1900-2014 Warming -->Extraordinary or Normal?

[Billy_Bob]

I accept reconstructions assembled by qualified individuals that are intended to represent global values; making use of proxies of different nature from locations around the globe. I don't accept single source proxies as representative of global conditions and I'm sure you don't either.

This Means... PEOPLE I AGREE WITH ONLY!

You are such a partisan ass hat..

 

[Crick]

I think you've got it turned completely around. I prefer research performed by research scientists and published in peer reviewed journals. You, on the other hand, have no problem taking your opinions from people who seriously lack such qualifications and whose material (it doesn't rise to the level of "research") is self-published in blogs or is broadcast on DenierNetwork sites like WUWT or ClimateAudit.

The universe of the internet is FILLED with unqualified people with opinions. What is the common characteristic of the subset of those people that YOU believe to have arrived at the proper conclusions regarding global warming? Why, it's that they agree with you and your preconceived notions.

 

[SSDD]

I think you've got it turned completely around. I prefer research performed by research scientists and published in peer reviewed journals. You, on the other hand, have no problem taking your opinions from people who seriously lack such qualifications and whose material (it doesn't rise to the level of "research") is self-published in blogs or is broadcast on DenierNetwork sites like WUWT or ClimateAudit.

The universe of the internet is FILLED with unqualified people with opinions. What is the common characteristic of the subset of those people that YOU believe to have arrived at the proper conclusions regarding global warming? Why, it's that they agree with you and your preconceived notions.

What you mean is that you prefer government sponsored research....

 

[Crick]

My preferences regard the qualifications of the researchers and the venue in which their material makes it to the public. I'm not insane enough to assume any research sponsored by the government is a lie. You are.

 

[skookerasbil]

My preferences regard the qualifications of the researchers and the venue in which their material makes it to the public. I'm not insane enough to assume any research sponsored by the government is a lie. You are.

But we've been seeing this ruse about "qualified researchers" and "real scientists" for a good two decades now. As we've seen, over the past several years, a huge % of the public has become highly skeptical of anything government sponsored. Toss in the IPCC admitting they fucked with the data........

Bottom line.......the whole mantra of the "credentialing" narrative is all but dead in 2014 to the public at large. As usual, the left overplayed their hand. It means something only to the internet nutter community obsessed with climate science. Regular people don't give a shit.

 

[jc456]

I think you've got it turned completely around. I prefer research performed by research scientists and published in peer reviewed journals. You, on the other hand, have no problem taking your opinions from people who seriously lack such qualifications and whose material (it doesn't rise to the level of "research") is self-published in blogs or is broadcast on DenierNetwork sites like WUWT or ClimateAudit.

The universe of the internet is FILLED with unqualified people with opinions. What is the common characteristic of the subset of those people that YOU believe to have arrived at the proper conclusions regarding global warming? Why, it's that they agree with you and your preconceived notions.

Billy had it nailed!

 

[Crick]

I think you've got it turned completely around. I prefer research performed by research scientists and published in peer reviewed journals. You, on the other hand, have no problem taking your opinions from people who seriously lack such qualifications and whose material (it doesn't rise to the level of "research") is self-published in blogs or is broadcast on DenierNetwork sites like WUWT or ClimateAudit.

The universe of the internet is FILLED with unqualified people with opinions. What is the common characteristic of the subset of those people that YOU believe to have arrived at the proper conclusions regarding global warming? Why, it's that they agree with you and your preconceived notions.

Billy had it nailed!

Then one would think you might have quoted Billy.

 

[Saigon]

[

What you mean is that you prefer government sponsored research....

Yesterday, I explained FIVE reasons why this claim is nonsense. And yet here you are repeating it, because you know it is all you have left. You know it's false, you know why it is false, and yet you are still posting it.

I tell you, SSDD, you'd gain a lot more respect on this board by admitting that you are wrong about research being part of some global socialist conspiracy than you would just parroting the same nonsense day after day.

 

[Billy_Bob]

[

What you mean is that you prefer government sponsored research....

Yesterday, I explained FIVE reasons why this claim is nonsense. And yet here you are repeating it, because you know it is all you have left. You know it's false, you know why it is false, and yet you are still posting it.

I tell you, SSDD, you'd gain a lot more respect on this board by admitting that you are wrong about research being part of some global socialist conspiracy than you would just parroting the same nonsense day after day.

Your the one spouting nonsense. when 865 billion dollars is spent in 5 years on CAGW research through funds and grants to colleges and other organizations, it is all GOVERNMENT FUNDED... The kicker is they demand that you look for a specific outcome before they give you the money to do the research.. Nothing like telling you "this is what you will find" or we wont pay you....

 

[Crick]

First, where did you get the idea that research grants pay for research after a study is complete? You have to be assuming that's the case when you tell us the government won't pay unless the results are what the government wants.

And then I'd very much like to see some evidence to support this charge that the government demands certain outcomes.

 

[Billy_Bob]

First, where did you get the idea that research grants pay for research after a study is complete? You have to be assuming that's the case when you tell us the government won't pay unless the results are what the government wants.

And then I'd very much like to see some evidence to support this charge that the government demands certain outcomes.

Preconceived outcome is standard with government grants.. your synopsis had better state what you intend to prove within the approved agenda..

 

[Crick]

First, where did you get the idea that research grants pay for research after a study is complete? You have to be assuming that's the case when you tell us the government won't pay unless the results are what the government wants.

And then I'd very much like to see some evidence to support this charge that the government demands certain outcomes.

Preconceived outcome is standard with government grants.. your synopsis had better state what you intend to prove within the approved agenda..

You don't have a flying fuck of an idea what you're talking about. It is completely normal that someone doing a study state their intentions when applying for grant money from ANYONE. But there is no fucking "approved agenda".

Do you really think you can just keep making this shit up?

 

[Billy_Bob]

First, where did you get the idea that research grants pay for research after a study is complete? You have to be assuming that's the case when you tell us the government won't pay unless the results are what the government wants.

And then I'd very much like to see some evidence to support this charge that the government demands certain outcomes.

Preconceived outcome is standard with government grants.. your synopsis had better state what you intend to prove within the approved agenda..

You don't have a flying fuck of an idea what you're talking about. It is completely normal that someone doing a study state their intentions when applying for grant money from ANYONE. But there is no fucking "approved agenda".

Do you really think you can just keep making this shit up?

As someone who has written GRANT REQUESTS I can assure you I know a whole hell of a lot more than you think I do. Tell me Crick when you submit your synopsis and desired outcome portion of the grant request proposal do you tell them that it will prove AGW for them? IF you dont you wont get a dam dime.. Go fuck yourself moron.

 

[SSDD]

[

What you mean is that you prefer government sponsored research....

Yesterday, I explained FIVE reasons why this claim is nonsense. And yet here you are repeating it, because you know it is all you have left. You know it's false, you know why it is false, and yet you are still posting it.

Yesterday, you gave 5 opinions why you think the claim is nonsense....you guys crack me up...you think because you give your opinion on a thing, you have explained it. Unsurprising since that is also how climate science works.

I tell you, SSDD, you'd gain a lot more respect on this board by admitting that you are wrong about research being part of some global socialist conspiracy than you would just parroting the same nonsense day after day.

Considering the continued epic failure of climate science, why would one gain more respect by throwing one's lot in with them?...Oh, I get it....I would be more respected by the warmist wackaloons who believe the dogma whether observation supports them or not...but again, why would I want to be respected by that bunch...you guys are all on a crazy train heading for a cliff....another very cold and bitter winter such as is coming....coupled with the energy problems people operating on your propaganda have put in place across europe is going to turn even more of the world against you. I prefer to be on the rational side which prefers observation to model output.

 

[Crick]

And all those scientists that just released the AR5 Synthesis Report; what is it you have against them other than your utterly unjustified opinion?

Got it. Nothing.

 

[SSDD]

And all those scientists that just released the AR5 Synthesis Report; what is it you have against them other than your utterly unjustified opinion?

Got it. Nothing.

It is more hysterical alarmism based on assumption derived from climate models built on assumption....epic failure after epic failure has led them to be even more sure of themselves than they previously were....while making the same assumptions. Yeah, that's climate science in a nutshell.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Yes, I did explain why your excuses do not hold water, and given that you did not even begin to question that, I think we can assume that you also understand why your excuses do not hold water.

I think we're done.

 

[jc456]

I think you've got it turned completely around. I prefer research performed by research scientists and published in peer reviewed journals. You, on the other hand, have no problem taking your opinions from people who seriously lack such qualifications and whose material (it doesn't rise to the level of "research") is self-published in blogs or is broadcast on DenierNetwork sites like WUWT or ClimateAudit.

The universe of the internet is FILLED with unqualified people with opinions. What is the common characteristic of the subset of those people that YOU believe to have arrived at the proper conclusions regarding global warming? Why, it's that they agree with you and your preconceived notions.

Billy had it nailed!

Then one would think you might have quoted Billy.

ah, or you upset I did something my way? hahaahahahahahaa gesus are you a jiminie.

 

[IanC]

First, where did you get the idea that research grants pay for research after a study is complete? You have to be assuming that's the case when you tell us the government won't pay unless the results are what the government wants.

And then I'd very much like to see some evidence to support this charge that the government demands certain outcomes.

Preconceived outcome is standard with government grants.. your synopsis had better state what you intend to prove within the approved agenda..

You don't have a flying fuck of an idea what you're talking about. It is completely normal that someone doing a study state their intentions when applying for grant money from ANYONE. But there is no fucking "approved agenda".

Do you really think you can just keep making this shit up?

As someone who has written GRANT REQUESTS I can assure you I know a whole hell of a lot more than you think I do. Tell me Crick when you submit your synopsis and desired outcome portion of the grant request proposal do you tell them that it will prove AGW for them? IF you dont you wont get a dam dime.. Go fuck yourself moron.

Peilke, sr had a bit of a running battle with NSF funding. it seems that there is always some reason to not fund groups with a whiff of the sceptical about them. his calls for more transparency in the decision making process were, of course, ignored.

Climate Proposal Review Process Climate Science Roger Pielke Sr.

 

[jc456]

And all those scientists that just released the AR5 Synthesis Report; what is it you have against them other than your utterly unjustified opinion?

Got it. Nothing.

or from a post on WUWT

link: The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide Watts Up With That