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

you are a liar too, my my.
You can be quite exasperating, like some kid always testing limits of patience.

Mann's methods were, to put it lightly, found to be deficient regarding his Hockey Stick schtick.

It's a fact that you've not countered any of my claims about cherry picked data.

If you decide to not talk about faulty conclusions derived from cherry picked data, good for you.

You cannot provide any examples of anything untrue in my posts.

Mostly because you have me confused with someone who really cares what you think.
Ive tried fact and reason. The literature is fun reading, theres lotsa math , Im sure you could easily learn Ordinary d eq. Apparently You have no interest in anything thats not of your echo chamber

Youve risen to the ranks of the defiantly ignorant. 'night. Ive gotta go out again for a few days when this NEer is over

No. Because you are not capable of pointing out anything that I am wrong about.



No you haven't. There are no facts and reason that support your position.



Bad conclusions based on cherry picked data? No thanks.



It was easy in fact.



What I'm not interested in are bad conclusions based on cherry picked data.



Your inability to point out anything that I am wrong about speaks for itself.

Oh I'm afraid it's not. Not even close!

Stephen McIntyre, who began their study, was a financial consultant and statistical analyst specialising in the minerals industry, and was later joined by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at Guelph University. Neither made any pretensions to being a climate scientist, but where they did have considerable expertise was in knowing how computers could be used to play around with statistics. They were also wearily familiar with people using hockey sticklike curves, showing an exaggerated upward rise at the end, to sell a business prospect or to ‘prove’ some tendentious point.

Intrigued by the shape of the IPCC’s now famous ‘hockey stick’ graph, in the spring of 2003 McIntyre approached Mann and his colleagues to ask for a look at their original data set. ‘After some delay’, Mann ‘arranged provision of a file which was represented as the one used’ for his paper. But it turned out not to include ‘most of the computer code used to produce their results’. This suggested to McIntyre, who was joined later that summer by McKitrick, that no one else had previously asked to examine it, as should have been required both by peer-reviewers for the paper published in Nature and, above all, by the IPCC itself. (This account of the ‘hockey stick’ saga is based on several sources, in particular Ross McKitrick’s paper already cited , ‘What is the “hockey stick” debate about?’ (2005), and his evidence to the House of Lords Committee on Economic Affairs, ‘The Economics of Climate Change’, Vol. II, Evidence, 2005. See also David Holland, ‘Bias and concealment in the IPCC Process: the “Hockey Stick” affair and its implications’ (2007), op. cit.)

When McIntyre fed the data into his own computer, he found that it did not produce the claimed results. At the heart of the problem was what is known as ‘principal component analysis’, a technique used by computer analysts to handle a large mass of data by averaging out its components, weighting them by their relative significance.

One of the first things McIntyre had discovered was that the ‘principal component analysis’ used by Mann could not be replicated. ‘In the process of looking up all the data sources and rebuilding Mann’s data set from scratch’, he discovered ‘quite a few errors concerning location labels, use of obsolete editions, unexplained truncations of various series etc.’ (for instance, data reported to be from Boston, Mass., turned out to be from Paris, France, Central England temperature data had been truncated to leave out its coldest period, and so forth).

More here: Edit [Moderator]: Link removed

And then to add insult to injury, Mann loses a libel court case and refuses to produce the data he used to invent his Hockey Stick schtick.

Here is the correct link for my post:

https://naturalnews.com/2017-06-04-global-warming-hockey-stick-data-founded-fraud-computer-models-hacked-to-produce-warming-trend-from-any-data-set.html

It's like some people can't acknowledge this is happening.



When will fossil fuels run out?

Fossil fuels are hundreds of millions of years old, but in the last 200 years consumption has increased rapidly, leaving fossil fuel reserves depleted and climate change seriously impacted. Reserves are becoming harder to locate, and resources won’t last forever – here’s when fossil fuels could run out.

What are fossil fuels?

Fossil fuels are biological materials containing hydrocarbon, which can be burned and used as a source of energy. They’re found in the Earth’s crust, so we have to drill into the earth to extract them.

Fossil fuels developed billions of years ago, when dead organic matter became buried at the bottom of the sea and altered as a result of anaerobic digestion. Oil deposits in the North Sea are around 150 million years old, while much of Britain’s coal began to form over 300 million years ago.

While we probably used fossil fuels as far back as the Iron Age, it wasn’t until the Industrial Revolution that wide-scale extraction started. It completely transformed the way humanity lived and worked, allowing us to power our homes, businesses and machines with coal, oil and gas.

Why are fossil fuels bad?

We only have a finite supply of fossil fuels. The amount we use now simply isn’t sustainable, and the problem is getting worse as the global population increases. The limited resources in the ground aren’t even the biggest problem – there are plenty of downsides to plundering the earth for coal, gas and oil:

Carbon emissions. Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels accounts for 90% of all emissions from human activity. And while UK carbon emissions are dropping, global fossil fuel emissions are increasing and global temperatures are rising.

Air pollution. The burning of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which pollutes the air we breathe. Air pollution in cities has been linked to an increase in respiratory diseases, like asthma, particularly in young children and the elderly, along with shortened life expectancy.

Ocean pollution. Carbon dioxide dissolves into the sea, causing acidification which affects the life cycles of marine organisms. Our oceans absorb heat created from fossil fuel emissions, causing temperatures to rise and coral reefs to bleach and die.

Habitat destruction. Vast amounts of land are decimated to provide space for drilling wells, pipelines, and processing facilities used in oil and gas drilling operations. Habitat disruption and noise from drilling are some of the biggest threats to wildlife populations across the globe.

Transporting fossil fuels. Aside from the carbon emissions caused by burning fossil fuels, there’s a huge environmental cost to transporting them. Diesel fumes from transportation add to CO2 emissions, oil spills threaten marine life, and flammable natural gas leaks have led to hundreds of human casualties in recent years.

Fossil fuels, as the name suggests, are very old. North Sea oil deposits are around 150 million years old, whilst much of Britain’s coal began to form over 300 million years ago. Although humans probably used fossil fuels in ancient times, as far back as the Iron Age, it was the Industrial Revolution that led to their wide-scale extraction.

And in the very short period of time since then – just over 200 years – we’ve consumed an incredible amount of them, leaving fossil fuels all but gone and the climate seriously impacted.

Fossil fuels are an incredibly dense form of energy, and they took millions of years to become so. And when they’re gone, they’re gone pretty much forever.

How long will fossil fuels last?

Global fossil fuel consumption is on the rise, and new reserves are becoming harder to find. Those that are discovered are significantly smaller than the ones that have been found in the past. Oil reserves are a good example: 16 of the 20 largest oil fields in the world have reached peak level production – they’re simply too small to keep up with global demand.

In order to keep average global temperature increases below 1.5°C, we need to leave up to 80% of our fossil fuel reserves in the ground – but globally, our reliance on fossil fuels is increasing. Here’s how long current fossil fuel reserves could last:

Graph showing future energy reserves for coal, gas and oil


Oil

Globally, we currently consume the equivalent of over 11 billion tonnes of oil from fossil fuels every year. Crude oil reserves are vanishing at a rate of more than 4 billion tonnes a year – so if we carry on as we are, our known oil deposits could run out in just over 53 years.

Gas
If we increase gas production to fill the energy gap left by oil, our known gas reserves only give us just 52 years left.

Coal
Although it’s often claimed that we have enough coal to last hundreds of years, this doesn’t take into account the need for increased production if we run out of oil and gas.

If we step up production to make up for depleted oil and gas reserves, our known coal deposits could be gone in 150 years.

Are there any advantages to fossil fuels?
While there are some benefits to fossil fuel production, the adverse effects on the environment and overall public health far outweigh them. But governments and businesses around the world have placed short term gain from investing in fossil fuels above the longer term benefits of renewable energy.

What about fracking?
Fracking involves the extraction of shale gas by drilling into the Earth and pumping boreholes full of a high pressure water mixture. Shale gas is a type of fossil fuel, which means supplies will eventually run out.

It’s unclear how much shale is available at fracking sites in the UK but, because current activity is still in the exploratory phase, virtually no planning permission is needed to begin drilling. Works have been halted in the UK due to earthquakes and seismic activity, but the government still provides backing to fracking companies, despite widespread public opposition.

You can find out more about fracking and the environmental risks posed by fracking activity here.

The green alternative
Unlike fossil fuels, green energy made from wind and solar power is sustainable, because its generated by resources that won’t run out. Plus, it provides a way to fight climate change by reducing and even offsetting carbon emissions.

For example, the energy payback for solar power technology is just two years. That means it only takes two years for a solar park to make the same amount of energy used in its manufacture and installation. And after that, it can provide decades of clean energy that’s better for the planet.

If we have any hope of fighting climate change and protecting the future of our planet, we need to ditch fossil fuels and start investing in renewable sources of energy. Find out how you can switch to green energy quickly and easily, and start building a greener Britain.

References

All fossil fuel reserve and consumption data from CIA World Factbook and Statista.

Al Gore
"As more and more people understand what's at stake, they become a part of the solution, and share both in the challenges and opportunities presented by the climate crises."

It's like some people refuse to understand the contents of the posts that preceded theirs. Proven shady data manipulation to create the now debunked Hockey Stick bullshit means nothing to the warmist cult.
____________________________________________________

Stephen McIntyre, who began their study, was a financial consultant and statistical analyst specialising in the minerals industry, and was later joined by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at Guelph University. Neither made any pretensions to being a climate scientist, but where they did have considerable expertise was in knowing how computers could be used to play around with statistics. They were also wearily familiar with people using hockey sticklike curves, showing an exaggerated upward rise at the end, to sell a business prospect or to ‘prove’ some tendentious point.

Intrigued by the shape of the IPCC’s now famous ‘hockey stick’ graph, in the spring of 2003 McIntyre approached Mann and his colleagues to ask for a look at their original data set. ‘After some delay’, Mann ‘arranged provision of a file which was represented as the one used’ for his paper. But it turned out not to include ‘most of the computer code used to produce their results’. This suggested to McIntyre, who was joined later that summer by McKitrick, that no one else had previously asked to examine it, as should have been required both by peer-reviewers for the paper published in Nature and, above all, by the IPCC itself. (This account of the ‘hockey stick’ saga is based on several sources, in particular Ross McKitrick’s paper already cited , ‘What is the “hockey stick” debate about?’ (2005), and his evidence to the House of Lords Committee on Economic Affairs, ‘The Economics of Climate Change’, Vol. II, Evidence, 2005. See also David Holland, ‘Bias and concealment in the IPCC Process: the “Hockey Stick” affair and its implications’ (2007), op. cit.)

When McIntyre fed the data into his own computer, he found that it did not produce the claimed results. At the heart of the problem was what is known as ‘principal component analysis’, a technique used by computer analysts to handle a large mass of data by averaging out its components, weighting them by their relative significance.

One of the first things McIntyre had discovered was that the ‘principal component analysis’ used by Mann could not be replicated. ‘In the process of looking up all the data sources and rebuilding Mann’s data set from scratch’, he discovered ‘quite a few errors concerning location labels, use of obsolete editions, unexplained truncations of various series etc.’ (for instance, data reported to be from Boston, Mass., turned out to be from Paris, France, Central England temperature data had been truncated to leave out its coldest period, and so forth).
____________________________________________________

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.’”
____________________________________________________

But as one can see, proven omissions from the approved IPCC Report that changed the meaning of the published version doesn't even faze them.

And despite the IPCC's acceptance of the flaws in the dataset below, warmists incredibly maintain that the credibility of the IPCC remains intact. Such is the power of the cultist's mindset.
____________________________________________________

Large gaps where there is no data and where instead averages were calculated from next to no information. For two years, the temperatures over land in the Southern Hemisphere were estimated from just one site in Indonesia.

Almost no quality control, with misspelled country names (‘Venezuala” “Hawaai” “Republic of K” (aka South Korea) and sloppy, obviously inaccurate entries.

Adjustments – “I wouldn’t be surprised to find that more than 50 percent of adjustments were incorrect,” says McLean – which artificially cool earlier temperatures and warm later ones, giving an exaggerated impression of the rate of global warming.

Methodology so inconsistent that measurements didn’t even have a reliable policy on variables like Daylight Saving Time.

Sea measurements, supposedly from ships, but mistakenly logged up to 50 miles inland.

A Caribbean island – St Kitts – where the temperature was recorded at 0 degrees C for a whole month, on two occasions (somewhat implausibly for the tropics)

A town in Romania which in September 1953, allegedly experienced a month where the average temperature dropped to minus 46 degrees C (when the typical average for that month is 10 degrees C).
____________________________________________________

The complexity of Earth's climate system is caused by the latent heat content of the oceans; they transfer heat in timescales of hundreds and thousands of years due to the massive difference in their heat capacity. The whole system is dependent on the only external energy source, which is the Sun. It is the Sun and its interaction with the oceans on a millennial scale that controls our planet's climate. For you to pretend that we can control this system by tweaking one trace gas as if it were a thermostat is just plain ridiculous.
____________________________________________________

So, you're denying...

The fact that humans have mined and burned fossil fuels in the last 150 years has NOT contributed to the demise of the environment. And pointing out that destruction is futile, that there is absolutely NO correlation between the two.

It's certainly futile if you don't have reliable data to back your claims. And you don't. No reliable data on the matter has ever been collected.

So, you think that that depleting the earth of millions of tons of fossil fuels per DAY isn't a reliable factor?

What does "reliable factor" mean? It's certainly a reliable source of power.

And being depleted from the earth in record amounts is a "reliable" source of climate change.

Climate change is caused by the depletion of stuff from the earth?

It doesn't help. Don't you agree?

I don't agree. I don't think the climate is impacted by the composition of the earth's crust.

Before you talk about the reliability of data, you need to understand the fundamental chemistry. Fossil fuels are made up of carbon and hydrogen condensed into chains, which makes them a denser fuel than the cellulose, sugars, and fats that living plants and animals produce on the surface.

Those living forms of biomass absorb energy from the sun and from each other, using CO2 from the atmosphere and water from the water cycle. As their sediments settle in waterways and seep underground, they gradually condense/compress into denser forms of (fossil) fuel.

Now just use common sense for a moment to think about refined/condensed fuels being extracted and consumed at a rate faster than the Earth can reproduce/replenish them. It is the same as if you inherited a large amount of money saved up by your ancestors and spent it at a rate faster than you were making income to replenish the spent savings.

The Earth has saved up energy in the form of carboniferous fossil fuels and we are spending it faster than it's getting reabsorbed. We know this because CO2 levels are rising. If the Earth was absorbing as much as we were burning, CO2 levels would remain the same or be decreasing.

This is clearly unsustainable and, what's more, we can predict the effects of rising CO2 levels because we understand the absorption/emission spectrum of CO2 gas and how it reflects infrared light/heat. Google "infrared photography" and look at dry ice smoke, which is CO2 gas and see how it reflects infrared light.