Met Office: Temperatures Could Plummet As Sun Enters Cooler Phase

solar imageBritain could be on the verge of a mini Ice Age as the Sun enters a cooler phase, the Met Office warned yesterday. The last big chill was felt hundreds of years ago when Frost Fairs were held on the frozen River Thames. However the Met Office said the new freeze will not be enough to cancel out the effects of global warming. Met Office’s Hadley Centre, which looks at long term forecasts, said there was a 15-20 per cent chance that we could match the temperatures last seen in 1645-1715 – sometimes called the Little Ice Age – when the River Thames froze over. –Colin Fernandez, Daily Mail, 24 June 2015

The sun is almost completely blank. The main driver of all weather and climate, the entity which occupies 99.86% of all of the mass in our solar system, the great ball of fire in the sky has gone quiet again during what is likely to be the weakest sunspot cycle in more than a century. Not since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906 has there been a solar cycle with fewer sunspots. –Paul Dorian, Vencore, Inc. 30 April 2015

Scientists at the University of Southampton predict that a cooling of the Atlantic Ocean could cool global temperatures a half a degree Celsius and may offer a “brief respite from the persistent rise of global temperatures,” according to their study. “The observations of the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation  [AMO] over the past ten years show that it is declining,” Dr. David Smeed, a co-author, said in a statement. Atlantic cooling can impact the climate for decades, according to researchers, on timescales from 20 to 30 years. This means cooler global temperatures and changing weather patterns could unfold over the next two to three decades, possibly extending the so-called “pause” in global warming. –Michael Bastasch, The Daily Caller, 28 May 2015

Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance is linked to modulation of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations, suggesting the potential for larger regional surface climate effects. Here, we explore possible impacts through two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradiance in a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder Minimum-like conditions by 2050. Both experiments show regional structure in the wintertime response, resembling the North Atlantic Oscillation, with enhanced relative cooling over northern Eurasia and the eastern United States. For a high-end decline in solar ultraviolet irradiance, the impact on winter northern European surface temperatures over the late twenty-first century could be a significant fraction of the difference in climate change between plausible AR5 scenarios of greenhouse gas concentrations. Full paper (subscription required)

The activity of the Sun is an important factor in the complex interaction that controls our climate. New research now shows that the impact of the Sun is not constant over time, but has greater significance when the Earth is cooler. Full story

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (376)

  • Avatar

    Moose

    |

    Some keep on looking for excuses to maintain the AGW meme.. Geez, can’t you guys just say: sorry, we were wrong?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      GESchroeder

      |

      “can’t you guys just say: sorry we were wrong?” This gives them the perfect excuse to say how right they are despite the lack of warming! I can hear it already: “Global warming is real and is man caused. The current lack of warming is just temporary because the decreased solar activity is masking it.”

      Reply

      • Avatar

        JayPee

        |

        That would a perfect exit for them, but they do not want to abandon the alarmist goal of imposing their leftist extremism on all of mankind.

        This has nothing to do with climate. It has everything to do with their insistence of enslaving the entire human race and making every person dependent on the government they run for even the most menial subsistence.

        It’s all about indisputable and unchallengeable CONTROL. With them in charge, of course.

        And everybody knows this is the way it should be.

        Didn’t you learn that,
        AT UNIVERSITY ?

        Reply

        • Avatar

          William Bill Fish

          |

          JayPee So that’s what this is all about? It’s not science, it’s politics! [s]You are f#%^&ing crazier than a shithouse rat going west in the summertime.[/s] Bwhahahaha…I shouldn’t laugh, you are very scary and I know there are more like you under that same rock you crept out from under.

          The fossil fuel industry has enslaved the entire human race and making every person dependent on the government they run for even the most menial subsistence. Checked the price at the pumps lately? Price of a barrel is $52.74. What was a gallon of gas a year ago when a barrel was $110+? Just who is enslaving us? Bush the crook and his thieving, lying, crooked VP, ops that should reversed, Cheney was the brains, starting a war for cheap oil. Cheney said “that members of the oil business could help the industry to become more effective by becoming active in the political arena and helping elect the right people to office.” He took to the White House an agenda of helping increase the oil industry’s public profile and bridging the divide between politics and oil money. Seems to have worked. How many Redumlican senators and congressmen are paid for by the oil industry? I’ll answer that…[b]ALL[/b]! Who is enslaving the people?

          What are the Koch’s doing if not taking
          “indisputable and unchallengeable CONTROL. With them in charge, of course.” They are buying the redumlican party.
          http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/politics/kochs-plan-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-campaign.html?_r=0

          Your eyes are so tightly shut, have you ever seen the sun?

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Then unplug Bill. Stop using fossil fuels, and just be your luddite self.

            Truth is that fossil fuels have saved lives, improved lives, and increased life expectancy.

            Face it Bill, you are a luddite.

            [b]Lud·dite[/b] ˈlədˌīt noun
            1- [i]a person opposed to increased industrialization or new technology[/i]

            And how long will it take the Koch brothers to spend $21,408,000,000 on climate change?

            Oopsy! They aren’t spending $900 million on climate change, but on campaigns, so your little feet can stop stamping.

            But the US government had a $21,408,000,000 budget for 2014 alone, and [i]just on climate change[/i]! 😮

            And I’m still waiting…

            1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

            2- Please provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Now the real Apparatchik rears his tiny ugly head! 😀

            Then Free yourself Comrade!

            Stop buying products made with oil or derived from the energy produced with it. Simple.

            Or move to North Korea where they don’t use any energy.

            Or you could just “Nationalise” the industry like Hugo Chavez did. That should fix absolutely nothing.

            But first. Name one thing that has done more to lift the reeking masses out of crushing poverty and short brutish lives than carbon based energy?

            Your a typical far left hypocrite, loon who is completely immune to facts and reality.

            Here is a part of what your University education derived you of.


            [quote]Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

            C. S. Lewis[/quote]

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            amirlach Go back under the rock with JayPee where you belong! You can let your imaginations run rampant and dream up all the crazy conspiracy theories to your heart’s content! GO!

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            How about you go? You have done nothing here but lie and deny.

            Mann is credible?!!… 😀
            [quote] If there is a “97 per cent consensus” on the science, all 97 per cent decided to steer well clear of Michael E Mann: Last fall, not a single amicus brief was filed on his behalf, not one. He claims he’s “taking a stand for science”, but evidently science is disinclined to take a stand for him.[/quote] http://www.steynonline.com/6910/mann-vs-steyn-the-state-of-play 😀 They have abandoned the loser to his fate.

            How many more years do you predict it will take Mann to turn over his discovery in his case against Dr. Ball?

            Why is he still hiding that decline? 😀

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            amirlach Mann’s graph is 17 years old.There is much more data now that the IPCC uses and it all says the same thing. The research has moved on. What the IPCC does is a meta-analysis of climate change. They look at all the research and come up with a report of what is happening and the implications that may have in the future, all from research in peer reviewed journals. I believe that is credible evidence.

            Since you don’t know what credible evidence is, you prefer to believe the pseudoscientists, McIntyre, McKitrick watsupwiththat, et al none of which is published in a credible peer reviewed journal. Wonder why that is??? Is it they couldn’t take the peer review critiques of their work or no credible journal would publish their junk?

            You accuse me of lying. Please give me an example of a lie. I am not a climatologist, I write what I find in climatologists’ work, agencies, IPCC or other scientists concerned with climate change.

            Mann is very credible. The hearing on his work says so the North report says so. Wegman’s report doesn’t like his stats method and neither does North but the conclusion is correct…the hockey stick is correct. It’s has been affirmed by NAS and all the other agencies. They to did like his stats but agree with the results…AGW!

            From the congressional hearing MR. INSLEE: Dr. North, I want to quote–in your testimony
            you said, “However, our reservations with some aspects of the
            original papers by Mann et al. should not be construed as evidence
            that our committee does not believe that the climate is warming and
            will continue to warm as a result of human activities.” That was given under oath.

            Then Inslee and other questioners wanted to know if Mann hadn’t done hockey stick is there other evidence that the climate is warming. You should read not cherry pick, it makes you look foolish!
            MR. INSLEE. And could you at least in summary fashion tell us about the other evidence that leads to your conclusion other than Dr. Mann’s?
            DR. NORTH. Well, let me mention a few things that my colleague on the committee, Kurt Cuffey from the University of California-Berkeley sent. So this is a little about the medieval
            warm period. It takes a couple minutes so I apologize for that.
            So Greenland shows a clear signal of both medieval warmth and 20th
            Century warming. These are recorded unambiguously in isotopes and
            boreholes, nothing to do with this extrapolation method. The medieval was warmer than the 20th Century up to about 1990, but you know it has warmed quite a bit in the last 15 years, so another piece of evidence is Ellesmere Island. This is in the Canadian Arctic and there is an icecap there. It also shows evidence of a
            medieval warm period and 20th Century warming and the isotopes and melt records. The melt in particular shows summertime warmth in the 20th Century was greater than the medieval warm period, so
            there is that one. The composite of all available low latitude–this is Tibet and the Andes and there is things in Africa, Kilimanjaro. Ice core, isotope records show the 20th Century
            climate is truly anomalous on the time scale of 2,000 years. This is an objective quantitative measure of climate arising from physical processes. We cannot, however, separate a pure temperature signal from it because these glaciers are influenced by both moisture availability and temperature because hydrology is important too. All we can say is that the sum of the climate
            processes determining the isotope records have reached an anomalous
            state. One more–two more. Melt at the summit of Quelccaya–this is a big icecap in the Andes, the largest Andean icecap–was strong enough in the late 20th Century to destroy annual layering of isotopes which did not happen during the medieval period. Now, the tropics are a very interesting place to look at climate. They are probably a little more representative of the global average, not as much natural variability in the tropics. So we had melting recently in the Quelccaya glacier but it didn’t happen in the medieval warm period.
            MR. INSLEE. Doctor, I want to ask one quick question. My time is almost up.

            You can go find the one more quick question, you won’t as it implies more damage by high CO2… http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109hhrg31362/html/CHRG-109hhrg31362.htm

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Why do you lie so much? Or is it that you have [i]no clue[/i] what you are talking about?

            Here are some of McIntyre’s peer reviewed works…

            McIntyre, Stephen; McKitrick, Ross (2003). “Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series”. Energy & Environment 14 (6): 751–771. doi:10.1260/095830503322793632.

            McIntyre, Stephen; McKitrick, Ross (2005). “The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications”. Energy & Environment 16 (1): 69–100. doi:10.1260/0958305053516226.

            McIntyre, Stephen; McKitrick, Ross (2005). “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance”. Geophysical Research Letters 32 (3): L03710. Bibcode:2005GeoRL..3203710M. doi:10.1029/2004GL021750.

            McIntyre, Stephen; McKitrick, Ross (2009). “Proxy inconsistency and other problems in millennial paleoclimate reconstructions”. PNAS 106 (6): E10. Bibcode:2009PNAS..106…10M. doi:10.1073/pnas.0812509106. PMC 2647809. PMID 19188613.

            McKitrick, Ross; McIntyre, Stephen; Herman, Chad (2010). “Panel and multivariate methods for tests of trend equivalence in climate data series”. Atmospheric Science Letters 11 (4): 270–277. Bibcode:2010AtScL..11..270M. doi:10.1002/asl.290.

            O’Donnell, Ryan; Lewis, Nicholas; McIntyre, Steve; Condon, Jeff (2011). “Improved Methods for PCA-Based Reconstructions: Case Study Using the Steig et al. (2009) Antarctic Temperature Reconstruction”. Journal of Climate 24 (8): 2099–2115. doi:10.1175/2010JCLI3656.1.

            McIntyre, Stephen; McKitrick, Ross (2011). “Discussion of: A statistical analysis of multiple temperature proxies: Are reconstructions of surface temperatures over the last 1000 years reliable?” (PDF). Annals of Applied Statistics 5 (1): 56–60. arXiv:1105.0524. Bibcode:2011arXiv1105.0524M. doi:10.1214/10-AOAS398L.

            And McKitrick’s works can be found here…

            http://www.rossmckitrick.com/

            So once again, you stoop to ad homs and you lie.

            Mann’s Hockeystick graph tried to erase the MWP, and was therefore considered fraudulent (one reason anyway). The MWP was a global phenonmenon, and cherry picking a few snow cones does not make it disappear. And you provided a great example of their ridiculous and misleading claims…

            [quote]Melt at the summit of Quelccaya–this is a big icecap in the Andes, the largest Andean icecap–was strong enough in the late 20th Century to destroy annual layering of isotopes which did not happen during the medieval period.[/quote]

            Are they claiming that after the MWP we had a 100,000 year ice age that restored all the ice that was lost to the MWP? Wouldn’t we expect that the cumulative melt of numerous warm periods of this curtrent interglacial would continue to erode the ice with each successive event? Are they stupid, or just dishonest?

            The MWP was a global event…

            [img]http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Globe%204650×2847%20mit%20Graphen%20und%20Linien%20JPEG.jpg[/img]

            and was warmer than present.

            [img]https://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/image_thumb68.png?w=617&h=285[/img

            Now weasel, let’s try again…

            1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

            2- Please provide [i]even [b]one[/b][/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            Why do you keep running away from inconvenient truths?

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fishamirlach Pleas

            |

            I just looked at one paper by McIntyre et al “Proxy inconsistency and other problems in millennial paleoclimate reconstructions” Do M&M know anything about paleoclimtology?
            Here’s a response to their ‘work’: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/E11.full.pdf+html

            Hockey stick vindicated by NRC: NRC panellists said they found no evidence supporting the allegations of inappropriate behaviour such as data manipulation, or “anything other than an honest attempt to construct a data analysis procedure”. Bloomfield as a statistician considered all the choices of data processing and methods to have been “quite reasonable” in a “first of its kind study”.

            M&M are wrong and I erred they do have some peer reviewed papers, that doesn’t make them correct. Which part of this quote don’t you understand? “…NRC panellists said they found no evidence supporting the allegations of inappropriate behaviour such as data manipulation, or “anything other than an honest attempt to construct a data analysis procedure”. Bloomfield as a statistician considered all the choices of data processing and methods to have been “quite reasonable” in a “first of its kind study”.

            Shooting down M&M:
            http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/09/22/steve-mcintyre-misrepresents-climate-research-history/

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#cite_note-scott_variability_p2-33

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Honest reconstruction? 😆

            Then how did they miss this?

            [img]http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Globe%204650×2847%20mit%20Graphen%20und%20Linien%20JPEG.jpg[/img]

            Oh, thye didn’t, but you somehow did.

            [i]”Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from 900 to 1600″, and [b]very little confidence could be assigned to hemispheric or global mean surface temperature estimates before about 900.[/b][/i]

            Ooopsy! 😆

            1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

            2- Please provide [i]even [b]one[/b][/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            So you still “believe”, even though you cannot prove. Keep the faith Bill.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            A blog writer? “Greg Laden is a biological anthropologist, not a Climate Scientist”. You said those were not reliable sources. 😀

            And his source is Desmog? 😀

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            amirlach First find out what ‘hiding the decline means’

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm

            Oh, “Dr. Ball the lie that just won’t die!”

            “Their assertion that Dr. Mann faces possible bankruptcy is nonsense. Dr. Mann’s lawsuit against Dr. Ball and other defendants is proceeding through the normal stages prescribed by the BC Supreme Court Civil Rules and Dr. Mann looks forward to judicial vindication at the conclusion of this process.”

            February 22, 2014
            Roger D. McConchie
            Barrister and Solicitor

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Ball never said any of that you idiot. O’Sullivan did. And Desmog? Again?
            Funded by a convicted Internet fraudster? 😀

            How many more years before Mann turns over his discovery? 😀 You asked for an “example”? There it is.

            [quote]Mann is very credible. The hearing on his work says so the North report says so. Wegman’s report doesn’t like his stats method and neither does North but the conclusion is correct…the hockey stick is correct. It’s has been affirmed by NAS and all the other agencies. They to did like his stats but agree with the results…AGW!
            [/quote] The Hearing on his work? You mean when he was “exonerated” by the same guy who “exonerated” Sandusky? 😀 The Hearing where his “work” was never examined?

            Nice link. Try actually reading it.

            The NAS found that Mann’s methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless. Mann’s data set does not have enough information to verify its ‘skill’ at resolving the past, and has such wide uncertainty bounds as to be no better than the simple mean of the data (p. 91). M&M said that the appearance of significance was created by ignoring all but one type of test score, thereby failing to quantify all the relevant uncertainties. The NAS agreed (p. 110), but, again, did so in subtle wording.

            Even if he got the right answer(he did not), getting it the wrong way is still wrong and is not scientific.

            [quote]There is much more data now that the IPCC uses and it all says the same thing.[/quote] You mean his Co-Authours? Who all used the same cherry picked computer modeled data and faulty statistical methods?

            Prove it. Link it.

            I know what Hide the Decline means.

            Media Spin can’t hide the facts concerning the hockey stick, or what was really determined at the hearings
            http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NAS.op-ed.pdf

            http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanOp-Ed.pdf

            [quote] McIntyre, McKitrick watsupwiththat, et al none of which is published in a credible peer reviewed journal. Wonder why that is??? Is it they couldn’t take the peer review critiques of their work or no credible journal would publish their junk? [/quote] See? Now your just being an OFENNSIVE LIAR.
            So Energy and Environment and Geophysical Research Letters are not credible enough for you? Or the Peer Reviewed Papers listed here?
            http://www.rossmckitrick.com/temperature-data-quality.html

            One glaring difference? M&M post links to their data and methods. No one has had to file a FOIA or wait years for it to be turned over in pre trial “discovery”. You know like your hero Mr. Fraudy Pants! 😀

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            amirlach Steyn said “…Michael E Mann, the inventor of the global-warming “hockey stick”, the single most influential graphic in the history of climate alarmism,…” What a load of BULLSH**! Deniers wish that were the case, but there is mountains of evidence that the climate is warming and you can’t dispute any of it but you keep harping on the hockey stick. If you read the Congressional Hearing report you would know:
            MR. WAXMAN. [i][b]Finally, if we were to sweep away the Mann
            studies and forget that they existed, would that in any way erode
            the validity of any of the studies I just mentioned?[/b][/i]
            DR. NORTH. I do not think it would.
            MR. WAXMAN. Would there still be–
            DR. NORTH. We wouldn’t–
            MR. WAXMAN. Would there still be a scientific consensus that global warming is happening, it is being caused by humans and that some people think it is time to act now?
            DR. NORTH. Yes, I think there would be.
            MR. WAXMAN. And [i][b]Dr. North, my point in asking you about these other studies is simply to illustrate how wrong it would be for anyone to draw sweeping conclusions from a statistical criticism of one or two studies from 8 years ago.[/b][/i] Unfortunately, the Republican majority on this committee has been completely content to sit back and ignore global warming. They ignored it while President Bush frayed our relationships with our international allies over global warming. They ignored it while the committee crafted an energy policy that exacerbates global warming and [i][b] they continue to ignore it as evidence piles up about the severity of the situation. Instead, we spend our time attacking climate researchers who have infuriated the oil lobby by contributing to our knowledge of this issue, and apparently that is the one thing that the Majority simply cannot ignore.[/b][/i]

            More testimony…
            MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have so many things I want to ask here. Let me start again.
            Dr. North, I want to confirm what I think you already said. [i][b]Is Dr. Mann’s hockey stick study considered to be the foundation on which all climate change science is based?
            DR. NORTH. No.[/b][/i]

            Sorta blows Steyn’s and your party line out of the water…eh?

            Here’s a little more on Wegman’s report…you know, the one you use to say the hockey stick is wrong and doesn’t show AGW1
            MS. SCHAKOWSKY. –comment on that. I think since we are talking about scientific data, statistics, let us be clear, and you are challenging a report which form what I understand as Dr. North in some part at least you agree with the critique of the Mann data, so–and I am certainly–I am neither, but we are policymakers here so what I–[i][b]do you believe that your report disproves that climate change is manmade in any way?
            DR. WEGMAN. No.[/b][/i]

            The writer of a report the deniers quote as proof the hockey stick is wrong believes the report does not prove AGW! i.e. the hockey stick is correct although the stats used on the paleoclimatic data may be a little suspect (North report agrees about the stats)…the modern data shows the temperature in the end of the 20th century is rising at an unprecedented rate! Wegman agrees with the hockey stick and so does North!

            This shows that the hockey stick is NOT the most important piece of research in climate change and there is other evidence that was not influenced by Mann’s research (statements from NAS) and although the stats for the shaft of the hockey stick may be questionable, other researchers used different methods and found basically the same result. If Mann hadn’t done the hickey stick, other scientific evidence shows AGW! Not a lie, it’s all in the in the congressional hearings, read for yourself… http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109hhrg31362/html/CHRG-109hhrg31362.htm

            Again climategate, the hockey stick is 17 years old. There is more than enough evidence to prove AGW without using the hockey stick because everyone, politicians and deniers will start all over again if the stick is used, even though it has been vindicated!

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]Again climategate, the hockey stick is 17 years old.[/quote]

            And global warming stopped 19 years ago. 😆

            [img]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/09/02/1409668100834_wps_18_WUWT_png.jpg[/img]

            Who ya gonna believe, these liars, cheats, and data deniers…

            [i]”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So [b]we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance
            is between being effective and being honest[/b].”[/i]
            – Prof. Stephen Schneider,
            Stanford Professor of Climatology,
            lead author of many IPCC reports

            [i]”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. [b]Even if the theory of global warming is wrong[/b], we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”[/i]
            – Timothy Wirth,
            President of the UN Foundation

            [i]”[b]No matter if the science of global warming is all phony[/b]… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
            bring about justice and equality in the world.”[/i]
            – Christine Stewart,
            former Canadian Minister of the Environment

            [i]“[b]The data doesn’t matter[/b]. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. [b]We’re basing them on the climate models[/b].”[/i]
            – Prof. Chris Folland,
            Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

            [i]“The [b]models are convenient fictions[/b] that provide something very useful.”[/i]
            – Dr David Frame,
            climate modeler, Oxford University

            [i]”[b]It doesn’t matter what is true[/b], it only matters what people believe is true.”[/i]
            – Paul Watson,
            co-founder of Greenpeace

            … or your lyin’ eyes…

            [img]https://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/image_thumb68.png?w=617&h=285[/img]

            [img]http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Globe%204650×2847%20mit%20Graphen%20und%20Linien%20JPEG.jpg[/img]

            Back to the science.

            1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

            2- Please provide [i]even [b]one[/b][/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            If you claim again that man is responsible for any global climate changes, you are knowingly lying.

        • Avatar

          William Bill Fish

          |

          JayPee What I learned at UNIVERSITY was not to create ridiculous conspiracy theories and make up stories to support them.

          I also learned to believe in credible scientific evidence. The courses you took had nothing to do with science, credible or evidence.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            Gee with all the commenters now on this thread, I should report to the administrator that I’m being bullied and called names. Amazing how all you desperate people get in an uproar to try to defend an indefensible position. The only ammo you have are the duds McIntyre and McKitrick. The hearing, Dr. North, Dr. Wegman didn’t like his stats but stated his conclusion was correct.

            More interesting stuff that comes up when you look. In 2005 McIntyre and McKitrick published criticisms of the principal components analysis methodology as used in MBH98 and MBH99. The analysis therein was subsequently disputed by published papers including Huybers 2005 and Wahl & Ammann 2007 [i][b]which pointed to errors in the McIntyre and McKitrick methodology.”[/b][/i]

            Then there is this… “More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century “shaft” appears.[12][13]”

            Get it, the problem some scientists/statisticians had was the shape of the shaft of the stick because proxies were used. Do you know what a proxy is? None of the 24+ reconstructions have a problem with the blade of the stick. Therefore much to your chagrin, [i][b]AGW is true.[/b][/i] I’m not lying, that’s what the mountains of empirical, credible evidence indicates.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Gee, with all your ad homs and lies, we should report you to the administrator, but we don’t.

            You lie so much it is ridiculous! We have shown you multiple lines of evidence from multiple sources, [i]including the IPCC[/i], that show the burden of proof is on you and that the hypothesis of CAGW is false.

            Now let’s try again weasel…

            1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

            2- Please provide [i]even [b]one[/b][/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            Answer the questions and provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability, weasel.

            PS – Weasel is not an ad hom in this case, but an accurate desription of someone who refuses to answer questions, and runs from them.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Wahl & Ammann 2007 http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/24/the-dog-that-didnt-bark/

            Please do! The Admin really loves lying serial spamming trolls with psychological projection issues.

            [quote]In order to create the hockey stick cheat, they had to do the GISS data tampering cheat first. The entire basis of the hockey stick is junk science.[/quote]
            https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/briffa_recon-1-1.gif[img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/screenhunter_303-feb-07-09-19.gif[/img]
            [quote]As ugly as this was, it is worse than it seems. Briffa’s trees did match Hansen, 1981. The next graph overlays Briffa on Hansen, 1981 northern latitude temperatures. The match was almost perfect.[/quote]
            [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/screenhunter_317-feb-07-12-27.gif[/img]
            [quote]They did exactly what Wigley was suggesting, removing more than 0.15 C from 1940’s global temperatures. This tampering is what made the hockey stick possible. Graph below is normalized to 1978.[/quote]
            [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/screenhunter_230-feb-06-05-291.gif[/img]
            [quote]Another way of looking at this data is to normalize it to 1940. In this view you can see that they wiped out the post 1940’s cooling, and turned it into warming.[/quote]
            [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/screenhunter_391-feb-08-22-18.gif[/img]

            https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/motherlode-part-iii/

            The only reconstructions that agree are the ones based upon the same 12 trees and fraudulent statistical methods.

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            amirlach Give it up move on. Mann has been vindicated and the hockey stick is true. By the North Report, Congressional Hearing and at least 24 papers showing the hockey stick is correct! They North Report and Wegman didn’t like Mann’s methods but they agreed with the conclusion. Mann’s paper was the first time anyone had tried to use paleoclimate proxies i.e. tree rings, ice cores, corals, and ocean and lake sediments. with temperature readings starting in about 1850. Mann stated from the outset that there were discrepancies that needed research.

            Do you know the context of the STOLEN email? No! Do you know what they had been discussing? No! Do you know anything about climatology? No! Steven Goddard certainly doesn’t know what is going on. I’d like someone to hack his computer and get his email. Goddard/Heller has a BA of Engineering and a BA of Science.
            He writes a blog, writes a few newspaper articles and has given talks at the Heartland Institute. Yup, I’d believe him…NOT! Do you know that Mann’s statistical methods were fraudulent? No! Are you a statistician? Is Goddard/Heller a statistician? Other proxies were used ice cores, lake and ocean sediments etc Other methods used on Mann’s data showed the hockey stick is true!

            Why do you keep rehashing Mann’s paper? It’s been vindicated. As stated in the Congressional Hearings if Mann hadn’t made the hockey stick, climate change has been shown by a mountain of other verifiable evidence. Give it up the hockey stick is 17 years old and true!

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            How is Mann vindicated when the ” greenhouse effect ” has not only not been proven but has been demonstrated to be false ?

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            M&M are wrong. The hockey stick is correct. All M&M did was claim there were discrepancies in the shaft of the stick. Mann said from the outset there were discrepancies, but M&M have nothing on the blade…it’s correct as proven by 24+ papers that followed.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Endless idiocy

            It all fails, including the hockey stick, when the truthis outed that

            THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT

            as proposed by the alarmist crowd.

            Obviously, another concept you are unable to fathom.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Mann has been vindicated and the hockey stick is as true as Fake Nobel Prize. 😀

            The Fake but Accurate defence is indefensible and unscientific.
            [quote]Mann’s statistical methodology was soon exposed as flawed, if not downright fraudulent, by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, and he responded by refusing to make public the details of his analysis. This in turn angered Joe Barton and other members of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who objected to this arrogant refusal to allow oversight of federally financed research—either by the responsible congressional committees or by the scientific community.

            Hence the recent hearings and the dishonest report of them in Science.

            Since Mann’s work—and the IPCC’s inclusion of it in its report—are indefensible, Science resorted to the fake—but—accurate defense. Gerald North of Texas A&M, testifying on behalf of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, “concluded that the hockey stick was flawed but the sort of data on which it was based are still evidence of unprecedented warming.” [/quote]http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2006/08/fake_but_accurate_science.html

            [quote] Do you know that Mann’s statistical methods were fraudulent? No! Are you a statistician?[/quote] Fraudulent? Proven! And No I aint, but… Steven McIntyre of the Famed Hockey Stick busting team, is… Wait for it… A statistical analyst! 😥
            [quote]They are PEER REVIEWED specialists in the field of climate, therefore it is fair to call them climate scientists.
            If you do not accept this, I have to point out that using this definition of ‘climate scientist’, there are many others who also cannot be called ‘climate scientists’ which includes;

            James Hansen (PhD in Physics),
            Phil Jones (PhD in Hydrology),
            Michael Mann (PhD in Geology),
            Sir John Mason ( MSc in Physics),
            Sir John Houghton (PhD in Physics),
            sir John Beddington (PhD in Population Biology),
            David Suzuki (PhD in Zoology),
            Will Steffen (PhD in Chemical Engineering),
            Tim Flannery (PhD in Kangaroo Evolution),
            David Karoly (PhD in Meterology),
            Matthew England (PhD in Oceanography).
            Stephen Schneider (PhD in Mechanical Engineering)
            Brenda Ekwurzel (PhD in Isotope Geochemistry (hydrology))
            Carl Wunsch (PhD in Geophysics)
            Susan Solomon (PhD in Chemistry)
            Richard Somerville (PhD in Meteorology)
            Richard Alley (PhD in Geology)
            Gavin Schmidt (PhD in Mathematics)
            John Holdren (PhD in Plasma Physics)[/quote] Likely one of the few who is actually a real “Climate Scientist”, Tim Ball, but you hate him.

            [quote]They North Report and Wegman didn’t like Mann’s methods but they agreed with the conclusion.[/quote] Really? Can’t you read? No they did not, you liar. They both agreed that using 12 Strip Barks to base his graph on was indefensible.
            [quote]Mann never mentions that a subsequent House Energy and Commerce Committee report chaired by Edward Wegman totally destroyed the credibility of the ‘hockey stick’ and devastatingly ripped apart Mann’s methodology as ‘bad mathematics’. [/quote] Where in that do you read Wegman “agreed” with Mann’s results? LOL… What part of Zero Validation Skill can’t you grasp?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            The Emails were leaked, not stolen.
            https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/why-climategate-was-not-a-computer-hack/
            “And at least 24 papers showing the hockey stick is correct!” [quote]Half the Hockey Stick graphs depend on bristlecone pine temperature proxies, whose worthlessness has already been exposed. We now find that Briffa calibrated centuries of temperature records on the strength of 12 trees and one rogue outlier in particular.

            Such a small sample is scandalous; the non-release of this information for 9 years is scandalous; the use of this undisclosed data as crucial evidence for several more official HS graphs is scandalous. And not properly comparing treering evidence with local thermometers is the mother of all scandals.[/quote] Seems your 24 Papers which depend upon 12 trees are Refuted by Observations. 😀

            And recorded history and the archeological evidence(that you keep running from). The graphic Gator posted above, with all the little graphs? They are from over 200 Papers that show the MWP was GLOBAL and warmer than present.

            [quote]Conclusions: There is no sign whasoever of a Hockey Stick shape with serious uptick in the twentieth century, in the thermometer records. Yet these records are clearly very consistent with each other, no matter how long the record or how cold, high, or maritime the locality, with a distance span of over a thousand miles. Neither does the Hockey Stick consistently show in the treerings except in the case of a single tree. Even with thermometer records that are incomplete and suffering other problems, the “robust” conclusion is –
            “Warmist” treering proxy temperature evidence is falsified directly by local thermometer records.[/quote] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/30/yamal-treering-proxy-temperature-reconstructions-dont-match-local-thermometer-records/

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Hey! Wee Willy! Regarding your lie that MB 98 is True, really it is… 😥 And that 24 other graphs affirm it. Here is the original Michael E. Mann Hockey stick:
            [img]http://skepticinkcom.c.presscdn.com/prussian/files/2014/03/OriginalHockeyStick.jpg[/img]
            [quote]Here are various prior reconstructions that show that even Mann isn’t peddling his stupid stick anymore, not when other people can check his work.

            A few things to note, because they get very important later on. First of all, the scale – notice that the tip of the hockey stick blade reaches a maximum of about 0.75-0.8C on the temperature anomaly scale. Note also the absence of the medieval warm period, little ice age, etc.

            I’m going to repeat myself here, since I don’t want any semantic wrangling: I have seen a suspicious uptick in the twentieth century but nothing quite on the scale of what Mann shows.
            [/quote]
            [img]http://skepticinkcom.c.presscdn.com/prussian/files/2014/03/pages2k.jpg[/img]
            [quote]Just to quote the National Academy of Sciences, again, in their investigation of Mann:

            “The IPCC used it as a visual prominently in the report […] I think that sent a very misleading message about how resolved this part of the scientific research was. “

            Did they ever. Take another look over the graphs above. Then look at Mann’s published one. Then take a look at this:
            [/quote]
            [img]http://skepticinkcom.c.presscdn.com/prussian/files/2012/11/4411032a-i1.01.jpg[/img]

            Mann vs Mann! Mann loses! 😀

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            amirlach More denier BULLSH** to try and muddy the waters. Nitpick, cherry pick all you want, the hockey stick is correct! Are you a statistician? Are you a climatologist? Are you a scientist of any kind?

            Here’s a paleoclimatologists/researchers reconstruction of the hockey stick, “78 researchers from 24 countries, together with many other colleagues, worked for seven years in the PAGES 2k project on the new climate reconstruction.” It confirms the hockey stick.
            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/08/2261531/most-comprehensive-paleoclimate-reconstruction-confirms-hockey-stick/

            Steyn’s new attack… http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/06/22/mark-steyns-newest-attack-on-michael-mann-and-the-hockey-stick/

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Thinkprogress is a far left [u]propaganda website[/u] funded by uber leftist billionaire George Soros. The same site that falsely reported streetlights melted because of global warming.

            http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/08/02/soros-funded-think-progress-falsely-claims-global-warming-melted-stre

            Why do you quote liars? Liars like Greg Laden (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/06/22/mark-steyns-newest-attack-on-michael-mann-and-the-hockey-stick/) who accused Dr Soon of being in the pay of “Big Oil”.

            Do you have any credible sources? 😆

            And back to Mann. Why on Earth did he refuse to provide the data that he used to construct his Hockey Stick? Isn’t he trying to [i]save the world[/i]? With that large of a stake, how [i]could[/i] he? 😆

            Back to science.

            1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

            2- Please provide [i]even [b]one[/b][/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            Come on now. You claim to have all the “real” scientists on your side. Are they so inept that they cannot prove their claims? Or are they liars like everyone else you quote?

            Just one measly little paper. Where is it? 😆

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]Here’s a paleoclimatologists/researcher s reconstruction of the hockey stick, “78 researchers from 24 countries, together with many other colleagues, worked for seven years in the PAGES 2k project on the new climate reconstruction.” It confirms the hockey stick.[/quote] And here’s the half eaten Viking porridge which refuted them all.
            [img]https://ancientfoods.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/barley.png[/img]

            And here are some Trees they seem to have missed. [quote]A protective tomb of gravel likely encased the trees more than 1,000 years ago, when the glacier was advancing, Connor said, basing the date on radiocarbon ages of the newly revealed wood. As glaciers advance, Connor explained, they often emit summer meltwater streams that spew aprons of gravel beyond the glacier’s edge. [Images: Shrinking Alaska Glacier Spied from Space]

            A gravel layer about 4 to 5 feet (1.2 to 1.5 meters) high appears to have encased the trees before the glacier ultimately advanced enough to plow over them, snapping off limbs and preserving the stumps in an ice tomb.
            [/quote]
            [img]http://www.iwebstreet.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/326.jpg[/img]

            So these trees, were growing 1000 years ago, during an obviously warmer period,(MWP) when a Glacier then advanced and covered them up?
            http://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html

            It only takes a single empirical observation to overturn decades of cherry tree ring reconstructions and invalid statistical methods.

            Sorry about your Luck there Flounders! 😀

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            Excuse me! “The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as “Climategate”)[2][3] began in November 2009 [i][b]with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by an external attacker.[/b][/i][4][5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

            Therefore [b]STOLEN[/b] not [b]LEAKED![/b]

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Provide data, or admit that you are lying.

            There has never been any proof of a “hack”, and in fact the material amirlach provided shows that most likely it was a [b]leak[/b].

            [i]Anyone who thinks all of the above effort was expended to obtain apparently innocuous material from an obscure unit of an equally academically obscure university, needs an introduction to William of Occam’s razor.[/i]

            https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/why-climategate-was-not-a-computer-hack/

            Why is it you loonies claim to have facts when you do not. Is it just a knee jerk reaction for you to lie whenever you are challenged?

            And how is it, that after we have shown you data proving your sources lie, that you [i]still believe them[/i]?

            Bristle cone pines are better at registering temperatures than thermometers? 😮

            Ice magically regrows to ice age proportions during an interglacial? 😮

            Well established warm events can be denied by 12 cherry picked pine trees? 😮

            Money paid to the Smithsonian proves Willie Soon lied about solar activity? 😮

            The same people that award grants are also cashing the checks, and that does not send up a red flag for you?

            21,408,000,000 spent by one government in one year on CAGW, and you howl about 1,000,000 allegedly spent by ExxonMobile (still no data on that claim either)? In other words, the US spent 21,408 times as much as “Big Oil” [i]allegedly[/i] spent, and you don’t see your Grand Canyon sized hypocrisy? 😮

            A government who persecutes scientists who do not toe the line is OK with you? 😮

            This guy also paid scientists to come to certain conclusions, and they did! He also persecuted scientists who did not toe the line.

            [img]http://yalepress.yale.edu/images/full13/9780300053876.jpg[/img]

            This caused ovens to be built for cooking [i]humans[/i]. You don’t see a problem here? 😮

            And then we have your go to guys admitting they lie and do not care what is real or true…

            [i]”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So [b]we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance
            is between being effective and being honest[/b].”[/i]
            – Prof. Stephen Schneider,
            Stanford Professor of Climatology,
            lead author of many IPCC reports

            [i]”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. [b]Even if the theory of global warming is wrong[/b], we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”[/i]
            – Timothy Wirth,
            President of the UN Foundation

            [i]”[b]No matter if the science of global warming is all phony[/b]… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
            bring about justice and equality in the world.”[/i]
            – Christine Stewart,
            former Canadian Minister of the Environment

            [i]“[b]The data doesn’t matter[/b]. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. [b]We’re basing them on the climate models[/b].”[/i]
            – Prof. Chris Folland,
            Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

            [i]“The [b]models are convenient fictions[/b] that provide something very useful.”[/i]
            – Dr David Frame,
            climate modeler, Oxford University

            [i]”[b]It doesn’t matter what is true[/b], it only matters what people believe is true.”[/i]
            – Paul Watson,
            co-founder of Greenpeace

            And yet after all this, you still have no doubts about CAGW?

            Back to the science.

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            Oh yes another ploy compare climate science to Hitler. You guys will stop at nothing. Your pseudoscience has been debunked now you have nothing to counter with. All quotes I’m sure taken out of context as per usual…Denier ploy 7. Seems the lot of you are becoming more and more desperate as your attack on the hockey stick is failing. It is amazing how much criticism, smear campaign, fraudulent claims, personal insults, attacks on his science credibility Dr. Michael Mann has taken and he’s still fighting. The hockey stick has been attack relentlessly by deniers of AGW funded by the oil’s big money…and it failed.

            “From the outset, there has been an organized “disinformation” campaign… to “manufacture uncertainty” over AGW … especially by attacking climate science and scientists … waged by a loose coalition of industrial (especially fossil fuels) interests and conservative foundations and think tanks … often assisted by a small number of ‘contrarian scientists. … greatly aided by conservative media and politicians … and more recently by a bevy of skeptical bloggers. This “denial machine” has played a crucial role in generating skepticism toward AGW among laypeople and policy makers”
            Dunlap, R. E. (2013). “Climate Change Skepticism and Denial: An Introduction” (PDF). American Behavioral Scientist (SAGE) 57 (6). doi:10.1177/0002764213477097. Retrieved 27 May 2015
            Organized disinformation which this site certainly is…
            Dunlap 2013: “[i][b]Even though climate science has now firmly established that global warming is occurring, that human activities contribute to this warming[/b][/i]… a significant portion of the American public remains ambivalent or unconcerned, and many policymakers (especially in the United States) deny the necessity of taking steps to reduce carbon emissions…[i][b]From the outset, there has been an organized “disinformation” campaign… to generate skepticism and denial concerning AGW.”[/b][/i]

            Organised campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science is associated with conservative economic policies and backed by industrial interests opposed to the regulation of CO2 emissions.[18]
            Klein, Naomi (November 9, 2011). “Capitalism vs. the Climate”. The Nation.

            Dunlap 2013: “The campaign has been waged by a loose coalition of industrial (especially fossil fuels) interests and conservative foundations and think tanks… These actors are greatly aided by conservative media and politicians, and more recently by a bevy of skeptical bloggers.” Seems this blog is in the bevy…eh?

            Between 2002 and 2010, nearly $120 million (£77 million) was anonymously donated, some by conservative billionaires via the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund, to more than 100 organizations seeking to undermine the public perception of the science on climate change.[26]
            Goldenberg, Suzanne (14 February 2013). “Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks”.

            In 2013 the Center for Media and Democracy reported that the State Policy Network (SPN), an umbrella group of 64 U.S. think tanks, had been lobbying on behalf of major corporations and conservative donors to oppose climate change regulation.[27]

            Various groups, including the National Center for Science Education, have described climate change denial as be a form of pseudoscience.[95][96][97] Climate change skepticism, while in some cases professing to do research on climate change, has focused instead on influencing the opinion of the public, legislators and the media, in contrast to legitimate science.[98]

            In a review of the book The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe by Michael D. Gordin, David Morrison wrote:

            “In his final chapter, Gordin turns to the new phase of pseudoscience, practiced by a few rogue scientists themselves. Climate change denialism is the prime example, where [i][b]a handful of scientists, allied with an effective PR machine, are publicly challenging the scientific consensus that global warming is real and is due primarily to human consumption of fossil fuels.[/b][/i] Scientists have watched in disbelief that as the evidence for global warming has become ever more solid, the deniers have been increasingly successful in the public and political arena…. Today pseudoscience is still with us, and is as dangerous a challenge to science as it ever was in the past.[99]

            The preceding statements certainly describe what you are and what this blog is trying to do.

            Now that your numbers game has failed you are using out of context quotes. Please provide the links to the quotes.

            Read this and weep… http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/08/2261531/most-comprehensive-paleoclimate-reconstruction-confirms-hockey-stick/
            [i][b]You’ve lost science wins over pseudoscience.[/b][/i]

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]Oh yes another ploy compare climate science to Hitler.[/quote]

            The comparison is fair, Both Obama and Hitler are funded a one sided “science” and punished dissenters.

            [quote]You guys will stop at nothing. Your pseudoscience has been debunked now you have nothing to counter with. [/quote]

            Natural variability is not “pseuodscience, it is fact. More psychological projection from the one who lies.

            [quote]The hockey stick has been attack relentlessly by deniers of AGW funded by the oil’s big money…and it failed. [/quote]

            More ad homs with zero data. and the criticisms of the hockey stick worked, the IPCC removed it from their report.

            [quote]This “denial machine” has played a crucial role in generating skepticism toward AGW among laypeople and policy makers”[/quote]

            No, actually it is their failed predictions and their lies that have promoted skepticism, that and their own admission of dishonesty.

            [i]”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So [b]we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance
            is between being effective and being honest[/b].”[/i]
            – Prof. Stephen Schneider,
            Stanford Professor of Climatology,
            lead author of many IPCC reports

            [i]”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. [b]Even if the theory of global warming is wrong[/b], we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”[/i]
            – Timothy Wirth,
            President of the UN Foundation

            [i]”[b]No matter if the science of global warming is all phony[/b]… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
            bring about justice and equality in the world.”[/i]
            – Christine Stewart,
            former Canadian Minister of the Environment

            [i]“[b]The data doesn’t matter[/b]. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. [b]We’re basing them on the climate models[/b].”[/i]
            – Prof. Chris Folland,
            Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

            [i]“The [b]models are convenient fictions[/b] that provide something very useful.”[/i]
            – Dr David Frame,
            climate modeler, Oxford University

            [i]”[b]It doesn’t matter what is true[/b], it only matters what people believe is true.”[/i]
            – Paul Watson,
            co-founder of Greenpeace

            [quote]Between 2002 and 2010, nearly $120 million (£77 million) was anonymously donated, some by conservative billionaires via the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund, to more than 100 organizations seeking to undermine the public perception of the science on climate change[/quote]

            Not all that money went to discredit climatre change, and even if it did, it is only about 130 million per year. Did you hbit your head again? The US spent 1646 times that much in 2014, and that does not include Greenpeace and the Sierra Club et al.

            [quote]…a handful of scientists, allied with an effective PR machine, are publicly challenging the scientific consensus that global warming is real and is due primarily to human consumption of fossil fuels.[/quote]

            Actually you have that backwards. There are more scientists who I can name that says CAGW is BS, than scientists who you can name who claim it is real. And again, natural variability is not pseudoscience, so that is yet another lie. I’m losing count! 😆

            [quote]You’ve lost science wins over pseudoscience.[/quote] :zzz

            Once again, natural variabilty is the 4,500,000,000 year precedent and not pseodoscience.

            Lie much? 😆

            Back to science!

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            One measly paper Bill. What could [i]possibly[/i] be the problem? 😮

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Typo!

            [quote]only about 130 million per year[/quote]

            Actually only [b]13[/b] million per year, or [b]0.0006% of the money the US government alone spent on alarmism in 2014.[/b]

            Gosh! What a [i]machine[/i]! 😆

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            And they are FLOUNDERING!!! Public concern over the Invalidated CAGW “hypothesis” is still in decline despite the “inequity” of funding!

            See what I did there? I used a leftist trigger word! 😉

            Our Tame Cool Aid Drinker Ned Flounders responds!
            [img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBeOtZaW4AAJ1O2.jpg:large[/img]

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]The comparison is fair, Both Obama and Hitler are funded a one sided “science” and punished dissenters.[/quote] Lysenkoism is also a valid comparison to the Refuted CAGW “hypothesis”.
            [quote]The V.I. Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences announced on August 7, 1948 that thenceforth Lysenkoism would be taught as the only correct theory. All Soviet scientists were required to denounce any work that contradicted Lysenkoism. Ultimately, Soviet geneticists resisting Lysenkoism were imprisoned and even executed. Lysenkoism was abandoned for the correct modern science of Mendelian genetics only as late as 1964.

            The Theory of Man Caused Catastrophic Global Warming

            This same practice of Lysenkoism has long been under way in western science in regard to the politically correct theory of man caused, catastrophic, global warming. That theory serves the political fashions of the day in promoting vastly increased government powers and control over the private economy. Advocates of the theory are lionized in the dominant Democrat party controlled media in the U.S., and in leftist controlled media in other countries. Critics of the theory are denounced as “deniers,” and even still bourgeois fascists, with their motives impugned.

            Those who promote the theory are favored with billions from government grants and neo-Marxist environmentalist largesse, and official recognition and award. Faked and tampered data and evidence has arisen in favor of the politically correct theory. Is not man-caused, catastrophic global warming now the only theory allowed to be taught in schools in the West?

            Those in positions of scientific authority in the West who have collaborated with this new Lysenkoism because they felt they must be politically correct, and/or because of the money, publicity, and recognition to be gained, have disgraced themselves and the integrity of their institutions, organizations and publications.
            [/quote]

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/28/the-disgraceful-episode-of-lysenkoism-brings-us-global-warming-theory/

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Nothing fishy Bill Rybja has said or ever will say
            will ever change the fact that

            THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT

            as promulgated by the alarmists.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Hey Jaypee! Even [i]if[/i] there is a CO2 “greenhouse” effect (I prefer the term “atmospheric effect”), even the IPCC knows and admits that the bandwidth is nearing saturation and that CO2 alone cannot cause CAGW.

            [img]http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/graphs/log-co2/log-graph-lindzen-choi-web.gif[/img]

            This is why they must add in [i]other[/i] garbage to their models to make them show additional warming. Do you think Bill has a clue what they add in? 😆

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            I don’t think pan Rybja understands anything that’s why he talks so much.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            “There is no evidence, neither empirical nor theoretical, that carbon dioxide emissions from industrial and other human activities can have any effect on global climate. In addition, the claims so often made that there is a consensus among climate scientists that global warming is the result of increased man-made emissions of CO2, has no basis in fact.

            The results of accurate measurements of global temperatures continue to be analysed by the international laboratories, now with 30 years experience in this process while a large number of scientists continue to perform high quality research. The results of these activities clearly demonstrate a wide range of errors in the IPCC projections.

            Among the more obvious of these errors was the prediction of global warming expected by modelling of climate for the last three years. The actual measurements of global cooling in 2007/2008, flew directly in the face of these IPCC models. It would be difficult to find a more definitive illustration of an experimental error.”

            https://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/dangerous-human-caused-warming-can-neither-be-demonstrated-nor-measured/

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            CO2 evidence that it is a problem. In very simple terms for a very simple person. Nature took million and millions of years removing CO2 from the atmosphere and locking it up in vegetation which eventually became oil and coal. Millios of years to remove it to keep the CO2 levels in the atmosphere relatively consist in the 180 to 380 ppm range depending what was happening with the climate. Now man comes along and becomes a force of nature and starts releasing CO2 at a rate never seen before in the history of the planet. Millions of years to store a century or 2 to release. Natures carbon cycle can’t keep up with removal and rises about 2 ppm per year. We’ve also messed with one of nature’s removal system. We are cutting down all the trees! That’s about a simple as I can explain it.

            Now the science guys.
            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-carbon-dioxide-is-greenhouse-gas/

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-and-climate/

            The carbon cycle
            https://eo.ucar.edu/kids/green/cycles6.htm

            Greenhouse gas
            http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html

            http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#.VabgOfmPNx4

            [i][b]An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence.
            [/b][/i] https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

            The are some scientific links there and also some for students. Since you don’t understand science very well, I’d suggest you look at what the kids are learning in school!

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Oh look! It is the serial L-I-A-R! 😮

            And thankyou Bill, for lying about your lie.

            [quote]Yes, I said M&M ‘[i]probably[/i]’ didn’t have any peer reviewed documents forgetting they were professors before they became climate change pseudoscientists. [/quote]

            What you actually said…

            [quote]Since you don’t know what credible evidence is, you prefer to believe the pseudoscientists, McIntyre, McKitrick watsupwiththat, et al [b]none of which is published in a credible peer reviewed journal. Wonder why that is??? Is it they couldn’t take the peer review critiques of their work or no credible journal would publish their junk? [/b][/quote]

            Nice! 😆

            You are a proven serial L-I-A-R. Go pollute some other site with your BS.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Stephan Rahmdorf? One of Mann’s Co-authours and cLIEmate Gate Co-Conspiritors? 😀

            Sorry about your luck there Wee Willy, but your 24 “studies” are all based upon the same invalidated 12 trees and upside down graph.

            All were refuted by recorded history and those Viking Corn Cobs you keep running away from.

            But for coming out and for trying and lying. You win another Pinocchio!

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            amirlach Nothing I say is luck! What about all the other proxies? i.e. ice cores, sub-fossil pollen, boreholes, corals, lake and ocean sediments, and carbonate speleothems.

            “…McIntyre and McKitrick “raise no valid issues regarding our paper” and the “claim that ‘upside down’ data were used is bizarre”, as the methods “are insensitive to the sign of predictors.” They also said that [i][b]excluding the contentious datasets has little effect on the result.[137]” [/b][/i]

            You basing you whole argument on M&M’s critique of Mann’s report. Their work has been thrown out. Removing the dataset M&M say is contentious has little effect on the result! You need some new info. Prove that the the 24 studies used the same methods. Of course they used the same data, there is no other data.

            A study of the changing climate of the Arctic over the last 2,000 years, by an international consortium led by Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University, was published on 4 September 2009. They examined sediment core records from 14 Arctic lakes, supported by tree ring and ice core records. Their findings showed a long term cooling trend consistent with cycles in the Earth’s orbit which would be expected to continue for a further 4,000 years but had been reversed in the 20th century by a sudden rise attributed to greenhouse gas emissions. The decline had continued through the Medieval period and the Little Ice Age. The most recent decade, 1999–2008, was the warmest of the period, and four of the five warmest decades occurred between 1950 and 2000. [i][b]Scientific American described the graph as largely replicating “the so-called ‘hockey stick,’ a previous reconstruction”.[138][/b][/i] Kaufman et al. 2009; UCAR news release, 3 Sept. 2009; Bello 2009.

            Did M&M do their thing on this paper? No! Can’t negate all papers on the topic because M&M found some concerns with Mann’s paper and [i][b]Mann reported uncertainties that needed further research.[/b][/i] You keep barking up the same tree…it’s dead, the hockey stick is true!

            “In 2004 Hans von Storch published criticism of the statistical techniques as tending to underplay variations in earlier parts of the graph, though this was disputed and he later accepted that the effect was very small![11]” Again the hockey stick is correct!

            In 2005 McIntyre and McKitrick published criticisms of the principal components analysis methodology as used in MBH98 and MBH99. Their analysis in was subsequently disputed by published papers including Huybers 2005 and Wahl & Ammann 2007 which pointed to errors in the McIntyre and McKitrick methodology.”
            Again the hockey stick is correct!

            Povide some research other than M&M’s critique that concludes/proves the hockey stick is wrong!

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]Povide some research other than M&M’s critique that concludes/proves the hockey stick is wrong![/quote] Already have. Your in denial of it. There is no possible way to reconcile the faked hockey stick graphs with these. Likely the reason you keep dodging them.

            Trees omitted from every fake Hockey Stick Graph!
            [img]http://www.iwebstreet.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/326.jpg[/img]
            http://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html

            http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland

            http://www.macleans.ca/authors/john-geddes/melting-yukon-ices-reveals-5000-year-old-archaeological-treasures/
            [img]https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/presentation1.jpeg[/img]
            There’s that bit about NAS and Zero Statistical Skill you keep lying about.

            And the well over 250 Peer Reviewed Papers which show the MWP and LIA were both Global.(remember the graphic Gator posted with all the little graphs? Each of those Graphs is from a Peer Reviewed Paper.)

            Then there are the Tree Ring Proxies mentioned here. These Peer Reviewed Papers show a warmer MWP and the LIA refuting Mann and Co.
            [quote]Naurzbaev et al [2004] is a terrific article by Naurzbaev, Hughes (yes, that Hughes) and Vaganov about deducing climate information from tree-ring growth curves in Siberia. (I find Naurzbaev’s work consistently interesting.) They studied 34 larch sites in a meridional transect from 55 to 72 N (at a longitude of about 90-100E) and 23 larch sites along an altitudinal transect from 1120 to 2350 m around Tuva (~ 51N, 95E). So they’ve already started off with a consistent population – not some grab-bag like MBH98 or cherry-picking like Jacoby. The transect includes the Taimyr peninsula, chronologies from which occur in Esper et al [2002] and Mann et al [EOS 2003]. [/quote]
            http://climateaudit.org/2005/10/05/naurzbaev/

            Millar et al [2006],
            [quote]
            Deadwood tree stems scattered above treeline on tephra-covered slopes of Whitewing Mtn (3051 m) and San Joaquin Ridge (3122 m) show evidence of being killed in an eruption from adjacent Glass Creek Vent, Inyo Craters. Using tree-ring methods, we dated deadwood to 815-1350 CE, and infer from death dates that the eruption occurred in late summer 1350 CE….Using contemporary distributions of the species, we modeled paleoclimate during the time of sympatry [the MWP] to be significantly warmer (+3.2 deg C annual minimum temperature) and slightly drier (-24 mm annual precipitation) than present,

            The value of 3.2 deg C is a big and almost inconceivable number. But compare this to the following comment in Naurzabaev et al [2004] about Siberia, which I’d referred to previously, where a similar number is implied:

            Trees that lived at the upper (elevational) tree limit during the so-called Medieval Warm Epoch (from A.D. 900 to 1200) show annual and summer temperature warmer by 1.5 and 2.3 deg C, respectively, approximately one standard deviation of modern temperature. Note that these trees grew 150-200 m higher (1-1.28C cooler) than those at low elevation but the same latitude, implying that this may be an underestimate of the actual temperature difference.
            [/quote]
            http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/14/millar-et-al-the-sierra-nevada-mwp/

            “Moberg attempted to get away from tree ring site chronologies, but simply picked an odd selection of sediments, with his results dominated by a few questionable series. I don’t think that Moberg’s a magic bullet.

            Before there was a Hockey Team, paleoclimatologists on a millennial scale studied “low frequency” vegetation changes. Millar et al [2006] is a sophisticated effort in the spirit of the paleoclimatologists before the Hockey Team. My guess is that this is the way forward – abandon Mannian attempts to extract “signals” from cherry-picked and noisy proxy series and try to develop some really good information, one site at a time.”

            Keep on Snurfing Flounders!

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]amirlach Nothing I say is luck! (Or True!) You basing you whole argument on M&M’s critique of Mann’s report. Their work has been thrown out.[/quote] What are you Surfing Flounders?

            No actually it has not. The IPCC tossed Mann’s crappy graph under the bus and one of the Dynamic Duo that is M&M is now an expert Reviewer for the IPCC.

            Let’s Review what the North and Wegman Reports actually said.
            [quote]During June, 2006 a National Research Council (NRC) panel chaired by Gerald North, of Texas A&M University, endorsed specific criticisms of Mann’s methodology and concluded that no statistical confidence could be placed in Mann’s insistence that temperatures in the 1990s exceeded those in the medieval warm period. From Professor North’s summary statement:

            …the substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales. We also question some of the statistical choices made in the original papers by Dr. Mann and his colleague.

            McIntyre and McKitrick’s most devastating criticisms of the analyses by Mann et al—invalidating the latter’s work—were upheld without equivocation (or deference to Mann et al) in a subsequent 2006 report chaired by the eminent statistician Edward Wegman (chairman of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences committee on theoretical and applied statistics), and submitted to the US House of Representatives. Here are key excerpts (a few extended) from the report by Wegman et al:

            Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.

            Where we have commonality, I believe our report and the NRC panel essentially agree. …We believe that our discussion together with the discussion from the NRC report should take the “centering’ issue off the table. [Mann’s] decentered methodology is simply incorrect mathematics … I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong Answer Correct = Bad Science.
            [/quote]

            So much for your lie that “They North Report and Wegman didn’t like Mann’s methods but they agreed with the conclusion.”

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Link to the above source RE: North and Wegman.
            http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2008/12/25/horse-hockey-climate-scientology-%e2%80%9cgetting-rid%e2%80%9d-of-the-medieval-warming-period/

            “Mann’s paper was the first time anyone had tried to use paleoclimate proxies i.e. tree rings, ice cores, corals, and ocean and lake sediments. with temperature readings starting in about 1850.” Wrong! Simply making stuff up is still lying.

            [quote]The Greek botanist Theophrastus (ca. 371 – ca. 287 BC) first mentioned that the wood of trees has rings.[2][3] In his Trattato della Pittura (Treatise on Painting), Leonardo da Vinci was the first person to mention that trees form rings annually and that their thickness is determined by the conditions under which they grew.[4] In 1737, French investigators Henri-Louis Duhamel du Monceau and Georges-Louis Leclerc de Buffon examined the effect of growing conditions on the shape of tree rings.[5] They found that in 1709, a severe winter produced a distinctly dark tree ring, which served as a reference for subsequent European naturalists.[6]

            In the U.S., Alexander Catlin Twining (1801-1884) suggested in 1833 that patterns among tree rings could be used to synchronize the dendrochronologies of various trees and thereby to reconstruct past climates across entire regions.[7] The English polymath Charles Babbage proposed using dendrochronology to date the remains of trees in peat bogs or even in geological strata (1835, 1838).[8]

            During the latter half of the nineteenth century, the scientific study of tree rings and the application of dendrochronology began. In 1859, the German-American Jacob Kuechler (1823-1893) used crossdating to examine oaks (Quercus stellata) in order to study the record of climate in western Texas.[9] In 1866, the German botanist, entomologist, and forester Julius Ratzeburg (1801-1871) observed the effects on tree rings of defoliation caused by insect infestations.[10] By 1882, this observation was already appearing in forestry textbooks.[11] In the 1870s, the Dutch astronomer Jacobus C. Kapteyn (1851-1922) was using crossdating to reconstruct the climates of Holland and Germany.[12] In 1881, the Swiss-Austrian forester Arthur von Seckendorff-Gudent (1845-1886) was using crossdating.[13] From 1869 to 1901, Robert Hartig (1839-1901), a German professor of forest pathology, wrote a series of papers on the anatomy and ecology of tree rings.[14] In 1892, the Russian physicist Fedor Nikiforovich Shvedov (Фёдор Никифорович Шведов) (1841-1905) wrote that he had used patterns found in tree rings to predict droughts in 1882 and 1891.[15]

            During the first half of the 20th century, the astronomer A. E. Douglass founded the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at the University of Arizona. Douglass sought to better understand cycles of sunspot activity and reasoned that chang
            [/quote]

            “Mann stated from the outset that there were discrepancies that needed research.”

            Yet strangely he is still refusing to release his data and methods? Wonder why?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]Prove that the the 24 studies used the same methods. Of course they used the same data, there is no other data.[/quote] They used the same 12 TREES! I can recall my days spent working in Siberia, and I can assure you that there are ALOT more that 12 trees there.

            No other data? Your going with that lie?
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/30/yamal-treering-proxy-temperature-reconstructions-dont-match-local-thermometer-records/

            http://www.skepticink.com/prussian/2014/03/19/about-those-mann-replications/

            http://joannenova.com.au/2014/12/hockeystick-finally-updated-with-modern-trees-collapses/

            http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/02/latest-research-shatters-urban-myth-of-unprecedented-modern-warming-the-hockey-stick-refuted.html

            SNURF SNURF!! 😀

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            According to Wiki? 😀

            Your actually soaking in the koolaid aren’t you?

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            amirlach no ad hom there eh? Perhaps you shouldn’t do selfie videos they make you look very silly! Although you do look good in blue!

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            No amount of lying by slick Willie ( the fish ) Rybja

            will ever change the fact that

            THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT

            as claimed by the alarmist cabal.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Bill Lying? 😮

            You mean like this?

            Biil lied…

            [quote]Yes, I said M&M ‘[i]probably[/i]’ didn’t have any peer reviewed documents forgetting they were professors before they became climate change pseudoscientists. [/quote]

            What Bill actually said…

            [quote]Since you don’t know what credible evidence is, you prefer to believe the pseudoscientists, McIntyre, McKitrick watsupwiththat, et al [b]none of which is published in a credible peer reviewed journal. Wonder why that is??? Is it they couldn’t take the peer review critiques of their work or no credible journal would publish their junk? [/b][/quote]

            Nice! 😆

            Bill is a proven serial L-I-A-R.

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            Gator Your arguments are laughable. Everyone on this thread is a right wing nut bar, except me of course, believing pseudoscience over credible science. It must be in the right wing handbook of ploys that when all else fails call your opponent a liar. The public will believe you or at least it will put some doubt in there minds and you don’t need proof, just say it. The Right wing PR machine continues.

            You don’t understand proxies and how they work nor the stats used. M&M don’t have a good understanding either. Check the errors here. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-claims-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/

            M&M have additionally been discredited by Rutherford et al 2004 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=10 I know you won’t read, but it shows where McIntyre cherry picked the emails, took parts of some and made them sound the way he wanted.

            Denier Complaints About Climate Proxies Are Based On Ignorance Of The Science. Your ignorance is two fold. Not only is it what you don’t know it’s also what you won’t know!
            http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/09/22/steve-mcintyre-misrepresents-climate-research-history/

            If my biggest lie is “none of which is published in a credible peer reviewed journal” doesn’t mean anything in the big picture of AGW.
            Not a liar… “McIntyre and McKitrick have published exactly one – that’s right, uno – peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal. (Besides the pair’s 2005 GRL article, Ross McKitrick’s misleading list of so-called “peer-reviewed science journal articles” also includes two pieces in the contrarian social science journal Energy and Environment, a comment letter to PNAS and a pair of replies to comments on the GRL article!)” http://deepclimate.org/2010/02/04/steve-mcintyre-and-ross-mckitrick-part-1-in-the-beginning/

            “Even worse, McIntyre left out intervening sentences within the actual proffered quotes in what appears to be an unsophisticated attempt to mislead.” Read what McIntyre did if you dare to learn.
            http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/11/mcintyre-provides-fodder-for-skeptics/

            McIntyre is obsessed with Mann to try and make a name for himself and does nothing but mislead and you use his ‘lies/BS’ as your proof. Good luck with that!

            Here’s a good review of the controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

            Bottom line a multitude of credible scientists believe AGW and given their evidence, so do I. While you are in a learning mode, learn about climate models and their accuracy: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/climate_models_accuracy.html

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Bill, I [i]cannot[/i] thank you enough for you [i]wonderful[/i] endorsement! Coming from you, [u]a proven serial liar[/u], this attack proves that I must be [i]awesome[/i]!

            And thankyou Bill, for lying about your lie, that just put the cherry on top!

            [quote]Yes, I said M&M ‘[i]probably[/i]’ didn’t have any peer reviewed documents forgetting they were professors before they became climate change pseudoscientists. [/quote]

            What you actually said…

            [quote]Since you don’t know what credible evidence is, you prefer to believe the pseudoscientists, McIntyre, McKitrick watsupwiththat, et al [b]none of which is published in a credible peer reviewed journal. Wonder why that is??? Is it they couldn’t take the peer review critiques of their work or no credible journal would publish their junk? [/b][/quote]

            Nice! 😆

            You are a proven serial L-I-A-R. Go pollute some other site with your BS.

            The only thing laughable, is your belief that anyone cares what you have to say anymore. 😆 😆 😆

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            Obviously a lot of people care about what I have to say,look at the responses. Now, since you can’t refute the science you attack me personally. Rule #6 in the denies handbook of denial.

            Wow and what a science changing lie it was. You can’t stoop any lower in your attacks. You sound like a 10 year old kid screaming ‘liar, liar pants on fire!’ Grow up and get a life. 🙄

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            We cared as far as correcting your BS. Now that you have continued to lie, and lie, and lie, and lie some more nobody cares except to ridicule your dishonesty.

            It is so typical of your type to continue braying after everyone has already figured out that you are a serial L-I-A-R.

            Go pollute another site Bill.

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            Ah…it’s not my BS it’s scientific evidence that you refuse to understand. If I am a serial liar as you stated, why can you produce only one statement that you consider a lie? Where are the lies one after the other?

            As I said before you are a right wing wingnut with all baggage that it carries following the party line and since you have lost you resort to personal attacks. I consider the source and treat it with the disdain it deserves. Gator, is that short for alligator a reptile with a pea sized brain? lol! 😆

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            What is it with you and [i]lying[/i] Bill?

            I pointed out that you [i]lied[/i] about who paid Dr Soon, pointed out that you [i]lied[/i] about McIntyre not writing peer reviewed papers, that you [i]lied[/i] about McKitrick not writing peer reviewed papers, and that you [i]lied[/i] about your [i]lies[/i] about McIntyre and McKitrick.

            You [i]lie[/i] so much that it is hard to keep track Bill. I purposely did not point out all of your [i]lies[/i] because I wanted amirlach to have some fun as well.

            Are you really as stupid as you pretend? Why would you ask us to revisit your [u]serial lying[/u]? Do you think it is [i]helping[/i] your case? 😆

            Go pollute another web site with your BS. Enough already.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]No investigation or waffling on the part of the Smithsonian was warranted. The Smithsonian itself had negotiated all the contracts in question under the condition the funder’s identity was not to be published, and all the money went directly to the Smithsonian, who then paid Soon out of the grants. The Smithsonian’s internal policies assured no conflict of interest. As the letter from Monckton et al. states, “The only papers in which Soon had not disclosed his funders’ identity were those papers covered by that contractual obligation of confidentiality, for which obligation the Smithsonian, not Soon, was entirely responsible.”

            The Smithsonian’s failure to respond swiftly and appropriately to quash the allegations of impropriety further harmed Soon’s reputation.
            [/quote]http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/17/500-sign-petition-to-smithsonian-in-defense-of-dr-willie-soon-guess-smithsonians-answer/

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Bill, you are dismissed, You are a serial liar, who quotes serial liars.

            Go pollute another website.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            More lies and projection from Bill the serial liar.

            Did you hit your head?

            You don’t remember lying about your lie. 😆

            [quote]Yes, I said M&M ‘[i]probably[/i]’ didn’t have any peer reviewed documents forgetting they were professors before they became climate change pseudoscientists. [/quote]

            What you actually said…

            [quote]Since you don’t know what credible evidence is, you prefer to believe the pseudoscientists, McIntyre, McKitrick watsupwiththat, et al [b]none of which is published in a credible peer reviewed journal. Wonder why that is??? Is it they couldn’t take the peer review critiques of their work or no credible journal would publish their junk? [/b][/quote]

            Nice! 😆

            You are a proven [i]serial L-I-A-R[/i], [b]AGAIN! [/b]Go pollute some other site with your BS.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Nothing willi ignorato says nor anything he quotes will ever discount the fact that

            THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT

            most especially as appealed to by willi himself and ignorami he loves to quote.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            That must make you a chicken little then, err would that be the chicken of the sea! 😀

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Slick willie ( the fish out of water ). So in need of recognition. A nothing at home, a nothing in life. Seeks to become a big man on the internet where no one can see his pathetic self.

            Nothing he says or ever will say will ever refute that

            THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT

            as the pathetic peddlers of global hysteria claim.

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            [b]JayPee[/b] Ye know with your head stuck in the sand your ass is a huge target! The mountains of evidence says there is AGW.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]Ah…it’s not my BS it’s scientific evidence that you refuse to understand. [/quote] Got news for you Snurf. Fiddled data and failed models are only “evidence” of fraud. None of it is science.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            @ 2 B Fish “Everyone on this thread is a right wing nut bar, except me of course,”

            Flattery will get you nowhere! 😆 😆 :-*

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            You know what that is called here, right?

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Working under the tableunder the radar. In a way, I don’t blame them, when things get regulated to death.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            It’s exactly what you sound like Wee Willy Flounders, Lying about your Lies.

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            [b]amirlach[/b] If accusing me of lying is your only argument you have lost as my big lie is saying M&M haven’t any peer reviewed papers…what a joke! I don’t lie I believe the overwhelming scientific evidence that shows AGW, and I believe it.

            You are ignorant of what you don’t know but you have the unforgivable ignorance of what you won’t know! You refuse to enlighten yourself with information/evidence that does not support your opinion.

            I’ve look at the evidence pro and con on climate change. For 2 reasons I choose the pro climate change and AGW. 1. the evidence is there to prove AGW 2. on investigation of the con I found they were backed by the fossil fuel industry who had an interest in AGW other than scientific. They hired the PR people from the tobacco industry that fought for the tobacco industry stating smoking didn’t cause cancer and other diseases. They lost, science won. The con group isn’t interested in science they are interested in money.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            When you lie you get called a liar.
            [quote] I don’t lie I believe the overwhelming scientific evidence that shows AGW, and I believe it. [/quote]
            “Any fool can know. The point is to understand.”
            ― Albert Einstein

            [quote]You are ignorant of what you don’t know but you have the unforgivable ignorance of what you won’t know! You refuse to enlighten yourself with information/evidence that does not support your opinion.[/quote] What don’t I know? “Your “evidence” is not credible. It is based upon faked, cherry picked data and failed models. Hardly “enlightening”. 😀

            All I do is compare the alarmists predictions to reality. They all failed. Yet when you are shown models that do work you run away? It is in fact you who “refuses to enlighten yourself with information/evidence that does not support your opinion”.

            Not one of your sources of is credible. Not one. You keep lying and claiming we don’t

            Try and find even one alarmist model that works. One that passes this test known as the Scientific Method.
            [quote]Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics said, “It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”[/quote]

            What you deniers of the Scientific Method refuse to admit is, that forest that was found melting out of an Alaskan Glacier, has completely invalidated Mann and his Co-conspirator’s 24 fake Multi-Proxiy fabrications. They all disagree with observational reality.

            “If it disagrees with experiment. It’s WRONG! In this simple statement lies the key to Science.”

            This has always been about wealth redistribution. Started by leftists and “believed” by leftists.

            Your screed about tobacco is complete and utter nonsense. Look who Mann hired to defend him… 😀
            [quote]Being represented by experienced defamation lawyer John B. Williams of Cozen O’Conner.

            In 2001, John successfully represented R.J. Reynolds in the three-month Blue Cross/Blue Shield RICO trial before Judge Jack B. Weinstein.

            Advertising Litigation — John has significant experience in all types of advertising litigation, including cases brought by the Federal Trade Commission, cases brought by the state attorneys general, consumer class actions, and private Lanham Act litigation. He successfully defended R.J. Reynolds in the commercial speech case filed by the Federal Trade Commission challenging the cartoon character, Joe Camel. [/quote]

            What about your LIEs regarding the findings of the North and Wegman Reports? 😀
            [quote]Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.

            Where we have commonality, I believe our report and the NRC panel essentially agree. …We believe that our discussion together with the discussion from the NRC report should take the “centering’ issue off the table. [Mann’s] decentered methodology is simply incorrect mathematics … I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong Answer Correct = Bad Science.

            So much for your LIE that “They North and Wegman didn’t like Mann’s methods but they agreed with the conclusion.”[/quote] Seriously Lying Bill Fishy. Why are you still here?

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            [b]amirlach[/b] Lies eh? Your quote “Overall, our committee…” is from Wegman’s prepared statement not from the hearing. Wegman’s report has been found to be bogus. There is plagiarism from Wikipedia and other papers, reference padding, altering statements Mann’s report and more. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Wegman_Report

            North and Wegman don’t like Mann’s centering temperatures using 1902 to 1990. They would prefer an average from 1000 to 2000 as the centered temperature. That has been done and both North and Wegman agree! Not a lie…read on!

            North asked by MR.WHITFIELD what he thought of Wegman’s report…note he hadn’t read it in detail because he just got it 3 days before the hearing.
            DR.NORTH: “Well, I think that on many things we are in agreement. …Let me just mention this, that the criticisms don’t mean that the MBH claims were wrong… They just mean that the MBH claims are not convincing by themselves.”

            MR.WHIFIELD “…Now,
            Dr. North, do you agree with Dr. Wegman’s centering analysis or not?
            DR. NORTH. I do. I think that he is right about that. However, you know, we have to be careful here and not throw the baby out with the water.
            MR. WHITFIELD. Right.
            DR. NORTH. Because there have been other analyses, papers published after the Mann papers in which people just took a simple
            average. Dr. Crowley wrote a paper just a short time after that in
            which he didn’t use the principal component analysis at all. He got
            essentially the same answer. And so–
            MR. WHITFIELD. Is that what we refer to as the CPS analysis?
            DR. NORTH. I don’t know what the initials–but [i][b]he just took the average instead of dealing with the data the way one does it in the principal component analysis,[/b][/i] so what I am arguing, and some other people have also done this same, there have been many studies later that don’t use principal component analysis and the ones that I showed you, (what he showed was a graph with several different methods and they all are basically the same shape as the hockey stick.) it is not there now–

            CHAIRMAN BARTON. But [i][b]what they should have done was if they
            are going to measure from one 1000 to 2000, they should have used all the data points and came up with the mean and centered wherever that mean was?
            DR. WEGMAN. That is correct, yes.[/b][/i]
            CHAIRMAN BARTON. Thank you.

            Dr. Wegman agrees that if you use the mean temperature from 1000 to 2000 and Crowley did that and came up with the same curve.

            MR. WAXMAN. I would like to ask unanimous consent that the
            chairman be given two additional minutes, but are you critical–
            because that was my question–are you critical of his methodology in
            reaching the same conclusion?
            DR. WEGMAN. I am saying that it is quite possible to use the CPS, the averaging methodology, and come to the same conclusion that
            Dr. Mann had. I am not saying he did that because I haven’t studied
            his paper in such detail as to be willing to say that.

            Who’s lying now? Those are quotes not misquotes or quotes taken out of context a la amirlach and all deniers.

            M&M were wrong as well when their work was critically reviewed: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/09/22/steve-mcintyre-misrepresents-climate-research-history/

            Go to the end of the hearing report… [b][i]”Question No. 5. Should all scientific papers be withheld from publication until the results are independently replicated?” [/b][/i] The answer is long, Wegman’s paper was not peer reviewed. Had it been it wouldn’t have been used at the hearing!

            “Moreover, the errors that Dr. Ritson has identified in Dr. Wegman’s calculations appear so basic that they would almost certainly have been detected in a standard peer review. In other words, had Dr. Wegman’s report been properly peer-reviewed in a rigorous process where peer-reviewers were selected anonymously, it likely would not
            have seen the light of day.”

            Excuse me, who does the cherry picking. Deniers don’t do any climate science because they aren’t scientists. They find a paper they don’t like such as Mann’s and pick points and try to refute it. On review of the deniers’ papers they are wrong! The hockey stick has stood up to unimaginable criticism and it is still correct! It bothers you because it proves all your denying is BULLSH**!

            amirlach doesn’t know what he is talking about! Again… [b][i]Who is the liar?[/b][/i] Methinks most of the commenters on this site qualify.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            No amount of silly appeals to so-called authority by thoroughly discredited fishy willy will ever override the fact that

            THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT .

            Silly willy can pretend otherwise, but fact and science stand in the way of his inability to reason.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]Your quote “Overall, our committee…” is from Wegman’s prepared statement not from the hearing. Wegman’s report has been found to be bogus. There is plagiarism from Wikipedia and other papers, reference padding, altering statements Mann’s report and more. [/quote] Found to be Bogus? So when a bogus finding supports your Doctrine it’s fine? What happened to the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway? 😀

            They both(Wegman and North) fully endorsed M&M’s work. In fact it was the only work that they could replicate. Mann’s was so bad and so incomplete it was useless.

            [quote] McIntyre and McKitrick’s most devastating criticisms of the analyses by Mann et al—invalidating the latter’s work—were upheld without equivocation (or deference to Mann et al) in a subsequent 2006 report chaired by the eminent statistician Edward Wegman (chairman of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences committee on theoretical and applied statistics), and submitted to the US House of Representatives. Here are key excerpts (a few extended) from the report by Wegman et al:

            Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.

            Where we have commonality, I believe our report and the NRC panel essentially agree. …We believe that our discussion together with the discussion from the NRC report should take the “centering’ issue off the table. [Mann’s] decentered methodology is simply incorrect mathematics … I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong Answer Correct = Bad Science.

            The papers of Mann et al. in themselves are written in a confusing manner, making it difficult for the reader to discern the actual methodology and what uncertainty is actually associated with these reconstructions. It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the MBH paper.

            We have been to Michael Mann’s University of Virginia Web site and downloaded the materials there. Unfortunately, we did not find adequate material to reproduce the MBH98 materials. We have been able to reproduce the results of McIntyre and McKitrick…In general, we find the criticisms by MM03 [McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick, 2003: Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) proxy database and northern hemispheric average temperature series. Energy and Environment, 14, 751 771., MM05a [McIntyre, S. and R. McKitrick, (2005a), Hockey Sticks, Principal Components and Spurious Significance, Geophys. Res. Let., 32] and MM05b [McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick, 2005b: The M&M critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere climate index: Update and implications. Energy and Environment, 16, 69 99.] to be valid and their arguments to be compelling. We were able to reproduce their results and offer both theoretical explanations (Appendix A) and simulations to verify that their observations were correct. [/quote] Sucks to be you. 😀

            [quote]Excuse me, who does the cherry picking? [/quote] Mr. Fraudy Pants! Your Hero. [quote] Deniers don’t do any climate science because they aren’t scientists. They find a paper they don’t like such as Mann’s and pick points and try to refute it. On review of the deniers’ papers they are wrong! The hockey stick has stood up to unimaginable criticism and it is still correct! It bothers you because it proves all your denying is BULLSH**! [/quote] Do you even READ the lies you type?

            “Deniers don’t do science!” Then you claim that the “Papers the Deniers Published in PEER REVIEWED” Journals are all wrong? 😮

            Sorry but, if the being able to have your work independently replicated is worth anything. Mann failed and M&M won.

            [quote] It bothers you because it proves all your denying is BULLSH**![/quote] Pure Projection from the denier of the Scientific Method.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]Lies eh? Your quote “Overall, our committee…” is from Wegman’s prepared statement not from the hearing. Wegman’s report has been found to be bogus. There is plagiarism from Wikipedia and other papers, reference padding, altering statements Mann’s report and more. [/quote] Funny how when it’s proven North and Wegman actually upheld M&M’s work you toss them under the bus.

            What happened to the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway? 😀

            Or is that only acceptable when the incorrect paleo reconstruction methods generate the results you want?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]There is plagiarism from Wikipedia and other papers, reference padding, altering statements Mann’s report and more. [/quote]
            When your goto miss information sources do the same you don’t seem to mind do you?
            [quote]
            Unreliable*
            Skeptical Science – John Cook

            * Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.[/quote]

            Or when Mann and Co. Doctor Quotes?

            http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/22/the-source-of-manns-doctored-quote/

            https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/the-michael-mann-scientists-rigor-and-honesty-quote/

            https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/secret-skepticalscience/

            http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/3/26/opengate-josh-158.html

            http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/3/24/behind-the-scenes-at-skeptical-science.html

            Fake exonerations.

            http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/21/mann-and-the-muir-russell-inquiry-1/

            The fact is Cook and Mann have worked behind the curtain in many shady ways.
            http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/9/7/michael-mann-and-skepticalscience-well-orchestrated.html

            And all is not happy happy in the backwoods of cherry tree ring “reconstructions”. Seems he went a little Snurfy over one of his fellow tree ring circus acts publishing evidence there really was a MWP.

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/25/climategate-2-0-email-mike-mann-chracterized-as-crazy-over-mwp-and-serious-enemy/

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Yep! One Serial Liar defending another. 😀 [quote]Mann’s claim that he had personally been exonerated by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (report here) http://www.climateaudit.info/proceedings/inquiries/uk%20parliamentary%20scitech%20committee/387i.pdf of a wide range of counts was also untrue. It’s so untrue that it’s hard to even make an interesting post of it.

            In the process of writing the post, I noticed the following quotation from Mann’s Reply Memorandum, which has some extra interest given the evidence that the doctored quotation in Mann’s pleadings came from the SKS blog, rather than original documents. Mann and/or Cozen O’Connor wrote:

            In March 2010, the United Kingdom’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the skeptics’ criticisms of the CRU were misplaced, and that its actions “were in line with common practice in the climate science community.”

            The first sentence is completely untrue: the Committee Report said nothing of the sort. The assertion that “criticisms of the CRU were misplaced” is neither made nor supported in the Committee Report. This phrase originated instead with SKS, who, once again, altered the language, though, in this case, not going so far as to fabricate a quotation.

            Contrary to the assertion that the Commons Committee had found that criticisms of CRU were misplaced, the Commons Committee was extremely sympathetic to criticisms of data obstruction, particularly given the importance of climate science. For example, they stated that, if CRU’s practices were “found to be in line with the rest of climate science, the question would arise whether climate science methods of operation need to change”. (It is hard to conceive of a more thorough misrepresentation of this finding than the wording in the Mann/Cozen O’Connor pleading.)

            As we explained in chapter 2, the practices and methods of climate science are a key issue. If the practices of CRU are found to be in line with the rest of climate science, the question would arise whether climate science methods of operation need to change. In this event we would recommend that the scientific community should consider changing those practices to ensure greater transparency.
            [/quote]http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/23/more-sks-in-the-mann-pleadings/

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            [i][b] Dear Me [/b][/i] You found right wing wingnut reports. Why don’t you find some middle of the road reports. The right wing whitewash has no credibility!

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Slick willie can assume credibility all he wants, but the fact will always remain that he has none for his being a proven serial liar. And once again, he will never understand that nothing has to say or any of his stupid posturing means anything in the face of the fact that

            THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT

            as he and his ” authorities ” unwarrantedly presume.

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    So let’s cut to the chase… According to scientists paid by the AGW movement a [i]lack[/i] of solar activity [i]can[/i] be used to explain the failed prediction of man-made global warming, but any future [i]increase[/i] of solar activity [i]cannot[/i] cause significant temperature increases – only man made CO2 can do that.

    How convenient. Heads I win, tails you lose.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      William Bill Fish

      |

      GR82DRV Please give me the money trail for the AGW movement. Who’s paying and how much to each of the thousands of credible climate scientists.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    The Emperor has no clothes but we are still at the stage where subjects are not going to proclaim so.

    They may be those afraid of being cut off crumbs of gold however the vast majority think the Emperor an idiot so don’t care clothed or not .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    The Emperor has no clothes but we are still at the stage where subjects are not going to proclaim so.

    They may be those afraid of being cut off crumbs of gold however the vast majority think the Emperor an idiot so don’t care clothed or not .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Aido

    |

    I’m actually a millionaire. Unfortunately, my current lack of funds is masking that.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      That’s nothing! I became a [i]trillionaire[/i] last week, and for less than $5…

      [img]https://www.collectons.com/images/items/2013/03/01/1362178149.jpg[/img]

      Printing money is a [i]great[/i] idea! Look what it did for Zimbabwe.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    The comments so far are right on. The alarmist movement has no end of excuses when the data doesn’t support their political agenda.

    Now let’s consider what is going to happen weather wise. When the climate models were first created they showed carbon dioxide and other gasses would increase the Earth’s temperature. These early models might have been accurate but they had a big problem in that they predicted too little warming to be a problem. That is when they added positive feed back factors to get the results they were after.

    If an increase in temperature from green house gasses exists at all, its small impact will be overwhelmed by the decrease in solar radiation. The likely result will be very cold weather. We might even be in trouble with our food production.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Oh come on! The Sun is [i]only[/i] 99.8% of all mass in the entire Solar System. That can’t count for much, especially when you put that up against man’s contribution to the [s]outhouse[/s] greenhouse effect, which is a [i]whopping[/i] 0.28%!

    [img]http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2007/07005gerhard/images/04.jpg[/img]

    Sun schmun.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    William Bill Fish

    |

    #Gator I have found that deniers aren’t very good at math or at cherry picking data.

    Ice core samples have shown in the past that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in global temp. The max atmospheric CO2 from the god’s emitters was in the 380’s ppm.

    God’s big CO2 emitters, volcanoes emit in the range of 0.13 to .44 gigaton (a gigatone = 1 billion metric tonnes) of CO2 annually. That includes land based and submarine volcanoes. Man emits on average 35 gigatons/35 billion metric tonnes of CO2 annually.

    God’s emitters are a little behind man’s emitters by 34.56 to 34.87 gigatons annually and togeter, man’s CO2 plus god’s CO2 we have raised the atmospheric CO2 level to 400+ ppm and rising approximately 2 ppm/year.

    Deniers, which I read, believe god’s CO2 caused temp increases in the past why are they denying that god’s CO2 plus man’s CO2 isn’t doing it in 2015.

    The scary part is, it’s true we should be entering a mini ice age due to the cooling of the sun. We aren’t, the temp is going up due to the greenhouse effect of god’s + man’s CO2. Going to be interesting to see in 11 years what happens to temps when the sun goes into it’s warming cycle.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      When you find a denier, ask him to explain to you that CO is a minor player in the “greenhouse” game, and how to read graphs.

      Please do me two favors.

      1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

      2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

      In am willing to discuss this with you further tomorrow, but if you need more time, I more than understand.

      Reply

        • Avatar

          Me

          |

      • Avatar

        Me

        |

        Ya can speak for yourself, I think for my self. I look at things and if it doesn’t make sence then it doesn’t. Bottom line religion doesn’t, AGWACC doesn’t, and neither of this precoius metals over paper money when work and trade is the bottom line. Now what is fair with that work and trade is a different story.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Me

          |

          The reality is, trade, it is the big game, and work is a part of that trade or you wouldn’t have anything to trade. Now you need resources for that, and the red green troop don’t like that, the NIMBYs. Well there are resources people need to live, everyone has them or there wouldn’t be people living there. And that is where trade comes in. But that isn’t good enough now, the greedy assholes want it all with no borders.

          Reply

      • Avatar

        Me

        |

        I don’t dance around BS, ya can dance with your self or be the …..

        For all I care. Fill your boots but donn’t be projecting on Me what you claimed others were projecting on you.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Me

          |

          If people are wondering what is going on here or what I am talking about. It is what I told JayPee a while ago about following other sites and the same people that visit here. Just as coolwhip and his irk does with their websites, take things we post here there, we do the same here. And from someone that wants to stop the infighting, sure doesn’t like it when he doesn’t like a message against his beliefs. Boooo Hoooo!

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            And never mind the fact that I maybe saved your ass, because I told you to stop giving out info on yourself, Not that it matters because the powers to be already knows who we are anyway but the lunatics don’t. Ya did say thanks by the way but not under the name Gator here. So your welcome.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Yes, we are all wondering, still wondering.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Yeah I’m sure you are! :-*

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            drewski has a web site?

            Link please.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Pick any alarmist site and start fishing. If they will allow you to post there.

      • Avatar

        William Bill Fish

        |

        The history of global warming… http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm you can click on the references and get the peer reviewed papers at your leisure. Here’s what deniers do “The people who publicly denied that there was any need to worry about global warming were increasingly relying on a narrow, sometimes disingenuous, selection of evidence while ignoring all the rest.”

        Yes the climate has varied and will continue to vary. However man is adding unprecedented amounts of CO2 and the climate system is starting to change as it can’t handle the CO2 as it did with lower atmospheric concentrations. There becomes tipping points with warming, we are approaching Arctic temps where the permafrost is melting and methane is starting to be released and is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

        This site explains it a lot better. ‘History of Climate Change Science’ http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

        Here’s the The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm again all referenced

        A page with an overwhelming number of links to all questions on climate change. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/

        With respect to Climate Variability here’s a link that explains it very well. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/12/natural-variability-and-climate-sensitivity/

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          Epic fail.

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          Nobody here denies climate change.

          Reply

        • Avatar

          amirlach

          |

          What Global Warming? It stopped almost 20 years ago, which BTW has completely invalidated the CAGW “hypothesis”.

          And it’s alarmists who worry about global warming that increasingly relying on a narrow, sometimes disingenuous, selection of evidence while ignoring all the rest.

          This is why they completely ignore the actual recorded data and point at fiddled records and those failed models. Your propaganda site has zero credibility here sorry.

          If they have all the answers, why is it that they have yet to make even a single skillful prediction with those Billion Dollar Co2 spewing super computers? Why are they always wrong? Settled Science that ignores the Scientific Method??? 😀
          [quote]Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics said, “It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.” [/quote]

          As for ” The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect”. Why has the Climates “sensitivity” to Co2 warming dropped by a factor of eight since 1940?
          https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/06/25/climate-sensitivity-must-be-plummeting/

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            You are the only denier on this site. You deny that the models have been falsified at the 95% confidence level, and you deny that nature is likely responsible for climate change.

            You are a science and nature denier.

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            Read Merchants of Doubt and you will find out how the denial machine works.
            http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942

            The fossil Fuel industry hired the strategists from the tobacco companies who worked on the denial that smoking and 2nd hand smoke were health issues. They are doing the same thing with climate change hired scientists, media people anyone that will denigrate the climate science/scientists. i.e. Willie Soon an astrophysicist paid 1.2 mil over 10 yrs by the fossil fuel to counter climate science. Sen Inhofe Chair of the Environment Public Works is supported by the oil industry. https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=2014&cid=N00005582&type=C

            Ploys of deniers, conspiracy theories, fake experts i.e Willie Soon, Goddard, Spencer etc., cherry picking, Impossible expectations of what research can deliver, i.e, demand unrealistic results from the scientists, and Misrepresentation and logical fallacies i.e. straw men

            It is the deniers who have the agenda. The climate is not warming until every drop of oil is sucked out, every liter of gas is fracked out and every chunk of coal is dug up. An agenda, VP Cheney exempting Gas and oil industry from the Safe Drinking Water Act…the Haliburton Loophole.

            The deniers claim climate change has an agenda. I can’t think of one agenda item that the climate changers are advocating. Oh yes, to stop the climate from warming as it will cause the earth not to be a nice place to live in 50 to 100 yrs. Decrease CO2 emissions.

            I am a firm believer in science, thus AGW is true. You have a problem with the models, yes some may be off a bit as not all or wrong inputs may have been added. As time goes on they are learning more and more about the climate forcers, both natural and man made and the models will be adjusted. The climatologists can’t create the climate in their labs so they must use models. The climatologists in the 50’s and 60′ predicted that temp increase due to increased atmospheric CO2 would start to show up in 2000, and it did!

            FYI “How science deniers use false equivalence to pretend there’s a debate” Read how climate deniers use…
            http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/science-deniers-false-equivalency-pretend-debate/

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Bill, you are the only denier here. We all accept the fact that climates change naturally, and that the models have been falsified at the 95% confidence level.

            You are spewing propaganda and projecting your own inadequacies.

          • Avatar

            David Lewis

            |

            There is a double standard here. For the fossil fuel industry to pay someone to make a case against man made climate change is a moral sin. However, to have the environmentalist groups pour billions of dollars to support the cause of man made climate change, that is okay.

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            Dave there is not a double standard. Fossil fuel scientists, Willie Soon, Roy Spencer et al. They paid well to try to debunk warming. No credible climatologist agrees with either of them. Soon is an astrophysicist, saw an opportunity and solicited funding to debunk climate change. (1.2 mil since 2001) Read about Willie! http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/CASE-STUDY-Dr-Willie-Soon-a-Career-Fueled-by-Big-Oil-and-Coal/

            I agree with Willie that the variability of the sun causes the earth to warm or cool. We should be heading into a ‘mini ice age’ an 11 yr cycle of decreased activity. Willie is right there. The problem is we are warming due because of the increased man made CO2 emissions raising the atmospheric level of CO2 to 400+ ppm. I the past even deniers agree from ice core samples that when CO2 went up so did the temp. CO2 max was in the 380’s ppm.

            The difference between government funding and fossil fuel funding is the government wants to find out what is going on thru science to base policy if mitigation is required or not. No preconceived answer. The fossil fuel industry has the answer, they want evidence to show tere answer is correct. i.e. CO2 is not driving the climate. No double standard. Why would the government want climate change an be required to spend millions/billions to rectify the problem so future generations do not suffer the consequences of man’s stupidity caused by the fossil fuel industries, chase for the almighty dollar.

            “I dream of a world where truth is what shapes people’s politics, rather than politics shaping what people think is true!” – Neil deGrasse Tyson

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            You will just believe anything the multi-trillion dollar climate industry prints! 😆

            [quote]…documents obtained by environmentalists showed that Soon referred to his work as “deliverables” for funders.[/quote]

            One little word, deliverables, blown so far out of proportion with its meaning so twisted it isn’t even worth reading any of the “reports” about it.

            The contracts were signed by representatives of the Smithsonian, the Smithsonian was the recipient of the funds who then would disburse to Dr. Soon as the contracted employee.

            No one, regardless of their affiliations provides funding without the expectation of some form of deliverable. The word is standard language in business contracts.

            Now prove that his results would have been any different if the money had come from Greenpeace.

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            Greenpeace wouldn’t not have asked the question “Prove that CO2 is not causing warming?.” They would have asked. “Is CO2 affecting the climate?”

            A huge difference! The fossil fuel industry always wants data, information to prove their statements.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Which is why Greenpeace should be ignored, they are partisan and not interested in truth.

            How stupid are you?

            Any comment on the Harvard hypocrisy and fraud?

            Now, I answered your silly and insulting questions, so it is your turn.

            1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

            2- Please provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Now let’s look at documented fraud.

            [i]A series of connected frauds surrounding research into climate change and related questions at Harvard has come to light because an environmental advocacy group had falsely accused Dr Willie Wei-Hock Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics of having failed to disclose a funding conflict in a paper in the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Dr Soon, like all his co-authors, had received no funding for his research into climate sensitivity modeling. That did not stop Dr Charles Alcock, the Center’s director, from allowing it to issue a statement alleging Dr Soon had failed to disclose a conflict of interest and claiming that it proposed to “investigate” him, when in fact it had itself negotiated a contract with Dr Soon’s funder for solar research that forbade it or Dr Soon to disclose the funder’s identity. Dr Soon had played no part in those negotiations. The Center alone was responsible. Dr Alcock also falsely told a journalist that the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics had no legal existence and alleged that, therefore, Dr Soon ought not to have described his affiliation as “Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics”, falsely implying that Dr Soon had improperly inflated his credentials.
            Your name appears as the contact for a press release at…

            http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/clean-power-plan-health-benefits-hinge-on-policy-decisions/

            …entitled Clean air and health benefits of clean power plan hinge on key policy decisions. The press release constitutes a gushing encomium of a commentary entitled US power plant carbon standards and clean air and health co-benefitsby Charles T. Driscoll, Jonathan J. Buonocore, Jonathan I. Levy, Kathleen F. Lambert, Dallas Burtraw, Stephen B. Reid, Habibollah Fakhraei & Joel Schwartz, published on May 4, 2015, in Nature Climate Change: doi:10.1038/nclimate2598.

            Two of the co-authors of the commentary, Buonocore and Schwartz, are researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Your press release quotes Buonocore thus: “If EPA sets strong carbon standards, we can expect large public health benefits from cleaner air almost immediately after the standards are implemented.” Indeed, the commentary and the press release constitute little more than thinly-disguised partisan political advocacy for costly proposed EPA regulations supported by the “Democrat” administration but opposed by the Republicans. Harvard has apparently elected to adopt a narrowly partisan, anti-scientific stance.

            The commentary concludes with the words “Competing financial interests: [b]The authors declare no competing financial interests”. Yet its co-authors have received these grants from the EPA: Driscoll $3,654,609; Levy $9,514,391; Burtraw $1,991,346; and Schwartz (Harvard) $31,176,575. The total is not far shy of $50 million[/b].

            Would the School please explain why its press release described the commentary in Nature Climate Change by co-authors including these lavishly-funded four as “the first independent, peer-reviewed paper of its kind”?

            Would the School please explain why Mr Schwartz, a participant in projects [b]grant-funded by the EPA in excess of $31 million, failed to disclose this material financial conflict of interest in the commentary?[/b]

            Would the School please explain [b]the double standard by which Harvard institutions have joined a chorus of public condemnation of Dr Soon, a climate skeptic, for having failed to disclose a conflict of interest that he did not in fact possess, while not only indulging Mr Schwartz, a climate-extremist, when he fails to declare a direct and substantial conflict of interest but also stating that the commentary he co-authored was “independent”?[/b][/i]

            But keep the faith Bill, it makes you look oh so scientific and objective, just like Harvard. 😆

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Enough with the activist talking points! Not one of them stands up when examined.

            [quote]. The problem is we are warming due because of the increased man made CO2 emissions raising the atmospheric level of CO2 to 400+ ppm. [/quote] Wrong! It has not “warmed” for over 19 years. In fact one of the best records shows cooling over the last ten years. Arctic sea ice extent has increased.
            [quote] We should be heading into a ‘mini ice age’ an 11 yr cycle of decreased activity.[/quote] After over a hundred years of higher than normal solar activity?

            NOAA’s supposed best temperature network, which is supposed to be so good and bias free that it needs no “adjustments”, shows it has slightly cooled over the last ten years.
            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&parameter=anom-tavg&time_scale=p12&begyear=2005&endyear=2015&month=12

            [quote] In the past even deniers agree from ice core samples that when CO2 went up so did the temp. CO2 max was in the 380’s ppm. [/quote] Deniers? Still on that lie?

            Skeptics agree that ice core samples clearly show that Co2 lags temperature change at all time scales. It has never lead.

            Co2 max was not 380ppm.
            [img]https://papundits.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/historical-co2-levels.jpg[/img]
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/12/the-longest-most-high-resolution-most-inconvenient-paleoclimate-data-that-hasnt-been-published/

            http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/12/an-unpublished-law-dome-series/

            What Ice cores really show…
            [img]http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png[/img]

            Your just spreading alarmist propaganda, none of which is remotely true.

            Oh! And I have a quote!
            [quote] “If I always told you the truth, I wouldn’t need you to trust me.” [/quote]The Doctor…

            Just keep “trusting” your alarmist rent seekers!

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            You seem to be spreading denier propaganda, your ‘experts’ are experts…Stephen McIntyre of climataudit.com…”McIntyre has been described as a “persistent amateur who had no credentials in applied science…” http://www.desmogblog.com/steve-mcintyre

            Credentials: PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics), Oxford University, (1971).
            B.Sc., Mathematics, University of Toronto (1969). Yup he knows all about climatology.

            “McIntyre even claims that lead author Michael Mann worried that showing the series with this decline would give “fodder” to “skeptics”.”

            “But even a cursory examination of the emails in question shows that the discussion was really about other aspects of the reconstruction, specifically obvious discrepancies between Briffa’s reconstruction and the other two under consideration over the major part of the reconstruction’s length. Thus, once again, MCINTYRE’S SPECULATIONS ARE SHOWN TO BE UTTERLY WITHOUT FOUNDATION.

            Even worse, McIntyre left out intervening sentences within the actual proffered quotes in what appears to be an unsophisticated attempt to mislead.” http://web.archive.org/web/20120116130528/http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/11/mcintyre-provides-fodder-for-skeptics/

            This is why I don’t believe the denier BS. Each time I research a denier ‘expert’ I find info like this. There are no denier climatologists just amateurs in other fields trying to make a name for themselves. i.e. John Casey, Space and Science Research Corporation, Roy Spencer, etc.

            Please tell me why world wide climate scientists would create the conspiracy of climate change? Not only climatologists but biologists, zoologists, botanists, ecologists, glaciologists and virtually all earth scientists.

            I never said the earth was cooling, I said the earth should be cooling given the sun is entering a cool period of inactivity in 2008 which is the reason why the rate of warming has slowed slightly, but it’s still warming.

            Yes the Greenland ice sheet did survive many interglacial warm periods but the CO2 level was never 400+ ppm in the last 10,000 years. You can’t compare earth 400 million years ago when the CO2 level was >400 as a huge land mass of continents for the most part were situated on the equator surrounded by a vast sea. The land was covered with lush greenery, now your fossil fuel. Climate was completely different then but high CO2 = high temperature even 400 million years ago.

            I don’t have time to debunk you other stuff.

            Yes models may have some errors in them but they keep adjusting them. Even if you take the worst case scenarios that the temp will rise 6 degrees C or the best that it will be a lot less. The temp is rising and will wreck havoc on the earth by the turn of the century. We are at the beginning of another mass extinction due to man’s activities and whatever species do survive, a predicted rise of 3+ degrees C will finish off most of what’s left.

            It was once said that if there was an extinction rats and cockroaches would survive!
            Scanned it briefly. Don’t have time to argue about it with you but it explains CO2 and temperature in the past. “Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?” https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Provide data or admit you are lying.

            Skeptical Science is a propaganda site and unreliable.

            Site papers please.

            And for crying out loud, just once…

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Your goto sources are simply alarmist propaganda sites. Both have zero credibility.
            [quote]…”McIntyre has been described as a “persistent amateur who had no credentials in applied science…” [/quote] Yet he managed to completely discredit Mann’s Hockey Stick, and has published peer reviewed papers? http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stephen_Mcintyre2/publications His partner in breaking fake tree ring records. Ross McKitrick, who was a peer review referee for the BEST papers with the Journal of Geophysical Research.

            If they are such “persistent amateur’s” one has to ask why the Climate Gater’s spent so much time and energy emailing each other about them?
            [quote]”McIntyre even claims that lead author Michael Mann worried that showing the series with this decline would give “fodder” to “skeptics”.”[/quote] The climategate emails show your wrong… again. Mann in his own words.
            [quote]Michael Mann to Tim Osborn, CRU, July 2003

            Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks back to: AD 1000, AD 1400, AD 1600… You only want to look at the first column (year) and second column (residual) of the files. I can’t even remember what the other columns are! mike
            p.s. I know I probably don’t need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on this, I’m providing these for your own personal use, since you’re a trusted colleague. So please don’t pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of “dirty laundry” one doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things…
            [/quote]

            Did Mann refuse to provide the residual series to us because answering our inquiries had taken up so much of his time that he stopped answering? Or was there some other reason?

            Seems so.
            [quote]You’ll be shocked that after decades of studying 800 year old tree rings, someone has finally found some trees living as long ago as 2005. These rarest-of-rare tree rings have been difficult to find, compared to the rings circa Richard III. The US government may have spent $30 billion on climate research, but that apparently wasn’t enough to find trees on SheepMountain living between the vast treeless years of 1980 to now.

            I’ve always thought it spoke volumes that many tree ring proxies ended in 1980, as if we’d cut down the last tree to launch the satellites in 1979. We all know that if modern tree rings showed that 1998 was warmer than 1278, the papers would have sprung forth from Nature, been copied in double page full-fear features in New Scientist, and would feature in the IPCC logo too.

            Ponder that the MBH98 study was so widely cited, repeated, and used ad nauseum. It was instrumental in shaping the views of many policy makers, journalists, and members of the public, most of whom probably still believe it. The real message here is about the slowness of the scientific community to correct the problems in this paper.

            Steve McIntyre has been asking for an update since 2005. He has the details of the new paper by Salzer, and produces this devastating graph below. The black line is MBH98 – the Michael Mann curve of Hockeystick fantasy. The red line is HadCRU (the Hadley best guess of surface temperatures, from surface thermometers and computers). The droopy green line is the Graybill chronology to 1987, while the blue lines are the updates to the SheepMountain series of tree ring “temperatures”. Oops.
            [/quote]
            [img]https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/sheep_mountain_update3.png[/img]
            http://climateaudit.org/2014/12/04/sheep-mountain-update/

            http://joannenova.com.au/2014/12/hockeystick-finally-updated-with-modern-trees-collapses/

            So once again your “sources” are proven to be wrong and these “persistent amateurs” have WTFPAWNED you.

            The NAS even affirmed that M&M were correct and Mann’s Stick had Zero Statistical skill.
            [quote]. The NAS found that Mann’s methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless. Mann’s data set does not have enough information to verify its ‘skill’ at resolving the past, and has such wide uncertainty bounds as to be no better than the simple mean of the data (p. 91). M&M said that the appearance of significance was created by ignoring all but one type of test score, thereby failing to quantify all the relevant uncertainties. The NAS agreed (p. 110), but, again, did so in subtle wording.
            [/quote]

            http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2011/09/there-he-goes-again-version-40-mann.html

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            amirlach: McIntyre/McKitrick are being funded by the fossil fuel industry? “….indeed, the McIntyre-McKitrick saga turns out to have the usual supporting cast of anti-science propaganda: two notorious right-wing think tanks (the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the George Marshall Institute) and a deft fossil-fuel company funded PR veteran operating behind the scenes (none other than Tom Harris of APCO Worldwide).” No conflict of interest there! http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

            Climategate has been investigated by many agencies i.e. Penn State… In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated ‘Climategate’ emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State’s Department of Meteorology “…there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data”. On “Mike’s Nature trick”, they concluded “The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field.”
            http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

            Exoneration of The Hockey Stick: “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence….(Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005, Rutherford et al. 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press),…” http://www.desmogblog.com/review-michael-manns-exoneration

            Muller tried to make it appear that Mann used ‘Mike’s trick to hid the temp decline.”There is nothing secret about “Mike’s trick”. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Muller-Misinformation-1-confusing-Mikes-trick-with-hide-the-decline.html

            McIntyre, McKitrick, Muller etc. produced misinformation about climategate and the hockey stick. There is a mountain credible scientific evidence from many world wide varied scientific fields that show AGW is happening. Despite the scrutiny the science proves we are warming.
            https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Muller.htm

            Get current. You’re talking NAS comments in 2000, old stuff. “Update: as suggested by the academy in its 2006 report, Michael Mann and his colleagues have reconstructed northern hemisphere temperatures for the past 2000 years using a broader set of proxies than was available for the original study and updated measurements from the recent past.

            The new reconstruction has been generated using two statistical methods, both different to that used in the original study. Like other temperature reconstructions done since 2001 (see graph), it shows greater variability than the original hockey stick. Yet again, though, the key conclusion is the same: it’s hotter now than it has been for at least 1000 years.”

            McI and McK haven’t said a word about the ‘new’ hockey sticks …wonder why? People other than you understand they are misinformers.

            Here’s all the climate myths debunked.http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html#.VZgSh0aPNx4

            I repeat:
            I agree there are natural causes of climatic variation. However, the addition of unprecedented amounts of man made CO2, which was never present in the past is a factor.

            I also agree that the sun plays a role in climate variations.

            I agree the sun is entering a period of inactivity which in the past has meant cooling of the planet. The planet SHOULD be cooling down…it’s NOT!

            I agree that the models may not be 100% correct, they definitely are not 100% wrong. Within their margin of error the climate is warming. Temp is rising and will have a catastrophic affect on the planet in 50…100…150 yrs if we don’t slow down the emissions of CO2.

            Don’t think you answered the question: Why would be the purpose of a world wide climate change conspiracy and who is funding it?

            I know why there is a denial conspiracy.
            1. For the fossil fuel industry, it’s all about the money!
            2. for the conservatives/redumlican politicians, it’s all about the money from the fossil fuel industry.
            3. For the religious right, No AGW, only god can affect the climate.
            4. Anti-warming advocates, it’s all about the money and 15 minutes of fame.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Fill the air with idiot verbosity, fishy baby, as if nobody knows you are idiot droooskeee.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Seriously dude! That’s all you can come up with?
            You really need to stop with your zero credibility, alarmist disinformation sites.

            Your failed cartoonist and wannabe Nazi, debunked by a real scientist.
            http://motls.blogspot.ca/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html

            Not one of those “exonerations” of Mann was in any way credible. Not one ever looked at the data. Same goes for the Climate Gate investigations. Not one examined the data.
            http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/rmck_climategate.pdf

            The same guy who “exonerated” Sandusky “exonerated” Mann. With the same form letter and zero investigation. “He must be innocent, cause he brings in millions of dollars to the university.” 😮

            “M&M haven’t said a word about the ‘new’ hockey sticks …wonder why? People other than you understand they are misinformers.”

            Perfect example of why you need to stop drinking the cool aid. 😀

            The “new” ones don’t match either.
            http://www.skepticink.com/prussian/2014/03/19/about-those-mann-replications/

            M&M? They still publish papers about this fraud. In fact they have likely published more Peer Reviewed papers on this than Mr. Fraudypant’s. The fake Nobel guy.
            http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/E10.full

            http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/

            http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

            It simple does not matter what kind of “statistical” tricks these guys use. They cannot overturn recorded history and the archeological record with 12 trees. There was a MWP and it was Global.
            http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/14/millar-et-al-the-sierra-nevada-mwp/
            http://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html

            http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland

            http://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

            What models are “Within their margin of error”? Link please.
            http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/even-with-the-best-models-warmest-decades-most-co2-models-are-proven-failures/

            [quote]I agree the sun is entering a period of inactivity which in the past has meant cooling of the planet. The planet SHOULD be cooling down…it’s NOT![/quote] Stop lying and denying already! The best temperature records show cooling. The only ones that do not have been “adjusted” to match the invalidated Models.
            [img]http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ScreenHunter_9740-Jun.-25-06.54.gif[/img]

            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&parameter=anom-tavg&time_scale=p12&begyear=2005&endyear=2015&month=12

            Your deep in denial there Bill!

            Instead of wasting the 29 billion a year spent in the US on this imaginary problem we could be actually doing some good.

            And here is why you leftists are wrong about every issue.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            “John Cook found a “simply clever” albeit not quite ethical (and legal?) way to raise his IQ by 60 points.”

            Shall we examine exactly how UN-credible your goto source really is there Comrade Fishky?

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes-why-does-john-cook-of-skepticalscience-and-the-97-have-to-use-identity-theft-in-his-research/

            http://motls.blogspot.ca/2015/07/identity-theft-thief-of-lubosmotl-turns.html#more

            So, one of your favorite sources is a paid and proven Identity Thief?

            Seems just the right speed for you Comrade Fishky!

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]Yes models may have some errors in them but they keep adjusting them. Even if you take the worst case scenarios that the temp will rise 6 degrees C or the best that it will be a lot less. [/quote] No! Actually they keep “adjusting” the data to fit the failed models.

            Worst case of 6C? Based upon which invalidated model? Actual observations suggest climate sensitivity is likely “at best” 0.6C, which is if you accept the 0.6C alarmists have added to the temperature trend, hardly “alarming”.

            Funny how differently Theoretical Physicists value model validation as compared to cLIEmate UNscientists.

            http://jtac.uchicago.edu/conferences/05/resources/V&V_macal_pres.pdf

            cLIEmate UNscientist argue their models should not be subject to independent testing and validation and gives some mealy mouthed lame assed excuses why.
            http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2010/11/validating-climate-models/

            This argument is challenged here.
            [quote]Professor Easterbrook continues the “special pleading” for exemption that is so common among software developers that have not yet properly addressed important IV&V and SQA issues. This latest version of Professor’s pleading includes the following aspects; (1) a Red Herring, (2) broad generalizations, and (3) appeal to authority.

            Appeal to Authority ( His Own )
            Professor Easterbrook has not yet cited any of the literature associated with IV&V and SQA for engineering and scientific software. Literature that has presented procedures and processes that have been widely accepted and proven successful. What more can you say about that? Self reference based on a position of authority always fails.

            Red Herring
            Professor Easterbrook is the only person who has suggested that IV&V and SQA procedures and processes that are applied to commercial software be applied to engineering and scientific software. The subject software is not generally developed fresh from scratch but instead has evolved over decades of time. The engineering community has developed procedures and processes that take into account this obvious and critically important aspect of real-world complex software. Easterbrook attempts to introduce a comparison of apples and zebras into the discussions.

            Broad Generalizations
            The activities Easterbrook describes are Standard Operating Procedures for every software project that I have experience with. Direct experience. It is not IV&V Lite; it’s plain and simple SOP. SOP is not IV&V and SQA; never has been, will never be.
            [/quote]
            http://models-methods-software.com/2010/11/28/special-pleading-continues/

            And it is further examined here.
            http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/01/climate-model-verification-and-validation/

          • Avatar

            David Lewis

            |

            My comment wasn’t about government funding, it was about funding from environmental groups.

            However, I did read an article with a comment from head of one government agency stating that no one in her department was oppose the cause of climate change.

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            2nd paragraph should read “…
            denial that smoking and 2nd hand smoke were NOT health issues.”

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            More models? 😆

            [i]”Dr. Oreskes’s approach has been to dig deeply into the history of climate change denial, documenting its links to other episodes in which critics challenged a developing scientific consensus.

            Her core discovery, made with a co-author, Erik M. Conway, was twofold. They reported that dubious tactics had been used over decades to cast doubt on scientific findings relating to subjects like acid rain, the ozone shield, tobacco smoke and climate change ….”

            If Gillis had either read the material I sent to Dr Singer, or if he had simply undertaken basic due diligence on the claims about Oreskes, he would have seen that she is little more than a johnny-come-lately on talking point insinuations about skeptic climate scientists being no more than people who operate, as Gillis describes one paragraph later, under “ methods that were honed by the tobacco industry in the 1960s and have since been employed to cast doubt on just about any science being cited to support new government regulations.”

            As I’ve described at length in my GelbspanFiles.com blog posts about this baseless accusation:

            -Oreskes derives the talking point on ‘tobacco industry shill experts’ / ‘fossil fuel industry shill experts’ from the main promulgator of it, global warming alarmist book author Ross Gelbspan. “Naomi Oreskes’ Problems, pt 1”

            -the talking point begs for deeper scrutiny into its lineage and into the people pushing it. “Naomi Oreskes’ Problems, pt 2”

            -and Oreskes’ claims about ozone depletion ‘contrarians’ only points to a huge problem surrounding people at the epicenter of the skeptic climate scientist smear effort being the same as those who tried to trash Dr S Fred Singer’s criticisms about Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). “Worried about Global Warming or Ozone Depletion? Then Destroy Critics Who Say Those aren’t Problems.”

            Repeating the words from that last blog post from Dr Singer circa a 1994 Washington Postarticle (archived ironically in, of all places, the organization I term “Greenpeace USA née Ozone Action”):

            “It is interesting to watch the proponents of the ozone-CFC theory squirm when under scientific attack.

            [b]They resort to evasion, double-talk and often outright prevarication. ….
            Unfortunately, this lesson from CFC-ozone policy has not been learned by our public officials. They prefer to believe the myth of a “scientific consensus” and seem eager to repeat the same mistakes for the global warming issue[/b] where the potential for damage by ill-advised and hasty policies is so much higher.”

            Don’t hold your breath waiting for Justin Gillis to divulge any of that to his NYT readers or who the real lightning rod is in the global warming issue, Dr S. Fred Singer.

            Toward the end of his article, Gillis skewers Dr Singer this way, on Singer’s effort late last year to find out if he could take any action against Oreskes’ movie (web link identical to what is in Gillis’ NYT article):

            “In the leaked emails, Dr. Singer told a group of his fellow climate change denialists that he felt that Dr. Oreskes and Dr. Conway had libeled him. But in an interview, when pressed for specific errors in the book that might constitute libel, he listed none. Nor did he provide such a list in response to a follow-up email request.”

            What organization did Gillis link to for the ‘leaked emails’? [b]Desmogblog, the organization Ross Gelbspan says he helped to found[/b] (8 seconds into this audio interview), the same organization that co-founder James Hoggan says was built around the works of Ross Gelbspan, in particular, his “smoking gun evidence” that skeptic climate scientists and fossil fuel industry officials were conspiring to “ reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.” For all her efforts to push that accusation, who does Oreskes cite as the source of it? [b]Ross Gelbspan[/b].[/i]

            (cont’d below)

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            (cont’d)

            [i]Has anyone, from Al Gore to Naomi Oreskes, the New York Times, James Hoggan, or Ross Gelbspan ever provided anything beyond pure guilt-by-association accusations, have they ever provided a scintilla of evidence proving people such as Dr Singer operated under any kind of pay-for-performance situation, in which instructions were given to lie to the public and to knowingly fabricate reports everyone knew were false?

            [b]No, they haven’t[/b]. The idea that the New York Times seems to totally miss here is something I was told by a prosecuting attorney during my brief jury duty service just a day ago, that the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the accused need not respond to the accusations to remain innocent, and that it is [b]entirely upon the accuser to meet the burden of proof[/b] in the accusation. Not only is this the way the US law works, it is plain common sense.

            After nearly two decades of a constant barrage of accusations that skeptic climate scientists are paid industry money to lie, the best the New York Times can come up with is “[b]trust us, our source has third-hand hearsay evidence which we won’t question in any manner[/b].” Elaborating on what I tweeted to Justin Gillis and another reporter after their hit pieces against Dr Willie Soon in February, there is no Pulitzer Prize to be won from repeating worn-out talking point accusations, but a Pulitzer could be won if reporters turned the tables on the people who created the accusations.[/i]

            Gosh! More BS from the alarmists who cannot even list all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them. And who cannot even provide [b]one[/b] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            Gee, how much money do the alarmists get, and can we document it?

            Yes we can!

            This document shows a $21,408,000,000 budget for 2014 for the US alone. I am sure there is more that this budget does not show, but 21.4 billion dollars is still at least 21 billion too much.

            The total is found on page 45, and page 5 explains figures are in millions of dollars.

            https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf

            So let’s review. [b]Zero[/b] evidence that skeptics are on the take, and 21.4 billion [b]in one year[/b] for alarmists from one entity.

            How stupid is Bill?

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            Because you won’t believe the evidence doesn’t mean it’s not true. The good thing about science is that it is true whether you believe it or not.

            1. Why are you a denier?
            2. The rest of the world believes we are warming. Is it you don’t believe AGW?
            3. Are you a far right conservative and don’t believe in verifiable evidence or the scientific method?
            4. Do you prefer faith?
            5. Do you base your world view beliefs on the denier’s pseudoscientists’ speculations?
            6. Do you believe in creation as written by Ken Ham in Answers in Genesis?

            A simple ‘YES’ or ‘NO’ is okay. You can elaborate on any that you wish.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            What evidence Bill? Failed computer models?

            [quote]1. Why are you a denier?[/quote]

            Again, you are the denier, we know climates change naturally, and you cannot prove otherwise.

            [quote]2. The rest of the world believes we are warming. Is it you don’t believe AGW? [/quote]

            Again Bill, we know that since the LIA the world has warmed, as would be expected. As for the rest of the world, I can name tens of thousands of working scientists who say CAGW is BS. How many can you name?

            [quote]3. Are you a far right conservative and don’t believe in verifiable evidence or the scientific method? [/quote]

            You are the denier of the scientific method, as amirlach has repeatedly pointed out. And I am Libertarian.

            [quote]4. Do you prefer faith? [/quote]

            Not when it comes to science, that is what you do, you have faith in failed models, unproven assertions, and people who are making millions off of this scam.

            [quote]5. Do you base your world view beliefs on the denier’s pseudoscientists’ speculations? [/quote]

            No, I do not base my world view on natural climate change deniers.

            [quote]6. Do you believe in creation as written by Ken Ham in Answers in Genesis? [/quote]

            No.

            I have taken the time to answer your silly and insulting questions, now let’s return to actual science. It is now [i]your[/i] turn to answer [i]my[/i] questions.

            1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

            2- Please provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            1: We do not deny that it has warmed since the LIA. We are skeptical of the cause. When every single alarmist prediction has failed the question is why do you “believe” them? This is contrary to the scientific method which you have been shown.

            2: What the rest of the world “believes” is irrelevant to science. Science is not done by voting. It is done by verifiable and repeatable testing. If it is not falsifiable it is not a scientific hypothesis, it is faith. Or what Feynman called a Cargo Cult Science.
            https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

            3: Even after being shown CAGW has failed every time it has been tested by experiment and observation you still “believe”. Your the one who prefers faith over science, not us.
            [quote]Science is our way of describing — as best we can — how the world works. The world works perfectly well without us. Our thinking about it makes no important difference. When our minds make a guess about what’s happening out there, if we put our guess to the test and we don’t get the results we expect, as Feynman says, there can be only one conclusion: we’re wrong.[/quote]
            Are you a far left loon who thinks Chinese style dictatorships will solve any or all problems?

            3: Why do you claim we “don’t believe in verifiable evidence or the scientific method?” When we have proven that it is fact you who is in denial of the data facts and the scientific method. Try to find even one CAGW Model that has skillfully predicted climate. I have shown you a few that have. Why would I “believe” in failed models?

            4: No! You do. More Pure Projection.
            Seems you cannot find any actual arguments to support your faith so instead resort to nonsensical ad-hom’s and appeals to authority.

            5: No. We base our world view on what is provably true. CAGW is not. In fact it has been invalidated by observations. Try to keep up.

            6: :zzz

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            Nice spin! I don’t get it you are fine with the fact (ice core) that increased CO2 in the past caused temperature increases. Now that man is adding more CO2 than has ever been added to the atmosphere you swear up and down that it is not causing an increase in temperature. I don’t know what your agenda is but it sure has nothing to do with what is actually happening. I don’t care about the models. I care about the observations that are showing that the planet is warming. You can site at your little desk looking at graphs and data and scream and holler at the top of your voice. It doesn’t mater, observation of the planet indicates something is happening and it’s not good. Just keep driving your hummer, Nero!

            Ignorance is also what you won’t know. And you won’t know a lot.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            If you actually cared about the observations, you would campaign to divert money to the seven million people we could save each year.

            You just keep showing your ignorance by claiming things that are provably false, and offer no science to back your ill conceived claims.

            But keep the faith Bill, and keep denying aid to people who are dying now.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote] I don’t get it you are fine with the fact (ice core) that increased CO2 in the past caused temperature increases. Now that man is adding more CO2 than has ever been added to the atmosphere you swear up and down that it is not causing an increase in temperature. [/quote] Your 100% wrong again! The increase in temperature caused the increase in Co2. Unless you can produce that Peer Reviewed Paper that explains how Co2 caused warming 800 years in the past. 😀

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]I am a firm believer in science, thus AGW is true. [/quote] Uhh no it is not. The “science” clearly shows CAGW has been invalidated by observations.

            As for the problems with the models. I will refer you back to the Scientific Method as explained by a real scientist. “If your prediction is wrong your “theory” is wrong. Period!

            For the Models to have been “validated” they must never have made a wrong prediction. Working once and a while is a meaningless result. Likely due to random chance.

            [quote]John Christy used the best and latest models, he used all the models available, he has graphed the period of the fastest warming and during the times humans have emitted the most CO2. This is also the best data we have. If ever any model was to show the smallest skill, this would be it. None do.[/quote]
            http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/even-with-the-best-models-warmest-decades-most-co2-models-are-proven-failures/

            100% of the IPCC Co2 Warming Models have failed this simple test. Stop denying it.

            Notice you failed to respond to the Co2 Free models that work. Why is that?
            [quote]The deniers claim climate change has an agenda. I can’t think of one agenda item that the climate changers are advocating.[/quote]

            Likely because your willfully blind and are fully invested in the socialist “cause”.

            The Socialist “Agenda” in their own words…
            [img]http://www.rugusavay.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Maurice-Strong-Quotes-1.jpg[/img]

            [quote]Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010

            “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated. – Ottmar Edenhofer

            For those who may not know, Ottmar Edenhofer is the co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III.
            [/quote]

            A Nationalist socialist German with an anti human Master Plan… What could possibly go wrong?
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-%e2%80%9cclimate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth%e2%80%9d/

            Your skeptical raptor craptor has one problem. Not a single bit of CAGW “science” follows the Scientific Method. And your NAS link is simply a discredited appeal to authority

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            “I am a firm believer in science, thus AGW is true.”

            Yeah and that is the problem, when everything is caused by AGWACC, and there is nothing that can be used to prove it wrong, except for reality against all the model projections. That isn’t science.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Oh yeah, you are a believer, I’ll trust you on that one since you said it. 😀

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Notice you cannot refute his cLIEmate “sensitivity” calculation.

            So you went full ad hominem.

            You attacked your opponent’s character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.

            -F

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Every single CAGW model hypothesis has failed this simple test.
            [quote]Science is our way of describing — as best we can — how the world works. The world works perfectly well without us. Our thinking about it makes no important difference. When our minds make a guess about what’s happening out there, if we put our guess to the test and we don’t get the results we expect, as Feynman says, there can be only one conclusion: we’re wrong.[/quote]

        • Avatar

          JayPee

          |

          Dear Fish :

          Everything you say has been previously covered here ad nauseam. Your not realizing is not our fault.

          Nothing of your discourse is provable. Everything of it has been soundly demonstrated as nonsense. You even refer to the ludicrous ” tipping point ” which is beyond reality. It’s not our fault you don’t understand.

          It is not our fault you lie.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            Ignorance is not just what you don’t know, it is also what you WON’T know! – Aron Ra

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Ignorance is not being to (1) list all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them. And (2) provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            Question: How can you claim man made climate change if you cannot provide these two basic items?

            Answer: Ignorance.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Bill, what you do not get (among many things) is that we have read all this BS you keep posting, and that is [i]why[/i] we are skeptics, as are all good scientists. We understand the science as it now stands, and you do not.

            Prove me wrong by answering this request, or continue on with the flock.

            1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

            2- Please provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is absolutely nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Seriously? sCeptical UNscience?
            [quote]
            Unreliable*
            Skeptical Science – John Cook

            * Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting. [/quote]

            Run by a failed cartoonist and wanna be Nazi?
            [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/1_herrcook.jpg[/img]

            😀 Who censors, deletes and rewrites use comments? Ever so credible there Billy.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            2 B fish, Yeah that is the prediction vs projection BS again, even still he got the projection seriously wrong.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            “Unreliable*
            Skeptical Science – John Cook

            * Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.” And for being a wanna be Climate Marxist.
            [img]https://libertygibbert.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/hansenpredictionsvsreality.jpg[/img]

            Wee Williy, the Flounder that keeps on Flopping. 😀

    • Avatar

      David Lewis

      |

      You have it backwards with your statement “Ice core samples have shown in the past that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in global temp.” It is true the high levels of one have corresponded to higher levels of the other. But an article in the Climate Dispatch that included the time table showed that increases and decreases in temperature lead the same in CO2. In other words, the TEMPERATURE WAS CONTROLLING THE CO2 LEVEL, not the other way around.

      Using the annual emissions of volcanoes is cheery picking the data because in most years we do not have a major event. However, it is estimated by geophysicists that only three volcanic eruptions, Indonesia (1883), Alaska (1912) and Iceland (1947), spewed more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than all of human activities in our entire history.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        JayPee

        |

        Agreed Dave

        But don’t expect alarmist shills like “fish” to understand even though this point has been made countless times.

        Just the other alarmist jerks, they will always to continue in a new resurrection as if everything must be proven to their satisfaction or you have no right to oppose the alarmist cult dictum.

        They’re all the same. No matter of their appellation.

        They all appear alike.
        They all smell alike.
        They all think alike.

        But of course, because of their adorable leftist extremism.

        THEY MUST BE INTELLECTUALS

        Welcome to the 60’s.

        Reply

      • Avatar

        William Bill Fish

        |

        Ttalk about this issue and it has something to do with the way CO2 is trapped in the ice and it addresses the problem that you indicated.

        There is also the case where temp rises and there is a tipping point as is happening now. Temp is rising slowly but when the permafrost melts huge quantities of methane will be released which will drive the temp higher. When the oceans warm, which they do slower than the atmosphere more methane will be released. This could account for temp first CO2 after. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#L_0491

        Reply

        • Avatar

          William Bill Fish

          |

          The comment is for David Lewis

          Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          CO2 rises follow temperature rises.

          So I guess we can conclude that…

          #1- You cannot list all climate forcings, cannot order them from most to least effective, and cannot then quantify them.

          #2- You cannot provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          And lastly, you cannot disprove the 4,500,000,000 year precedent.

          Impressive!

          Reply

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            Mayewski, Paul A., and Frank White (2002). The Ice Chronicles: The Quest to Understand Global Climate Change. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
            Check the references here for forcing… http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm

            You believe the guys listed here? Give your head a shake… http://insideclimatenews.org/news/12032015/leaked-email-reveals-whos-who-list-climate-denialists-merchants-of-doubt-oreskes-fred-singer-marc-morano-steve-milloy

            Forcing… James Hansen et al.(2008) Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?,The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2, pp. 217-31
            http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_etal.pdf

            “Either way the climate sensitivity that people have been talking about underestimates the warming that we can expect because by definition it omits the slow feedbacks — which aren’t necessarily that slow (e.g., the reduction in plant efficiency over the past decade, the saturation of some ocean CO2 sinks, Boreal forests in Canada, rising levels of methane emissions due to permafrost melt in Arctic tundra and Arctic shallow water continental shelves, e.g., near the coastline of Siberia.”

            Forcing Daniel J. Lunt et al. (January 2010) Earth system sensitivity inferred from Pliocene modelling and data, Nature Geoscience, Vol. 3

            Hansen, J., M. Sato, R. Ruedy, L. Nazarenko, A. Lacis, G.A. Schmidt, G. Russell, I. Aleinov, M. Bauer, S. Bauer, N. Bell, B. Cairns, V. Canuto, M. Chandler, Y. Cheng, A. Del Genio, G. Faluvegi, E. Fleming, A. Friend, T. Hall, C. Jackman, M. Kelley, N.Y. Kiang, D. Koch, J. Lean, J. Lerner, K. Lo, S. Menon, R.L. Miller, P. Minnis, T. Novakov, V. Oinas, J.P. Perlwitz, J. Perlwitz, D. Rind, A. Romanou, D. Shindell, P. Stone, S. Sun, N. Tausnev, D. Thresher, B. Wielicki, T. Wong, M. Yao, and S. Zhang, 2005: Efficacy of climate forcings. J. Geophys. Res., 110, D18104, doi:10.1029/2005JD005776.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            F- again.

            #1- You cannot list all climate forcings, cannot order them from most to least effective, and cannot then quantify them.

            #2- You cannot provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            And lastly, you cannot disprove the 4,500,000,000 year precedent.

            Is it that you are too stupid to understand the questions?

        • Avatar

          David Lewis

          |

          The mechanism by which temperatures were controlling the level of carbon dioxide in the past probably was from “cooking off” gasses from permafrost and the oceans.

          The article in Climate Dispatch noted that some alarmists tried to rationalize the fact that temperature was leading the CO2 increase because of such mechanisms. However, the temperatures also lead the CO2 levels when it was decreasing. First the temperature decreased, and then the CO2 level decreased. With the temperature leading both the increase and decrease, the temperature had to be the controlling parameter.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Answer…

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            Deniers look at one aspect of climate change and pick it to pieces while ignoring all the other evidence. Prove there is not coastal flooding in Miami, prove walruses aren’t hauling out on beaches in Alaska because there are no ice flows, prove Mt. Kilimonjaro isn’t melting, prove most land based glaciers aren’t melting, prove there aren’t episodes of extreme weather occurring world wide, Prove the southern ocean isn’t warming, prove the warming southern ocean isn’t melting the base of the southern peninsula’s ice shelf, Prove the increased amount of surface ice in western Antarctica is not from the warming ocean, prove the increase in snow fall on the eastern Antarctic ice field is not due the the change in direction of the polar winds, prove the permafrost in the Arctic is not melting, Prove the the methane release Siberia is not increasing, prove the ph of the ocean is not decreasing, prove coral reefs aren’t decreasing, prove shellfish shells aren’t thinning, these a few of the other pieces of evidence of warming that you seem to ignore.

            You and your buddies seem to think we have had temp rises in the past and it cooled again, no problem. This time the CO2 release isn’t from volcanoes that eventually subsides and nature slowly removes the CO2. AGW is different. Man is adding about35 billion metric tonnes of CO2 annually atmospheric CO2 is at 400+ppm and rising. The natural systems that remove the CO2 are at their maximum the rest goes into the atmosphere. We are approaching the tipping point. The permafrost is melting now releasing methane, a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2. Of course you know that but chose to ignore it. The sea bed contains gigatones of methane and warming oceans can increase it’s release. “We worry about greenhouse gas methane. Its lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than CO2´s, but the impact of methane on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period. 60 percent of the methane in the atmosphere comes from emissions from human activities.” (CAGE).
            Once the permafrost starts to melt and gigatonnes of methane are released who knows how hot earth will become.

            As for your 2nd question no climatologist would be so incompetent as to say there are no natural variations in the climate. There are no peer reviewed papers as you well know stating such a ridiculous premise. “These natural causes (natural variations) are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming seen in recent decades.” (EO)

            As for #q1 yah right!

            You work for the fossil fuel industry or you are a member of the redumlican/tea party towing the party line or a religious zealot claiming man is not a force of nature! Which is it, you could be all three. You are being duped by your buddies… http://insideclimatenews.org/news/12032015/leaked-email-reveals-whos-who-list-climate-denialists-merchants-of-doubt-oreskes-fred-singer-marc-morano-steve-milloy

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Ignorance, thy name is Bill. All of CAGW is based upon modles. All of it. So it is impossible to claim that CO2 is driving warming.

            You cannot model that which you cannot measure, or as a former employer once told me, if you cannot measure it you cannot manage it.

            Nobody knows all climate forcings, which means that nobody can list them by efficacy, and obviously nobody can quantify them. Therefore models are pure fantasy, and only reflect the wishes and fancies of their creators.

            But keep the faith Bill! 😆

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Blah blah bla… Wall of fact free text reeking of desperation… 😥
            [quote] Prove there is not coastal flooding in Miami…[/quote] Uhh ok!
            “Newsbusters found this. The beach at Fort Lauderdale is identical to 55 years ago, when the movie “Where The Boys Are” was filmed.”

            1960

            Today.
            [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/screenhunter_4023-oct-25-08-22.jpg[/img]

            No ice in Alaska? Highest arctic sea ice extent in ten years there denier.
            http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

            One could go on and refute every single one of your fake facts, but you would just deny them all.

            Like this gem.
            [quote] “These natural causes (natural variations) are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming seen in recent decades.” [/quote] Like these two 51 year periods of warming? Which one is “natural” and which is “mann” made?

            [img]http://yelnick.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c563953ef012877a7b656970c-500wi[/img]

          • Avatar

            David Lewis

            |

            What are doing with you list is called a preponderance of evidence. This a valid logic often used by lawyers.

            The problem is some of the items on your list. The UN IPCC scientists are the main scientific body promoting the theory of man made climate change. Yet in their fifth assessment report they said that it is unlikely that extreme weather events are increasing. Expert testimony for the US Congress said the same thing.

            There is one clear pattern. If something is bad the alarmists assume 1) It is new. 2) It is caused by climate change. Take the walrus example on your list. That has happened before. I can’t remember the date, it might have been 1957 or 1958. It wasn’t caused by climate change then and it is unlikely that was the cause of the recent event.

            I remember reading an article from an alarmist saying how bad the sea level rise was and he quoted 8 inches over 140 years. That calculates to 14 hundreds of a millimeter a year. If that is causing coastal flooding in Miami, they have other problems.

            Given the motivation it is always possible to come up with a theory to explain something. The theory that the ice build up in Antarctica is caused by warming would be more credible if it had predicted the ice build up. However, just as the many theories that try to explain the slow down in warming, it appears to be an after the fact damage control effort.

            There is one item not yet mentioned in all of these posts that is the strongest evidence against man made climate change. The warming period between 1910 and 1941 was about the same in magnitude as our more recent warming, but occurred before a significant build up in green house gasses.

            This not only discredits the man made dimension of are warming, but shows that the earth is naturally warming. So yes, we can expect land based glaciers to recede.

            The current climate models don’t work when data from this earlier warming period is applied. If the climate change movement wants credibility, they will come up with a model that works for any time period for which we have the data.

            Mr. Fish, some people have been hostile but I appreciate your comments. You provide the opportunity to discuss these issues.

        • Avatar

          David Lewis

          |

          The mechanism by which temperatures were controlling the level of carbon dioxide in the past probably was from “cooking off” gasses from permafrost and the oceans.

          The article in Climate Dispatch noted that some alarmists tried to rationalize the fact that temperature was leading the CO2 increase because of such mechanisms. However, the temperatures also lead the CO2 levels when it was decreasing. First the temperature decreased, and then the CO2 level decreased. With the temperature leading both the increase and decrease, the temperature had to be the controlling parameter.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            How is it necessary to control CO2 when it in no way causes warming or anything else ?

        • Avatar

          amirlach

          |

          What tipping point? Positive feedbacks only exist in those failed models. :zzz Not in reality.
          [quote]As climate experts ramp up their lies about Artic sea ice, extent is the highest for the date since 2005, and melt is the slowest since at least 2004.[/quote]
          [img]http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ScreenHunter_9781-Jun.-26-07.28.gif[/img]

          And temperatures in Greenland are at record lows.
          [img]http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ScreenHunter_9786-Jun.-26-08.03.gif[/img]
          Live web cam here showing They still have snow on the ground on June 28, with only a few weeks left in the melt season.
          [img]http://arcticomm.gl/webcam/arcticomm_webcam.jpg[/img]

          It’s gonna take a lot more than links to alarmist propaganda sites, invalidated models and fiddled data to change the simple fact that CAGW is a bust.

          Reply

      • Avatar

        William Bill Fish

        |

        For volcanoes to spew CO2, a majoR eruption is not required although there would be more in a major eruption. There are volcanoes world wide that are erupting all the time i.e. Kilauea in Hawaii has been continuously erupting since 1983. There are undersea violcanoes eruping continuously. Thus the range of CO2 from volcanoes is .13 gigatonnes to .44 gigatonnes annually.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          What part of “failed models” do you not get?

          What part of “you cannot disprove natural variability” do you not get?

          There is no credible evidence that man made CO2 is warming the planet, and certainly not for over 18 years.

          Your BS is stinking up this site. Enough.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            What you don’t like a little adversity. Natural variation is not causing warming. 35 billion metric tonnes of man made CO2 is causing it. Deforestation is helping it. 7.2 billion humans are a force of nature. 35 billion metric tonnes of CO2 is a force of nature as was the volcanic CO2 in the past…deny that. We are shitting in the chicken coup and when it gets full there is no where to go. That’s what you are leaving for future generations.

            Methinks y’all protest too much. You want your little incestuous site to be all deniers so you can sneer and snicker at the real science. You read or head about a scientific paper and without doing any “science” you reach the opposite conclusion by sitting on your couch speculating. And are your buddies say good job Gator, you told, you told him. Good night sir.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Until you can provide this info, you cannot prove the recent warming is from CO2.

            1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

            2- Please provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            How stupid are you?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Wild Bill, does it bother you to know that none of your alarmist talking points is true? 😀
            [quote]Natural variation is not causing warming. 35 billion metric tonnes of man made CO2 is causing it. Deforestation is helping it. 7.2 billion humans are a force of nature. 35 billion metric tonnes of CO2 is a force of nature as was the volcanic CO2 in the past…deny that. [/quote]
            So if the “science” is settled and 97% of scientists who are paid a hundred times more than skeptical scientist all agree CAGW is true. Why are ALL of the predictions wrong? 😀

            Solar activity has been higher than usual for over a century.
            [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png/350px-Sunspot_Numbers.png[/img]

            Global Forest Density is INCREASING!
            http://newswire.rockefeller.edu/2011/06/06/the-great-reversal-an-increase-in-forest-density-worldwide-is-under-way/

            Besides, Satellite data shows the industrialised nations are net Co2 sinks.
            https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/japanese-satellites-say-3rd-world-owes-co2-reparations-to-the-west/

            And according to PEER REVIEWED Science. Termites emit TEN times as much Co2 as man. (Brenznak and Brune 1994), (Tholen et al. 1997).
            [quote]It is estimated that for every human on Earth there may be 1000 pounds of termites. On the average Termites expel gas composed of about 59% nitrogen, 21% hydrogen, 9% carbon dioxide, 7% methane, and 4% oxygen.[/quote]
            http://termitedetector.com/detection.cfm
            [quote]Methinks y’all protest too much. You want your little incestuous site to be all deniers so you can sneer and snicker at the real science. [/quote] Pure projection. Alarmists have yet to produce any real science.

            Watch and learn Comrade Grasshopper.

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            There is mountains of evidence indicating the climate is warming. You choose to ignore it and believe the fossil fuel industry.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [i]What[/i] evidence? Produce it or shut your alarmist trap.

            The science I trust is [i]not[/i] funded by the fossil fuel industry, you are a l-i-a-r.

            I have shown that the pseudo-science that [i]you[/i] point to has [i]huge conflicts of interest[/i], and yet you ignore this, showing your deep dishonesty.

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural [i]climate change deniers like yourself[/i].

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]…mountains of evidence indicating the climate is warming..[/quote]

            [i]Was[/i] warming. Then stopped over 18 years ago. And warming does not mean man made anyway.

            How stupid are you?

            So what have you proven?

            #1- You [i]cannot[/i] list all climate forcings, cannot order them from most to least effective, and [i]cannot[/i] then quantify them.

            #2- You [i]cannot[/i] provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            And lastly, you [i]cannot[/i] disprove the 4,500,000,000 year precedent.

            Impressive! Keep the faith denier!

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            I showed you NOAA’s best temperature record, which shows clearly that your FOS. You “choose” to ignore it and “believe” green peace propaganda.

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            The sun is going into an 11 yr period of low activity and the earth should be heading into a mini ice age as it has in the past. It’s not. Yes the rapid rise in temp has decreased a bit but the earth is not cooling. The slowing of the rate is probably due to the cooler sun, which is being countered by the greenhouse effect. http://www.nso.edu/press/SolarActivityDrop Dr. Frank Hill: “We are NOT predicting a mini-ice age. We are predicting the behavior of the solar cycle. In my opinion, it is a huge leap from that to an abrupt global cooling, since the connections between solar activity and climate are still very poorly understood. My understanding is that current calculations suggest only a 0.3 degree C decrease from a Maunder-like minimum, too small for an ice age. It is unfortunate that the global warming/cooling studies have become so politically polarizing.”

            Please explain why the earth isn’t cooling even though the sun is getting cooler?

            Yes alarmist, in that we will be handing over an earth that may not be as habitable as the one we are living in now. Do you care about the future generations in 50 to 100 yrs? They will feel the burnt of your stupidity!

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]Please explain why the earth isn’t cooling even though the sun is getting cooler?
            [/quote]

            [i]Data from America’s most advanced climate monitoring system shows the U.S. has undergone a cooling trend over the last decade, despite recent claims by government scientists that warming has accelerated worldwide during that time.[/i]

            Can you read Bill?

            Quit denying facts Bill.

            Can you stop running away from this?

            1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

            2- Please provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is [i]nothing unusual[/i] or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years [i]climates have always changed[/i], naturally. This means there has been a [i]set precedent[/i], and the [i]burden of proof[/i] falls on [i]natural climate change deniers like yourself.[/i]

            Your childish antics are beyond annoying.

            Grow up Bill.

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            Gator Don’t you know the United States is not the world, despite what they think. There are other parts of the earth that are heating…i.e. the oceans.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            This is the world Bill.

            [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/clip_image002.png[/img]

            Provide data, or admit that you are lying. Enough weaseling.

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]Do you care about the future generations in 50 to 100 yrs? They will feel the burnt of your stupidity![/quote]Why do you insist on lying and denying in the face of facts?

            [quote]Yes alarmist, in that we will be handing over an earth that may not be as habitable as the one we are living in now. Do you care about the future generations in 50 to 100 yrs? They will feel the burnt of your stupidity![/quote] So instead, you want to bankrupt future generations based upon invalidated models?

            Even if warming continues it is 50 times more costly and utterly futile to try to prevent it than it is to just adapt.

            On a global scale it will cost 3.2 quadrillion dollars to try to prevent 1.0 C of warming…

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            amirlach I listened to the video. I then did some research on the prof. He’s states in the video that he needs more data to confirm the temp is rising. Points out what appears to be legitimate errors in the IPCC report. I won’t/can’t discuss that. The prof has stated “It is true that carbon dioxide has increased dramatically in recent decades. And if I am not persuaded that the effect on global temperatures is shown, nothing prevents these effects occur in the future (one of the main risks is ocean acidification).” [3] He doesn’t rule out warming, he’s just not convinced the data shows it YET. http://www.desmogblog.com/vincent-courtillot
            Other scientists disagree and so do I.

            You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. Correct me if I’m wrong…ha..,that’s a given!!! You believe the climate change is a conspiracy by many governments in the world to lower CO2 emissions and tax carbon and are fear mongering to get support. And any temperature change is due to natural variation and will adjust naturally. Is that it in a nutshell?

            I believe that that natural variations in climate caused by many natural phenomena in nature does drive climate. In the past it has been shown however, that CO2 from natural sources, volcanoes etc for example causes the temp to rise. As the CO2 emissions subside when the volcanoes become inactive, natural processes remove the access CO2 and climate slowly returns to ‘normal’. Yes, sun activity, distance from the sun, earth’s tilt, greenhouse gas concentration (methane, CO2, ozone) etc. are all factors that contribute to variations in temperature. We have had warm periods cold periods, ice ages etc. But never in past history have we had 7.2 billion humans emitting 35 billion metric tonnes of CO2 annually into the atmosphere and an atmospheric concentration of 400+ppm of CO2 and rising. I feel that the amount of anthropogenic CO2 is causing a rise in the temperature of the earth and will continue to rise,how high, I don’t know but it will be to the detriment of future generations and perhaps life itself on the earth. Catastrophic consequences won’t be seen for 50 to 100, to 150 years. But if we don’t do something now the future is bleak for the grand kids and great grand kids.It may be too late already! I know fear mongering!

            I look at some of the signs now, forget about the calculation of the average temperature which seems to cause so much controversy. Signs as I see them: Greenland, the Arctic and Antarctic melting at an increased rate, oceans warming, rising and becoming more acidic, low land flooding now ..coastal Florida, Bangladesh etc, land glaciers melting, more severe weather events, warm climate species moving north both on land and sea, permafrost starting to melt, increased methane being released from warming ocean floors, walrus hauling out on beaches as there are no ice flows in the Bering Sea, jet stream weakening causing varied weather effects i.e 2015 winter etc. That’s not science that is observation.

            I hope you are right and this is just a natural cycle and everything will return to normal in a hundred years or so.But I strongly believe that the unnatural addition of anthropogenic CO2 is disrupting the natural system and the mechanism for balancing CO2 are overwhelmed and CO2 will continue to rise and so will the temperature. We have also destroyed some of the natural CO2 users i.e Deforestation. We deforested eastern N. America 400 years ago, we are working on the S. American and African rainforests now. The rate of deforestation increase annually. The Amazon rainforest has been described as the lungs of the earth and we are destroying it.

            We can agree to disagree. If you are around in another 30 yrs, I won’t be, remember what the Fish said! lmao

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]In the past it has been shown however, that CO2 from natural sources, volcanoes etc for example causes the temp to rise.[/quote]

            Incorrect, CO2 rises follow temperature rises, we have covered this already. Plus, over 18 years of CO2 rises and temperatures are flat.

            [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/icecores1-1.gif?w=640&h=324[/img]

            [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/screenhunter_5878-jan-09-01-08.gif?w=327&h=438[/img]

            [img]https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-9-EqBi3gVAE/VC6pDRiNPUI/AAAAAAAArik/m1OBzYMXoaI/s800/monckton18years1month.png[/img]

            [quote]Greenland, the Arctic and Antarctic melting at an increased rate, oceans warming, rising and becoming more acidic, low land flooding now ..coastal Florida, Bangladesh etc, land glaciers melting, more severe weather events, warm climate species moving north both on land and sea, permafrost starting to melt, increased methane being released from warming ocean floors, walrus hauling out on beaches as there are no ice flows in the Bering Sea, jet stream weakening causing varied weather effects i.e 2015 winter etc. That’s not science that is observation. [/quote]

            Incorrect again. There has been no observable increase in melting, or sea rises. All those claims are based upon models and adjusted figures, not observations.

            Oceans are alkaline and cannot acidify, this is another alarmist myth meant to scare the ignorant.

            [i]1. It is Interesting to note that we somehow have an accurate measurement of ocean acidity from 200 years ago when the apparatus to measure pH was only invented in 1924 and it wasn’t conceived as a measurement until 1909. It should be impossible to conclude within .1 pH unit the actual oceanic pH 200 years ago.

            2. The maximum possible change from atmospheric CO2 pre industrial to today is less than .001 pH units, it is thus impossible to measure

            3. Even if we could measure .001 pH units there are plenty of questions on the accuracy and calibration techniques associated with the measurement

            3. It is impossible for CO2 to deplete carbonate ions in solution

            4. Rivers and freshwater lakes are more susceptible to carbonic acid from atmospheric CO2, so why are we worried about the oceans?

            5. It is essentially chemically and biologically impossible for carbonate dependent organisms to suffer from CO2 increases

            6. Carbonic acid is not the same as hydrochloric or acetic acid.

            7. pH from carbonic acid tells us nothing about the CO2/Carbonate system

            8. There have been no experiments to demonstrate harm, only hypothesis and models.

            9. The experimental framework for testing carbonate organisms with increasing CO2 is easy, yet unperformed

            10. The organisms most susceptible to ocean acidification from CO2 evolved at a time when concentrations were 15 times higher than today.

            11. Ocean acidification means nothing if the rate at which CaCO3 is being produced exceeds the rate at which carbonic acid consumes it.

            12. The buffer capacity of the ocean is huge and incorporates carbonic acid, further demonstration of CO2 overwhelming this buffer is needed.[/i]

            The Jet Stream is most likely influenced by solar patterns.

            [img]http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/uk/wilde/inactive-sun-stephen-wilde-sm.jpg[/img]

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            For tens of millions of years, Earth’s oceans have maintained a relatively stable acidity level. It’s within this steady environment that the rich and varied web of life in today’s seas has arisen and flourished. But research shows that this ancient balance is being undone by a recent and rapid drop in surface pH that could have devastating global consequences.

            Over the past 300 million years the pH of the ocean has been 8.2. The pH of the ocean today is 8.1 a drop of 0.1 pH units, a 25% drop in 2 hundred years.

            Give your head a shake man…or are there things you just won’t learn.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Produce data, or admit you are lying.

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            18 years of heating and the temperatures are flat…why you ask? The oceans are warming up taking all the access heat but you know all about water and heat don’t you?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Where are the oceans heating, and by how much.

            Produce data, or admit that you are lying.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Willy baby, why don’t you shut up ? I know of no one who is not laughing at you.
            Continue to respond at your own peril

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            Jay Pee…it’s only wingnuts on this page laughing. As I know the source and treat it with the disdain it deserves!

            Must have pushed some buttons. Certainly got a lot of over kill. What afraid I might be right?

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            I have stated my case and fact. I have even stated proof.

            Yes, proof.
            A concept you don’t understand.

            Keep wailing,
            DrooooskEEE.

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            JayPee A fact for you is like a brick wall, you run into it, bounce off and go off in another direction vehemently denying there was ever a wall there.

            Just keep following the party line…don’t ever think for yourself. I’m laughing at you! Bwhahahaha!

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Slick Willy, I know of no one who expected you to understand.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Pure Projection Wee Willy. You keep bouncing off the fact that it is indeed cooling, the Models are busted, CAGW is refuted by observations and yet keep denying it. You have yet to produce any supporting your outlandish claims.

            Then this happened in you still warming world…
            [img]http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ScreenHunter_211-Jul.-05-07.331.jpg[/img]

            https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/05/arctic-sea-ice-continues-at-highest-extent-since-2005/

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]What afraid I might be right?[/quote] Yes! Judging by the complete lack of facts backing up your “arguments” we are very afraid… 😀

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            What heating? You just admitted that it hasn’t warmed for over 19 years.

            The idea that the deep oceans are “hiding” the imagined excess heat from man made Co2 is simply another failed model hypothesis. :zzz

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Bill, seven million people die each year, right now, as a result of malnutrition and lack of clean drinking water. If we were to simply divert the money wasted on the false god of CAGW, we could save them all.

            Why would we throw these people to the wind for an imaginary problem 50-100 years from now? Why would you sentence them to death?

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            oh yah like you care about the people dieing. Perhaps some money should be taken from the military.

            In 50 to 100 years from now there will be millions more starving and there will be no drinking water. Hmmm…does California drought mean anything to you?

            You are sentencing a major portion of the worlds population to death in 100 to 150 years.

            I tire of pushing your buttons…it’s been fun…bye bye! I will leave you to your incestuous little group and you can continue to pat yourselves on the back.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Actually Bill, I do care, and that is why I despise idiots like yourself, and why all of my charitable donations (monthly) go to feed children in third world contries.

            Your fantasy about an apocalypse in 50-100 years is just that, fantasy. You put your sick agenda before actual humans starving right now. I provided you with a video that shows that intelligent humans, even those who believe in CAGW, know that saving lives now is the rpiority. And you denied that, along with every other fact we have presented.

            You are a lying worm of a psychopath.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Desmog? Seriously? This is your source?
            [quote]DeSmog was founded with $300,000 from its chief benefactor John Lefebvre. Lefebvre is a convicted Internet fraudster currently out on bail awaiting conviction after pleading guilty in the NETeller multi-million dollar online pay system scam. Of its chief benefactor, DeSmog’s supporters are only told: “The DeSmogBlog team is especially grateful to our benefactor John Lefebvre, a lawyer, internet entrepreneur and past-president of NETeller, a firm that has been providing secure online transactions since 1999. John has been outspoken, uncompromising and courageous in challenging those who would muddy the climate change debate, and he has enabled and inspired the same standard on the blog.” It was those same “secure online transactions” that led to Lefebvre becoming a convicted felon now facing up to five years in the slammer. Now why should DeSmog want to “hide” such key information about its “high-profile source of funding”?[/quote] The part you missed, where he discussed the balance of science. IE: That too much has been invested in models and not enough on observation…

            And where he talks about all of the forcings completely missing from the failed models.

            Correct you if your wrong? [quote]You believe the climate change is a conspiracy by many governments in the world to lower CO2 emissions and tax carbon and are fear mongering to get support. And any temperature change is due to natural variation and will adjust naturally. Is that it in a nutshell? [/quote] The IPCC has clearly stated that they have no interest in “reducing” Co2 emissions. They simply want to redistribute them via global socialism.

            Alarmists have yet to prove that any and all observed climate change was not natural. The models were supposed to do this but they are complete failures. There is no evidence supporting the claimed Co2 sensitivity.

            Not sure how many times you need to be corrected before it sinks in.
            [quote]
            Prove there is not coastal flooding in Miami…
            Uhh ok!
            “Newsbusters found this. The beach at Fort Lauderdale is identical to 55 years ago, when the movie “Where The Boys Are” was filmed.” [/quote] Why do you keep repeating the same lies over and over?

            Global forest density is increasing, rising Co2 in not causing increased warming, Greenland, the Arctic and Antarctic are not melting at an increased rate, the only place alarmist claim the oceans are warming is where they cannot measure it. “The Oceans ate my Global Warming!!!”

            It’s called the MISSING Heat. It’s really funny that the same alarmists who proclaim climate change is un-natural blame nature when their predictions all failed. 😀

            Are you aware that there is not enough fossil fuels to make the oceans acidic? Are you aware that the oceans are actually basic? The opposite of acidic?

            http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/10/not-enough-co2-to-make-oceans-acidic-a-note-from-professor-plimer/

            [quote]More severe weather events…[/quote]

            BS! I’ll refer you to a debate held between skeptics and alarmists from October 2010 .
            [quote]
            The scientific position and ability of PIK scientists during that meeting was rather weak. Whenever they had to agree that observation do not show any special increase neither in extreme weather, temperature nor sea level and so on, they mentioned: ‘But our models show…’ “

            That their science is weak ought not be a surprise. What else could one possibly expect from a science that ignores observations and relies on models?
            – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2011/05/18/skeptics-and-alarmists-clash-at-climate-conference-german-scientists-call-pik-scientific-position-weak/#sthash.8AKE3C6w.dpuf%5B/quote%5D Notice a pattern? Once again alarmist talking points are based upon models, not observations.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote] the calculation of the average temperature which seems to cause so much controversy.[/quote]
            [img]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif[/img]
            Only because alarmists have “adjusted” the data to match rising Co2, the temperature rise claimed is almost completely due to these adjustments. It does not correlate to measured temperature in the real world.
            [quote]It would appear that the temperature rise profile claimed by the adjusted data is largely if not entirely an artefact arising from the adjustments applied (as shown in Figure 3), not from the experimental data record. In fact, the raw data does not in any way support the AGW theory. [/quote]
            http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/06/how-the-us-temperature-record-is-adjusted/

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]The sun is going into an 11 yr period of low activity and the earth should be heading into a mini ice age as it has in the past. It’s not. Yes the rapid rise in temp has decreased a bit but the earth is not cooling. [/quote] Still lying about this provably false statement?
            [quote]Please explain why the earth isn’t cooling even though the sun is getting cooler?[/quote]

            Stop lying and denying already! The best temperature records show cooling. The only ones that do not have been “adjusted” to match the invalidated Models.

            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&parameter=anom-tavg&time_scale=p12&begyear=2005&endyear=2015&month=12

            It is cooling according to the satellites and NOAA’s best land surface record. You already know this, but keep spouting the same lies over and over.

            [img]http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ScreenHunter_9740-Jun.-25-06.54.gif[/img]

            Alarmists are claiming Greenland is melting too…
            There is nothing unusual going on in Greenland, or with mindless alarmist hysteria. The ice sheet is bitter cold, just like it always is.
            [img]http://www.summitcamp.org/status/webcam/[/img]

            Aussi Alarmists are pleading with everyone to NOT examine their “work” too closely? Wonder why?
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/07/aussie-climate-scientists-please-dont-examine-our-work/

            And Wee Willy is Still WINNING?
            [img]http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/077/b/8/duh_winning_by_easytosay-d3bxdi0.jpg[/img]

        • Avatar

          prestigio

          |

          smells like fish

          feel the empty
          emotional appeal

          the silly resort to
          so-called authority

          sense the squirming
          and slithering

          smells like droooskee

          Reply

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            prestigio If you resort to name calling you have lost the debate!

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            So says the party who calls us “deniers”. Classic projection.

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            Yup…deny your BS and that of the rest of your ilk!

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            You have run away from my request each and every time worm, which proves that I am right, and you are scum.

            Keep killing innocent humans Bill. 19,000 today, good work.

          • Avatar

            prestigio

            |

            slick willy the fish

            your resort to lying
            has exposed you
            for what
            you are

            there never was a debate
            you considered only
            your lies

            and the parroting of
            other lies

            you will not
            and cannot
            refute

            what has been presented
            in objection
            to your lies

            I don’t expect you
            to understand

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            Is that your comeback for everything…you lie. What great response…doh! I guess I shouldn’t expect much better a person of your caliber!

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            At least he is not taking food away from the starving.

            How many did the alarmists kill today?

            About 19,000. Sleep well Bill.

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            Oh yah Gator, you the libertarian care about starving people.

            “I have always found it quaint and rather touching that there is a movement [Libertarians] in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough.”
            ― Christopher Hitchens

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            I know it’s hard for self centered, immature, and small minded people like you to understand that others actually do care for their fellow man, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t. My charitable donations this month will actually exceed my income as I have pledged a monthly gift to an organization that feeds starving kids. In know that you will not be able to wrap your sick mind around how this could happen, and your Hitchens quote only further cements your psychological issues such as projection.

            It really is disgusting the way you glibly dismiss the deaths of millions each year, and then belittle those who are actually trying to make a difference.

            Sleep well Bill.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            FYI…

            [i]The United States and Myanmar are tied for the distinction of [b]the most giving country[/b], according to the 2014 World Giving Index, which looks at generous behavior.

            The scores, measured from 2009-2013 and released in November, looked at 135 countries. They were compiled by the international organization Charities Aid Foundation.[/i]

            http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/11/20/giving-index-charity-united-states-myanmar/70008604/

            But keep quoting liars, and keep refusing to provide data.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            How many starving people did that communist help feed? And why would he move to America if it’s so bad?

            To make and keep more of his own money? For a chance at a better life?

            Look back to the last century and count how many tens of millions starved under socialist utopian central planning Bill.

            Mao didn’t work then and it won’t work now.

            When there is a natural disaster in the world, why do we never hear of China or Russia rushing to send aid?

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            What has that got to do with the price of eggs? Typical ploy trying to attach climate change to other disasters. Have you mentioned the holocaust yet?

            Why do we never hear of the Islamic countries, some of the oil richest in the world sending any aid? They are supported by the Us and get billions of dollars worth military equipment for nothing! Where was the US and the rest of the west during the Rwanda genocide when 850 k were butchered? Oh, forgot, no oil in Rwanda, they don’t care. The person who did the most for Rwanda fells the worst about it!

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]What has that got to do with the price of eggs? Typical ploy trying to attach climate change to other disasters. Have you mentioned the holocaust yet? [/quote] Everything! When the same guy’s promoting this CAGW scam are also saying a Chinese Style dictatorship, global wealth redistribution and population reduction are the only way to “save” us.
            [quote]Global warming alarmists such as Al Gore, United Nations climate boss Christiana Figueres, and senior Obama administration officials are showing their true colors, proposing �solutions� for fighting alleged man-made climate change that are increasingly outlandish and outright totalitarian. Even as UN theories crumble amid 19 years with no warming, climate alarmists are calling for, among other measures, more population-control schemes and even Communist Chinese-style despotism to supposedly battle human CO2 emissions.[/quote]
            http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=29019

            http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.ca/2011/01/global-warming-scam-scam-artists-want.html

            http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/6903-nasas-hansen-dictatorship-can-save-the-earth

            Your part about muslim nations I kinda agree with, the US pays about 55 dollars a barrel just to secure Mideast Blood Oil. You actually make a good case for why the US should buy more ethical oil from Canada.

            Yet strangely leftists are opposed to any new drilling, fracking or pipelines or shipping via trucks or rail. Blood soaked oil tankers from the OPEC nations are ok though.

            And as for getting involved in Rawanda, you leftists complain every time the US goes on these adventures and spends trillions on weapons and war, yet are the first to complain when they don’t run off to save everyone.

            Why do leftist always want to cut the military? Every time the US has demobilised so the left could spend “some imaginary peace dividend” they got caught flat footed for the next war.

            News Flash for you lying, self loathing, leftist looser’s, there is ALWAYS a next war.

            Always, it’s why the wise said, “In times of peace, prepare for war.”

            Just think what good could be done with the 35 Billion a year the US wastes on fake global warming?

            Keep drinking your kool-aid Wee Willy. 😀
            [img]http://aaronsenvironmental.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/GreenKoolAid.jpg[/img]

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Prove that you’re telling the truth, Bill. After all, it shouldn’t be that hard for a person of your caliber.

            Do it, Bill. Do it without resorting to what you consider to be authority. Do it yourself because you are of such obvious intellectual ability that you can without referencing.

            You can’t.
            The people you reference can’t.

            But nobody’s supposed to call you a phony and a liar.

            You’ve proven yourself for what you are:

            DRUUUUUUUUUSKEEEEEE

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Why won’t you answer me.

            You extol endlessly and
            AD NAUSEAM otherwise.

            Answer me, Bill. And without the idiot hysteria.

            Answer me, Bill.
            If you can.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            He isn’t a skeptic, he is a POS pretending. He uses key words of known atheist to stir the pot, I’m not buying his Bullshit, but that’s what 2 B fish is trying to accomplish. 😆
            Ya know the funny thing, I didn’t know about any of these atheist, a couple of years ago, so I tip Me hat to those that gave Me that info! Thank You for your help, I would never have looked farther into it if it wasn’t for you.

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            You wouldn’t understand the answer!

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            amirlach, I’ve forgotten more about the scientific method than you ever knew!

            I did a search re this site and found some interesting information. Yahoo Answers added this to their findings: “PS: Though it’s rarely been a problem for me lately, in this case I am making a copy of the whole page to have as a record, in case the cheaters have it removed.” The links don’t work now, hmmm…Tommy or some of your cronies did you have something to do with that? Appears YA doesn’t trust Tommy.

            Strange I couldn’t find any critiques of this site or of Tom Richard and there should be many given the crap that is written here. Here’s the best answer from a comment on YA about the CCF/D and Tommy: “The germanclimateblog link you gave mentions a Thomas Richard. That appears to be ‘our man’. Thomas Richard regularly writes for canadafreepress where it states that he is an editor for the site “Climate Change Fraud (CCF), a claim Richard himself also made regularly. Interestingly, the link it gives leads to a japanese owned and operated domain which is not at all about climate change (a quick Google Translate learns me).”

            “However, upon searching this domain on the Waybackmachine, it gets automatically redirected to http://www.climatechangedispatch.com.
            Documents pertaining to a lawsuit about copyright infringement show that the climatechangefraud.com website was registered by a Mr Thomas Neveu at GoDaddy while Mr Thomas Richard was the editor of the site.”

            “He appears in the credits of John O’Sullivan’s infamous “Slaying the Sky Dragon” as “professional web designer and graphic artist”. That probably explains how Thomas Richard is related to the registrar of climatechangefraud.com, Thomas Neveu as Neveu is also a ‘graphics designer’.”
            Source(s): http://algorelied.com/?tag=al-mcgartland
            The Lawsuit: http://ia600504.us.archive.org/12/items/
            Doesn’t work, go figure: http://slayingtheskydragon.com/en/about/

            David Suzuki said, and it applies here: “Global warming deniers get more desperate by the day.” Thus the overkill on my comments. Desperate to get the BS out there any way you can in the hopes of deluding some climate ignorant person.

            Other people say it so much better than me: You are “…a classic example of an entrenched position that appears unable to admit the possibility of doubt and utilises infinite minutiae to deflect answers whilst avoiding the elephant in the room.” http://www.hampshireskeptics.org/?p=2601

            “Simply posting ever more detailed analyses of increasingly cherry-picked data does not change what is happening in our atmosphere and to our planet.” http://www.hampshireskeptics.org/?p=2601

            “The good thing about science is that it is true whether you believe it or not!” https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm Read the comments by chris for a lesson in the carbon cycle!

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            More proof you are wrong!

            The hockey stick controversy. This shot M&M’s work down way back in 2006! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Report
            ” “none of the statistical criticisms that have been raised by various authors unduly influence the shape of the final reconstruction. This is attested to by the fact that reconstructions performed without using principal components yield similar results.”[29]

            “It broadly agreed with the basic findings of the original MBH studies which had subsequently been supported by other reconstructions and proxy records, while emphasising uncertainties over earlier periods.[7] Principal component analysis methodology which had been contested by McIntyre and McKitrick had a small tendency to bias results so was not recommended, but it had little influence on the final reconstructions, and other methods produced similar results.[8][9]”

            Ha…just keep beating the dead horse boys…making yourselves look like fools! Most scientists wouldn’t bother with this pipsqueak of a site. I have lots of time to push buttons and yours are sticking way out!

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Provide data, or admit that you are lying.

            [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/lanser_holocene_figure11.png[/img]

            The data does not support the reference you provided.

            Data please. No more poltical statements, and no more ad hominems.

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            You are on about information that is at least 10 to 15 years old. All the data shows the earth is warming. Give it up. The climate is warming. Round and round you go, get your head out of your butt and you won’t go in circles….oops ad hominem1, well maybe not.

            Here’s some surveys on what scientists think.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change

            Here’s a list of climate scientists. Note CLIMATE scientists, not journalists, not engineers, not IT experts, not businessmen (i.e. McIntyre), not engineers, not mathematicians, not physicists, not astrophysicists, not laymen with their head up their butt, not politicians paid for by fossil fuel. Click on anyone of them and see what they are studying. Even Roy Spencer is included, he’d be one of your heroes! Go thru then and see how many are on your side!

            Suzuki is so right: “Global warming deniers get more desperate by the day.” Is there any denier science out there that actually looks at the climate or do they just sit around cheery pick data, that it out of context and scream they are lying. Claim stolen email show Nobody cares about you anymore. Rational people believe the rational science not rabble rousers such as the group on this site. Are you one of Tommy’s cronies? Can’t think for youself, eh? Or does Gator=Tommy. You must have some in at the site, you can add graphs etc, bold text, italicise text etc. What’s the problem you don’t have enough people visiting the site to make comments that you need insiders to do the fighting? What a sad, pathetic bunch of losers. Any other sites I go to there are many different commenters with varying views…not here. All but me are swallowing Tommy’s BS! Just keep rehashing the same old graphs if that makes you feel better. You’ve lost, 60% of the American public believe the earth is warming.

            Neil deGrasse Tyson said: “I f you want to assert a truth, first make sure it is not an opinion that you desperately want to be true.” Although on this site I suspect you are towing the line of the sponsors.

            If the group stopped resorting to ad hominems I would as well. However we have come to the point where you have no new arguments and all the data error claims you have made are debunked. Here’s what deniers do: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/09/22/steve-mcintyre -misrepresents-climate-research-history/
            and clearing other denier claims: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline-advanced.htm and to debunk all the denialist’s claptrap: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/09/12/judith-curry-scores-own-goal-in-climate-hockey/

            Interesting. 5 stages of denial: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/16/climate-change-contrarians-5-stages-denial

            Given what this computer model shows, will deniers now rely on computer modeling? “Computer models have revealed that the shape of the ground beneath the ice sheet could drastically impact how fast melting occurs.” http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/6727/20130508/greenland-glaciers-melting-quickly-sea-level-rise-slower-predicted.htm

            This site lost, the overwhelming evidence states the hockey stick is correct. No matter how hard you bang your head against the wall or how long you stamp your fee or how often you nitpick at the data, it won’t stop AGW!

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Provide data, or admit that you are lying.

            Political statements and opinions are not data. The Earth has not warmed for over 18 years.

            [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/clip_image002.png[/img]

            1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

            2- Please provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Wow! Appeal to authority much? A poll of scientists? The same scientists who can’t make a single skillful prediction? 😀 [quote]You are on about information that is at least 10 to 15 years old. All the data shows the earth is warming. Give it up. The climate is warming. Round and round you go, get your head out of your butt and you won’t go in circles….oops ad hominem1, well maybe not. [/quote] All the data? You forgot about the satellites, and NOAA’s best temperature records which prove your lying. And which are current, as in right up to todays date.

            And if Mann’s 12 tree rings and algorithms that make hockey sticks out of trendless random numbers was a skillful record of past climate. How do you explain how those Vikings grew barley in “Greenland”, or how all those forests were growing under glaciers? Or why if the hockey stick was “correct” why the IPCC quietly dropped it? 😀

            [quote]Here’s a list of climate scientists. Note CLIMATE scientists, not journalists, not engineers, not IT experts, not businessmen (i.e. McIntyre), not engineers, not mathematicians, not physicists, not astrophysicists, not laymen with their head up their butt, not politicians paid for by fossil fuel.[/quote] Then you go on to cite several who are not “Climate Scientists” your self? Priceless. 😀 Like
            Neil deGrasse Tyson? Not a Climate Scientist! You should not listen! 😥

            So M&M, who are Published in Peer Reviewed Journals do not count? 😀

            Then here are some more guys you should not listen too. Well first would be your favorite source. John Cook the cartoonist. 😀

            “They are specialists in the field of climate, therefore it is fair to call them climate scientists.
            If you do not accept this, I have to point out that using your definition of ‘climate scientist’, there are many others who also cannot be called ‘climate scientists’ which includes;

            James Hansen (PhD in Physics),
            Phil Jones (PhD in Hydrology),
            Michael Mann (PhD in Geology),
            Sir John Mason ( MSc in Physics),
            Sir John Houghton (PhD in Physics),
            sir John Beddington (PhD in Population Biology),
            David Suzuki (PhD in Zoology),
            Will Steffen (PhD in Chemical Engineering),
            Tim Flannery (PhD in Kangaroo Evolution),
            David Karoly (PhD in Meterology),
            Matthew England (PhD in Oceanography).
            Stephen Schneider (PhD in Mechanical Engineering)
            Brenda Ekwurzel (PhD in Isotope Geochemistry (hydrology))
            Carl Wunsch (PhD in Geophysics)
            Susan Solomon (PhD in Chemistry)
            Richard Somerville (PhD in Meteorology)
            Richard Alley (PhD in Geology)
            Gavin Schmidt (PhD in Mathematics)
            John Holdren (PhD in Plasma Physics)”

            HA! Mann and Suzuki? Who you cite as references both made the list?

            Here we see how utterly clueless and uninformed Suzuki Mr. “I’m not a Climate Scientist” really is. The look of stunned silence when he hears it has NOT warmed is priceless. At 1:27. And how he has never even heard the names of the major temperature records. 😀 What a credible source you cite.
            http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3841115.htm

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]You’ve lost, 60% of the American public believe the earth is warming.[/quote] [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/climate_hype.png[/img] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/05/climate-concerns-fading-despite-paris-hype/ Actually I think the earth has warmed since the “LIA”. The cause is another thing, no evidence it was due to man, as clearly most of this century’s warming happened before 1934.

            [quote]What’s the problem you don’t have enough people visiting the site to make comments that you need insiders to do the fighting?[/quote]
            What’s the matter Boo Boo 😥 ? You cannot produce anything but sources, which by your own metric should be ignored, nor can you produce any data facts that support your outlandish claims. You simply appeal to authority and repeat the same provably false talking points. Like It’s still warming?

            Interesting: Five Stages of Alarmist Propaganda.
            ◾The rule of simplification: reducing all data to a simple confrontation between ‘Good and Bad’, ‘Friend and Foe’.
            ◾The rule of disfiguration: discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies.
            ◾The rule of transfusion: manipulating the consensus values of the target audience for one’s own ends.
            ◾The rule of unanimity: presenting one’s viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people: draining the doubting individual into agreement by the appeal of star-performers, by social pressure, and by ‘psychological contagion’.
            ◾The rule of orchestration: endlessly repeating the same messages in different variations and combinations.

            [quote]Given what this computer model shows, will deniers now rely on computer modeling? [/quote] Only models that have predictive skill and have been “VALIDATED”. I rely on stress analysis models every day. If they only produced a 7% success rate like climate models I wouldn’t.

            Funny thing about climate models, if you simply said tomorrows temperature would be the much same as today. You would a 33 1/3% success rate.
            [quote]This site lost, the overwhelming evidence states the hockey stick is correct. No matter how hard you bang your head against the wall or how long you stamp your fee or how often you nitpick at the data, it won’t stop AGW![/quote] Yet you cannot produce any of this “overwhelming” evidence?

            And AGW “stopped” itself over 19 years ago. No matter how hard you bang your head against the wall or how long you stamp your fee or how often you deny the data, it won’t prove AGW.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            So how does any of the above screed in any way prove you understand the scientific method? 😀

            [quote]I. The scientific method has four steps.

            1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

            2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

            3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

            4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

            If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.
            [/quote]

            CAGW Fails! The experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. Instead they “modify” the data to fit the failed predictions…

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            I’ll see your wiki white washed”North” Report and raise you what the NAS actually said. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NRCreport.pdf

            ” The NAS found that Mann’s methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless. Mann’s data set does not have enough information to verify its ‘skill’ at resolving the past, and has such wide uncertainty bounds as to be no better than the simple mean of the data (p. 91). M&M said that the appearance of significance was created by ignoring all but one type of test score, thereby failing to quantify all the relevant uncertainties. The NAS agreed (p. 110), but, again, did so in subtle wording.

            Furthermore, when Gerald North, the chairman of the NAS panel — which Mann claims ‘vindicated him’ – was asked at the House Committee hearings whether or not they agreed with Wegman’s harsh criticisms, he said they did:

            CHAIRMAN BARTON: Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

            DR. NORTH [Head of the NAS panel]: No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

            DR. BLOOMFIELD [of the Royal Statistical Society]: Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

            WALLACE [of the American Statistical Association]: ‘the two reports [Wegman’s and NAS] were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.’ “

            http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2011/09/there-he-goes-again-version-40-mann.html

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            What part of the North report don’t you understand. It’s spelled out for you
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Report

            Pa particular attention to the last sentence…

            “The North Report went through a rigorous review process,[4] and was published on 22 June 2006.[5] It concluded “with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries”, justified by consistent evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies, but “Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from 900 to 1600″.[6] It broadly agreed with the basic findings of the original MBH studies which had subsequently been supported by other reconstructions and proxy records, while emphasising uncertainties over earlier periods.[7] Principal component analysis methodology which had been contested by McIntyre and McKitrick had a small tendency to bias results so was not recommended, but it had little influence on the final reconstructions, and other methods produced similar results.[8][9]”

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            What part of this sworn testimony do [i]you[/i] not get?

            [quote]CHAIRMAN BARTON: Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

            DR. NORTH [Head of the NAS panel]: [b]No, we don’t[/b]. We don’t disagree with their criticism.[b] In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report[/b].

            DR. BLOOMFIELD [of the Royal Statistical Society]: Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were [b]inappropriate[/b]. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was d[b]ocumented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman[/b].

            WALLACE [of the American Statistical Association]: ‘the two reports [Wegman’s and NAS] were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, [b]the conclusions were quite consistent[/b].’ “[/quote]

            And then from your own quote…

            [quote]”Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from 900 to 1600″[/quote]

            [quote]The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) lasted from about AD 950 to 1250.[/quote]

            And what part of [i]this[/i] do you not get?

            [quote]There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.[/quote]

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            Provide data, or admit that you are lying.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            The other “methods” produced similar results? By his Climategate Pen Pals?

            They all used the same 12 trees, which the NAS said should never have been used. Well 13 trees if you count Briffa’s One Tree.

            “In 2003 a Canadian statistician, Steve McIntyre, with his colleague Professor Ross McKitrick, showed how the graph had been fabricated by a computer model that produced “hockey stick” graphs whatever random data were fed into it.

            Although McIntyre’s exposure of the “hockey stick” was upheld in 2006 by two expert panels commissioned by the US Congress, the small group of scientists at the top of the IPCC brushed this aside by pointing at a hugely influential series of graphs originating from the CRU, from Jones and Briffa. These appeared to confirm the rewriting of climate history in the “hockey stick”, by using quite different tree ring data from Siberia.

            McIntyre demonstrated in an explosive series of posts on his Climate Audit blog, because it showed that the CRU studies were based on cherry-picking hundreds of Siberian samples only to leave those that showed the picture that was wanted. Other studies based on similar data had clearly shown the Medieval Warm Period as hotter than today. Indeed only the evidence from one tree, YADO61, seemed to show a “hockey stick” pattern, and it was this, in light of the extraordinary reverence given to the CRU’s studies, which led McIntyre to dub it “the most influential tree in the world”.

            But more dramatic still has been the new evidence from the CRU’s leaked documents, showing just how the evidence was finally rigged. The most quoted remark in those emails has been one from Prof Jones in 1999, reporting that he had used “Mike [Mann]’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps” to “Keith’s” graph, in order to “hide the decline”. Invariably this has been quoted out of context. Its true significance, we can now see, is that what they intended to hide was the awkward fact that, apart from that one tree, the Yamal data showed temperatures not having risen in the late 20th century but declining. What Jones suggested, emulating Mann’s procedure for the “hockey stick” (originally published in Nature), was that tree-ring data after 1960 should be eliminated, and substituted – without explanation – with a line based on the quite different data of measured global temperatures, to convey that temperatures after 1960 had shot up.

            A further devastating blow has now been dealt to the CRU graphs by an expert contributor to McIntyre’s Climate Audit, known only as “Lucy Skywalker”. She has cross-checked with the actual temperature records for that part of Siberia, showing that in the past 50 years temperatures have not risen at all. (For further details see the science blog Watts Up With That.)
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/30/yamal-treering-proxy-temperature-reconstructions-dont-match-local-thermometer-records/

            [quote]Let’s look closely and compare local thermometer records (GISS) with the Twelve Trees, upon whose treerings depend all the IPCC claims of “unprecedented recent temperature rise”. I checked out the NASA GISS page for all thermometer records in the vicinity of Yamal and the Polar Urals, in “raw”, “combined”, and “homogenized” varieties. [/quote]

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/30/yamal-treering-proxy-temperature-reconstructions-dont-match-local-thermometer-records/

            Once again Wee Willy is a proven liar… “Steve McIntyre, with his colleague Professor Ross McKitrick, showed how the graph had been fabricated by a computer model that produced “hockey stick” graphs whatever random data were fed into it.”

            Once again alarmist, consensus science is shown to be based upon invalidated computer models that were refuted by observations… 😥

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            amirlach Here’s another of your misinformation ploys. Mike’s trick is simply adding

            The “decline” refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature but of course you missinformers would jump all over it, take it out of context, scream and yell that he was hiding the decline in temperature.

            “Phil Jones’ email is often cited as evidence of an attempt to “hide the decline in global temperatures”. This claim is patently false and shows ignorance of the science discussed. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations since 1960.

            Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature. Hence, tree-rings are used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the “divergence problem”. Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.
            The “decline” has nothing to do with “Mike’s trick”.

            Phil Jones talks about “Mike’s Nature trick” and “hide the decline” as two separate techniques. However, people often abbreviate the email, distilling it down to “Mike’s trick to hide the decline”. Professor Richard Muller from Berkeley commits this error in a public lecture:

            “A quote came out of the emails, these leaked emails, that said “let’s use Mike’s trick to hide the decline”. That’s the words, “let’s use Mike’s trick to hide the decline”. Mike is Michael Mann, said “hey, trick just means mathematical trick. That’s all.” My response is I’m not worried about the word trick. I’m worried about the decline.”

            Muller quotes “Mike’s nature trick to hide the decline” as if its Phil Jones’s actual words. However, the original text indicates otherwise:

            “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

            It’s clear that “Mike’s Nature trick” is quite separate to Keith Briffa’s “hide the decline”. “Mike’s Nature trick” refers to a technique (a “trick of the trade”) by Michael Mann to plot recent instrumental data along with reconstructed past temperature. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.
            [i][b]
            There is nothing secret about “Mike’s trick”. Both the instrumental and reconstructed temperature are clearly labelled. Claiming this is some sort of secret “trick” or confusing it with “hide the decline” displays either ignorance or a willingness to mislead.[/b][/i]

            What part of [i][b]other methods, meaning other statistical methods were used by other researchers and they came up with the same basic results[/b][/i] don’t you understand. or do you conveniently disregard new research and go back to 1999? If you could read and not rely on the cherry picking of your pseudoscientists (McIntyre, McKittrick et al) you’d know that Mann’ work has been vindicated by the North report and by the congressional hearings

            Mann used new statistical methods to create the hockey stick that other statisticians did not agree with (Wegman, North, etc) but they agree with the results. Other methods proved the hockey stick was correct therefore Mann’s methods were correct. Mann said there were discrepancies that would need to be cleared up, guess you and you boys missed that…eh?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]The “decline” refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature but of course you missinformers would jump all over it, take it out of context, scream and yell that he was hiding the decline in temperature. [/quote] Except no one ever claimed that. Everyone knew it meant that the tree ring proxies diverged from the temperature records. This showed exactly how unreliable the method was. Instead of admitting that the tree rings were highly unreliable they HID this fact.

            Thus Hide the Decline. And score another lie for Wee Willy Whiny.

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            amirlach Did you read the report or simply cherry pick as you and your ilk are so prone to do. Dr. North under oath states: I don’t
            think there is anything dishonest about it or anything like that,
            but I think that the analyses that the Wegman group did really
            were–some of those were examined by the statisticians on our
            committee and I don’t think that we are in any great disagreement
            about it. Let me just mention this, that the criticisms don’t mean
            that the MBH claims were wrong. They just mean that the MBH claims
            are not convincing by themselves. So if you pull together other
            information, then that does change the view a bit.” By saying he agreed he was agreeing that the statistical methods used buy Wegmen were ok. Followed by the statement: [i][b]”Let me just mention this, that the criticisms don’t mean that the MBH claims were wrong.”[/b][/i]

            Now your cherry picking:
            CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that. It looks like my time
            is expired, so I want to ask one more question. Dr. North, do you
            dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?
            DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their
            criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our
            report. But again, just because the claims are made, doesn’t
            mean they are false.
            CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that you can have the right
            conclusion and that it not be–
            DR. NORTH. It happens all the time in science.
            CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, and not be substantiated by what you
            purport to be the facts but have we established–we know that
            Dr. Wegman has said that Dr. Mann’s methodology is incorrect. Do
            you agree with that? [i][b]I mean, it doesn’t mean Dr. Mann’s
            conclusions are wrong,[/b][/i]

            You missed the part about the [i][b]conclusions of Mann’ Paper are correct.[/b][/i]

            I’m not finished yet. I’ll finish tomorrow!

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            You cut the man off in mid sentence! 😆

            Here is the rest…

            [i]…but we can stipulate now that we have–and if you want to ask your statistician expert from North Carolina that [b]Dr. Mann’s methodology [u]cannot[/u] be documented and [u]cannot[/u] be verified by independent review[/b].

            DR. NORTH. Do you mind if he speaks?

            CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, if he would like to come to the microphone.

            MR. BLOOMFIELD. Thank you. Yes, Peter Bloomfield. [b]Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his coworkers and we felt that some of the choices they made were [u]inappropriate[/u][/b]. We had much [b]the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman[/b].”[/i]

            Now, I will ask again…

            1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

            2- Please provide [i]even [b]one[/b][/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            Why can you not answer the most [i]basic[/i] of questions that are needed to support your religion?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]amirlach Did you read the report or simply cherry pick as you and your ilk are so prone to do. [/quote] So you agree that North Agreed with the Wegman Report?
            [quote]Findings
            In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and
            the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling.[/quote]

            What happens when Mann’s Dirty Laundry is included in the graphs?
            http://joannenova.com.au/2014/12/hockeystick-finally-updated-with-modern-trees-collapses/

            The real “cheery” picking was done by Mann and his fellow travelers when they picked 12 trees that agreed with their preconceived and failed mission to erase the MWP. Take away the strip bark series and the upside down graph and what do you have? Something invalid? 😀

            [quote]In 2006 a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel investigated the hockey stick graph used by the (IPCC) to promote the idea that humans are causing rapid and unprecedented global warming. McKitrick had argued that the hockey stick relied for its shape on the inclusion of a small set of invalid proxy data (called bristlecone, or “strip-bark” records). If they are removed, the conclusion that the 20th century is unusually warm compared to the pre-1450 interval is reversed. Hence the conclusion of unique late 20th century warmth does not hold up under minor variations in data or methods. The NAS panel agreed, saying Mann’s results are “strongly dependent” on the strip-bark data (pp. 106-107), and they went further, warning that strip-bark data should not be used in this type of research (p. 50).

            McKitrick’s analysis was further backed up by a study by Wegman etc al [Edward J. Wegman, George Mason University, David W. Scott, Rice University, and Yasmin H. Said, The Johns Hopkins University.], which verified that Mann’s hockey-stick graph was invalid.
            [/quote]
            http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part2_HockeyStick.htm

            Still waiting for your explanation regarding all of the recorded history and archeological evidence which proves Mann wrong.

            It’s highly unlikely you will even attempt to answer to the empirical evidence that completely refutes your doctrine.

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            amirlach Continuation…you fail to understand that Wegman and North don’t agree with the statistical methods used by Mann. North agrees with the conclusion that AGW is happening.
            Here’s the questioning by
            MS. SCHAKOWSKY. –comment on that. I think since we are talking about scientific data, statistics, let us be clear, and you are challenging a report which form what I understand as Dr. North in some part at least you agree with the critique of the Mann data, so–and I am certainly–I am neither, but we are policymakers here so what I–[i][b]do you believe that your report disproves that climate change is manmade in any way?
            DR. WEGMAN. No.[/b][/i]

            Is there any part of that conversation you don’t understand? [i][b]Wegmen doesn’t like or doesn’t understand Mann’s methods but he does agree with the conclusion…which is increased man made CO2 is causing the temperature to rise and that is under oath![/b][/i]

            Bloomfield agreed with Wegmen about the stats used, he said nothing about the conclusion. Wegmen, as stated above agrees with the conclusion. Again you fail to comprehend what you read. Ops forgot you cherry pick. Cherry pickers are required to read and comprehend the entire document just take what you want out of context.

            Your Hockey Schtick link. Of course when everyone dumps on your methodology you use other methodology to show that you were correct the first time…that’s science. But since you are not a scientist you wouldn’t understand that! Exactly what are you? I mean your education. What is it? I’d wager a coffee, (note: if you are Canadian a medium Tim Horton’s Dark Roast, if American a Dunkin’ Donut medium), you never took a science course above general science in high school. I know you are a cherry picking missinformer who tries to mislead. I just don’t know why…yet! It’s got to do with the oil industry, I suspect.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]–do you believe that your report disproves that climate change is manmade in any way?[/quote] Wrong question! And quite irrelevant. The “scope” of Wegman’s Report was not to “disprove” climate change. It was to investigate Mann’s zero statistical skill graph. Wegman “agreed” with M&M’s Statistical Review, thereby
            refuting the conclusions made by MBH98… 😀

            The question of whether he(Wegman) thought climate change was manmade was not part of the process.

            [quote]Wegmen doesn’t like or doesn’t understand Mann’s methods but he does agree with the conclusion…which is increased man made CO2 is causing the temperature to rise and that is under oath![/quote]
            Provably FALSE! Wegman goes on at great length, SHREDDING Mann’s “statistical” methods and computer model that generates Hockey Sticks out of trendless random data.
            [quote]M&M also ran a Monte Carlo Simulation on 70 of the stationary proxy data series. When
            applying the linear transformation described above that was found in MBH98, nearly
            every simulation yielded first principal components (PC1) with a ‘hockey stick’ shape.
            Without this transformation, the ‘hockey stick’ shape appeared in the PC1 only 15.3% of
            the time. Additionally, the MBH98 method creates a PC1 that is dominated by
            bristlecone pine and foxtail pine tree ring series (both closely related species). Out of the
            70 sites in the network, 93% of the variance in the MBH98 PC1 is accounted for by only
            15 bristlecone and foxtail pine sites, all with data collected by one man, Donald Graybill.
            Without the transformation, these sites have an explained variance of less than 8%. The
            substantially reduced share of explained variance coupled with the omission of virtually
            every species other than bristlecone and foxtail pine, argues strongly against interpreting
            it as the dominant component of variance in the North American network. There is also
            evidence present in other articles calling the reliability of bristlecone pines as an effective
            temperature proxy into question.
            M&M also evaluated the MBH98 usage of the Reduction of Error statistic in place of the
            more reliable and widely used Monte Carlo Model to establish significant benchmarks.
            By using the Monte Carlo Model, M&M found that a more accurate significance level for
            the MBH98 procedures is .59, as opposed to the level of 0.0 reported in the original
            study. A guard against spurious RE significance is to examine other statistics, such as the
            R2 and CE statistics. However, MBH98 did not report any additional statistics for the
            controversial 15th century period. The M&M calculations indicate that these values for
            the 15th century section of the temperature reconstruction are not significant, thereby
            refuting the conclusions made by MBH98.[/quote] North agreed with this finding while under Oath before Congress.

            http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf

            You should try actually reading the report you keep lying about, instead of going full Liquor Snurf!

            [quote] But since you are not a scientist you wouldn’t understand that! Exactly what are you? I mean your education. What is it? [/quote]

            Here we see Herr Wee Willy Flounder going full Logical Fallacy!
            [quote]ad hominem

            You attacked your opponent’s character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.

            Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone’s case without actually having to engage with it.
            [/quote] And Teh FLOUNDER FAILS! 😀

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            The North and Wegman reports both fully agreed with M&M. Your complete lack of reading comprehension skills is troubling. Snurf!
            [quote]…We believe that our discussion together with the discussion from the NRC report should take the “centering’ issue off the table. [Mann’s] decentered methodology is simply incorrect mathematics … I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong Answer Correct = Bad Science.

            [/quote]

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [i]A few weeks ago, you’ll recall, the ACLU, The Washington Post, NBC News, The Los Angeles Times and various other notorious right-wing deniers all filed amici briefs [b]opposed to Michael Mann and his assault on free speech[/b]. They did this not because they have any great love for me, but because their antipathy to wackjob foreign blowhards is outweighed by their appreciation of the First Amendment – and an understanding of the damage a Mann victory would inflict on it. After noting the upsurge of opposition to Mann, Reuters enquired of Catherine Reilly (one of his vast legal team) whether there would be any amici filing pro-Mann briefs:

            I asked Reilly if the professor would have any supporting briefs next month when he responds to the defendants in the D.C. appeals court.[/i]

            [quote]”At this point, we don’t know,” she said.[/quote]

            [i]Ms Reilly was a pleasant sort when I met her in court over a year ago, but she struck me as a formidable opponent. So I naturally assumed that the above was what what the political types call “lowering expectations”. As I wrote:

            I would be surprised if Mann didn’t have any supporting briefs. I was in court when Ms Reilly’s genial co-counsel made his argument for Mann, which was a straightforward appeal to authority: Why, all these eminent acronymic bodies, from the EPA and NSF and NOAA even unto HMG in London, have proved that all criticisms of Mann are false and without merit. So I would certainly expect them to file briefs – and, given that Mann sees this as part of a broader “war on science” by well-funded “deniers”, I would also expect briefs from the various professional bodies: the National Academy of Sciences, the American Physical Society, etc. As pleasant as it is to find my side of the court suddenly so crowded, I’m confident Mann will be able to even up the numbers.

            Well, yesterday was the deadline, and [b]not a single amicus brief was filed on behalf of Mann. Not one[/b]. So Michael Mann is taking a stand for science. But evidently [b]science is disinclined to take a stand for Michael Mann[/b]. The self-appointed captain of the hockey team is playing solo. As Judith Curry wrote last month:

            The link between ‘defending Michael Mann is defending climate science’ seems to have been broken.

            As yesterday’s deafening silence confirms. [b]If you’re defending Michael Mann, you’re not defending science, or defending climate science, or theories on global warming or anything else[/b]. Defending Michael Mann means defending Michael Mann – and it turns out not many people are willing to go there[/i].

            http://www.steynonline.com/6565/the-lonesomest-mann-in-town

            Gosh, not [u]one[/u] scientist, not [u]one[/u] scientific body, not [i]one[/i] journalist, and not one media conglomerate was willing to say [u]one[/u] word in the defense of Michael Mann in front of the court.

            I wonder if it has anything to do with the previous court testimonies, and the fact that Mann still refuses to show his work? 😆

            Well, at least L-I-A-R-S are sticking together. 😆

  • Avatar

    William Bill Fish

    |

    All the comments made proves what you really are. I don’t know what handle Tom Richard uses as a commenter, but maybe you use several as you are capable of being that devious. You know how to manipulate Google “…Whatever the source of backing for “climate change dispatch,” there is evidently some more than usual financial heft and sophistication involved (along with the more or less usual dishonesty). They seem to have manipulated google somehow so that only, or almost only, favorable material comes up in response to searches, and the entries on the site itself go back to January, 2010 (a long time for desmog, skepticalscience, realclimate, etc. to be unaware).” (YA)

    Reply

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |

      Your complete denial in the face of data facts and peer reviewed papers based upon actual observations, not models or “statistical” manipulation and cheery picking proves what you really are.

      The rest of the above post is pure fantasy, we are just a bunch or regular Joe’s with no giant funding, unlike the sources you keep citing.

      We somehow “manipulated Google? 😮 Google is worth 350 BILLION? And we have “more than usual financial heft and sophistication involved”? More that 350 BILLION worth?

      Your a complete loon and a denier of reality. What color is the sky in your world Wee Willy? 😀

      Reply

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |

      Might be a reason other than your false claim we are “manipulating google”.

      Like maybe the fact that fewer and fewer people care about this CAGW scam.
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/05/climate-concerns-fading-despite-paris-hype/

      And you might wonder why Mann’s Hockey Stick was quietly dropped by the IPCC? Why he does not get invited to any of the cool peoples parties any more?

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/03/oddly-nobel-prize-winner-michael-mann-was-not-invited-to-sign-the-mainau-declaration-for-climate-protection/

      Being completely invalidated by observations does that. Might also be why he has yet to turn over his data and methods to the courts regarding discovery of the hitherto unknown crime of “personal defamation of a Nobel prize recipient”. It’s only been what? Four years? Might there be something to hide? Like the fake data that’s kept in the wall safe behind his fake Nobel Prize?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        “Just to be clear, if you win a Nobel Peace Prize, you get invited to Oslo to meet the King of Norway and receive a Nobel Medal.

        If you win a fake Michael E Mann Nobel Prize, you wind up like Mann with a piece of paper run off at the IPCC branch of Kinko’s signed by a sex offender. Dr Mann’s (since withdrawn) original complaint argued that it’s totally unacceptable to compare a Nobel Prize winner with a sex fiend. But in fact he has the only Nobel Prize that has ever been handed out by a sex fiend. What are the odds of that?”

        Made me LOL…

        Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Why bother talking to Druuuskee and his latest alter ego : Willy Rybja the fish.

    It’s like playing a board game with a retard. Anytime you soundly defeat them, they overturn the board and insist on restarting because the conclusive defeat was inconsequential and didn’t matter.

    You’ve won umpteen times by demonstrating their illogic, lack of comprehension etc. but they will never admit it.

    Their admission isn’t necessary. Anyone of logical thought process knows they’ve been hauled down and they continue to make fools of themselves.

    Endless cacophony. Run up the comment meter. To hell with the value of commentary, ” win ” by volume instead. No matter how worthless.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      William Bill Fish

      |

      No ad hominem in that response…eh? You’re a bunch of pathetic people desperately grabbing at straws to support the sponsors of this site…you are losing, no you’ve lost already. No one pays attention to your ‘belief’. You’re background noise! bzzzzzzzzzzz!

      I’ve produce credible science that say the earth is warming, you and your ilk have desperately want to prove the hockey stick wrong but are failing miserably. Credible science states it’s true…NSA says it’s true. Move on boys you look foolish. Using the typical tactics of smears, innuendo, fabrications, distortions, errors, untruths and gross omissions.

      Ah yes Willie Soon, credible????
      http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/22/3625629/willie-soon-fossil-fuel-money/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tptop3

      You’ve already jumped deGrasse Tyson as not being a climatologist but he’s a lot more credible than any of your wingnut nonclimatologists, here’s the list of scientists, very few climatologists unless they are from the bible belt and bible outweighs science and AGW is not possible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_arguing_that_global_warming_is_primarily_caused_by_natural_processes

      Just don’t understand the amount of crap you have posted because one person dared to disagree with your ridiculous positions. As deGrasse Tyson said “You can’t just cherry-pick data and choose what is true about the world and what isn’t.” and another quote: “…the moment the politicians start saying they are in denial of what the scientists are telling them, of what the consensus of scientific experiments demonstrates, that is the beginning of the end of an informed democracy.” You and your sponsors, redumlican politicians and their sponsors are trying to end an informed democracy all for the dollar that can be made on fossil fuels.

      Give it up boys…you’ve lost. The only thing that will keep climate change denial going in the US is the Koch bros billions and the rest of the fossil fuel industries’ dollars. In my opinion all deniers sponsored by the fossil fuel industry are whores. The rest of the world will keep trying to do something about CO2 emissions if the redumlicans win in 2016, but that’s doubtful.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Gator

        |

        Please provide data, or admit that you are lying.

        1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

        2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

        There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

        Reply

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        Think Progress? 😀 Now your really getting desperate.
        [quote] As deGrasse Tyson said “You can’t just cherry-pick data and choose what is true about the world and what isn’t.”[/quote] Degrassy Jr. High must be rejected according to your own metrics, not ours. Sorry.

        This is exactly what Mann did, he “cherry picked” that data that he wanted to find, and hid the data that did not. He Hid the Decline!

        This is contrary to the Scientific Method, which states you need to show all of the data, not just the data you like.

        As for losing, your once again lying and denying. We have already debunked this lie.
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/05/climate-concerns-fading-despite-paris-hype/

        Reply

        • Avatar

          William Bill Fish

          |

          airlach… As deGrasse Tyson said “You can’t just cherry-pick data and choose what is true about the world and what isn’t.”

          Degrassy Jr. High must be rejected according to your own metrics, not ours. Sorry.

          You dumbass, the climate scientists are producing the data it’s your pseudoscientists that are doing the cherry picking.

          Grasping at straws now are we??

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Provide data, or admit that you are lying.

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]You dumbass, the climate scientists are producing the data it’s your pseudoscientists that are doing the cherry picking. [/quote] No Comrade! Your cLIEmate UN-scientists are “adjusting” the data to fit the failed CAGW hypothesis.

            The raw data in no way supports the CAGW “theory”.

  • Avatar

    William Bill Fish

    |

    Me “Ya know the funny thing, I didn’t know about any of these atheist,…” Here’s where you can get good info…
    Why Evolution is True https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/author/whyevolutionistrue/
    Debunking Christianity
    http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.ca/2013/06/why-i-am-atheist-my-statement-vs-dr.html
    Bart Ehrman
    http://ehrmanblog.org/
    Sam Harris
    http://www.samharris.org/blog
    Richard Dawkin’s Foundation for Reason and Science
    https://richarddawkins.net/
    On second thought skip the Richard Dawkin’s site it’s about ‘reason and science’ neither of which are your strong points.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Me

      |

      Well 2 B Fish, That atheist comment was to the religious that brought it up certain atheist names, the same ones calling AWGACC a religion. I said I was agnostic, but after looking more into it, I still do not believe in a god or gods of their kind, nor your gaia environmental pushed political BS. When the science being pushed with models and projections fail to live up to reality, then there is a problem. Apparently you are a believer to the end, not much different than religion.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        William Bill Fish

        |

        Glad to hear you don’t believe in god(s). Atheism is not a religion, it has no tenets. It’s simply, there is no god(s). That’s where I’m at.

        So since AGW for you is not religious you just don’t believe credible science. You prefer to believe the sponsored “scientists”. Got it! You and models, grow up your position on models is a very weak. Yes some models may be slightly in error but they are more right than wrong. Taking the most conservative predictions, earth is still in trouble if we don’t reduce CO2 emissions. It’s the fossil fuel sponsored politicians and ‘scientists’ that are pushing your agenda for the almighty dollar.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          Any belief is a religion.

          [i]“Atheism is religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,”[/i]

          https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/13-1009/13-1009-2013-08-16.pdf

          And this is undisputed state sponsorship of climate religion.

          This document shows a $21,408,000,000 budget for 2014. I am sure there is more that this budget does not show, but 21.4 billion dollars is still at least 21 billion too much.

          The total is found on page 45, and page 5 explains figures are in millions of dollars.

          https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf

          Provide data, or admit that you are lying.

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            And strangely, progressives are not demanding a separation of the Branch Carbonian and State… 😮

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [i]Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: ‘Global warming is a non-problem’…

            Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-Winner for physics in 1973, declared his dissent on man-made global warming claims at a Nobel forum on July 1, 2015.

            “I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem,” Dr. Giaever announced during his speech titled “Global Warming Revisited.”

            Giaever delivered his remarks at the 65th Nobel Laureate Conference in Lindau, Germany, which drew 65 recipients of the prize.

            Giaever was one of President Obama’s key scientific supporters in 2008 when he joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorsing Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. Giaever signed his name to the letter which read in part: “The country urgently needs a visionary leader…We are convinced that Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him.”

            But seven years after signing the letter, Giaever now mocks President Obama for warning that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change”. Giaever called it a “ridiculous statement.”

            “That is what he said. That is a ridiculous statement,” Giaever explained.

            “I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but [b]you’re wrong. Dead wrong,[/b]” Giaever said.

            “How can he say that? I think Obama is a clever person, but he gets bad advice. [b]Global warming is all wet[/b],” he added.

            “Obama said last year that 2014 is hottest year ever. But it’s not true. It’s not the hottest,” Giaever noted.

            The Nobel physicist questioned the basis for rising carbon dioxide fears.

            “[b]When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory[/b],” Giaever explained.

            Global Warming ‘[b]a new religion[/b]’
            Giaever said his climate research was eye opening. “[b]I was horrified by what I found[/b]” after researching the issue in 2012, he noted.

            “[b]Global warming really has become a new religion[/b]. Because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper. [b]It is like the Catholic Church[/b].”

            “The facts are that in the last 100 years we have measured the temperatures it has gone up .8 degrees and everything in the world has gotten better. So how can they say it’s going to get worse when we have the evidence? We live longer, better health, and better everything. But if it goes up another .8 degrees we are going to die I guess,” he noted.

            Giaever accused Nature Magazine of “[b]wanting to cash in on the [climate] fad[/b].”

            “My friends said [b]I should not make fun of Nature because then they won’t publish my papers[/b],” he explained.[/i]

            So climate change is a religion, that is funded by the state, and protected by the gatekeepers.

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            Ivan Giaever, physicist,

            “I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don’t think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so – half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I’m going to try to explain to you why that was the case.”

            That quote comes from a presentation Giaever gave to the 62nd Meeting of Nobel Laureates in 2012, for some unknown reason on the subject of climate change. As Giaever notes at the beginning of his talk, he has become more famous for his contrarian views on global warming than for his Nobel Prize , which have made him something of a darling to the climate contrarian movement and climate denial enablers.”

            Ivan Giaever, another bogus denier’s ‘expert’! ” Giaever demonstrates how far cognitive bias – reinforced by a few hours of Googling – can lead anyone to the wrong conclusions, and also proves that no individual’s opinion, regardless of his credentials, can replace the full body of climate science evidence.”

            The warming hiatus, another deniers myth, debunked! “The research, published in the peer-reviewed journal Science this week, is just the latest in a growing number of studies refuting the idea of a slowdown or stop in global warming.”
            http://insideclimatenews.org/news/04062015/global-warming-great-hiatus-gets-debunked-NOAA-study?gclid=CjwKEAjwlPOsBRCWq5_e973PzTgSJACMiEp2PH2vQckdDEWN34Kjq3zMRJSs4NM0AKTgejxJ-FV7kBoCsOrw_wcB

            This exemplifies the commenters on this page, he is talking about all of you…”There will be a very predictable chorus of ‘data manipulation’ and ‘fraud’ as they see a talking point disappear, and so it will just continue as before,” said Schmidt. “Just remember, THEIR OBJECTIONS HAVE LITTLE OR NOTHING.” Took the words right out of my mouth.

            Now you are starting on warming is a religion…bwhahaha…warming is understanding science and how natural processes work and how man is interfering with those processes. You guys will stoop to using any tactic available to cast doubt on AGW. You are becoming desperate as your pseudoscientific claims/myths are debunked by real climate science. Soon, as with all bad smells you will disperse and disappear.

            Would you like the list of nobel laureates who believe AGW? No did not think you would!

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            More ad homs, and still no data.

            Pause debunked? Nope! Data fraud.

            [img]https://i2.wp.com/realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ScreenHunter_9879-Jul.-07-09.13.gif[/img]

            Only idiots and religious zealots would buy this garbage.

            Provide data, or admit that you are lying.

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            Vindication of climate models. Here’s the research: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n9/full/nclimate2310.html

            Here’s an article explaining it for you: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n9/full/nclimate2310.html

            Since you are all stuck in 2006-2009 with M&M’s garbage, you are missing the new research. Strange how science works, new research going on all the time. What a novel idea…eh? You need to pay attention. Now let it go, it’s over, you have lost, the hockey stick is correct and models are vindicated.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            So you purchased the paper and reviewed it. [i]Great![/i] So tell me, which models were correct, and which temperature datasets did they use?

            And…

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            Still waiting…

        • Avatar

          Me

          |

          I don’t trust your BS anymore than religious BS. Believe what you want, but when your models fails against reality, and you don’t change your mind, then you are a believer.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            I believe AGW. I’m very surprised that someone with enough savvy to be an atheist can’t see thru the the denial crap fostered by the fossil fuel industry. Unless of course you have a connection with the fossil fuel industry, Do you?

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Yeah, and it shows you are a believer, enough said, I still like to work for a living, but you people can’t have any of that unless it supports your causes with handouts and and the like. Also with reguard to the oil industry, the only connection I have with it is I have to pay for it like everyone else. And if you are an athiest, I can’t see why you can’t see the obvious, and act like an apologist for Big Green, unless you have financial ties to that. Must be all that Big Oil money you people get for some reason.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Here’s some more Cult Carbonian Doctrine being examined, seems excuses are still being made for the “Pause” that some claim never happened. 😀

            Latest in a long line of excuses? Natural Internal Variability is being used. Strangely Co2 Cultists always claimed Natural Variability could not possible be the cause of observed climate. Now it’s the “cause” of the “Pause”? What Pause? 😀 Or at least according to some un-validated models…
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/09/new-paper-calls-into-question-reanalysis-based-and-climate-model-based-explanations-for-the-slowdown-in-global-surface-warming/

            And here we see the Carbonians Sith Lord “adjusting” the data…
            [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/daft_blader_scr.jpg[/img]

            Wee Willied Cult Carbonian Accolytes everywhere rejoiced!
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/09/noaancei-temperature-anomaly-adjustments-since-2010-pray-they-dont-alter-it-any-further/

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            A word to the warning, Don’t question Tony at his site, It is much the same as the alarmist sites. I know. Just saying.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            I said to him once about some deer, stranded on some island. Me comment was, mmm venison. That didn’t go over well. And after it was pics of what, shooting phones and the like with arrows at first, and I said it was bolts. Ya know the cross bow thing. I know the difference, and later what looked like arrows but you can get crossbows use the same.
            He rides bike alot, so I ask him about what kinda tires he uses in the winter, you with black ice. Apparently you guys don’t get black ice, and it is the skinniest ones he can find. Only later to hear of him saying he slipped riding his bike and broke some ribs err something to that effect. So wonder about that. It’s like I told 2 B Fish about trust, and I don’t care if you’re Atheist or Agnostic or Religeous. BS is BS…………….. Period………..

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            But that is part of the game. 😉

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            The thing is we are not just peices in the game, we are the game, doing their bidding. Think for your self, ask questions if you don’t understand something, if you know something put it out there. It’s not hard to do if you know your shit. Back it up.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Yeah, backing it up, is part they don’t like. And as for now they play it hedgeing on bith sides.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Both Sides, for those that may go derp!

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Yes pretty funny, using the leftest humor against them, It’s even finnier. I like it, I like it alot!

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Funnier, not finner. 😆

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Well post it, or not, wouldn’t change the facts. It is what it is.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            And there it is…….

  • Avatar

    William Bill Fish

    |

    Gentlemen you keep harping on science that is 9 years old the hockey stick is correct. Which part of the North report don’t you understand? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Report

    The original title of their 1999 paper (MBH99) was “Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations”, and it had concluded that “more widespread high-resolution data are needed before more confident conclusions can be reached”. They said that “the uncertainties were the point of the article”, and that it was “hard to imagine how much more explicit” they could have been about the uncertainties surrounding their work. They suggested that “poor communication by others” had led to the “subsequent confusion”.[27][28]

    Mann et al state there were uncertainties and further research has shown the hockey stick is correct. You can rant and rave all you want and believe the pseudoscientists who nit pick, lie and cheat about the data. The FACT is earth is warming at an ncreased rate never observed before and there is a mountain of credible evidence to prove it.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Bill, you keep harping on a 9 year old report that was overturned in sworn congressional testimony. What part of [i]that[/i] do you not understand?

      And the Hockey Stick is wrong, as it tried to erase the MWP and used “inappropriate” methods. What part of [i]that[/i] do you not understand?

      And you still have never resolved the basic issues needed to advance AGW.

      1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

      2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

      Run away again? Or man up and face the facts?

      Reply

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |

      [quote]Gentlemen you keep harping on science that is 9 years old the hockey stick is correct. Which part of the North report don’t you understand?[/quote] The part where the NAS and Chairman North stated (under oath before Congress) “Mann’s methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill.

      Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless. Mann’s data set does not have enough information to verify its ‘skill’ at resolving the past, and has such wide uncertainty bounds as to be no better than the simple mean of the data (p. 91). M&M said that the appearance of significance was created by ignoring all but one type of test score, thereby failing to quantify all the relevant uncertainties. The NAS agreed (p. 110), but, again, did so in subtle wording.

      [quote]MSSeptember 13, 2013 at 9:04 AM

      To create the hockey stick graph, Michael Mann used a total of one single tree YAD061. And ignored thousands of trees that showed no such hockey stick, (Like the ones found under this Glacier! http://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html ) and if that were not enough, Mann inverted (used upside down) The Mia Tiljander Sediment Series, this made cooling into warming … falsely.

      Next Mann elected not to use the proxy data after 1940 (he hid the decline), as the proxy data he relied upon for the past (the one tree and inverted sediment data) no longer supported any warming (the blade of the hockey stick) in fact proxies showed cooling, so ‘Mikes trick’ was applied.

      Prior to Mann, the IPCC used a graph by CRU founder HH lamb, this graph disagrees with Mann’s fake hockey stick completely, but was done before the matter was ideologically politicized.

      [img]http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/lambh25.gif
      [/img]
      In other words, Mann was/is wrong … his hockey stick is invalid and a ‘travesty’.

      The problem was that the IPCC graph of that time showed a strong Medieval Warm Period which Mann and his handler Overpeck needed to be removed, or else modern warming would have precedent. Mann obliged and the IPCC, being very corrupt, accepted Mann’s work as gospel.
      [/quote]

      And Wee Willy is still completely FOS! 😀

      Reply

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |

      Once again when they could not account for the lack of warming, they simply “adjusted” it away. Too bad NOAA’s own surface station record refutes this crapaganda.

      [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/uscrn-conus-plot-10years.png[/img]

      Seems the Mannian method of turning the graph upside down, to turn cooling into warming lives on! 😀

      Reply

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |

      Sorry but according to Wee Willy, Degrassi JR. High aint a cLIEmate UNscientist so he must be considered an Apostate!
      [quote]Here’s a list of climate scientists. Note CLIMATE scientists, not journalists, not engineers, not IT experts, not businessmen (i.e. McIntyre), not engineers, not mathematicians, not physicists, not astrophysicists, not laymen with their head up their butt, not politicians paid for by fossil fuel. Click on anyone of them and see what they are studying. Even Roy Spencer is included, he’d be one of your heroes! Go thru then and see how many are on your side! [/quote] Failed Fruit Fly studying Communists also fall into this proclamation!

      Reply

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |

      Which “adjusted” temperature records. 😀

      Reply

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |

      Probably because you make the assumption that anyone who is not religious is automatically a Leftist.

      And cannot comprehend that this same person might actually examine the actual data, not just accept the alarmists fiddled and faked results.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |

      [quote]Gentlemen you keep harping on science that is 9 years old the hockey stick is correct. [/quote] Then why was it dropped like a hot potatoe from the IPCC Reports? 😀

      Reply

    • Avatar

      William Bill Fish

      |

      Me…you actually believe an idiot like Tim Ball? That throws your credibility out the window. You should search you references before you use them and then you wouldn’t look so foolish! Tim Ball the lie that just won’t die!

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Gator

        |

        Another ad hom attack, this time against a [i]real[/i] climatologist.

        Provide data or admit that you are lying.

        1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

        2- Please provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

        There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          William Bill Fish

          |

          Yup Tim Ball an outstanding climatologist, funded by Exxon. No ad hominem, just the truth… “In 2007, Ball, along with Willie Soon, David Legates, and Sallie Baliunas, co-authored a commentary arguing that “spring air temperatures around the Hudson Bay basin for the past 70 years (1932–2002) show no significant warming trend,” and that, as a result, “the extrapolation of polar bear disappearance is highly premature.”[13] The paper, funded by ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute, was a “Viewpoint” article and was not peer-reviewed.[14][15] While the paper was cited by Sarah Palin to justify opposition to listing polar bears on the endangered-species list,[5] its findings were contradicted by reports from the U.S. Geological Survey[16] and other independent researchers, who concluded that man-made climate change was likely to devastate polar-bear populations by 2050.[15] [i][b]The paper was also criticized by an expert at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, who wrote that it “doesn’t measure up scientifically.”[5]
          [/b][/i] [i][b]There’s your Timmy Ball in a nutshell…IT doesn’t measure up scientifically![/b][/i]

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            And who funds the IPCC and NSIDC? 😆

            Dr Willie Soon was paid by the Smithsonian, get your facts straight.

            And Tim Ball?

            [i]I rather doubted this man who is arguably Canada’s leading scientific opponent of climate-change fundamentalism until the e-mails poured in after his television appearance. People wrote that he was in the pay of big oil, was a simple high-school geography teacher, was insane and worse. In fact, he is a university academic with impressive graduate degrees and doctorates and, unlike so many global warming advocates, is not in the pay of anybody.

            Usually I wouldn’t reveal this sort of information, but in this case it’s necessary. We flew professor Ball to Toronto from Victoria for our interview because he could not afford the flight. The money for the economy fare was donated by two friends of our program with no connections to the climate-change debate and there was no fee for professor Ball. In other words, this man alleged to be in the pay of millionaires could not find anyone to subsidize even an entirely legitimate domestic flight for a major interview seen by 300,000 people![/i]

            http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2010/02/12/12859851.html

            Now, either provide data, or admit that you are lying. Before you parrot the lies of your priests again, you better check your facts, and bring proof that skeptics are in the pay of Big Oil. Enough of your baseless crap.

            It is a well documented fact that alarmists receive billions of dollars each year for their Chicken Little crap.

            This document shows a $21,408,000,000 budget for 2014 for the US government alone! I am sure there is more that this budget does not show, but 21.4 billion dollars is still at least 21 billion too much.

            The total is found on page 45, and page 5 explains figures are in millions of dollars.

            https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf

            Then there are these…

            https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/131-greenpeace/

            https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/194-sierra-club/

            And on and on and on…

            let’s try again weasel…

            1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

            2- Please provide [i]even [b]one[/b][/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            I think you need to check your facts, oops bullshit on Wille, don’t just make it up. A statement by the Smithsonian on February 26, 2015:

            “The Smithsonian is greatly concerned about the allegations surrounding Dr. Willie Soon’s failure to disclose funding sources for his climate change research.

            [i][b] Dr. Soon is a part-time researcher employed by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Mass. to conduct research on long-term stellar and solar variability. Dr. Soon pursues external sources to fund his research activity.

            The Smithsonian does not support Dr. Soon’s conclusions on climate change. The Smithsonian’s official statement on climate change, based upon many decades of scientific research, points to human activities as a cause of global warming. [/b][/i]

            Hmmm…$1.2 mil from the oil industry is an external grant to fund his climate research. Gee seems you are the liar!

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            No amount of ignoring the fact that

            THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT

            by silly willy will ever make his expostulations relevant or material to the question of the unwarranted presumption of climate change, the unwarranted presumption of global warming.

            Fishy willy is in a conundrum. A labyrinth of his own making that he’s trying to escape from with the same words and so-called ” reasoning ” that entrapped him in the first place.

            And all as a result of trying to feign intelligence.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            I can deal with stupid, we get tons of that from the alarmist trolls. But what I cannot stand is [i]liars[/i], especially liars who do not have the decency to slink off and go back under the rock from whence they came.

            But what should we expect from someone who [i]supports[/i] liars?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Sorry Billy Liar, but the grant check was written to the Smithsonian, who employs Dr Soon.

            [img]http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/clip_image002_thumb1.png?w=634&h=230[/img]

            [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/clip_image0122.jpg[/img]

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/23/greenpeace-enlists-justin-gillis-john-schwartz-of-the-ny-times-in-journalistic-terrorist-attack-on-willie-soon-miss-target-hit-smithsonian-instead/

            You b!tch about other people quoting “right wing” sources, and then you spread lies from uber leftist scumbags.

            Quit the BS Bill. Anyone with the sense of a [i]child[/i] would know when they have been beat, but obviously you do not have that much sense.

            Take you lies and BS someplace else Bill the serial liar.

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            Here’s the Statement
            http://insideclimatenews.org/news/23022015/smithsonians-inspector-general-probe-willie-soon

            You are correct there is some involvement with the Smithsonian. They to capitalized on the money from the oil companies. Soon’s climate research was still funded by the oil industry.
            http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/02/27/harvard-smithsonian-profited-much-willie-soon-fossil-fuel-funding

            Check the proposal to Exxon for funding on the observatory letterhead. “Dr. Willie Soon Principal Investigator, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory”

            Willie was getting $$ from Exxon. Investigation will show how much the Smithsonian was involved. I’m still not lying!

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Bill you are dismissed. I provided copies of the contract which clearly states that the Smithsonian was the recipient of the money.

            Now you bring a serial liar, AKA Desmogblog, as your refutation. You are an idiota [i]and[/i] a [u]serial liar[/u].

            This document shows a $21,408,000,000 budget for 2014 for The US government alone! I am sure there is more that this budget does not show, but 21.4 billion dollars is still at least 21 billion too much. Piggies at the trough of the biggest spender are the alarmists.

            The total is found on page 45, and page 5 explains figures are in millions of dollars.

            https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf

            Enough of your lies Bill, and enough BS about funding.

            You have zero credibility. Go pollute another website with your lies.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Fishy willi acts like he has proven something. Well, willi :

            NOTHING THAT YOU HAVE EVER SAID ON THIS SITE HAS OR EVER WILL AMMOUNT TO ANYTHING

            because the underlying missing fundamental to all your pseudo-science is negated by the fact that

            THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Fishy willie back with irrelevancies that fly in the face of the basic fact that

            THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT

            as proposed by a motor-mouth incapable of understanding basic logic.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            You [i]almost[/i] told the truth. 😆

            Once again we see you [u]changing your statement[/u] to try and disprove your [i]serial liar[/i] status, but it won’t work Bill.

            The Smithsonian was paid by “big oil”.

            Dr Soon was paid by the Smithsonian.

            That is the truth.

            Now explain how money from the Smithsonian invalidates Dr Soon’s peer reviewed paper.

            On second thought, forget it. It didn’t, and you would only lie again.

            Go pollute some other website with your serial lies Bill.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Is it not “ironic” that Wee Willy the lying serial spammer hates anything funded by “Big Oil” but gleefully regurgitates misinformation from a site funded by convicted internet fraudsters?
            😀

            Cockroaches of a feather Lie together.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]The paper was also criticized by an expert at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, who wrote that it “doesn’t measure up scientifically.”[/quote] Which alarmist misinformation clearing house did you get that BS from?
            Two thirds of the way through the Arctic melt season, Arctic sea ice extent is second highest since 2005.
            [img]http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/icecover_current-70.png[/img] RE: Polar Bears… [quote]The same people who have been telling us that Polar Bears are dying due to polar sea ice loss, now say it will be another ten years before they start being affected.[/quote] https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/03/polar-bears-granted-a-reprieve/

            Oh Noes! Your nose grows some more! 😀 Exxon scores!

            Don’t you ever get tired of having your lies exposed over and over again Wee Willy? Or do you like it?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Exposing yourself that is… To ridicule and the public in general. :-*

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            amirlach The only thing that is ridiculed here is your ridiculous agenda in the face of overwhelming evidence. No other climate change advocates come to this incestuous site or Goddard’s because you never come up with anything new it’s the same old BS over and over perhaps wrapped in different paper on occasion. None of your so called experts ever try to get published in a reputable journal. They couldn’t stand the critiques. Well since most of them are BA’s, most not in science, they wouldn’t know how to write a journal paper. Where is the denier science? They do no research, collect no data, write no papers they simply cherry pick data and words.

            I’ll finish with this…”the scientific evidence supporting human-caused global warming is just as strong as the evidence linking smoking and lung cancer.” Ah…do you smoke?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Deniers? Try Skeptics Moron.
            [quote] None of your so called experts ever try to get published in a reputable journal. They couldn’t stand the critiques. Well since most of them are BA’s, most not in science, they wouldn’t know how to write a journal paper. Where is the denier science? They do no research, collect no data, write no papers they simply cherry pick data and words. [/quote] Your LYING again! 😀
            1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism
            http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fishamirlach Pleas

            |

            amirlach Please provide one lie that I have stated…just one is good enough!

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            I could point out several, but I will leave some of the fun for amirlach, so I really shouldn’t…

            OK, but just [i]one[/i]! 😆

            Dr Willie Soon was not paid by the Koch Brothers, ExxonMobile, or any other oil company. He was paid by the Smithsonian Institute.

            [i]The contracts were signed by representatives of the Smithsonian, the Smithsonian was the recipient of the funds who then would disburse to Dr. Soon as the contracted employee.[/i]

            http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/democratic-congressman-draws-backlash-over-climate-funding-probe-20150225

            But I have left plenty of meat on the bone for amirlach, so sit back and wait for the rest.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            See Above! [quote]None of your so called experts ever try to get published in a reputable journal. [/quote] Then over 1350 of them did…

            Stolen Emails. :D, Wegman “agreed” with Mann’s results? [quote]”We found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete, and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling.”[/quote] LOL… What part of Zero Validation Skill can’t you grasp?

            [quote] man-made climate change was likely to devastate polar-bear populations by 2050? [/quote]

            “The same people who have been telling us that Polar Bears are dying due to polar sea ice loss, now say it will be another ten years before they start being affected.
            stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/03/polar-bears-granted-a-reprieve/

            Oh Noes! Your nose grows some more! 😀 Exxon scores!

            [quote]”The first (Mann et al., 1999) represents mean annual temperatures, and is based on a range of proxy types, including data extracted from tree rings, ice cores and documentary sources; this reconstruction also incorporates a number of instrumental (temperature and precipitation) records from the 18th century onwards.” http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html%5B/quote%5D

            Actually it was based upon “Hiding the Decline”, 12 trees and an upside down graph. And it ignored archeological evidence to the contrary. 😀
            [img]http://sciencenordic.com/sites/default/files/greenland_0.jpg[/img]
            [quote]Little Ice Age stopped corn cultivation

            The Greenland climate was a bit warmer than it is today, and the southernmost tip of the great island was luscious and green and no doubt tempted Eric the Red and his followers. This encouraged them to cultivate some of the seed corn they brought with them from Iceland.
            [/quote] Thusly Man is REFUTED! 😥 According to the invalidated Hockey Stick there was no MWP or LIA.

            [quote] The large majority, approaching 100% of the nonreligious are conservative/right wing. The right wingers believe all the conspiracy theories they invent and the ones in the bible as well.[/quote] 😮 This one just writes itself…

            [quote] You know how to manipulate Google “…Whatever the source of backing for “climate change dispatch,” there is evidently some more than usual financial heft and sophistication involved… [/quote]
            😮
            [quote] None of the 24+ reconstructions have a problem with the blade of the stick. Therefore much to your chagrin, AGW is true. I’m not lying, that’s what the mountains of empirical, credible evidence indicates.[/quote] They don’t have a problem cause they use the same data and methods. They all co-wrote and reviewed each others papers.

            Then some guys found the Tree Rings they “omitted”.
            [img]https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/sheep_mountain_update3.png[/img]
            http://joannenova.com.au/2014/12/hockeystick-finally-updated-with-modern-trees-collapses/

            There was something about sea level rise in Florida? Refuted by a 50 year old Beach Blanket Bingo movie! 😀

            And Skeptics Debating Alarmists?
            [quote]
            The scientific position and ability of PIK scientists during that meeting was rather weak. Whenever they had to agree that observation do not show any special increase neither in extreme weather, temperature nor sea level and so on, they mentioned: ‘But our models show…’ “

            That their science is weak ought not be a surprise. What else could one possibly expect from a science that ignores observations and relies on models?
            – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2011/05/18/skeptics-and-alarmists-clash-at-climate-conference-german-scientists-call-pik-scientific-position-weak/#sthash.T3qbwM9X.dpuf%5B/quote%5D
            http://notrickszone.com/2011/05/18/skeptics-and-alarmists-clash-at-climate-conference-german-scientists-call-pik-scientific-position-weak/#sthash.T3qbwM9X.dpbs

            I could go on but, it’s like mashing a Potato. It only gets so mashed. 😀

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Poley Bears dying? [b]Not![/b]
            [i]
            We ask one of the world’s leading scientists dealing with polar bears. Dr. Mitchell Taylor, of Lakehead University has spent more than 30 years researching polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle both as an academic and government employee. Gabriel Niryungaluk is Nunavut’s Deputy Minister of the Environment. He has spent much time on the ice with Dr. Taylor, and also feels the bears are increasing in numbers.”

            Mitchell Taylor: Well, the researchers themselves are being clear about [b]what they’re basing their prognosis on[/b], and it’s called a Bayesian network, sometimes called [b]a belief network[/b], and it’s just basically a group of people get together and they put together what they think “What would happen if…”?” and if they take their scenarios from the climate models… So the researchers themselves are not making claims that are being – that are false or hidden somehow in, you know, sort of, papers that are dishonest – it’s what people make of those. And partly, sort of, how it’s provided, as well, that’s where the problem seems to lie. Um, it’s – if you accept their arguments, what they say, you know, could come to pass [b]but it’s not an empirical[/b] result, [b]it’s not taken from data[/b], it’s simply a collection of the people who contributed to this Bayesian network model.

            Mitchell Taylor: Well, that’s true. I speak to students all the time. [b]By the time they enter university, they’ve already been, sort of, convinced that polar bears are dying out, that the “canary in the coal mine” is dying. And they’re, sort of, shocked to find out that not even the people working on polar bears agree with that.[/b] They’re – they’re warning that this will happen, that no-one is seeing it happen yet, it’s – they’re saying it will happen 25 or 10 years or 50 years into the future, and [b]it’s based entirely on carbon model projections[/b]. So, it’s – it’s a different way of, I guess, talking about the world. Sort of a – kind of almost like a crystal ball approach.[/i]

            http://polarbearscience.com/2015/07/08/polar-bear-doom-and-gloom-from-usgs-vs-biologist-mitch-taylors-reasoned-thoughts/

            Once again, all alarmism is based upon failed models, and zero data.

            This is why I ask for data. Opinions are like… well if you don’t know the rest, ask your mother. 😆

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        Like you check your references? 😀

        Why is it that Mr. Fraudy Pant’s the Fake Nobel “Winner” is seemingly ignoring the discovery process? What is he “Hiding” this time?

        He started this Defamation Suit way back in 2011, under Canadian law one can use the truth as defence against Libel accusations.

        So here we sit waiting for Mann to turn over his “discovery”. Most are betting he will never do so simply because it will prove he was lying all along and that he should indeed be in the State Pen. 😀
        [quote] Mann will have to show his code, his methods, his mathematics, his data, his extrapolations from that data, his personal notes, his meeting notes, his working papers, his emails, the replies to those emails (as in, “Herr Mann, du bist ein Idiot”) his snail mails, his calculations his underwear and his very short penis.[/quote] Maybe why you feel his pain? :-*

        [quote]And just so we’re clear, he sued one Tim Ball in Canada and realized with horror that Canadian court rules require the same disclosure, plus that he pull down his pants and waggle his butt. He ain’t done it yet, he’s been fucking the dog for year’s on the Canadian court file, he ain’t gonna waggle his butt, it’s got too many hairy lying boils on it.[/quote]

        If the science is so settled and the data so overwhelming, one has to wonder why he keeps it hidden?

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Me

          |

          Exactly! But they can’t support their claims, or they wouldn’t use weasel words in their reports all the time.

          Reply

      • Avatar

        Me

        |

        I trust Tim Ball before I trust you 2 B Fish, the believer! But then again I already told you that I don’t trust your BS! 😆

        Reply

    • Avatar

      William Bill Fish

      |

      amirlach The large majority, approaching 100% of the nonreligious are conservative/right wing.The right wingers believe all the conspiracy theories they invent and the ones in the bible as well.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Gator

        |

        Another ad hom attack and another lie.

        Provide data or admit that you are lying, again.

        1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

        2- Please provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

        There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

        Or you could admit defeat, and run away again. 😆

        Reply

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        Wee Wee Willy… Your Projection is showing… Again… 😀

        Not one thing you said is true.

        Reply

    • Avatar

      William Bill Fish

      |

      JayPee Never considered myself an authority. Read the science and read what the naysayers and who pays the naysayers and who supports the naysayer politicians, it wasn’t difficult to believe the climate scientists and all the evidence that AGW is true. We need to do something about it, now or future generations and life on earth will have a very difficult time.

      Use lots of words to push buttons to see how much reaction there is. And there is a lot of reaction from very desperate people. Succinctly??????????? Look at some of the posts! You can check them for originality as well! Ha!

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Gator

        |

        More ad homs, and zero data.

        This document shows a $21,408,000,000 climate slush fund in 2014, for the US alone! I am sure there is more that this budget does not show, but 21.4 billion dollars is still at least 21 billion too much, and $21,407,000,000 per year more than Exxon.

        The total is found on page 45, and page 5 explains figures are in millions of dollars.

        https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf

        This is what is called “data” Bill. You should try it some time.

        Provide data, or admit that you are lying, again.

        1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

        2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

        There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

        No go run and hide! 😆

        Reply

      • Avatar

        JayPee

        |

        Could care less.
        It only matters that you are

        A PROVEN LIAR

        and therefor of

        NO CREDIBILITY

        Say whatever you want,
        I couldn’t care less.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          William Bill Fish

          |

          JayPee Name a lie…you can’t. You have no credibility at all. You believe the big fossil fuel industry’s spin so they can keep burning and producing all the CO2 they want. Either you believe their BS or you are party to it. You are a right wing screwball that believes every conspiracy theory that comes along. How many credible climatologists believe AGW and how many do not. There are a few screwballs taking money from fossil fuel idustry with a massive public relations budget to put some doubt in the minds of the politicians and the public. Although most of the naysayer politicians are paid for by the oil industry. search Koch Brothers buying the redumlican party. You are the one foster and promoting the lie and following the party line and not thinking for yourself. If you didn’t follow along your rightie buddies they wouldn’t drink beer with you on Friday nights. Peer pressure is huge and and you can’t take it so you blindly follow along. Appears I’m getting under your skin, is there a little doubt in your mind?

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            We can all name lies you have told Bill. My favorite is when you lied about one of your lies.

            [quote]Yes, I said M&M ‘[i]probably[/i]’ didn’t have any peer reviewed documents forgetting they were professors before they became climate change pseudoscientists. [/quote]

            What you actually said…

            [quote]Since you don’t know what credible evidence is, you prefer to believe the pseudoscientists, McIntyre, McKitrick watsupwiththat, et al [b]none of which is published in a credible peer reviewed journal. Wonder why that is??? Is it they couldn’t take the peer review critiques of their work or no credible journal would publish their junk? [/b][/quote]

            Nice! 😆

            You are a proven serial L-I-A-R. Go pollute some other site with your BS.

            You have zero credibility here Bill, you have told too many lies.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            No matter how much slick willie ( the fish ) rybja regurgitates his endless stream of crap, he’ll never be able to overcome the fact that

            THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT

            as propagandized by him or any of the other idiot alarmists.

            And you’ve already been reminded of your lies. You feel the need for endless repetition .

            I DON’T.

    • Avatar

      William Bill Fish

      |

      “The first (Mann et al., 1999) represents mean annual temperatures, and is based on a range of proxy types, including data extracted from tree rings, ice cores and documentary sources; this reconstruction also incorporates a number of instrumental (temperature and precipitation) records from the 18th century onwards.” https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html

      Mann et al state there were uncertainties and further research has shown the hockey stick is correct.

      You keep beating the same horse, give it up, the earth is warming. Doesn’t matter if you put both hands over your ears and yell ‘nah…nah…nah…nah! The earth is warming!

      Can you give me the link where North testified to congress that Mann was wrong. Why would he say in the report “published on 22 June 2006.[5] It concluded “with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries”, and then turn around and say the opposite in the testimony. Another denier ploy, just lie!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Report

      “The NRC committee stated that “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wegman_Report

      Gee the more you protest the bigger the hole you dig for yourself. Denier ploys: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/07/16/climate-change-denial-as-real-estate-ploy/%5Bquote name=”amirlach”]

      http://www.universetoday.com/94550/letter-to-nasa-is-common-ploy-in-climate-change-denial/

      Check this out, find yourself!
      https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/

      Here’s the conspiracy theories…
      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Gator

        |

        [quote]Why would he say in the report “published on 22 June 2006.[5] It concluded “with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries”, and then turn around and say the opposite in the testimony. [/quote]

        Yes, in one he was sworn to tell the truth, and the other he was not.

        [quote]”The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators”.[/quote]

        And 100% of Bigfoot experts say bigfoot is real. Problem is that data says otherwise.

        [img]http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Globe%204650×2847%20mit%20Graphen%20und%20Linien%20JPEG.jpg[/img]

        Then you descend into more ad homs, and still no data.

        Provide data, or admit that you are lying.

        1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

        2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

        There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

        Reply

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        The utterly reliable wiki is your goto?[quote]Mann et al state there were uncertainties and further research has shown the hockey stick is correct. [/quote] You mean the other tree ring “studies” based upon the same 12 trees? What about these trees Mann ignored?
        http://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html

        Or the Archeological evidence?
        http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland

        http://www.macleans.ca/authors/john-geddes/melting-yukon-ices-reveals-5000-year-old-archaeological-treasures/

        Or the fact that these fake tree ring graphs do not match the recorded climate of the region they were taken from? [quote] Half the Hockey Stick graphs depend on bristlecone pine temperature proxies, whose worthlessness has already been exposed. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

        They were kept because the other HS graphs, which depend on Briffa’s Yamal larch treering series, could not be disproved. We now find that Briffa calibrated centuries of temperature records on the strength of 12 trees and one rogue outlier in particular. Such a small sample is scandalous; the non-release of this information for 9 years is scandalous; the use of this undisclosed data as crucial evidence for several more official HS graphs is scandalous. And not properly comparing treering evidence with local thermometers is the mother of all scandals.[/quote]
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/30/yamal-treering-proxy-temperature-reconstructions-dont-match-local-thermometer-records/

        Or the fact that many more proxie reconstructions agree with the Lamb Graph. http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/09/where-did-ipcc-1990-figure-7c-come-from-httpwwwclimateauditorgp3072previewtrue/

        And none of these use fraudulent algorithms that pick hockey sticks out of random numbers.
        [img]https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/presentation1.jpeg[/img]

        Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    To the honorable herr ( pan ) doctor fish :

    Have you ever tried to say something original ? Is your entire life borne of quoting others and absorbing their judgments ? Have you ever tried thinking for yourself ? Have you ever experienced self determination

    ARE YOU CAPABLE OF INDEPENDENT THOUGHT ?

    CAN YOU COME TO CONCLUSIONS IN THE ABSTRACT ?

    With all your voluminous verbiage so far, it is obvious you don’t want to and probably cannot.

    But, of course, people who can should think of you as an authority, even though they can state their position very succinctly and precisely and without excessive verbiage.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      William Bill Fish

      |

      Hmmm…voluminous verbage eh? Must have pushed some buttons from a group of desperate people as there were 11 responses to my last post.

      Read and learn. “The large contribution of adjustments to century-scale U.S. temperature trends lends itself to an unfortunate narrative that “government bureaucrats are cooking the books”. This group screams the “narrative that government bureaucrats are cooking the books” http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

      Please refute all of these adjustments. Your usual response to things you don’t understand “They are lying!” won’t cut it!

      The Arctic is affecting the rest of NA’s weather: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/arctic-warming-is-altering-weather-patterns-study-shows

      “You’d be forgiven if you thought that there’s a serious debate among scientists about whether human activity is driving climate change. That’s because the oil industry and right-wing groups have been spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars trying to convince the public of exactly that. How could one feel the climate is really changing if even the scientists can’t agree?” http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/climatechange.html

      I use a lot of quotes because I’m not that great a writer, other people say the things I’m thinking but they say it so much better than I can. Frankly I’d just call you a bunch of dumbasses following the party line of your sponsors.

      Can you answer one question about your conspiracy theory. Why would 1000’s of worldwide scientist’s independently come up with AGW? Why would scientists in other fields, biologists, zoologists, botanists, oceanographers, glaciologists etc all come to the same conclusion that the earth is warming? There is no universal funding for climate change as there is for the deniers. What is their reason?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Gator

        |

        Bill thr gullible strikes again!

        NOAA has adjusted the data 7 times in the past 5 years, and you consider this accurate and settled science? 😆

        [quote]Please refute all of these adjustments.[/quote]

        Which ones? 😆

        [quote]That’s because the oil industry and right-wing groups have been spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars trying to convince the public of exactly that. How could one feel the climate is really changing if even the scientists can’t agree?”[/quote]

        Empty baseless claim. Provide data, or admit that you are lying.

        [i]Over the years, Exxon spent more than $30m on thinktanks and researchers that promoted climate denial, according to Greenpeace.[/i]

        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

        Now [u]there’s[/u] a credible source! But even if true, that is still only 1 miilon per year…

        This document shows a $21,408,000,000 climate slush fund in 2014, for the US alone! I am sure there is more that this budget does not show, but 21.4 billion dollars is still at least 21 billion too much, and $21,407,000,000 per year more than Exxon.

        The total is found on page 45, and page 5 explains figures are in millions of dollars.

        https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf

        [quote]I use a lot of quotes because I’m not that great a writer…[/quote]

        You use alot of quotes because you do not know what you are talking about. Provide data, or admit that you are lying.

        [quote]Why would 1000’s of worldwide scientist’s independently come up with AGW?[/quote]

        For a chunk of a $21,408,000,000 climate slush fund in 2014, for the US alone! $21,407,000,000 per year more than Exxon pays!

        I can list over 30,000 working scientists who say CAGW is BS. How many can you list?

        Now…

        1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

        2- Please provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

        There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

        Reply

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            I actually pay them, for my fuel, idiot.

            Is the Sierra Club and Greenpeace paying you?

            https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/194-sierra-club/

            https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/131-greenpeace/

            How about the US government?

            This document shows a $21,408,000,000 budget for 2014, for the US government alone! I am sure there is more that this budget does not show, but 21.4 billion dollars is still at least 21 billion too much.

            The total is found on page 45, and page 5 explains figures are in millions of dollars.

            https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf

            Funding for skeptics is nearly zero, especially compared to the multi-trillion dollar climate change industry.

            Now, once again weasel…

            1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

            2- Please provide [i]even [b]one[/b][/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            If you cannot do this, you cannot claim that man is warming ther planet. Period. It is basic logic Bill.

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            Gator/Thomas Provide one instance where I lied.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            It has become more than obvious at this point, that you are not reading or are not comprehending our posts.

            Here are two of your lies righht off the top of my head.

            You claimed Dr Soon was paid by an oil company, and yet he was paid by the Smithsonian.

            You claimed that McKitrick and McIntyre never wrote peer reviewed papers (that alone should count for two).

            Are you really as stupid as you pretend you are?

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            Willie Soon bought and paid for by big oil. Can’t make a living when you are a crappy astrophysicist but you can by making up stories for the oil boys!
            “…politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.” Yup, Willie Soon was their boy! “He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers.”
            http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=2

            http://www.climateinvestigations.org/willie-soon-harvard-smithsonian-documents-reveal-southern-company-scandal

            Now it seems that you are lying by stating Willie Soon is a credible climate researcher. Appears you and Willie agree, you are lying that CO2 is not causing the temperature to rise. You are lying there is no AGW. You are lying that climate variability is causing the climate change all papers written made by the crook Willie Soon.

            Yes, I said M&M ‘probably’ didn’t have any peer reviewed documents forgetting they were professors before they became climate change pseudoscientists. Is that really a lie?

            Now how stupid am I, Big Guy?
            Seems stupid is as stupid does and you’ve fallen for all the BS, for what reason I don’t know. Soon’s stance on climate change is yours…all lies to use your terminology: “The evidence in my paper (Willie Soon’s paper) is consistent with the hypothesis that the Sun causes climatic change in the Arctic … It invalidates the hypothesis that CO2 is a major cause of observed climate change – and raises serious questions about the wisdom of imposing cap-and-trade or other policies that would cripple energy production and economic activity, in the name of ‘preventing catastrophic climate change’.” [4]

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]Willie Soon bought and paid for by big oil.[/quote]

            No, “big oil” paid the Smithsonian, who employs Dr Soon.

            You keep repeating the same lie. Enough.

            You also keep lying about the credentials and expertise of scientists. Enough.

            I already showed you that claiming man made CO2 is altering global climates is unproven, and yet you keeping lying by claiming it is.

            Put your mioney wher your fat lying mouth is.

            1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

            2- Please provide [i]even [b]one[/b][/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            Until you can quantify [i]ALL[/i] forcings and provide [i]EVEN [b]ONE[/b][/i] paper as decribed above, you are a [b]L-I-A-R[/b] every time you claim that the like of Dr Soon are not credible.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Nothing Willy ( the fish ) Rybja
            has said or ever will say
            will ever refute the fact that

            THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT

            as promulgated by the climate alarmists

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            And thankyou Bill, for lying about your lie.

            [quote]Yes, I said M&M ‘[i]probably[/i]’ didn’t have any peer reviewed documents forgetting they were professors before they became climate change pseudoscientists. [/quote]

            What you actually said…

            [quote]Since you don’t know what credible evidence is, you prefer to believe the pseudoscientists, McIntyre, McKitrick watsupwiththat, et al [b]none of which is published in a credible peer reviewed journal. Wonder why that is??? Is it they couldn’t take the peer review critiques of their work or no credible journal would publish their junk? [/b][/quote]

            Nice! 😆

            You are a proven serial L-I-A-R. Go pollute some other site with your BS.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            And who the Hell is Thomas? are you hearing voices now? 😮

            And in case you missed my post above, that is [i]three of your lies[/i]. Do you need more?

            [b]Hello![/b] 😆

  • Avatar

    William Bill Fish

    |

    You have no idea if any of the 31,000 scientists that signed the OISM were working or not. More bullshit which all your stuff is. Requirements to sign the petition:“[i][b]Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields.[/b][/i]”
    It is the OPINION of the scientist. What expertise does a nuclear engineer or a medical doctor or a food scientist or mechanical engineer have that makes them qualified to have an informed opinion on the cause(s) of recent climate disruption? How many of these names are working climate scientists instead of science or math teachers or stay-at-home-mom’s with engineering degrees? How many of these people has actually published a peer-reviewed paper on climate? Go here and read the petition…it’s a joke and if you are going to base your scientific support on this, you are sillier than I thought you were. Doesn’t give confidence in any of your premises if you think the petition is worth more than the paper it’s written on…it’s laughable!

    “…there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it.” http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html#.VaBBk_mPNx4 Note: these are only the American ones.

    “Signed by 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences. “… For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet. … The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. …Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.” (2010)

    Please list the scientific societies that deny AGW.

    You can’t get over that Mann is right and subsequent research showed the hockey stick is correct. You are wrong. What part of overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is happening and humans are responsible, don’t you understand. Oh I know there was one number on a graph that should have been one less and that proves that all the data is wrong. It proves that you know nothing about collecting and presenting temperature data. Do you understand when Mann et al said there were uncertainties that needed further study? They did the further study and proved Mann et al were correct… NORTH REPORT. You lie about North’s testimony.

    I tire of your bullshit. You are desperately trying to prove AGW is not true. It’s happening and there are fewer and fewer of your ilk banging your heads against the wall screaming, ‘you’re lying, you’re lying.’ Because you want it so for whatever reason, doesn’t make it so.

    It’s been fun but I’ve wasted enough time and had my laughs! AGW is happening and there is overwhelming evidence to prove it.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |

      Please list the scientific societies that produced a single skillful model prediction that supports AGW.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |

      [quote]It’s been fun but I’ve wasted enough time and had my laughs! AGW is happening and there is overwhelming evidence to prove it.[/quote] You just can’t seem to produce it! 😥

      Reply

      • Avatar

        William Bill Fish

        |

        amirlach I’ve produced it you won’t read it or can’t understand it. FYI more proof, read it and weep: http://www.capradio.org/53049

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          [b]California Drought: Warmest June Ever For California[/b]

          That’s called “weather” Bill.

          1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

          2- Please provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          Reply

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |

      [quote]Because you want it so for whatever reason, doesn’t make it so. [/quote] More fact free Wee Willied wishful thinking and pure projection. [quote] The NAS found that Mann’s methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless. Mann’s data set does not have enough information to verify its ‘skill’ at resolving the past, and has such wide uncertainty bounds as to be no better than the simple mean of the data (p. 91). M&M said that the appearance of significance was created by ignoring all but one type of test score, thereby failing to quantify all the relevant uncertainties. The NAS agreed (p. 110), but, again, did so in subtle wording.[/quote] Maybe you choose to believe your wiki washed 12 tree ring Pravda version. I’ll take the one which was made under Oath before Congress.

      Where is that Discovery Mann keeps avoiding? 😀

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    “Signed by 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences. “

    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html#.VaBBk_mPNx4

    How many of these names are working climate scientists instead of science or math teachers or stay-at-home-mom’s with engineering degrees? How many of these people has actually published a peer-reviewed paper on climate?

    So, with all those societies, and that tiny handful of qualified scientists (according to your own definition), you still cannot…

    So…

    #1- List all climate forcings, cannot order them from most to least effective, and cannot then quantify them.

    #2- Provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

    And lastly, you cannot disprove the 4,500,000,000 year precedent.

    Impressive! 😆

    Provide data, or admit that you are lying.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    And to answern your question about qualifications regarding Earth Sciences…

    [i]Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.[/i]

    Soooo, how many can you list natural climate change denier?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      William Bill Fish

      |

      “…the OISM signatories represent a small fraction (~0.3%) of all science graduates, even when we use the OISM’s own definition of a scientist.”

      Please list all the peer reviewed papers on climate change written by the scientists on the OISM list.

      I think their may be one, Roy Spencer, who has written papers but I doubt if any reparable journal would publish his fossil fuel paid for crap.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Gator

        |

        Moving the goal posts again Bill? You [i]have[/i] learned something from the alarmists! 😆

        They are scientists Bill, they understand the scientific method and have rejected the falsified hypothesis of CAGW.

        Get over it.

        1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

        2- Please provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

        There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

        Note how my goal posts have not moved, and that you keep running away from them.

        Reply

    • Avatar

      William Bill Fish

      |

      amirlach Did you just fall off the carrot truck? First and foremost scientific bodies don’t do research and make models. They look at the peer reviewed material and make comments/opinions. i.e. NAS agreed with Mann et al.
      “National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points.”

      Main points listed below:
      Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]
      Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]
      Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[8] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[8] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[8]
      The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[9]
      The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[10]

      Reply

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        [quote] First and foremost scientific bodies don’t do research and make models. They look at the peer reviewed material and make comments/opinions. i.e. NAS agreed with Mann et al.[/quote]
        Only an opinion? 😀

        The NAS found Mann’s Method had no statistical skill. Pg. 91 http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NRCreport.pdf Read the Actual Report and stop lying.
        [quote]Moreover, a CE statistic close to zero or negative suggests that the reconstruction is no
        better than the mean, and so its skill for time averages shorter than the validation period will be
        low. Some recent results reported in Table 1S of Wahl and Ammann (in press) indicate that their
        reconstruction, which uses the same procedure and full set of proxies used by Mann et al. (1999),
        gives CE values ranging from 0.103 to –0.215, depending on how far back in time the
        reconstruction is carried.[/quote]

        Reply

    • Avatar

      William Bill Fish

      |

      amirlach North under oath vindicates Mann’s work and calls Wegman an asshole at the US congress hearing.
      “DR. NORTH. It is difficult to see how [the social networking data] has any bearing on the peer-review process, the need to include statisticians on every team that engages in climate research (which in my view is a particularly unrealistic and unnecessary recommendation), or *any of the other findings and recommendations in Dr. Wegman’s report.* [i][b]I was also somewhat taken aback by the tone of the Wegman Report, which seems overly accusatory towards Dr. Mann and his colleagues, rather than being a neutral, impartial assessment of the techniques used in his research.[/b][/i] (i.e Wegman = asshole)In my opinion, while the techniques used in the original Mann et al papers may have been slightly flawed, the work was the first of its kind and deserves considerable credit for moving the field of paleoclimate research forward. [i][b]It is also important to note that the main conclusions of the Mann et al studies have been supported by subsequent research.[/b][/i] Finally, while our committee would agree with Dr. Wegman that access to research data could and should be improved, as discussed on page 23 of the prepublication version of our report, we also acknowledge the complicated nature of such mandates, especially in areas such as computer code where intellectual property rights need to be considered.”

      You keep ignoring-shutting your eyes-refusing to read that Mann stated there were uncertainties that needed further study.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        This is often quoted in defence of the North report vindicating Mann.

        You need to read a little deeper.

        “But at the July 19 hearing, Barton asked North very precisely whether he disagreed with any Wegman’s findings and North (under oath) said no as follows:

        CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that. It looks like my time is expired, so I want to ask one more question. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

        DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report. But again, just because the claims are made, doesn’t mean they are false.

        CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that you can have the right conclusion and that it not be–

        DR. NORTH. It happens all the time in science.

        CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, and not be substantiated by what you purport to be the facts but have we established–we know that Dr. Wegman has said that Dr. Mann’s methodology is incorrect. Do you agree with that? I mean, it doesn’t mean Dr. Mann’s conclusions are wrong, but we can stipulate now that we have–and if you want to ask your statistician expert from North Carolina that Dr. Mann’s methodology cannot be documented and cannot be verified by independent review.

        DR. NORTH. Do you mind if he speaks?

        CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, if he would like to come to the microphone.

        MR. BLOOMFIELD. Thank you. Yes, Peter Bloomfield. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his coworkers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.”

        “We found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete, and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling.”

        [quote] Mann stated there were uncertainties that needed further study.[/quote]
        “We have been to Michael Mann’s University of Virginia website and downloaded the materials there. Unfortunately, we did not find adequate material to reproduce the MBH98 materials. We have been able to reproduce the results of McIntyre and McKitrick.” Seems no one can replicate his work. 😀

        Wonder what he meant by the social networking data?
        [quote]As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.[/quote]

        In fact this “community” which all uses the same data and methods, which co-authors and “peer” reviews each others papers numbers around 43.

        [quote]Michael Mann’s contribution to modern science may one day be
        remembered as the guy who made it statistically possible to get a
        thousand year temperature graph using any local telephone directory as
        a data source. (Who needs tree-rings?)

        If you were a guy who’d been caught producing scientific work so inept
        that people could pour in random data and get the same “curve”, then
        you might take a satirical video on the chin (or crawl into a hole).
        But if you’re Michael Mann, and you also used the wrong proxy, you hid
        your data, used graphs upside down, and invented deceptive “tricks” to
        hide declines, then you might call your lawyers.
        [/quote]

        And not once has your volumes of cut and past propaganda addressed the archeological evidence that completely refutes this hockey stick.

        How did those trees grow under a glacier? How did those Vikings farm under solid ice?

        Reply

        • Avatar

          amirlach

          |

          [quote]Steve McIntyre helpfully providing reconstructions based on tree rings which demonstrate how, without the benefit of Mike’s scientifically dubious “nature trick”, the hockey stick simply disappears – tree rings demonstrably don’t correlate with temperature.[/quote]
          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/06/manns-tree-ring-proxy-train-wreck/
          “Has any piece of scientific research ever been so thoroughly discredited? Tom Wigley’s son’s high school project falsified the hockey stick. The latest Sheep mountain study shows the hockey stick disappears, unless you use Mike’s trick of splicing in the thermometer record, to hide the divergence problem. The Russian scientists who collected the original tree ring samples, tried to warn Mann he was measuring the wrong metric. Yet somehow this nonsensical analysis became a central icon of the climate alarmist movement – and is still widely reproduced by the more scientifically illiterate alarmists.” 😀

          Reply

    • Avatar

      William Bill Fish

      |

      Gator “You use alot of quotes because you do not know what you are talking about. Provide data, or admit that you are lying.” I’m not a climatologist. I don’t lie and you can’t give one example where I have. I rely on the works of credible scientists working on the climate or climate related fields. The data is all there. Unlike you, a journalist pretending to be a climatologist and statistician and in my opinion being paid for by the oil industry, can’t prove that but I’d wager a lot that there are many deposits in your bank account from Alberta!

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Gator

        |

        No, you rely [i]soley[/i] on the paid shills of the [b]multi-trillion dollar climate change industry[/b] and a use ad homs against any other scientists. You are a one dimensdional cartoon character.

        I actually studied climatology at a major university as part of my Earth Sciences training. I spent 7 years as a geology student and student teacher. I have never received a penny from any fossil fuel company, nor have I received a penny from any political organization. I have never been a journalist. You are delusional.

        Your ad homs are a bore, and childish.

        Now, back to climatology 101.

        1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

        2- Please provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

        There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

        Your inability to produce anything that refutes natural variability should tell you something, but apparently you are not that bright.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          William Bill Fish

          |

          Please name a couple of of the multi trillion dollar backers of the climate change industry.A couple will do.

          I’ll name a couple of backers of the non-AGW movement…The Koch Brothers, ExxonMobile. Those receiving money…Willie Soon, Roy Spencer, Tim Ball, Senator Inofe and the list goes on.

          I’ve given some examples of the money behind the no climate change movement and who gets some of it. Provide some names of who provides money to the climate change scientists and who receives it. I’d also like to know what is the purpose of the climate change movement from your perspective?

          Speaking of ad hominems, Mr. Hypocrite, what are “You are a one dimensdional cartoon character.” and “but apparently you are not that
          bright.”

          I didn’t answer your natural climate variability because it is such a ridiculous question. Of course there is natural climate variability and all climate change scientists know that.

          External Forcings: These are essentially linked to changes in the orbital parameters of the earth that control the intensity and location of incident solar radiation, and fluctuations in solar energy.
          Internal Forcings: These comprise all those changes that occur within the earth system itself, in particular volcanic activity, fluctuations in ocean circulations and large-scale changes in the marine and terrestrial biosphere or in the cryosphere

          Can’t list them in order of most to least as it depends on what is happening at the time. If the sun is cooling and there are major volcanic eruptions, the excess CO2 may cause the climate to warm despite the cooling of the sun.

          Can the warming of the 20th century be explained by natural variability? Here’s your answer…
          http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/canwarming.pdf

          With respect to your climatology credentials. Climatology was not your major, geology was…correct. How many climatology courses did you take? Do you have a Masters or Phd in Earth Science? If so what were your thesis?

          Reply

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            The United States of America as currently run by the demagogues who run it, The United Nations ( ibid. ) , The Roman Church.

          • Avatar

            William Bill Fish

            |

            Wow JayPee that’s got a lot to do with climate change. I knew that eventually it would come down to your right wing politics…can’t think for yourself gotta tow the ol’ party line regardless of how stupid it makes you look.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Pan Rybja

            Your idiot question has been answered. Too bad if you can’t take it. I have no use for those who can’t stand hearing the truth.

            But of course, to you, truth is an imponderable concept.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]Please name a couple of of the multi trillion dollar backers of the climate change industry.A couple will do.[/quote]

            Sheesh! Again?

            This document shows a $21,408,000,000 budget for 2014 for the US government alone. I am sure there is more that this budget does not show, but 21.4 billion dollars is still at least 21 billion too much.

            Again, that is one government, and one year, and 21,407,000,000 per year more than Exxon. 😆

            The total is found on page 45, and page 5 explains figures are in millions of dollars.

            https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf

            And I’ll give you a bonus source for a total of three, out of scores of sources of funding for alarmists.

            https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/194-sierra-club/

            https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/131-greenpeace/

            You have yet to provide [i]any data[/i] regarding your false claims. Get busy.

            [quote]I didn’t answer your natural climate variability because it is such a ridiculous question. Of course there is natural climate variability and all climate change scientists know that.[/quote]

            Nice straw man, but that was not the challenge, try again.

            Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            [quote]External Forcings: These are essentially linked to changes in the orbital parameters of the earth that control the intensity and location of incident solar radiation, and fluctuations in solar energy.
            Internal Forcings: These comprise all those changes that occur within the earth system itself, in particular volcanic activity, fluctuations in ocean circulations and large-scale changes in the marine and terrestrial biosphere or in the cryosphere

            Can’t list them in order of most to least as it depends on what is happening at the time. If the sun is cooling and there are major volcanic eruptions, the excess CO2 may cause the climate to warm despite the cooling of the sun. [/quote]

            That is not [i]all[/i] forcings, and as you admit you cannot prioritize or [i]quantify[/i] them. F- again. 😆

            [quote]
            Can the warming of the 20th century be explained by natural variability? Here’s your answer…[/quote]

            [i]It is very unlikely that the 20th-century warming can be
            explained by natural causes. [/i]

            That is the very first sentence, and is an opinion. So again, natural variability has not been disproven. How stupid are you?

            [quote]With respect to your climatology credentials. Climatology was not your major, geology was…correct. How many climatology courses did you take? Do you have a Masters or Phd in Earth Science? If so what were your thesis?[/quote]

            I have studied infinetely more university level Earth Sciences than you. And I could claim any level I wish, but that does not matter. Your further attempts at an ad hom are noted, as is the fact that once again you have provided [i]zero[/i] data.

            1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

            2- Please provide [i]even [b]one[/b][/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            Admit you are wrong, and a new hobby Bill.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]Please name a couple of of the multi trillion dollar backers of the climate change industry.A couple will do.[/quote]

            Another bonus answer for Bill!

            [i]What entity pours by far the most money into scientific research? I’ll give you a hint. It’s the same entity that has been growing without bound, mercilessly muscling aside all competitors who would encroach into its space. It’s an entity which has a keen and abiding interest in the research it funds. An entity with desires. This entity cares results from its funded research turns out this way and not that.

            No, not an oil company. Nay, not Apple corporation. Not even a pharmaceutical. [b]It’s Uncle Sam![/b]

            Did you not know [b]the scientists who receive Uncle’s lusciously large lasting grants are the same scientists who sit on the committees which award the grants? Conflict?[/b] It’s true the various wealthy agencies have a permanent and ever-burgeoning staff (see Parkinson’s Law and this) which shuffles the booty to and fro, but they’re advised by transient academics who today are at their home institutions standing erect with their hands out, and tomorrow are on the Metro to the NIH to sit (erect) in judgment of their peers.

            [b]Yes, the same people who [u]award[/u] the grants are those that [u]receive[/u] them[/b].[/i]

            http://ecodaily.org/greg-laden-and-his-cowardly-unethical-asinine-foolhardy-pig-ignorant-act/

            I really do wish you tards could hear yourselves, but then projection is a mental disorder, and we cannot expect you to understand your illness.

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    Is it ironic that the term “denier” seems counter-indicated in legitimate scientific discussion, while it fits perfectly in the context of something like the Spanish Inquisition?

    Reply

Leave a comment

No Trackbacks.