APP - Placeholder for climate FAQs

[Cypress]

You see, it's not climate science in question, it's the misuse of statistics to make the case for governemnt action.

You fucking faggot warmers just don't know how to separate science(which mann does not do. he just uses other peoples data) from statistical analysis of said data.

Warmers use bad stats to make their case.

They choose their samples by correlation to their expected results.

They cook the books when it comes to stats.
And when that doesn't work, they just swap whole data portions and sew it in like a patchwork rug!!

Wow, this emotional meltdown doesn't seem very APP-ish.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=686223&postcount=80

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


I think my work here is done. I've reduced the science deniers to foot-stomping, keyboard-pounding, insult-hurling, emotional basket cases. When you combine the observations of the insults, the emotional meltdowns, and the penchant for implausible conspiracy theories, you can pretty much conclude that the Flat Earth Society has been reduced to a quivering pile of jello.

Hey tinfoil dude, let me know when you can get off your rightwing blogs and the Glenn Beck twitter, and get me some reputable internationally-recognized science institutions and peer-reviewed research to support your yelps, hollers, and assertions. Because I really can't hang with seeing you reduced to a quivering ball of jello. It feels like I'm beating up on a kitten. I kinda feel guilty, man.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I hope you were being sarcastic, man, because this almost made me fall out of my chair laughing!

Tinfoil's "arcticle" is from a blog that is never going to be published in a reputable peer reviewed science journal like Nature, Eos, GRL, or PNAS.

ClimateFraudit.com is a noted science denier blog, and is operated by a guy who is a former mining company stock analyst, and who has no training in climate science. Steve McIntyre. That's who wrote tinfoil's blog.

In the actual world of peer reviewed science Dr. Michael Mann's hockey stick has been repeatedly validated and corroborated by multiple independent sources. Dr. Michael Mann is universally considered by his peers to be a giant of modern science; with unimpeachable integrity and capability as a scientist. The temperature records and proxies are subject to tweaking as the science advances, but the core findings and trends have been repeatedly tested and validated by actual, real scientists.


The climate deniers are shooting blanks, let's face it. All they have are rightwing blogs and non-peer reviewed blather. And the best they can muster are wails and pleas for people to waste their time on easily debunked, non-peer reviewed, nonsense.


It's too bad they had to descend into a world of fantastical conspiracy theories of global cabals, lying climate scientists, and worldwide diabolical coverups of almost superhuman cunning by all the worlds reputable scientific bodies. They totally overplayed their hand. Because climate science - real science - would actually be an interesting topic to blab about.

I new that Cypress. I just wanted to see if he could interpret the data and tell me what he thinks it means.

 

[DamnYankee]

Is just Southy saying "no it isn't" and accusing Cyp of lying, although Southy offers NO evidence and discusses no points of reference or comparison that can justify his accusation. In short, Southy just blows smoke.

No. That was just Cyp and his ad-hom, a logical fallacy.

 

[tinfoil]

I new that Cypress. I just wanted to see if he could interpret the data and tell me what he thinks it means.

Nice grammar, retard

And yeah, you pole smoking liberals are lame.

The hockey stick CO2 correlation was derived by selecting proxies that correlated with the theory.

It's stats fudging 101 and not even sophisiticated in the least.
The fact that climate scientists consider this type of fudging to be acceptable put their science in the realm of phrenology


You guys are such poor math students that you must not be able to understand why selecting data by correlation to prove the same correlation is useless. Unreal to me and others that you guys really think you're smart. Seriously, let's go over the math. You guys suck

FAGS

 

[Cypress]

Nice grammar, retard

And yeah, you pole smoking liberals are lame.

The hockey stick CO2 correlation was derived by selecting proxies that correlated with the theory.

That's what you read on a rightwing blog, but that doesn't make it true. Your own wiki link, cites the National Research Council report, which basically affirmed and validated the hockey stick.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=686223&postcount=80

TINFOIL:

It's stats fudging 101 and not even sophisiticated in the least.

The fact that climate scientists consider this type of fudging to be acceptable put their science in the realm of phrenology


You guys are such poor math students that you must not be able to understand why selecting data by correlation to prove the same correlation is useless. Unreal to me and others that you guys really think you're smart. Seriously, let's go over the math. You guys suck

FAGS

The hockey stick has been updated with input from the National Research Council report of 2006, and the basic findings are the same - and the hockey stick has been validated and corroborated my multiple independent researchers and multiple lines of instrumental and proxy data, my belligerent climate gate clown.

You dudes are really laughing stocks to believe what you read on rightwing blogs, and to fantasize about a global conspiracy of lying, incompetent, and fraudulaent climate scientists.

It's becoming a bad joke, man. Dude, you're really making science denial look crazy.


Finally, even if you got rid of the hockey stick and ignored it, there are multiple lines of evidence for human-cased global warming and the temperature record, from multiple data sources, from hundreds of independent researchers which have nothing to do with the hockey stick.

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

Bottom line, my irate science-denier:

-its a fact that the earth is rapidly warming.

-The greenhouse effect is a fundamental fact of basic physics, that is beyond dispute.

-It is concluded with a high degree of scientific certainty that the warming of the last half century is largely because of human GHGs.

-It is known with a high degree of scientific certainty that this magnitude and rate of temperature increase will have significant, and potentially severe, impacts to agriculture, global economies, and the biosphere.....


That's the facts, jack.


You'll just have to deal with that, and you'll just have to figure out how to deal with the heartbreak of climate gate blowing up in your face. Medication, perhaps?

Feel free to do your own research and submit it for peer review and publication if you think the world's best climate scientists are fucking it all up, or lying. Let me know, because I can tell you where to get the climate data. It's pretty much all in the public domain.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Is just Southy saying "no it isn't" and accusing Cyp of lying, although Southy offers NO evidence and discusses no points of reference or comparison that can justify his accusation. In short, Southy just blows smoke.

No. That was just Cyp and his ad-hom, a logical fallacy.

PROVE IT! Just because you say so, Southy, doesn't mean it's true. In Post #80 Cyp PROVES how Tweedle-Bravo and Tweedle-Tinfoil HELP MAKE THE CASE AGAINST THE CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS. Cyp has consistently backed up what he's said with facts and the logic derived from them.

And let's not forget, YOUR gods that railed about "climate-gate" PUBLICALLY ADMITTED THEY WERE WRONG!.

Deal with it, Southy.

 

[DamnYankee]

PROVE IT! Just because you say so, Southy, doesn't mean it's true. In Post #80 Cyp PROVES how Tweedle-Bravo and Tweedle-Tinfoil HELP MAKE THE CASE AGAINST THE CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS. Cyp has consistently backed up what he's said with facts and the logic derived from them.

And let's not forget, YOUR gods that railed about "climate-gate" PUBLICALLY ADMITTED THEY WERE WRONG!.

Deal with it, Southy.

You prove your accusation, Libby.

 

[Cypress]

SIXTH "

Latest Climate Gate News………

For some strange reason, the Sixth review of “Climate Gate!” by an independent entity completely exonerates the scientists….and in other news, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that warming in the last ten years is unequivocal and statistically significant; that warming has been ongoing for decades; and that it is scientifically known that greenhouse gas emissions are most likely the culprit.

Climate scientists totally vindicated, again??? Will wonders never cease?

The truth about global warming

Monday, August 2, 2010

IN A DEPRESSING case of irony by juxtaposition, the death of climate change legislation in the Senate has been followed by the appearance of two government reports in the past week that underscore the overwhelming scientific case for global warming – and go out of the way to repudiate skeptics.

First came a report on global climate from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which confirmed that the 2000s were by far the warmest decade in the instrumental record -- as were, in their turns, the 1980s and the 1990s. Unlike year-to-year fluctuations, these 10-year shifts are statistically significant. Further, the report notes that it derived its conclusions from an array of data sources -- not just the land-surface readings that doubters challenge -- from ocean heat uptake to melting land ice to sea level rise.

Link to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Report:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html

"If the land surface records were systematically flawed and the globe had not really warmed, then it would be almost impossible to explain the concurrent changes in this wide range of indicators produced by many independent groups," the report said. "The warming of the climate system is unequivocal." The gases most likely responsible for that warming, such as carbon dioxide, continue to accumulate.

Second was a strongly worded response from the Environmental Protection Agency to petitions that it revoke its finding that "climate change is real, is occurring due to emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities and threatens human health and environment." As with much climate-change skepticism, the petitions were based "on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy," EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said. Among other things, the agency reviewed every document from the "Climategate" e-mail hack at a respected British climate research unit. The EPA found what four other independent studies did: that the e-mails contained some "candid" language but nothing that seriously discredits the scientific consensus on global warming.

Link to USEPA response to Climate Gate Comedy:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/01/AR2010080102850.html

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
PROVE IT! Just because you say so, Southy, doesn't mean it's true. In Post #80 Cyp PROVES how Tweedle-Bravo and Tweedle-Tinfoil HELP MAKE THE CASE AGAINST THE CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS. Cyp has consistently backed up what he's said with facts and the logic derived from them.

And let's not forget, YOUR gods that railed about "climate-gate" PUBLICALLY ADMITTED THEY WERE WRONG!.

Deal with it, Southy.

You prove your accusation, Libby.

Go back and READ the appropriate posts, ya Southern Man fool! I'm tired of you playing dumb every time a Fact comes out that you can't bullshit around. All you'll do is just lie and deny, and then pretend nothing matters and it's all a joke.

YOU made the initial claim, Southy, the burden of proof is on YOU. That's how it works, bunky....or did you sleep through those classes in high school?
Grow the fuck up, Southy.

 

[DamnYankee]

Go back and READ the appropriate posts, ya Southern Man fool! I'm tired of you playing dumb every time a Fact comes out that you can't bullshit around. All you'll do is just lie and deny, and then pretend nothing matters and it's all a joke.

YOU made the initial claim, Southy, the burden of proof is on YOU. That's how it works, bunky....or did you sleep through those classes in high school?
Grow the fuck up, Southy.

My accusation, Libby, is that Cyp lied when he said that "98% of scientists approved', and I provided evidence that thousands did not, by signing the petition against. So Cyp did an ad-hom on the petition signers, a logical fallacy. No need for you to get all emotional about these simple facts.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Nice grammar, retard

And yeah, you pole smoking liberals are lame.

The hockey stick CO2 correlation was derived by selecting proxies that correlated with the theory.

It's stats fudging 101 and not even sophisiticated in the least.
The fact that climate scientists consider this type of fudging to be acceptable put their science in the realm of phrenology


You guys are such poor math students that you must not be able to understand why selecting data by correlation to prove the same correlation is useless. Unreal to me and others that you guys really think you're smart. Seriously, let's go over the math. You guys suck

FAGS

Well then explain it to me. What are these proxies? What do they mean? How exactly are they calculated? What formulas were used?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

My accusation, Libby, is that Cyp lied when he said that "98% of scientists approved', and I provided evidence that thousands did not, by signing the petition against. So Cyp did an ad-hom on the petition signers, a logical fallacy. No need for you to get all emotional about these simple facts.

Good god. Shades of operations Steve.

 

[DamnYankee]

Good god. Shades of operations Steve.

Who's "Steve"?

 

[Cypress]

My accusation, Libby, is that Cyp lied when he said that "98% of scientists approved', and I provided evidence that thousands did not, by signing the petition against. .

Man, if I had a nickel for every time some wingnut yelped “cypress lied!!!”…..that would be awesome.

Yo, here’s what I actually wrote:


“About 98% of actual climate scientists agree humans are causing global warming; the tiny handful that don’t agree are subpar scientists with lower levels of expertise and research records.”

Check it out.......

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



your link is from a crack pot website, where anyone with or without a science degree can “sign” a petition. There are few, if any, actual established climate researchers on that list.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=659545&postcount=27


Hey bro, you can travel the world and still find some people who have a science degree from some college, who will swear up and down that there are no detrimental health effects from second hand cigarette smoke. That doesn’t mean jack sh*t bro. It’s actually comical that you dudes have to troll the depths of the interwebs to find obscure and discredited “lists” of scientists. Carry on with the comedy!



Here’s some actual facts, and actual science backed by massive amounts of links of unimpeachable scientific credibility.

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

 

[DamnYankee]

Man, if I had a nickel for every time some wingnut yelped “cypress lied!!!”…..that would be awesome.

Yo, here’s what I actually wrote:


“About 98% of actual climate scientists agree humans are causing global warming; the tiny handful that don’t agree are subpar scientists with lower levels of expertise and research records.”

Check it out.......

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



your link is from a crack pot website, where anyone with or without a science degree can “sign” a petition. There are few, if any, actual established climate researchers on that list.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=659545&postcount=27


Hey bro, you can travel the world and still find some people who have a science degree from some college, who will swear up and down that there are no detrimental health effects from second hand cigarette smoke. That doesn’t mean jack sh*t bro. It’s actually comical that you dudes have to troll the depths of the interwebs to find obscure and discredited “lists” of scientists. Carry on with the comedy!



Here’s some actual facts, and actual science backed by massive amounts of links of unimpeachable scientific credibility.

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

Post 28.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Who's "Steve"?

more like "Whom are the Steve's?"

It's a joke named after the late Stephen Jay Gould. Intelligent Design Creationist used the same ploy as these Climate skeptics who signed the petition you referenced. They sent out petitions with engineers and hydrogeologist and Dentist and all stripes of scientist, except biologist (or, as in your example, except climate researchers). ID Creationist have apractice of issuing petitions of scientist who challenged modern evolutionary theory, they were overwhelmingly from outside the field of biology and support ID Creationism as science.

To show the absurdity of this approach Biologist started a petition. To sign this petition stating you support the factual basis of the modern theory of biological evolution you had to have a PhD in biology or a biological field. You have to be currently practicing in that field and your first name had to be Steve or Steven or Stephen. Over a thousand PhD level biologist named "Steve" signed the petition, which was many times more the numbers then had signed the ID Creationsim petition demonstrating not only just how silly the the ID Creationism petition was but also just how large the consensus is among biologist about the factual basis of biological evolution.

Get it? Many more times biologist named "Steve" support evolutionary theory then the cranks from outside the field who opposed it. It gave a hillarious example of just what a small minority those cranks were.

It's the same thing here with climate science. You're using a petition signed mostly by scientist who's practicing line of work is outside the field of climate research. that is, it is not their specialty and that means they don't have a lot of credibility as experts on climate.

That petition is not only just plain silly, it's illogical. It's like giving a Dentist equal standing with Feinman on a discussion of QED.

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Man, if I had a nickel for every time some wingnut yelped “cypress lied!!!”…..that would be awesome.

Yo, here’s what I actually wrote:


“About 98% of actual climate scientists agree humans are causing global warming; the tiny handful that don’t agree are subpar scientists with lower levels of expertise and research records.”

Check it out.......

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



your link is from a crack pot website, where anyone with or without a science degree can “sign” a petition. There are few, if any, actual established climate researchers on that list.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=659545&postcount=27


Hey bro, you can travel the world and still find some people who have a science degree from some college, who will swear up and down that there are no detrimental health effects from second hand cigarette smoke. That doesn’t mean jack sh*t bro. It’s actually comical that you dudes have to troll the depths of the interwebs to find obscure and discredited “lists” of scientists. Carry on with the comedy!



Here’s some actual facts, and actual science backed by massive amounts of links of unimpeachable scientific credibility.

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

Maybe climate reserachers need their own Project Steve?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Go back and READ the appropriate posts, ya Southern Man fool! I'm tired of you playing dumb every time a Fact comes out that you can't bullshit around. All you'll do is just lie and deny, and then pretend nothing matters and it's all a joke.

YOU made the initial claim, Southy, the burden of proof is on YOU. That's how it works, bunky....or did you sleep through those classes in high school?
Grow the fuck up, Southy.

My accusation, Libby, is that Cyp lied when he said that "98% of scientists approved', and I provided evidence that thousands did not, by signing the petition against. So Cyp did an ad-hom on the petition signers, a logical fallacy. No need for you to get all emotional about these simple facts.

Cyp countered your "proof", you lying Southern Man....Post #94 shows this. That you prefer to deny the evidence he provided is of little consequence.....there's nothing illogical as to proving how bogus your "list" was....it's called research and analysis of the material....you should try it sometimes.

The facts are there, you're the one who's "simple". And as I said before, that the "Climate-Gate" folk publically admitted they were wrong, all you and your cohorts can do is just regurgitate the same old tired, disproven mantras and distortions with insipid stubborness. Carry on.

 

[DamnYankee]

Cyp countered your "proof", you lying Southern Man....Post #94 shows this. That you prefer to deny the evidence he provided is of little consequence.....there's nothing illogical as to proving how bogus your "list" was....it's called research and analysis of the material....you should try it sometimes.

The facts are there, you're the one who's "simple". And as I said before, that the "Climate-Gate" folk publically admitted they were wrong, all you and your cohorts can do is just regurgitate the same old tired, disproven mantras and distortions with insipid stubborness. Carry on.

All he did there was repeat his ad-hom, Libby.

 

[Cancel7]

Not in the least. YOU and CYPRESS are left wing nuts. The actual SCIENTISTS... like Phil Jones, state that there is still much they do not know and that they do not think the debate is over.

It is the left wing nuts like you and Cypress that pretend the debate is over.



The above IS running away. There is nothing rhetorical about them. You and Cypress proclaim that these independent reviews have exonerated the scientists, yet you refuse to even mention WHO it was that paid for the review, WHO it was that selected the panel and WHO it was that was on the panel.

How can you put ANY credibility behind the 'independent' reviews if you cannot answer WHO was on the panels?????



Oh look... another 'dude' you must face facts.... all the while YOU refuse to even address the facts.



where did I accuse the American Chemical Society of any such thing? I stated YOU and CYPRESS were friggin left wing nuts.

Yet again, another left wing nut who is too frightened to answer simple questions.

Good God you became a warming-denier? What's next SF you say screw it all and take up with the birthers?

This thread is hysterical. I consider deniers to be flat-earthers. Wow.

Well, at least Cypress was doing something besides flinging mud at me while I was gone. this is actually a useful post.

I really had no idea you were a flat-earther.