Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@MontereyJack,

You cannot point to a single post where you have ever pointed out errors in my posts, nor can you point out any of these supposed errors in any future post.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

which drew a conclusion that research proved was wrong

When reality contradicts the leftist narrative, it's not reality that is wrong.

MontereyJack wrote:

and impuyrd on the basis of no evidence that that was suppression of evidence

Blocking the publication of data counts as suppressing evidence.

MontereyJack wrote:

research devoid of any political content.

Suppression of data that contradicts the leftist narrative shows otherwise.

MontereyJack wrote:

Your case is bogus.

You'll need to use that tactic on people who are more weak-minded than me. I'm not going to be pressured into disregarding reality.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Your failure to take into consideration my example is ample proof that you aren't smart enough to understand my position.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

troll model, not role model.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

Quote:

Do you have any idea how the IPCC reports are created

In fact, I do know that these scientists you speak of have concluded that none of the studies cited has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases; that no study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change observed to anthropogenic causes; that claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced; that while none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions for which there is little justification; that any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced; and that they do not know when an anthropogenic effect on climate change will be identified.

The IPCC did not want any of these things said. It asked a single scientist, Dr. Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, to rewrite the already-concluded final draft to remove all five statements shown above, and to replace them with:

"The body of evidence now points to a discernible human influence on global climate."

Willful data manipulation:

The IPCC decided in its 2001 report to depart from its 1990 First Assessment Report, which had shown a schematic indicating that the mediaeval warm period had been appreciably warmer than the present.

However, 11 years later, in the 2001 Third Assessment Report, the mediaeval warm period had been made to disappear.

In 1995, Dr. David Deming had written a paper in Science on the reconstruction of pre-instrumental surface temperatures by borehole measurements. As a result, he was congratulated by several scientists. In 2005 he wrote:

“A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said, ‘We have to get rid of the Mediaeval Warm Period.’”

https://www.traditioninaction.org/Cultural/E042_Global-2.htm

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

troll model, not role model.

Pointing out facts that you would prefer to whitewash does not make me a troll. Neither does standing up to your wrongdoing and misdeeds.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Your failure to take into consideration my example is ample proof that you aren't smart enough to understand my position.

My 170 IQ is plenty capable of understanding your position. You cannot point out any errors in my posts, and you are lying about being able to do so.

Further, I did take your example into consideration. I directly rebutted your claim by demonstrating that my statement that you quoted is in fact completely true.

I suppose I'd better explain this step by step so that you are capable of understanding it:

a) When I point out your failure to provide evidence of any errors on my part, that proves that you are unable to provide any evidence of my alleged errors.

b) When I prove that you are unable to provide any evidence of my alleged errors, that proves that my statement that you quoted (a claim that you are unable to point out any of my alleged errors) is completely true.

c) When I prove that my statement that you quoted is completely true, that directly rebuts your incorrect claim that my statement is not true.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Denying reality is what you are doing with this entire fantasy narrative you're trying to foist on us.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

That is incorrect. Everything that I've claimed has been proved with multiple credible cites. There is in fact suppression of data just as I've claimed.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

No.nsense. the facts on then ground prove the paper was wrong
And your cites just repeat the allegations of intent with no evidence that was actually the intent. Its just another house of cards conspracy theory.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

When reality conflicts with the leftist narrative, it's not reality that is wrong.

Intent doesn't matter. Biased data is unreliable no mater what the intentions of the people who skewed the data were.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Your imputations of bias skewing and suppression are all baseless and evidence free and the result of whoever your source for them is's ideological opinion not fact. And the facts and reality suppoort the climate nodels and the reslity of AGW.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Your imputations of bias skewing and suppression are all baseless and evidence free

That is incorrect. I provided multiple reputable cites showing that data is being suppressed.

MontereyJack wrote:

and the result of whoever your source for them is's ideological opinion not fact.

That is incorrect. That inconveinient data was blocked from publication is a fact, not an opinion.

MontereyJack wrote:

And the facts and reality suppoort the climate nodels and the reslity of AGW.

Your claim lacks credibility due to the absence of any reliable evidence to back it up.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

I really dont know why you want to argue with that mental budgie. Hes so full of right wing crap that hi mind is unable to absorb the rel world.
USGS had gone back and developed several other data stat models and have carried Mann's hockey stick back 1100 years (projecting backwards using ice cores ,cave helictites, marine sediment,
and pollen extrema),all with the same outcome, ITS FACT. Mann now calls it a "Hockey team" graph not a hockey stick. No one was kept from view, better data jut prevailed and the conspiracy dudes are busy whining.
NATURE, CLIMATE had the article in this year (dont know which issue I dont have open access to it I just read it at a colleagues desk.

Our friend will carry the argument on like a bot, never coming up with any facts. Ive been away sailing and he's still on line basically repeating the same junk incessantly. No facts, he just produces solid waste.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I really dont know why you want to argue with that mental budgie.

Leftists rely on personal attacks because they are unable to defend their position using facts and logic.

farmerman wrote:

Hes so full of right wing crap

I can see why you associate facts and logic with the right wing. Facts and logic are always so inconvenient to leftist ideology.

farmerman wrote:

that his mind is unable to absorb the real world.

Are you capable of noticing your inability to point out any facts that I am wrong about?

farmerman wrote:

USGS had gone back and developed several other data stat models and have carried Mann's hockey stick back 1100 years (projecting backwards using ice cores, cave helictites, marine sediment, and pollen extrema), all with the same outcome, ITS FACT. Mann now calls it a "Hockey team" graph not a hockey stick.

Conclusions that are based on cherry picked data are hardly reliable.

farmerman wrote:

No one was kept from view,

Wrong again. When data is blocked from publication, that counts as keeping it from view.

farmerman wrote:

better data just prevailed

That's an interesting spin on cherry picking.

farmerman wrote:

and the conspiracy dudes are busy whining.

The only conspiracy dudes here are the people who demand that I accept their unsupportable conclusion that the world is ending.

Although they are indeed whining about the fact that I refuse to accept their conclusion.

farmerman wrote:

NATURE, CLIMATE had the article in this year (dont know which issue I dont have open access to it I just read it at a colleagues desk.
Our friend will carry the argument on like a bot, never coming up with any facts. Ive been away sailing and he's still on line basically repeating the same junk incessantly. No facts, he just produces solid waste.

Wrong again. It is a fact that data is being suppressed, and it is a fact that conclusions that are derived from cherry picked data are unreliable.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Leftists rely on personal attacks because they are unable to defend their position using facts and logic

I only use personal attacks just because Im tired of your insistance on what is factually and conclusionally just untrue. You seem to fall into that mighty realm of conspirators who just ignore the data and abjure all science. ive posted Mann's report two times on these walls amd the subsequent data and the models that are objective cross checks and most recently the summary aboutt why Monterey jack was correct because the entire papares and "point counterpoint" from NCSE and Nature were there to read . SO I THEREFORE ASSUME THE FOLLOWING
1You re either unable to read or comprehend the papers as written

2You deny them out of hand and adhere to the conspiracists tales based solely on a political stand.

Choose one

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I only use personal attacks just because Im tired of your insistance on what is factually and conclusionally just untrue.

Your inability to counter my claims is strong evidence that what I say is true.

farmerman wrote:

You seem to fall into that mighty realm of conspirators who just ignore the data and abjure all science. ive posted Mann's report two times on these walls amd the subsequent data and the models that are objective cross checks and most recently the summary aboutt why Monterey jack was correct because the entire papares and "point counterpoint" from NCSE and Nature were there to read.

None of what you posted counters the fact that data is being cherry picked. Therefore MJ was not correct to deny the cherry picking.

farmerman wrote:

SO I THEREFORE ASSUME THE FOLLOWING
1You re either unable to read or comprehend the papers as written

2You deny them out of hand and adhere to the conspiracists tales based solely on a political stand.

Choose one

I choose neither. I deny them out of hand because global warming data is clearly being cherry picked.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

several other data stat models and have carried Mann's hockey stick

Tell me more about this hockey stick you speak of. Did it turn out to be a fraud?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

no, it was a trend surface that traced avg mean temps, normatized for a sp area(USGS took several climate spots). the delta rise was rapidly increasing beginning in the mid 1800's through the present. it had a shape of a hockey stick. THat name was chosen by some "critic" . Now its actually a badge of honor to Mann. (the original author)

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Your inability to counter my claims is strong evidence that what I say is true

Look sonny, I am not going to keep popping in Manns (or the USGS or Nature Climate) every time you whine that youve forgotten what theyre about and claim that noone has presented anything.

1 Reply

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know