7132 -0.2963
1802 -0.3142 -0.4772 -0.5736 -0.3809 -0.6671 -0.3427 -0.7137 -0.2961
1803 -0.2650 -0.4773 -0.5739 -0.3806 -0.6675 -0.3425 -0.7141 -0.2959
1804 -0.3491 -0.4773 -0.5743 -0.3804 -0.6680 -0.3423 -0.7146 -0.2957
1805 -0.3982 -0.4774 -0.5746 -0.3801 -0.6684 -0.3421 -0.7150 -0.2955
1806 -0.4216 -0.4775 -0.5751 -0.3800 -0.6689 -0.3420 -0.7155 -0.2954
1807 -0.4237 -0.4776 -0.5754 -0.3797 -0.6694 -0.3418 -0.7160 -0.2952
1808 -0.3803 -0.4777 -0.5758 -0.3795 -0.6699 -0.3416 -0.7165 -0.2950
1809 -0.3303 -0.4778 -0.5763 -0.3793 -0.6704 -0.3415 -0.7170 -0.2949
1810 -0.3591 -0.4779 -0.5767 -0.3792 -0.6709 -0.3413 -0.7175 -0.2947
1811 -0.5440 -0.4780 -0.5771 -0.3790 -0.6715 -0.3412 -0.7181 -0.2946
1812 -0.8413 -0.4782 -0.5775 -0.3788 -0.6720 -0.3410 -0.7186 -0.2944
1813 -0.9830 -0.4783 -0.5780 -0.3786 -0.6725 -0.3409 -0.7191 -0.2943


What does the differnce look like to you? Something near 1.0?



another example of hockey stick source.

Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records
Science Vol. 308, No. 5722, pp. 675-677, 29 April 2005.
J. Oerlemans

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/oerlemans2005/oerlemans2005.html
only starts at 1600, so not a good comparison.

But reading on, this 2nd graph shown in the paper

Corrected reconstruction with 95% confidence intervals (from Loehle and McCulloch, 2008)
(keep in mind, this is assuming we take the paper at face value, without question of the integrity of the data)

It shows 1000 vs 1800
1.0 degrees difference

1000 vs 1600
1.4 degrees difference

850 vs 1600
1.7 degrees difference (the max this graph can show)

If we were to impose these "different graphs" on Mann's hockey stick, would it fit?

YES. Why don't you see it though? IT'S IN THE GRAY ERROR BARS.

This is what I was highlighting, that the closer we get to the past 50 years, the more proxy data agree with each other.
Showing that MWP existed (however hot, however catastrophic), wouldn't take away what's happened since 1900, or since 1950, or since 1970.

When people look at the hockey stick, they're looking at the recent TURN, not the flat shaft!


The video you posted is correct, that the world doesn't have enough of the 1000 proxies we'd like to have.
And that there's no longer data from Briffa since 1950. Luckily, we have much better sources and data since 1950.

The Loehle paper you cite says "18 sets of data", without reading the actual paper, I have no way of knowing WHAT they used as proxies (other than "just not treerings"). I don't mean to say this again, but REGARDLESS, showing how hot and catastrophic MWP was, won't change what's happened, and happening in next 30 years. At best, you're left with the argument "it's not us" or "it's too late anyway".

The actual paper's abstract says "MWP being approximately 0.3°C warmer than 20th century".
It's becoming more obvious now, that climate change deniers are obsessed with MWP, because they can't argue with data collected instrumentally since 1950. They then don't have to argue about recent temperate rises, or the causes of it from nature, they can just say "Vikings had it worse!" or "it's too late if it's true". They simply can't argue if GW is true, they can only say "it's not fixable".

Just so I don't put words in your mouth , WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE? (you seem to know all the articles).
a) it's not warming
b) it's warming, but it's not us
c) it's warming, but not as bad as the MWP
d) it's too late to act

These positions are mutually contradictory, all they have in common is "don't add regulations". They can't all be based on science, so if you're so good at reading science, LET'S TEST A CONCLUSION YOU MAKE. (dare? do any of your E&E papers withstand the blind testing which debunked Monckton's "10 year cooling" lie? Even Spencer, Michaels, Singer, Christy are admitting it's warming.)

I want to thank you guys here very much, after this discussion
a) I know more what of I'm talking about, whether its data, people, or counterarguments
b) I know your beliefs, by your own admissions
c) You've proven ad hominem comes from you too
(not that I care, but it's one less argument from your side)

[WaltM]

I see walt was banned. Boy did he take this issue personally. It's not a debate when one has invested in these ideas and issues like a religion.

The CRU needs to start collecting a new dataset. Anyone who claims the hockey stick data is accurate is an idiot. Without the source data, there is no proof. How hard is that to understand? Especially combined with the occlusion of dissenting viewpoints and papers expressed by the e-mails for the "peer review" process.


call me an idiot? So we're even on the "censorship, ridicule, intimidation" accusation now?
I didn't invest anything, deniers don't scare me.

How hard is it to understand? Pretty hard when I'm not shown the claim "without source data" is proven.

There's no combined conclusion of dissenting viewpoints based on the same data, any data saying otherwise (as Poptech attempted to show), at best shows a very warm MWP, and the e-mails? Talking about climategate again?

[00_Pete]

History clearly shows that scientists are some of the biggest pack of whores on the Planet. They also have this technocratic and totalitarian/social engineering tendencies, they have the tendency of beleiving Humans can be manipulated like lab rats.

Many people get blind by the word "scientist" just like they get blind by the words "actor/singer/poet/writer/intellectual/etc". They are better than no one, in fact this class of people tend to be easily manipulated and corrupted.

[Poptech]

I'm not a zealot, but seems like you automatically take what matches your "skepticism" as facts. And the fact I see the diference between skepticism and "denial" makes me a zealot? So be it.
Yes you are and you don't even know what you are talking about.


Is it a coincidence he almost ONLY cites papers from Energy & Environment?
It is no coincidence I cite a peer-reviewed academic journal's papers that completely debunk the fraudulent Hockey Stick. The second E&E paper tears it to shreds,

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/w152x48065n16q43/) (PDF (http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-ee-2005.pdf))
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick


The one that actually ISN'T from E&E is here
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Hockey%20Stick2004GL012750%5B1%5D.pdf
(they're only disputing 15th century based on MBH98, as far as I can tell.)
I even saved a screencap of goodies for you
http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/7450/mbh98fingers.png (http://img202.imageshack.us/i/mbh98fingers.png/)
You have no remote clue what you are looking at. That graph is demonstrating how Mann's fraudulent "statistical method" always produces a Hockey Stick shape even when fed red noise as opposed to a proper statistical method in the graph above it that you cut off.

[Poptech]

you're missing the point, Climategate ISN'T an issue, it's a completely made up media hype.
No it is a very serious issue,

'Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=7db3fbd8-f1b4-4fdf-bd15-12b7df1a0b63) (PDF) (83 pgs) (United States Senate)

The CRU emails show scientists,
- Obstructing release of damaging data and information;
- Manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions;
- Colluding to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science “consensus”; and
- Assuming activist roles to influence the political process

The Climategate Emails (http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf) (PDF) (168 pgs) (The Lavoisier Group)

The Climategate Whitewash Continues (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11970) (The Wall Street Journal, July 12, 2010)

[Poptech]

You ADMITTED that they've taken out the "significant at 95% confidence, and only just 15 years" (you just don't believe it's relevant, and why should you, it doesn't look sexy on the headline).
It isn't relevant, he is just stating what statistical significance is, a 95% confidence level. Stating there has been no statistically significant warming in the last 15 years is the exact same thing whether you include the definition or not.


Now, how come your so called "750 peer reviewed papers" contain roughly 100 from the same credible journal by the name of "Energy & Environment"? (and a lot of others are POLICY articles!)
How come you didn't actually count? Only 16% (125) of the papers on the list are from the peer-reviewed academic journal Energy & Environment. All the papers on the list are peer-reviewed. The policy related papers are also peer-reviewed and included because the list includes papers that support skepticism of the negative economic effects of AGW.


Out of these "750 peer reviewed papers", how many of these authors signed their names in the 30,000 of petition project (I did you a favor, there's only 39 climatologists, 121 atmospheric scientists). If the authors of these papers were not in petition project, could they be misinterpreted for denier's favor? If there's less than even 39 (or 151) different authors for these papers, what does that tell us?
No idea and don't care. You did no one a favor as you have no remote idea what you are talking about. There are not only 39 climatologists on the petition project's list of 31,487 scientists. There are only 39 with degrees in climatology. Those are two different things. Who is considered a "climatologist" is purely subjective as many alarmists do not have a degree in climatology or atmospheric science,

Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (NASA GISS, RealClimate)
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA GISS)
James Lovelock, Ph.D. Medicine
Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics (Climate Progress)
John Holden, Ph.D. Theoretical Plasma Physics
Joshua B. Halpern, Ph.D. Physics (Rabett Run)
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Science
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology (RealClimate)
Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Rajendra Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering (IPCC Chairman, 2007-Present)
Richard Alley, Ph.D. Geology
Robert Watson, Ph.D. Chemistry (IPCC Chairman, 1997-2002)
Stefan Rahmstorf, Ph.D. Oceanography
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics
Susan Solomon, Ph.D. Chemistry
Tom Chalko, Ph.D. Laser Holography

How many authors is irrelevant but there are a couple hundred on the list as almost all the papers have multiple authors.


Who here would accept by the same standard, that if one wrote "750 peer reviewed papers" doubting the Holocaust rememberance campaign stories pertaining to the persecution of Jews during World War II, and 100 articles came from either "Journal of Historical Review", many others from "Barnes Review" or "Inconvenient History"?
There are no peer-reviewed papers denying the holocaust. This sort of propaganda is pathetic and sad and proves you are a zealot.

Global Warming Ad Hominem Attacks Show Alarmist Believers' Desperation (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22221) (The Heartland Institute)
Global warming: the chilling effect on free speech (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/) (Spiked, UK)


At what point does the "debate" end?
It never ends if the science is unproven as AGW is.


"Hockey stick is discredited" came from McKitrick & McIntyre (your mom had to tell you not to trust Irishmen, nevermind the fact one is an economist, the other works in mining for 30 years, admitted by GCMI)
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/fakeddata.html
It is proven to be discredited by anyone who understands math. I don't understand your the point of your racial slur (Irish). McKitrick teaches environment economics and McIntyre has a B.S. in mathematics and was offered a chance to get a Ph.D. at MIT. Your link goes to the discredited Wahl and Amman paper who's saga is detailed here,

Caspar and the Jesus paper (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/caspar_and_jesus.pdf) (PDF) (Andrew W. Montford, B.Sc. Chemistry, August 11, 2008)


Correct, he didn't make it clear, so you read what you wanted to read and called him a liar.
He is a liar as I have proven this multiple times.

[Poptech]

Are you kidding me dude?

Did you even read the paper?
Nice graph, you see what it says?
The "very different picture" shows 1000 vs 1800 having a 1.2 degree difference.
Apparently you are kidding yourself. Yes I read the paper and it explicitly shows a MWP warmer than today. The picture is very different because it does not imply the lack of a MWP as the original hockey stick did.


Given that this graph is based on non-tree data, let's look at the original hockeystick.

Start with Crowley 2000 (or Moberg 2005)
Moberg is not the original hockey stick, that would be MBH98. Moberg of all the papers attempting to reproduce a hockey stick is the least bad of the tree ring reconstructions. It shows a MWP. Yet the problem is it is still a tree-ring reconstruction.


Corrected reconstruction with 95% confidence intervals (from Loehle and McCulloch, 2008)
(keep in mind, this is assuming we take the paper at face value, without question of the integrity of the data)
The data and methods are provided from Loehle and the conclusions are quite clear,

- Correction to: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/82l462p2v37h7881/) (PDF (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Loehle_McCulloch.pdf))
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 1, pp. 93-100, January 2008)
- Craig Loehle, J. Huston McCulloch

The corrected estimates are very similar to the original results, showing quite coherent peaks. ... The corrected data continue to show the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly. ... While instrumental data are not strictly comparable, the rise in 29 year-smoothed global data from NASA GISS from 1935 to 1992 (with data from 1978 to 2006) is 0.34 Deg C. Even adding this rise to the 1935 reconstructed value, the MWP peak remains 0.07 Deg C above the end of the 20th Century values

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/loehle_fig3.JPG

The correction does not change the results which show a clear MWP warmer than today.


If we were to impose these "different graphs" on Mann's hockey stick, would it fit?

YES. Why don't you see it though? IT'S IN THE GRAY ERROR BARS.
Mann's paper has been discredited as statistically worthless.


When people look at the hockey stick, they're looking at the recent TURN, not the flat shaft!
The turn is not based on proxy reconstructions but a grafting of the thermometer record onto the proxies.


The Loehle paper you cite says "18 sets of data", without reading the actual paper, I have no way of knowing WHAT they used as proxies (other than "just not treerings").
This is all documented and the data sets are available.

If the MWP is warmer or as warm as it is today it demonstrates that the current climate is not unusual and falls within natural variation.

My position is simple, there has been a mild warming since the end of the little ice age but there is no acceptable evidence that this warming is worse than the MWP and no conclusive evidence of how much if any is caused by man.

[WaltM]

This is all documented and the data sets are available.

If the MWP is warmer or as warm as it is today it demonstrates that the current climate is not unusual and falls within natural variation.

My position is simple, there has been a mild warming since the end of the little ice age but there is no acceptable evidence that this warming is worse than the MWP and no conclusive evidence of how much if any is caused by man.




It is no coincidence I cite a peer-reviewed academic journal's papers that completely debunk the fraudulent Hockey Stick.


Quite the opposite.

It's no coincidence that the only peer-reviewed journal you can cite is E&E, which is as peer reviewed as Holocaust denial journals. (neither are cited by serious people in academia, if we applied your "one paper can debunk and discredit all the others" standard to E&E would your argument still hold?).

Your whole broken record soundbyte of "hockeystick is discredited" exists nowhere except E&E.
And even in E&E, the MOST it can show is the MWP was warmer (not disputing the fact the latest decade is the warmest in instrumental history, which cannot be accounted for with solar activity).




No it is a very serious issue,


Let's review your arguments
a) Saying climategate is an issue based on questioning tree ring data
b) the best argument against the hockey stick is a warm MWP (which only exists in E&E)
c) saying "95% confidence interval of significance, within the past 15 years" is the "exact same thing" as without it
d) Who is considered a "climatologist" is purely subjective
e) Considering policy articles as peer review science (care to count those for us?)
f) There are no peer-reviewed papers denying the holocaust (but fail to hold your E&E journal to the same standards)
g) science is unproven as AGW is (without stating what would prove it, meaning never)
h) Mann's paper has been discredited as statistically worthless.
(only according to people who take E&E religiously, which you clearly do)
i) Wow, at least you got one thing right, which is the turn shaft of the hockey stick is indisputeable
(thus making it dishonest to say that hockeystick is discredited, when the dispute was ONLY about MWP)
j) "This is all documented and the data sets are available." (cite it then!)
k) If MWP is warmer than today, today is natural. (Are you saying unless what happens today exceeds the past before the industrial revolution, it's all normal, all natural? )
l) it's quite ironic that climate change deniers have a HIGHER faith in proxy data when it's used to prove their point (and they can't dispute the facts of the past decade)
m) "My position is simple" indeed simple, it's completely based on Energy & Environment.
n) So I take it you don't take Lord Monckton seriously? (who claims there's a 10 year cooling)
o) You conveniently ignore the fact of a double standard, if you held Energy & Environment, GMI, Petition Project, Monckton, Swindle Movie, to the standards you treat ClimateGate, Sinclair, Gore, the debate would've been long over.
p) "No idea and don't care." about how many of your papers you cite coincide with the petition project.
q) you have no problem saying "liar, zealot" and then turn around saying I use ad hominem arguments
r) You also conveniently ignored, that MWP at the hottest, fits right into Mann's grey error bar region (but you either don't know that or don't want to know)
s) You've proven you're a cherry picker by citing a paper that ends its data at 2000, stating it's .007 degrees lower than MWP (assuming the conclusion, data is accurate to begin with), but then turn around and quote Jones say "there's been no warming since 1995".


I never said Moberg was the original hockey stick, I was pointing to Moberg as one of the source data within the hockey stick I posted (which you claim is discredited).


[the debate] is never over if it's unproven as AGW is
What would make it proven? How much indication that the Earth SHOULD BE cooling, but is warming, would make the case for AGW?
How many degrees above MWP would it take to prove AGW?

You have no problem citing 125 articles from the same journal which claims it "discredited" the hockeystick (thinking there's only one).
You have no problem citing most others from POLICY PAPERS, but you'd not use these same conspiracy arguments for : 9/11 truth, creation vs evolution, marijuana, the Holocaust, would you?