Climate Denial Crock of the Week - The Cold Snap Disproves Global Warming

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

No major scientific institution has reversed its position on AGW.

The head of the IPCC has monied interests in EcoSham

The data used by the IPCC has been shown to be cherry-picked at best and outright fraud at worse.

So-called "scientists" whose work has been used in the IPCC have admitted to have political agendas.



If any sciency group wants to cling to the IPCC they are free to drown with them.

[Duke Nukum]

The head of the IPCC has monied interests in EcoSham

The data used by the IPCC has been shown to be cherry-picked at best and outright fraud at worse.

So-called "scientists" whose work has been used in the IPCC have admitted to have political agendas.



If any sciency group wants to cling to the IPCC they are free to drown with them.

Except that, I think you forget, Obama fixed the sea levels.  Perhaps his only first term accomplishment.  I wonder if he'll tout it tomorrow night?

[The Night Owl]

The concept of which is physically impossible. To wit:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

Come back in 114 pages.

Let's see... one paper published in a minor journal versus the American Institute of Physics and the American Physical Society. Tough one.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Let's see... one paper published in a minor journal versus the American Institute of Physics and the American Physical Society. Tough one.

And as typical, no discussion of the facts.

If AGW is possible within the laws of thermodynamics it should be pretty easy to show the error in the work.

[MrsSmith]

CO2 is good but too much CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming.

The problem is not the presence of the CO2 but rather where it is. Currently, there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere.

This is just silly. No one is claiming that Earth hasn't gone through waming and cooling cycles.

There has been far more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past.

The Earth has been warmer - and colder - in the past.  (And not always "in tune" with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.)

It makes no sense for those that believe we got here through evolution to now freak out at a minor warming - or cooling - trend.  (Warming OR cooling, because they've changed their minds a couple times in the last 4 decades.)  Why aren't you all excited about the possibility of actually recording the next evolutionary step?  

[The Night Owl]

And as typical, no discussion of the facts.

If AGW is possible within the laws of thermodynamics it should be pretty easy to show the error in the work.

Considering that the Gerlich paper hasn't persuaded the AIP or the APS to change their positions on AGW, why should I consider it persuasive? Because it got published?

[Duke Nukum]

Considering that the Gerlich paper hasn't persuaded the AIP or the APS to change their positions on AGW, why should I consider it persuasive? Because it got published?

Well, aren't you trying to convince us that AGW is real based on a few dozen corrupt bureaucrats manipulating certain scientific findings and eventually corrupted a few scientists to take a party line and eventually corrupt the whole scientific process to the point that only scientific papers that agreed with the corrupt bureaucrats got into peer reviewed journals?

If scientists aren't careful they will end up with the same credibility that journalists currently enjoy.  Little to none.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Considering that the Gerlich paper hasn't persuaded the AIP or the APS to change their positions on AGW, why should I consider it persuasive? Because it got published?

AIP and APS have chosen to throw their lots in with known frauds, crooks and agenda pushers ather than refute a black-and-white assertion so be it.

[The Night Owl]

AIP and APS have chosen to throw their lots in with known frauds, crooks and agenda pushers ather than refute a black-and-white assertion so be it.

So, according to you, the AIP and APS are in on the conspiracy. Got it.

[MrsSmith]

Those that wish to remain "respected, peer-reviewed" scientists have no choice except to agree with those that have power.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

So, according to you, the AIP and APS are in on the conspiracy. Got it.

Or maybe they're just idiots too embarrassed to admit their mistake.

FACT: The hockey stick is a fraud

FACT: Temp data was manipulated

FACT: Temp stations are cherry-picked for corroborating data

FACT: Other temp stations are outright fabrications

FACT: Peer-review was corrupted to suppress dissenting opinions

FACT: People's careers were threatened for publishing dissenting research

FACT: Reports about Himilayan glacier melt was wild-assed speculation

FACT: Reports about adverse weather effects were peddle, not by sciency type people, but policy advocates such as WWF.

FACT: the head of the IPCC is ass-deep in financial interests for solutions to a nonexistent problem

FACT: scientists who claim AGW doesn't exist don't get fat research grants

FACT: the laws of thermodynamics are against AGW

FACT: You haven't refuted a single fact you simply appeal to people who accept wholesale a theory not supported by facts

FACT: AIP and APS are just as retarded as you because this time last year you retards were arguing for the infallible, consensus of the IPCC as a valid authority on all matters of glow-bull warmin' but none of you has the balls to admit facts

I guess that makes you 

[The Night Owl]

Or maybe they're just idiots too embarrassed to admit their mistake.

FACT: The hockey stick is a fraud

Fail.

Academy affirms hockey-stick graph
Geoff Brumfiel

But it criticizes the way the controversial climate result was used.

It's probably the most politicized graph in science — an icon of the case for climate change to some, and of flawed science in the service of that case to others — and it has coloured the climate-change debate for nearly a decade. Now the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has weighed in with a report on the 'hockey-stick' plot, which it hopes will finally lay the controversy to rest.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html

NAS>Snuggle Bunny

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

bullshit

The CRU emails talk plainly of Mann and company using "tricks" to manipulate data.

Your POS article is from 2006, well before the CRU emails were revealed.


private emails > NAS

fail = you

[The Night Owl]

bullshit

The CRU emails talk plainly of Mann and company using "tricks" to manipulate data.

Your POS article is from 2006, well before the CRU emails were revealed.

private emails > NAS

Yeah. Let's base our opinion on AGW on statements and emails taken out of context.



Mike's Nature Trick explained: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

[thundley4]

Yeah. Let's base our opinion on AGW on statements and emails taken out of context.



Mike's Nature Trick explained: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

Back to realclimate which has already been shown to be part of the scam.

[TheSarge]

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jan/HQ_10-017_Warmest_temps.html

You mean this NASA Climate date?

"According to the NASA email, NASA's incorrect temperature readings resulted from a "flaw" in a computer program used to update annual temperature data. [James] Hansen, apparently frustrated by the attention paid to the NASA error, labeled McIntyre a "pest" and suggests those who disagree with his global warming theories "should be ready to crawl under a rock by now." Hansen also suggests that those calling attention to the climate data error did not have a "light on upstairs."

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30006

Or this little problem with the same climate data?

"In a new report, computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government's two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Ashville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. Smith and D'Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and location of weather observation stations."

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30000

Seems everyone is cheating and fudging their numbers to make it appear that man made global warming is real and not the made up pile of bullsh*t that it really is.

[TheSarge]

Yeah. Let's base our opinion on AGW on statements and emails taken out of context.



Mike's Nature Trick explained: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

How can people admitting they can't make the numbers and computer models match what they are out there predicting without manipulating (guessing) on the numbers to make them come out the way they want "out of context"?

[The Night Owl]

You mean this NASA Climate date?

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30006

Or this little problem with the same climate data?

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30000

Seems everyone is cheating and fudging their numbers to make it appear that man made global warming is real and not the made up pile of bullsh*t that it really is.

The error written about in the article you provided a link to was a statistically insignificant error which led NASA to rank 1998 as hotter than 1934.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

How can people admitting they can't make the numbers and computer models match what they are out there predicting without manipulating (guessing) on the numbers to make them come out the way they want "out of context"?

What he said.

RC is part and parcel of the scam and the link you provided is nothing more than a 300-word "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" and of course you're right there lapping up whatever thye feed you like a proper little sycophant.

[Carl]

Yeah. Let's base our opinion on AGW on statements and emails taken out of context.



Mike's Nature Trick explained: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

The exact "explanation" from that link...

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “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.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

In other words...
What we are trying to prove doesn`t match the observable evidence so we will use a different set of standards to keep the propaganda up.
Once more a word (trick) has to be redefined to suit a purpose...in this case claim no attempt to mislead.

Interesting that by its own admission when there was a problem they had no issue with simply ignoring it.

Show me how that is any kind of real "science".

[The Night Owl]

The exact "explanation" from that link...

In other words...
What we are trying to prove doesn`t match the observable evidence so we will use a different set of standards to keep the propaganda up.
Once more a word (trick) has to be redefined to suit a purpose...in this case claim no attempt to mislead.

Interesting that by its own admission when there was a problem they had no issue with simply ignoring it.

Show me how that is any kind of real "science".

Hey, wake me up when Michael Mann is fired or indicted.

[Carl]

Hey, wake me up when Michael Mann is fired or indicted.

That sure is an intelligent response.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

The A.P. is reporting that the director of the prestigious U.K. Hadley Climate Research Unit will step down during an investigation into allegations that he and his colleagues for years slanted climate research toward man-made greenhouse gases as the central cause of global warming. Initial reviews of the hacked files reveal world-renowned climate scientists conspiring to manipulate computer climate modeling data, terminology and research reports to promote the theories of global warming.

Hadley officials say that Unit head Phil Jones will be suspended from his chief researcher’s  position pending completion of an independent review of his involvement in altering the way in which global temperature data were presented.

http://www.examiner.com/x-3089-LA-Ecopolitics-Examiner~y2009m12d1-UK-Hadley-Climate-Unit-head-yields-to-bias-charges

I'm sure people are suspended and step down ALL the time for things taken out of context.

 

[Texacon]

TNO ... seriously.  Why so willing to believe something that 'scientists' have had to bend so much to make it believable?  Either the science is there or it's not and at this point .... even you have to admit there have been serious problems trying to make the whole AGW believable.

All of this on top of the fact that they can't predict the weather from day to day yet you believe they can tell you what the temperature is going to be in 100 years?  Really?

KC

[TheSarge]

The problem is not the presence of the CO2 but rather where it is. Currently, there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere.

Then quit breathing.  IF you want to do your part to start reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere...it's best to start at home.