APP - Expert Credibility in Climate Research

[Canceled1]

See, you basically had two choices in front of you before you posted what you wrote above...

1)...Respond with the facts and data you CLAIM is "common fucking knowledge" and shut down Cypress right then and there.

OR...

2)...Respond with a bunch of F bombs and ad homs.

Now, which choice do YOU think is going to make it look like you've got big heaping piles of both "Jack" and "Squat" at the ready to back up your allegations?

Like your body, your offering(s) are morbidly gross exaggerations of what is actual reality.

What constitutes a "bunch of F bombs" PRicky?

Would one (1) qualify, or is it any old thing you want to make it to "make it look like you've got big heaping piles of both "Jack" and "Squat" at the ready to back up your allegations?"

BTW: are you still claiming the need to links in "reputable science publications" with respect to climatic data prior to 600,000 years ago? Are you actually going to stand by "you won't discuss it" when it is COMMON FUCKING KNOWLEDGE that the Earth was a hell of a lot warmer as recent as 1 million years ago (that's a little over 0.02% of the Earth's age). Are you actualy saying you won't answer the question why climatic data from the period prior to the start of the current ice age is being left out of AGW analysis because I do not provide a peer reviewed study on paleo climate?

Again, you are the most brain dead pathetic excuse for a thinking man I have ever debated. Do you READ the opinions mandated for you by your political masters, or do you have a built in link they can use to simply upload their latest into that laughable organ you call a brain?

 

[zappasguitar]

Like your body, your offering(s) are morbidly gross exaggerations of what is actual reality.

What constitutes a "bunch of F bombs" PRicky?

Would one (1) qualify, or is it any old thing you want to make it to "make it look like you've got big heaping piles of both "Jack" and "Squat" at the ready to back up your allegations?"

EVERYBODY TAKE COVER!!

GRAMMAR GAL IS BACK ON PATROL!!

A pity she won't devote 1/10th of the time that she devotes to correcting other people's grammar errors to alleviating the noxious fumes arising from twixt her nether regions.

But it's all good. Disloyal never has to worry about being lonely in her old age...she's got a gaggle of cats that continually clamor to sit on her lap just so they can take in accompanying "tuna smell".

 

[tinfoil]

Well I guess that's a fair comment for you to make considering you don't know what science is! LOL

LOL yeah right. BTW, none of the reports addressed the science anyway.
Are you retards even aware of that?

Check this out. last week the Guardian had a debate. They already removed the audio from their site after only two days, but I listened to it last week. It was hillarious when Trevor Davies had to ask Steve to remind when the panel took place. Trevor was the expert from CRU sent to debate the thoroughness of the enquiries. LOL

read this:


However, the issue, when raised by Sunday Times reporter Jonathan Leake, caused Davies to implode. Here’s an approximate transcript leading up to the Davies’ incident. It started with a question from Jonathan Leake of the Sunday Times, who, oddly enough, Monbiot recognized only as a “gentleman from the front”. Leake (approximate transcript):

Steve, in your presentation, you seemed to say that Phil Jones wasn’t interviewed by Muir Russell at all in person. He was interviewed by some other members of the panel. If that is true, who did? And it seems astonishing that the chairman of the inquiry did not interview .. if that is true, perhaps Trevor Davies can tell us who did… it seems remarkable.

Leading to the following exchange:

McIntyre – I’m going from the minutes of the report. In December, Muir Russell arrived; they had 8 meetings that day, one of which was between Muir Russell and Phil Jones, accompanied by Trevor Davies, at which I presume that no evidence was taken. In January, there was an exploratory meeting. The panel announced on Feb 11, there were two meetings with Phil Jones after that – one on March 4, as I recall, between Norton and Clarke covering CRUTEM series. And other one on April 9 with Boulton and Clarke again, covering the Hockey Stick issues and IPCC. Muir Russell didn’t attend either of the two meetings with Phil Jones after the unveiling of the panel, and which were the only two meetings at which any evidence was taken… Yes, it bewilders me that a responsible chairman of an inquiry did not attend the only material interviews with the people involved in the whole affair. Muir Russell did however have extensive meetings with administrative staff

Monbiot: Trevor, does that chime…

Davies- My memory for these details is not as good as Steve’s. He has confirmed that Muir Russell did indeed interview Phil Jones and in my list, he interviewed Phil Jones. And this info is in the back of Muir Russell report.

McIntyre – Not after the panel was announced and not where any evidence was taken.

Monbiot (speaking to Davies) – can you contradict that?

Long pause –

McIntyre – he can’t contradict that.

Monbiot – just a minute Steve

Davies – Steve will have to remind me when the panel was actually announced…

Uproarious laughter and applause.

McIntyre – Feb 11, Trevor

Davies – yes…

Long pause….

Davies – Steve appears to be…

McIntyre – it’s on page 92 or so…

Davies: there were interviews between Muir Russell, the chairman, and Phil Jones. Later on those interviews were done by the specialists.

Monbiot – when did those interviews take place between Muir Russell and Phil Jones?

Davies – the last one that I can see is on January 27.

Another not-so-good moment for the defenders of the Team that can’t shoot straight.

 

[Good Luck]

So let me see. Cypress is referencing and linking reputable and current peer reviewed articles by trained and credentialed climate scientist while you're referncing right wing political blogs as evidence and you're accusing him of political bias and lacking in objectivity?

Sorry....not buying it.

Really? Science Direct is a right wing blog? I'm sure they'll be surprised to hear that.

Plus, are you among those who refuse to read something due to it's author? No wonder the left can be so totally hoodwinked by their political masters.

I'll ask you the same thing: can you dispute the SCIENCE in the articles, or can you not? It does not matter who wrote it. These are not OPINION pieces referenced, they are each a rigorous analysis of the heat retention properties of gaseous CO2 at varying pressures and varying partial pressures. If you can discuss the content of the articles, and find fault with their analysis, have at it.

If all you have is a criticism of who wrote the thing and what means they used to publish it, then you are no better than the Christian fundamentalist clinging to his bible insisting the Earth is 6000 years old no matter what science tells us.


Also do you support the notion that one must have a degree, or reference someone who does, to ASK QUESTIONS?

If not, perhaps you will explain why AGW does not use any paleoclimatic data older than 600,000 years. Perhaps you can look at the near-vertical temperature spikes in the commonly published ice-core/CO2 correlation graphs and then look at a similar spike in recent MGT tables and explain why the latter is "unprecedented"? Perhaps you can look at data prior to 600,000 years, with MGTs well above current values, little or no ice caps at either pole, Greenland a veritable temperate paradise, and explain how current trends are "unnatural"? Does AGW theory have an explanation why 800,000 - 1 million years ago (only 25% farther back than the records used by AGW) could be much warmer, but that data is irrelevant to today's trends, which "can only be explained by human causes"?

 

[Cypress]

So let me see. Cypress is referencing and linking reputable and current peer reviewed articles by trained and credentialed climate scientist while you're referncing right wing political blogs as evidence and you're accusing him of political bias and lacking in objectivity?

Sorry....not buying it.

Once again, and as as per usual, we see lots of foot stomping, fury, emotion, guesswork, and assertions from the Climate Gate Clown Contingent.

But no body of peer reviewed science anywhere in sight to back up the basis of these random yelps, hollers, and queries.

The comedy never ends!

 

[Cypress]

Cypress doesn't seem to understand what corruption is

I see.

So in your failure to provide any sort of plausible body of reputable, peer-reviewed scientific research to substantiate any of your assertions, queries and guesses......you've gone back to claiming that the state of modern climate science is a global conspiracy of fraudulent research perpetrated by thousands of trained scientists, and covered up by dozens of the worlds most prestigious scientific institutions.

And you expect me to take you, and your compadres, seriously?


That's freaking hilarious.




It's equivocal that the earth is warming, and the best peer reviewed scientific research on the planet has concluded with a very high degree of confidence that its mostly due to humans.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=663778&postcount=3

That would be the conclusion of 98% of all trained climate scientists worldwide, and every single prestigious scientific institution on the planet with international standing.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=678999&postcount=1

Carry on, you have my permission to keep reading rightwing blogs for "science" information. Its comical.

 

[Good Luck]

See, you basically had two choices in front of you before you posted what you wrote above...

1)...Respond with the facts and data you CLAIM is "common fucking knowledge" and shut down Cypress right then and there.

OR...

2)...Respond with a bunch of F bombs and ad homs.

Now, which choice do YOU think is going to make it look like you've got big heaping piles of both "Jack" and "Squat" at the ready to back up your allegations?

I have posted links to scientific articles showing the Earth was much warmer, and has MOSTLY been much warmer in the past. Of the total history of the Earth, less than 10% of it has been spent with climates as cool as the one we currently live with. You can see the chart here, at a sitre that received Scientific American Sci/Tech WebAward in 2001.

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

Over several threads I have provided several links like this. These links were completely ignored, or passed off as "right wing" even though the knowledge is scientifically accurate. One link did not work, and rather than go to the home page of the referenced site and find the referenced article, it was dismissed out of hand whiole the next link, which used the same science but was published directly in a blog (thus making it easier to read) was also dismissed as "lacking peer review".

Bottom line is the knowledge of the Earth being warmer a million years ago IS common knowledge. Even the average 2nd grader knows it to be true. ACC scientists know it to be true. For that matter, Cypress knows it to be true, which makes his demand for proof of that claim to be assinine to the Nth degree - a stall, a misdirection so he does not have to address the question behind the known facts. If this were a live debate contest, judges would give a demand for proof of well known facts a very low score - I know, I've seen it. In the world of online debate, it simply shows the person demanding proof of well known facts to be avoiding discussing those facts.

Then come the little brain dead twits jumping in line to defend that practice.

If one has to prove that 2+2=4 in order to talk about the benefits and pitfalls of a highly progressive tax system, the only conclusion is the person demanding such proof of a well known fact is running scared from the debate.

 

[Cypress]

I have posted links to scientific articles showing the Earth was much warmer, and has MOSTLY been much warmer in the past. Of the total history of the Earth, less than 10% of it has been spent with climates as cool as the one we currently live with. You can see the chart here, at a sitre that received Scientific American Sci/Tech WebAward in 2001.

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

Over several threads I have provided several links like this. These links were completely ignored, or passed off as "right wing" even though the knowledge is scientifically accurate. One link did not work, and rather than go to the home page of the referenced site and find the referenced article, it was dismissed out of hand whiole the next link, which used the same science but was published directly in a blog (thus making it easier to read) was also dismissed as "lacking peer review".

Bottom line is the knowledge of the Earth being warmer a million years ago IS common knowledge. Even the average 2nd grader knows it to be true. ACC scientists know it to be true. For that matter, Cypress knows it to be true, which makes his demand for proof of that claim to be assinine to the Nth degree - a stall, a misdirection so he does not have to address the question behind the known facts. If this were a live debate contest, judges would give a demand for proof of well known facts a very low score - I know, I've seen it. In the world of online debate, it simply shows the person demanding proof of well known facts to be avoiding discussing those facts.

Then come the little brain dead twits jumping in line to defend that practice.

If one has to prove that 2+2=4 in order to talk about the benefits and pitfalls of a highly progressive tax system, the only conclusion is the person demanding such proof of a well known fact is running scared from the debate.

You haven't posted any links to reputable, peer-reviewed scientific research that I've seen. I'm beginning to wonder if you even understand the scientific method.

One of your posts claimed or suggested that some Op-Ed column from "New Scientist" was a legitimate peer reviewed article.

It wasn't. New Scientist is not a peer reviewed scientific journal.

On another thread you presented some non-peer reviewed web posting from some obscure website, written by some electrical engineer I've never heard of who had no qualifications in climate science, and the article was ridiculously outdated - from april 2000, a decade ago.

That was freaking hilarious.

Your link here is from some website I've never heard of, from some dude I've ever heard of, and presents no peer reviewed findings or legitimate research that debunks the current science of global warming, or presents any tested alternative theories.


Three strikes and you're out, dude. If repeatedly bungle, misconstrue, and misrepresent links in a flailing and feeble attempt to present them as legitimate peer reviewed research, I'm going to consider your credibility on the topic completely flushed down the toilet.

I can't waste my time looking at weird links, from obscure websites, that aren't peer reviewed and are irrelevant to actual legitimate climate science research.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"Dude, I don't have time to look at anything that detracts from my religion. I will simply call everything you post 'right wing' or say 'dude, I don't know that guy so he can't be legit'. I will ignore any and all science under the cover of 'sorry man, but that isn't posted on one of my masters pre approved sites, therefore I am not allowed to read it. Bottom line... CONSENSUS!!! (even though one of my masters says the debate is not over). I am a flat earth fear mongering global warming religious freak and I shall obey my masters.".

thanks.

 

[Good Luck]

You haven't posted any links to reputable, peer-reviewed scientific research that I've seen. I'm beginning to wonder if you even understand the scientific method.

One of your posts claimed or suggested that some Op-Ed column from "New Scientist" was a legitimate peer reviewed article.

It wasn't. New Scientist is not a peer reviewed scientific journal.

On another thread you presented some non-peer reviewed web posting from some obscure website, written by some electrical engineer I've never heard of who had no qualifications in climate science, and the article was ridiculously outdated - from april 2000, a decade ago.

That was freaking hilarious.

Your link here is from some website I've never heard of, from some dude I've ever heard of, and presents no peer reviewed findings or legitimate research that debunks the current science of global warming, or presents any tested alternative theories.


Three strikes and you're out, dude. If repeatedly bungle, misconstrue, and misrepresent links in a flailing and feeble attempt to present them as legitimate peer reviewed research, I'm going to consider your credibility on the topic completely flushed down the toilet.

I can't waste my time looking at weird links, from obscure websites, that aren't peer reviewed and are irrelevant to actual legitimate climate science research.

When you are the one who defines what sopurces are credible, then it becomes impossible to give you a satisfactory link.

But tell me this:

Do you DENY that the Earth was much warmer 1 million years ago. No links, no more of your bullshit. Yes or no. Do you deny this basic well known fact, or do you accept it?

 

[Cypress]

When you are the one who defines what sopurces are credible, then it becomes impossible to give you a satisfactory link.

It's neither partisan, nor unreasonable of me to expect you to provide a body of legitimate peer reviewed scientific research to support your assertions.

OpEd columns, blogs, and obscure non-peer reviewed web articles don't cut it. They amount to nothing more than assertion, speculation, and opinion. I didn't make or invent these rules; they are the rules and standards of good science. If you don't have anything of that nature to provide, that's fine. I already knew that.

You and your compadres are engaging in the same boobery that the evolution-denying theocrats engage in with their "teach the debate!" nonsense: i.e., putting opinion, speculation, and assertion on the same par as legitimate bodies of scientific research. Shame on you.

It's an insult to reason, scientific inquiry, and scientific education. I reject it out of hand.

But tell me this:

Do you DENY that the Earth was much warmer 1 million years ago. No links, no more of your bullshit. Yes or no. Do you deny this basic well known fact, or do you accept it?

No I don't. And I never have, professor.

Climate changes in response to whatever forces it to change at the time. In the past, it was natural causes. In the current time, climate is responding to the emissions of human GHGs into the atmosphere. That is the science. The current warming is unequivocal, it cannot plausibly be explained by natural variation, and the best peer reviewed scientific research on the planet has concluded that it is scientifically explained by humans changing the composition of the atmosphere.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=663778&postcount=3

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=678999&postcount=1

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=680087&postcount=1

 

[Good Luck]

BTW: since when is Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy not peer reviewed?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=8a4a00b05a09ac234f95a79051dcaa1a

 

[Good Luck]

It's neither partisan, nor unreasonable of me to expect you to provide a body of legitimate peer reviewed scientific research to support your assertions.

OpEd columns, blogs, and obscure non-peer reviewed web articles don't cut it. They amount to nothing more than assertion, speculation, and opinion. I didn't make or invent these rules; they are the rules and standards of good science. If you don't have anything of that nature to provide, that's fine. I already knew that.

You and your compadres are engaging in the same boobery that the evolution-denying theocrats engage in with their "teach the debate!" nonsense: i.e., putting opinion, speculation, and assertion on the same par as legitimate bodies of scientific research. Shame on you.

It's an insult to reason, scientific inquiry, and scientific education. I reject it out of hand.

You reject it out of hand because you cannot answer it. If you would actuall engage in the references I post, they contain SCIENCE. Their sources are from scientific journals, if you would read that much, but all you look at is author, publication date, and URL. You don't read it. Why is that?

If you HAD read the information posted instead of "dismissing it out of hand" you would find the original references - many of which would cost you money to find the direct reference, which would only give you another excuse to dismiss it out of hand.

Your actions are that of a closed minded twit with no intnention to actually discuss the science of their claims, but rather continue with the UNSCIENTIFIC claim that it is a closed matter. What true SCIENTIST has EVER made that kind of claim?

No I don't. And I never have, professor.

Yet you refuse to discuss any questions based on these facts. All you do is call for links to peer reviewed articles, which, when provided, you find pathetic reasons to ignore and "dismiss out of hand".

Climate changes in response to whatever forces it to change at the time. In the past, it was natural causes. In the current time, climate is responding to the emissions of human GHGs into the atmosphere. That is the science. The current warming is unequivocal, it cannot plausibly be explained by natural variation, and the best peer reviewed scientific research on the planet has concluded that it is scientifically explained by humans changing the composition of the atmosphere.

And WHAT EVIDENCE do you have that it MUST be man caused? What evidence do you have that it "cannot plausibly be explained by natural variation" when the climatic record CLEARLY show past event much MORE extreme that current which were naturally caused? You make these claims, but you only have your bull shit "concensus" crap to back it up.

How do you explain the fact (do I have to find a link, or will you accept this one as common knowledge?) that temperatures started to rise before associated increases in CO2?

Are you aware that temperatures actually started rising about 12,000 years ago? Or do you need a peer reviewed, less than 1 year old study to accept that fact?

So, since you are so big on posting scientific articles in peer reviewed sources, post the ones that definitively show our understanding of the natural causes of climatic shifts. Where is the analysis? Where is the study definitively showing what natural factors caused the last upward trend in MGT. Show me the study that proves we know the natural causes that brought us out of the last period of glaciation. Show me the study that shows we know the specific causes that started the current ice age, as well as the specific causes that ended past ice ages.

Unless we know the specific natural causes of each past climatic shift, how can we POSSIBLY exclude those causes for the current trend? So show me the PROOF that we know EXACTLY what caused previous climatic shifts, so that we can legitimately exclude those causes from what is happening today.

The FACT is ACC is based on far more conjecture than you will ever admit to. Supposition 1: CO2 is a significant driver in rising MGT. That supposition has never been proven. The supposition is derived from a correlation between CO2 and temperature found in ice core data. Unfortunately, there are two problems with this supposition. First, data shows CO2 changes follow rather than precede temperature changes. That sequence of events suggests that CO2 is a symptom of temperature changes rather than a driver.

Second, laboratory tests for CO2 at low concentrations does not support the supposition that CO2 is a driver in current temperature changes.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=8a4a00b05a09ac234f95a79051dcaa1a

(Just so you don't dismiss this out of hand, the above link is provided by Science Direct. The actual article was published in Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy - is that peer reviewed enough for you?)

Second supposition: current trends are "unprecedented". No they are not, as data from only 1 million years ago clearly shows. The only "unprecedented" claims that can be shown is if we truncate climatic data to only include the current ice age.

So prove the factors that warmed the Earth to the point that no ice caps remained, and kept it that warm for almost 200 million years, cannot POSSIBLY be in play today. Unless you can prove that, your claims that today's tremnd cannot possibly be natural are so much hot air.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=663778&postcount=3

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=678999&postcount=1

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=680087&postcount=1

So what is this? Are you claiming your own posts in a political forum to be peer reviewed scientific articles?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

When you are the one who defines what sopurces are credible, then it becomes impossible to give you a satisfactory link.

But tell me this:

Do you DENY that the Earth was much warmer 1 million years ago. No links, no more of your bullshit. Yes or no. Do you deny this basic well known fact, or do you accept it?

He will never give you a straight answer.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So, questions which challenge the conclusions of AGW are illegitimate? Here is where AGW becomes religion rather than science. Questions will not be answered. No one has shown one single sentence fragment sentence of evidence proving the current trend is not natural.

Exactly! People like Prissy have FAITH, and nothing more. To these 'knuckledraggers', science is something conclusive and definitive on this issue. Whereas, the rest of us more sophisticated and educated people, KNOW that science is inconclusive and not definite on this, or any subject. Science explores the "possibility" and the "probability" of things, it doesn't draw conclusion. Had Einstein adopted this stupidity as his philosophy, he would have never discovered his Theory of Relativity. Because the very same situation was encountered, the "consensus" thought was, his theory was impossible and did not work. It was only after he demonstrated his theory to be true, that scientists had to say, we were wrong in what we thought. When Louis Pasteur made the groundbreaking discoveries of bacteria living in food, people thought he was nuts. The "consensus" of pinhead scientists at the time, thought it 'impossible' for bacteria to exist in food, and after being consumed, they surmised our stomach acids would kill any potentially living bacteria. He was thought to be a fool, and nearly ran out of France, before he proved his theory.

We have to be very careful when proclaiming that science has "proven" something conclusively. Unless we are uneducated morons, like Prissy... then it's okay to have FAITH in some mythical force we don't understand, which is exactly what he does with this. Of all the links to all the science he has presented, not one statement of definitive conclusion exists on this subject. It is suspected that perhaps man may be contributing to the warming, but this is not a definitive statement of fact or conclusion. You can ignore the fundamental principles of science itself, and proclaim it "conclusive" but that relies on FAITH... the same kind of FAITH people of religion base their beliefs upon.

 

[Cypress]

Exactly! People like Prissy have FAITH, and nothing more. To these 'knuckledraggers', science is something conclusive and definitive on this issue. Whereas, the rest of us more sophisticated and educated people, KNOW that science is inconclusive and not definite on this, or any subject.

We have to be very careful when proclaiming that science has "proven" something conclusively. Unless we are uneducated morons, like Prissy....

Ummm, you dudes said over and over that climate scientists LIED, manipulated data, committed FRAUD, faked their results, and deceived policy makers.

Are you freaking seriously going to massively backpedal away from that, and now try to proclaim that you just have some innocent and innocuous observations on the benign nature of scientific uncertainties???? WTF?




Yo, I know that getting yourself duped by the phony climate gate "scandal" is embarrassing. But this is the most transparent (and hilarious!) attempt at backpedaling and goal post-moving yet.


If anyone has been accurate at understanding and characterizing the state of modern climate science, it's been me. I understand that science deals in probabilities. You were the dudes who yucked it up about vast, global conspiracy theories, and lying scientists, not me. I've just been saying and repeating what the best scientists and best science organizations on the planet are saying:

Its unequivocal that the earth is warming, and it has been established with a very high degree of scientific confidence that the warming of the last half century is mostly due to humans.

check it out, bro.....

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=683374&postcount=1

 

[tinfoil]

one thing is certain:

warmers do not know how to link their science. It should be easy. there should be a zillion studies that can prove the human CO2 connection. the truth is, there is only models and bad statistics to make the case. Upon inspection, the faulty science is revealed. The authorities who extract public money have no incentive to find errors in their work nor to explore any theories that compete

 

[tinfoil]

Hot off the presses. Another peer reviewed article by M and M
The warmers are going to beaten with the stick called science. They have been revealed and nobody will let them get away with the dishonest crap they've been passing off as science. If you bothered to visit climate audit you would see how steve has been deconstructing the methods the climate team uses and showing how flawed their conclusions are. LOL at the warmers who are so convinced they refuse to see the evidence. Hahaha they cry science too. That's so funny. they're so cute when they rear up on two legs
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mmh_asl2010.pdf

 

[Cypress]

Hmmmmm……Since you obviously didn’t read your own link, I’ll put the money quote from your link in your post……do you ever get tired of self-ownage?

Hot off the presses. Another peer reviewed article by M and M

The warmers are going to beaten with the stick called science. They have been revealed and nobody will let them get away with the dishonest crap they've been passing off as science. If you bothered to visit climate audit you would see how steve has been deconstructing the methods the climate team uses and showing how flawed their conclusions are. LOL at the warmers who are so convinced they refuse to see the evidence. Hahaha they cry science too. That's so funny. they're so cute when they rear up on two legs
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mmh_asl2010.pdf

Tinfoil's Own Link....

"Since the satellite data are unavailable prior to 1979 we cannot extend these series earlier….In this case the 1979-2009 interval is a 31-year span during which the upward trend in surface data strongly suggests a climate-scale warming process."

-McKittrick et al. (2010)
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mmh_asl2010.pdf

.

I also made sure to repeat your link to the peer-reviewed version, so you can't go back and try to post the non-peer reviewed draft. Because I noticed that your rightwing blogs were crowing about an earlier, non-peer reviewed draft of this paper, because it contained a bunch of editorializing, and climate science-denying statements that were unsupported by any actual science, and which ultimately had to be withdrawn after the peer review process.

There’s nothing in your peer-reviewed paper that debunks human-caused climate change. It doesn’t even mention Dr. Mann or the hockey stick, and I did a word search.

Care to actually show me the statements in this article that actually debunk human-caused climate change?


It ain’t there bro. Because whatever quackery they tried to insert in their pre-peer reviewed draft had to be withdrawn as a result of peer review. It didn’t stand the test of scientific scrutiny.

All that remains is a relatively innocuous evaluation of some statistical methods; and it’s never once suggested in the paper that the hockey stick or the temperature records are all mucked up and full of lies – as you have routinely yelped out. The authors even had to concede, as a result of the peer review process, that there is a large scale climate shift going on, based on the post-1979 data.



Sorry to burst your bubble and break your heart. Your rightwing blogs misled you…again. The science of human-caused climate change is very strong, very robust, and validated by multiple lines of evidence, and by hundreds of independent researchers. And strong as the science is now, in 24 months, 48 months, and in 5 years, the science of human-caused climate change is only going to get stronger. As we will see in the 2013 International Assessment.

You have my permission to keep yelping that the scientists are lying, and you can keep begging me to read your ridiculous rightwing blog “ClimateFraudit”. It just makes you look crazier and crazier. That’s my experience, bro. When people start yelling about global conspiracies of lying scientists, or whatever, those people can pretty much be written off as hilarious quacks. I can only spend so much time stooping to deal with this buffoonery. Enjoy your rightwing “science” blogs though!

 

[Cypress]

Unlike Tinfoil, even former prominent Science-deniers are coming to their senses....

A former prolific climate-science denying British tabloid newspaper shifts its editorial tune on climate change….

Daily Mail: “Global warming is real and deeply worrying”....."Greenland appears to be literally cracking up in front of our eyes"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ming-real--deeply-worrying.html#ixzz0wCtGTuw8
http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/11/daily-mail-“global-warming-is-real-and-deeply-worrying”/

The Daily Mail has become the latest previously ‘climate sceptic’ newspaper to shift its editorial line to acknowledge that climate change is “real and deeply worrying”.

Yesterday the paper’s science editor, Michael Hanlon, who could previously be seen as the UK’s most influential ‘sceptic,’ writes:

“I have long been something of a climate-change sceptic, but my views in recent years have shifted. For me, the most convincing evidence that something worrying is going on lies right here in the Arctic.”

The Mail’s shift (away from climate science-denial) in editorial line today follows similar moves by the Washington Post last week and the Canadian conservative National Post newspaper.

In turn these followed a series of independent reports exonerating the scientists at the centre of manufactured controversy over so-called ‘climategate,’ and a series of retractions of the articles that formed the basis of that media controversy.

Russian Heat Wave, Summer 2010: 15,000 people dead, Russian agriculture at risk….


Russian Meteorological Center: “There was nothing similar to this on the territory of Russia during the last one thousand years in regard to the heat.”

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100809/160128496.html

Over 15,000 likely dead in Russia, 17 nations comprising 19% of Earth's total land area set extreme heat records this year, July was "sixth straight record warm month in the tropical Atlantic"

How will history judge the climate science-denying message boarders, bloggers, and wingnuts who spent over a decade downplaying, foot dragging, denying, and conspiracy theorizing on climate change?


survey says: Harshly

.