Why oh why did you lie?????

Superfreak said:
The ironic part is that he makes his money from both polluting/destroying the environment via his family's mining and by fear mongering over AGW. Got to hand it to him playing both sides of the fence.
Click to expand...
Just like Tiger Woods: the more he cheats, the more popular he becomes with his followers.
 
Watermark said:
It's more complicated than he makes it seem:

On February 12, 2005, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published a paper in Geophysical Research Letters that claimed various errors in the methodology of Mann et al. (1998). The paper claimed that the "Hockey Stick" shape was the result of an invalid principal component method.[16] They claimed that using the same steps as Mann et al., they were able to obtain a hockey stick shape as the first principal component in 99 percent of cases even if trendless red noise was used as input.[17] This paper was nominated as a journal highlight by the American Geophysical Union,[18] which publishes GRL, and attracted international attention for its claims to expose flaws in the reconstructions of past climate.[19] The IPCC AR4 says this paper may have some theoretical foundation, but Wahl and Amman (2006) also show that the impact on the amplitude of the final reconstruction is very small.[5]


And in the end the Hockey Stick graph was vindicated:

Congress was especially concerned about Mann’s reported refusal to provide data. In June 2005, Congress asked Mann to testify before a special subcommittee. The chairman of the committee (Joe Barton, a prominent global warming skeptic) wrote a letter to Mann requesting he provide his data, including his source code, archives of all data for all of Mann's scientific publications, identities of his present and past scientific collaborators, and details of all funding for any of Mann's ongoing or prior research, including all of the supporting forms and agreements.[22] The American Association for the Advancement of Science viewed this as "a search for some basis on which to discredit these particular scientists and findings, rather than a search for understanding."[24] When Mann complied, all of the data was available for McIntyre. Congress also requested that third party science panels review the criticisms by McIntyre and McKitrick. The Wegman Panel [25] and the National Academy of Sciences [26] both published reports. McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) claim that 7 of their 10 findings in 2003 have been largely confirmed by these reviews.[27] Nature reported it as "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph - But it criticizes the way the controversial climate result was used." [28]
Click to expand...

The hockey stick was not vindicated Water.
 
Superfreak said:
LOL.... non-disclosure agreements with the data sources? The data sources are all government funded. There is no reason for them to have non-disclosure. They are doing SCIENTIFIC research. The data is SUPPOSED to be open. They KNOW this.
Click to expand...

And how do you know that all of the data is government funded? You're just making shit up, as usual.


Superfreak said:
actually it is indeed true.
Click to expand...

No, you are a liar.




Superfreak said:
You are correct... there are other groups that have data sets. Now tell me how many use the CRU data in their calculations.
Click to expand...


Why would they use CRU in their calculations? CRU doesn't make data, it compiles it.

Superfreak said:
seriously... you are going to quote data manipulated/massaged by Hansen as your source?
Click to expand...

Again, you are repeating a filthy lie in saying that Hansen mainpulted data and you should be ashamed of yourself.

This source is NASA, not the CRU.


Superfreak said:
so says the fear mongers
Click to expand...


So says those who hold the truth.



Superfreak said:
sorry dear troll... It is sometimes hard to tell when you are trolling and when you are serious.
Click to expand...

You are acting like a braindead loon here.
 
What? James Hansen wasn't involved with CRU. If CRU and NASA were manipulating data, they almost certainly wouldn't get the same results. The fact that they've gotten the same results indicates a single source - nature.
 
Superfreak said:
You are such a hack...

They have already stated that they destroyed parts of the original data back in the 1980's due to storage capacity issues. The data they have currently has been 'value added' which translates into it has been massaged.

The hockey stick data has been debunked TWICE. Yet people like you still believe it is real, because that is the ONLY way AGW looks real.

The fact is... the Medieval period was warmer than it is today. The mini-ice age did occur. Over the past century the earth HAS warmed coming out of the mini-ice age.

Pollution IS a problem. It is what we need to be addressing. Instead we are wasting our time trying to prove that it is MAN that is altering NATURE. It is a waste of time and resources to do so.
Click to expand...


Haven't you learned not argue religiion.
Especially since Liberals have found the Holy Church of Warming.
 
Watermark said:
And how do you know that all of the data is government funded? You're just making shit up, as usual.

No, you are a liar.

Why would they use CRU in their calculations? CRU doesn't make data, it compiles it.

Again, you are repeating a filthy lie in saying that Hansen mainpulted data and you should be ashamed of yourself.

This source is NASA, not the CRU.


So says those who hold the truth.


You are acting like a braindead loon here.
Click to expand...

1) Hansen does not work for the CRU... he works for GODDARD

2) the CRU also destroyed a chunk of the original data back in the 1980's. Other studies use their 'modified' data. Look it up. You might learn something.

3) Look up Hansen... he has been found to have manipulated GISS data multiple times.

4) right troll boy... keep on flamin'
 
Watermark said:
What? James Hansen wasn't involved with CRU. If CRU and NASA were manipulating data, they almost certainly wouldn't get the same results. The fact that they've gotten the same results indicates a single source - nature.
Click to expand...

Look up the term... collaboration.

You seem to think they were somehow competitors. You are mistaken.
 
Superfreak said:
Look up the term... collaboration.

You seem to think they were somehow competitors. You are mistaken.
Click to expand...

OH NOEZ IT'S ALL A BIG CONSPIRACY?!

They are COMPETITORS. When they discover something their COMPETITOR hasn't, it's a boon on them. No one would try to hide information that would make them famous, no one would trust someone else in a "collaboration" when that person could just walk out at any moment and reap all the benefits.

You guys are LOONS. You are conspiracy FANATICS, just like the ID people, just like the UFO nuts. You are beyond the realm of reality. Anything at all, just as long as no one accepts the reality of AGW.
 
Watermark said:
OH NOEZ IT'S ALL A BIG CONSPIRACY?!

They are COMPETITORS. When they discover something their COMPETITOR hasn't, it's a boon on them. No one would try to hide information that would make them famous, no one would trust someone else in a "collaboration" when that person could just walk out at any moment and reap all the benefits.

You guys are LOONS. You are conspiracy FANATICS, just like the ID people, just like the UFO nuts. You are beyond the realm of reality. Anything at all, just as long as no one accepts the reality of AGW.
Click to expand...

They are all working toward a common goal. They are not hiding info that would make them famous. They are hiding info that would discredit their work.

They would not reap benefits for coming clean. They would be burying their careers.

Keep on trollin lil flamer
 
Superfreak said:
They are all working toward a common goal. They are not hiding info that would make them famous. They are hiding info that would discredit their work.

They would not reap benefits for coming clean. They would be burying their careers.

Keep on trollin lil flamer
Click to expand...

LOL no they wouldn't. You are a retard and don't understand the first thing about the subject that you're discussing. Leave the science to the sciencists, we'll leave the retardation to you.
 
Superfreak said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...s-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world.html

What could possibly be the reason Saint Gore would have used false data to perpetuate the myth of man made global warming?

Could it be that the idiot simply doesn't have a clue when it comes to Science and so he simply spouted off talking points from the likes of Jones, Mann and Brifa? Could it be that the idiot was played like a fiddle? Using additional morons from Hollywood to tout and promote that awful horrific lie filled piece of trash he called a documentary?

We know why Mann and Company lied.... it meant more money for them.

Strange Saint Al hasn't come around to explain what his take is on all the false data he has been using.

Maybe the Messiah can get him to come clean.... but wait... no... the One is also doing his best to ignore the evidence mounting against the fear mongering liars of AGW 'fame'
Click to expand...
I don't think so, he's already made millions, but is shooting for billions. All seemed on track a few weeks ago. But since? Well he's cancelled the lucrative signings...What's he know the rest of the fools don't?

Oh year, but not BO, he's got a Czar, no need for pesky Congress...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top