Hansen's way of dealing with inconvenient history

[daveman]

This whole argument smacks of this fucking stupid quote:

"Some see the world and ask 'Why?'. I see the the world as it should be and ask 'Why not?'."

I'll tell you why not. Your desired utopia is not reality, and physics do not bend to your whim, presupposition or desired outcome.

Leftists engage in magical thinking. They see what they believe. When reality conflicts, reality is ignored.

Yeah... speaking "Truth to Power" doesn't work on climatology though. And no matter how much you chant "CO2 CO2 go away, come again some other day", it won't matter a fig.

But they feel good about trying to help. That's all the really matters.

 

[Big Fitz]

Once you concede that development has skewed the data, obviously you need to remove ALL the bad data from the data set.

Oh for God sake... If I was trying to take the temperature change caused by ambient air temp to liquid in beakers, I wouldn't count the ones with the Bunsen burner going under it now would I? Or are you going to complain that I'm artificially skewing the results if I move that beaker away from the burner and turn it off lest it skew my experiment?

You probably would.

When that happens the temperature of the older remaining data in the set from the time when the heat source was first introduced goes down because the warmer anomalies are removed.

No, you start fresh if you can. Since the data cannot be trusted it is invalid. You must find another way to gather it that hasn't been tampered. And since we're also talking history with unobserved results, and you can't trust computer models and corrections as we've been learning, you're kinda screwed till you find a new way.

When the now more accurate data shows a more pronounced warming, the deniers claim that making the data more accurate is "manipulating" the data because the more accurate data does not support their bias.

Okay, so we treat the bad data as valid data because it was not corrected, and therefore hotter than the new corrected readings and factor them in as signs of warming? What kind of bullshit are you trying to run here? You THROW OUT THE BAD DATA and get new data from another untampered source if possible!

That's science. But we're not talking science, we're talking history, and that's going to be filled with guess work and assumption. Two things very un-science-like.

but since this isn't science, it's religion for you, why are we talking science?

 

[Big Fitz]

Leftists engage in magical thinking. They see what they believe. When reality conflicts, reality is ignored.

Yeah... speaking "Truth to Power" doesn't work on climatology though. And no matter how much you chant "CO2 CO2 go away, come again some other day", it won't matter a fig.

But they feel good about trying to help. That's all the really matters.

And Basement Cat is waiting for you good intentioners... yes indeedy.

 

[edthecynic]

Once you concede that development has skewed the data, obviously you need to remove ALL the bad data from the data set.

Oh for God sake... If I was trying to take the temperature change caused by ambient air temp to liquid in beakers, I wouldn't count the ones with the Bunsen burner going under it now would I? Or are you going to complain that I'm artificially skewing the results if I move that beaker away from the burner and turn it off lest it skew my experiment?

You probably would.

When that happens the temperature of the older remaining data in the set from the time when the heat source was first introduced goes down because the warmer anomalies are removed.

No, you start fresh if you can. Since the data cannot be trusted it is invalid. You must find another way to gather it that hasn't been tampered. And since we're also talking history with unobserved results, and you can't trust computer models and corrections as we've been learning, you're kinda screwed till you find a new way.

When the now more accurate data shows a more pronounced warming, the deniers claim that making the data more accurate is "manipulating" the data because the more accurate data does not support their bias.

Okay, so we treat the bad data as valid data because it was not corrected, and therefore hotter than the new corrected readings and factor them in as signs of warming? What kind of bullshit are you trying to run here? You THROW OUT THE BAD DATA and get new data from another untampered source if possible!

That's science. But we're not talking science, we're talking history, and that's going to be filled with guess work and assumption. Two things very un-science-like.

but since this isn't science, it's religion for you, why are we talking science?

Hey DUMBASS!!! That's exactly what I said to do. But I also pointed out that the remaining data with the bad data removed will show a more pronounced warming trend. You deniers then say that the data is being manipulated because the now more accurate data doesn't support your bias. Let's face it, to deniers any data that does not support the deniers global cooling hoax is manipulated.

 

[daveman]

Hey DUMBASS!!! That's exactly what I said to do. But I also pointed out that the remaining data with the bad data removed will show a more pronounced warming trend. You deniers then say that the data is being manipulated because the now more accurate data doesn't support your bias. Let's face it, to deniers any data that does not support the deniers global cooling hoax is manipulated.

You're not removing bad data. You're removing data that doesn't give you the results you want.

You do that by cherry-picking temp stations. You do that by choosing ONE station for all of Canada, and making sure that one's in a relatively warm location.

And don't give me that shit about funding. AGW gets all the money it needs.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hey if we are having a big ol winter storm in the northern US we cannot be having global warming can we?

Hey, if there is a drought in Texas - it MUST be global warming.

You cultists are a hoot.

BTW, "global warming" has been rebranded to "climate change," for obvious reasons. (Try and keep up!)

 

[Uncensored2008]

wild weather is all a part of the proof

As are mild summers, cold winters, cold summers, hot summers, warm winters, dry winters, wet summers, dry summers....

When you have faith in the cult - everything proves your faith.

 

[skookerasbil]

magical thinking is gay...........

 

[RollingThunder]

Hey if we are having a big ol winter storm in the northern US we cannot be having global warming can we?

BTW, "global warming" has been rebranded to "climate change," for obvious reasons. (Try and keep up!)

Another dimwitted denier cult myth. Both terms have been in use for decades, dumbass. The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established 23 years ago in 1988 and the term 'climate change' had been in widespread use among scientists for many years before that. Jeez but you denier cultists are stupidly gullible.

 

[edthecynic]

Hey DUMBASS!!! That's exactly what I said to do. But I also pointed out that the remaining data with the bad data removed will show a more pronounced warming trend. You deniers then say that the data is being manipulated because the now more accurate data doesn't support your bias. Let's face it, to deniers any data that does not support the deniers global cooling hoax is manipulated.

You're not removing bad data. You're removing data that doesn't give you the results you want.

You do that by cherry-picking temp stations. You do that by choosing ONE station for all of Canada, and making sure that one's in a relatively warm location.

And don't give me that shit about funding. AGW gets all the money it needs.

BULLSHIT! .

 

[Big Fitz]

Hey DUMBASS!!! That's exactly what I said to do. But I also pointed out that the remaining data with the bad data removed will show a more pronounced warming trend. You deniers then say that the data is being manipulated because the now more accurate data doesn't support your bias. Let's face it, to deniers any data that does not support the deniers global cooling hoax is manipulated.

You're not removing bad data. You're removing data that doesn't give you the results you want.

You do that by cherry-picking temp stations. You do that by choosing ONE station for all of Canada, and making sure that one's in a relatively warm location.

And don't give me that shit about funding. AGW gets all the money it needs.

BULLSHIT! .

So you're claiming all those stations are being used every time as well as being accurate. I smell a whole lot of bovine fertilizer au natural.

 

[daveman]

Hey DUMBASS!!! That's exactly what I said to do. But I also pointed out that the remaining data with the bad data removed will show a more pronounced warming trend. You deniers then say that the data is being manipulated because the now more accurate data doesn't support your bias. Let's face it, to deniers any data that does not support the deniers global cooling hoax is manipulated.

You're not removing bad data. You're removing data that doesn't give you the results you want.

You do that by cherry-picking temp stations. You do that by choosing ONE station for all of Canada, and making sure that one's in a relatively warm location.

And don't give me that shit about funding. AGW gets all the money it needs.

BULLSHIT! .

A blog? Really? You guys don't accept blogs. Remember?

Oh, and you didn't look around it very much, did you?

» Climate Change Documents

Check out all the doomsaying predictions of global cooling from the Seventies.

 

[ScienceRocks]

You're not removing bad data. You're removing data that doesn't give you the results you want.

You do that by cherry-picking temp stations. You do that by choosing ONE station for all of Canada, and making sure that one's in a relatively warm location.

And don't give me that shit about funding. AGW gets all the money it needs.

BULLSHIT! .

A blog? Really? You guys don't accept blogs. Remember?

Oh, and you didn't look around it very much, did you?

» Climate Change Documents

Check out all the doomsaying predictions of global cooling from the Seventies.

Quite a few of the global warmers believe that the .1c of cooling from 1950-1970 was caused because of sulfur from the developed world. They also believe once it was cleaned up the temperature raised in the 1980s-1990's.

 

[daveman]

BULLSHIT! .

A blog? Really? You guys don't accept blogs. Remember?

Oh, and you didn't look around it very much, did you?

» Climate Change Documents

Check out all the doomsaying predictions of global cooling from the Seventies.

Quite a few of the global warmers believe that the .1c of cooling from 1950-1970 was caused because of sulfur from the developed world. They also believe once it was cleaned up the temperature raised in the 1980s-1990's.

I don't put too much stock in what warmers believe.

 

[edthecynic]

You're not removing bad data. You're removing data that doesn't give you the results you want.

You do that by cherry-picking temp stations. You do that by choosing ONE station for all of Canada, and making sure that one's in a relatively warm location.

And don't give me that shit about funding. AGW gets all the money it needs.

BULLSHIT! .

A blog? Really? You guys don't accept blogs. Remember?

Oh, and you didn't look around it very much, did you?

» Climate Change Documents

Check out all the doomsaying predictions of global cooling from the Seventies.

There was a small minority of deniers back in the 1970s it is true, and they were just as wrong then as they are now!!!

This was my favorite pull quote from your link, which if anything shows that without man made warming we should be cooling, therefore we are warming as a result of man's influence.
Thank you!!!

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/194/4270/1121

Variations in the Earth’s Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages
Science, 12/10/76

A model of future climate based on the observed orbital-climate relationships, but ignoring anthropogenic effects, predicts that the long-term trend over the next seven thousand years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.​

​

 

[cielo42]

hahahh

 

[daveman]

BULLSHIT! .

A blog? Really? You guys don't accept blogs. Remember?

Oh, and you didn't look around it very much, did you?

» Climate Change Documents

Check out all the doomsaying predictions of global cooling from the Seventies.

There was a small minority of deniers back in the 1970s it is true, and they were just as wrong then as they are now!!!

This was my favorite pull quote from your link, which if anything shows that without man made warming we should be cooling, therefore we are warming as a result of man's influence.
Thank you!!!

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/194/4270/1121

Variations in the Earth’s Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages
Science, 12/10/76

A model of future climate based on the observed orbital-climate relationships, but ignoring anthropogenic effects, predicts that the long-term trend over the next seven thousand years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.​

​

Oh. So THIS blog is okay.

Inconsistency is the hallmark of the AGW cult.

Meanwhile, you need to thank American SUVs for warming up the planet and saving us all from icy death.

 

[edthecynic]

A blog? Really? You guys don't accept blogs. Remember?

Oh, and you didn't look around it very much, did you?

» Climate Change Documents

Check out all the doomsaying predictions of global cooling from the Seventies.

There was a small minority of deniers back in the 1970s it is true, and they were just as wrong then as they are now!!!

This was my favorite pull quote from your link, which if anything shows that without man made warming we should be cooling, therefore we are warming as a result of man's influence.
Thank you!!!

Variations in the Earth’s Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages
Science, 12/10/76

A model of future climate based on the observed orbital-climate relationships, but ignoring anthropogenic effects, predicts that the long-term trend over the next seven thousand years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.​

Oh. So THIS blog is okay.

Inconsistency is the hallmark of the AGW cult.

Meanwhile, you need to thank American SUVs for warming up the planet and saving us all from icy death.

"Science" is not a blog, but nice deflection anyway!

And thank you for admitting SUVs and other man made fossil fuel burners are responsible for the fact that the natural cooling cycle of a coming Ice Age has not happened.

 

[daveman]

There was a small minority of deniers back in the 1970s it is true, and they were just as wrong then as they are now!!!

This was my favorite pull quote from your link, which if anything shows that without man made warming we should be cooling, therefore we are warming as a result of man's influence.
Thank you!!!

Oh. So THIS blog is okay.

Inconsistency is the hallmark of the AGW cult.

Meanwhile, you need to thank American SUVs for warming up the planet and saving us all from icy death.

"Science" is not a blog, but nice deflection anyway!

And thank you for admitting SUVs and other man made fossil fuel burners are responsible for the fact that the natural cooling cycle of a coming Ice Age has not happened.

Holy shit, you're gullible.

But then, you're an AGW cultist. They're all gullible.

 

[edthecynic]

Oh. So THIS blog is okay.

Inconsistency is the hallmark of the AGW cult.

Meanwhile, you need to thank American SUVs for warming up the planet and saving us all from icy death.

"Science" is not a blog, but nice deflection anyway!

And thank you for admitting SUVs and other man made fossil fuel burners are responsible for the fact that the natural cooling cycle of a coming Ice Age has not happened.

Holy shit, you're gullible.

But then, you're an AGW cultist. They're all gullible.

I made you EAT the words from YOUR own link, and I'm the one that's gullible!
Brilliant!