Marcott2013

Climate Audit? You mean where Steve McIntyre was caught red-handed lying brazenly about the East Anglia people?

Once someone gets revealed as a liar like that, rational people start assuming everything they say is a lie, unless independent evidence shows otherwise. That's why most denialist leaders get no respect, because they get caught lying so often. In contrast, mainstream scientists have a long record of honesty (cultist rambling to the contrary), so they do get respect.
 
Climate Audit? You mean where Steve McIntyre was caught red-handed lying brazenly about the East Anglia people?

Once someone gets revealed as a liar like that, rational people start assuming everything they say is a lie, unless independent evidence shows otherwise. That's why most denialist leaders get no respect, because they get caught lying so often. In contrast, mainstream scientists have a long record of honesty (cultist rambling to the contrary), so they do get respect.

I am afraid that you have your "facts" crossed. McIntyre caught east anglia in a web of lies which prompted the warmists spin machine to run for days on end. Too bad they didn't have a generator hooked up to it...could have generated enough electricity to power new york for days on end. Here is just one example of the sort of lies they told and then got caught telling:

August 2010, the university had said that they were not in possession of the attachments to the Wahl-Briffa emails. However, two months later, they unequivocally told the Parliamentary Committee that they could produce “all” the emails and that Jones and Briffa had deleted nothing. But in their submissions to the ICO in 2011, they said that they were not able to produce the Wahl-Briffa documents, arguing that:


It is highly likely, even good records management practice, that such emails and attachments would have been deleted in the normal course of business between 2006 and 2008, well in advance of any request for either the emails or the attached documents.


It seems that all of the warmists leaders are liars...proven liars. Hell look at mann always claiming to have been vindicated when in fact, it was found that the methodology for his hockey stick had no more predictive power than random numbers from a telephone book.
 
Last edited:
LOL. You mean that for the denialists, you people are going to hang your hat on any nonsense to disprove honest scientific work. And fellow scientists found his work adaquete for a Phd. Have you reached that point yet?

Oh good, another numan...

It's "DENIER" dumbazz.. WTF is a "denialist" ?

Leave it to the guy screaming science and peer review to use words like "denialist"..

Nice work genius, perhaps you can quote some Tennyson or Longfellow for us next?

:clap2:
 
I am afraid that you have your "facts" crossed. McIntyre caught east anglia in a web of lies which prompted the warmists spin machine to run for days on end.

Too bad you can't get anyone outside of your crybaby cult to believe your cult's lies.

And we find it hilarious, how much that bothers you.

Here's a fine rundown on one of McIntyre's lie-a-thons:

McClimategate continues: Yet another false accusation from McIntyre and McKitrick | Deep Climate

No, I don't expect any denialists to read it. No good cultist would risk sullying the purity of his immortal soul by looking at such heresy. The cult told them the scientists lie, so they BELIEVE.
 
Nice work genius, perhaps you can quote some Tennyson or Longfellow for us next?

:clap2:

A helpful hint ...

To pull off the condescending act, you have to demonstrate that you're intelligent first. Otherwise, you just look ridiculous.

As opposed to you right?

LOL, BS artist... Tell me about your fear of cosmic rays again.. What was that you said? Cosmic rays can cause exposure....ROFL... really?
 
LOL, BS artist... Tell me about your fear of cosmic rays again.. What was that you said? Cosmic rays can cause exposure....ROFL... really?

So now you're also claiming cosmic rays don't cause radiation exposure?

This is almost too easy. I just have to state a fact, and the 'tard brigade will instantly scream that the opposite is true, just to spite me. They've made themselves my happy little puppets.
 
LOL, BS artist... Tell me about your fear of cosmic rays again.. What was that you said? Cosmic rays can cause exposure....ROFL... really?

So now you're also claiming cosmic rays don't cause radiation exposure?

This is almost too easy. I just have to state a fact, and the 'tard brigade will instantly scream that the opposite is true, just to spite me. They've made themselves my happy little puppets.

LOL, tool, do you know what the difference between what you said before and now? Yes you do now that I explained it.. Let's review..You said..

"The EPA seems to think cosmic radiation causes significant exposure."

Now you try and change it to ...

So now you're also claiming cosmic rays don't cause radiation exposure?

LOL, swim socko swim!

You're an idiot. I explained it before, you can be exposed to radiation, but you can't be radiation-ed to exposure.. Catching on yet genius???
 
So your lack of basic english skills is my problem? I don't think so.

Do you 'tards ever wonder why no one else will join your 'tard crusade against me? Even most of the conservatives are embarrassed by you.
 
So your lack of basic english skills is my problem? I don't think so.

Do you 'tards ever wonder why no one else will join your 'tard crusade against me? Even most of the conservatives are embarrassed by you.

Aww, you cryin dude?

Sorry lil fella...:(
 
No, I don't expect any denialists to read it. No good cultist would risk sullying the purity of his immortal soul by looking at such heresy. The cult told them the scientists lie, so they BELIEVE.

I read it but it is laughable. If that sort of mewling claptrap is indicative of where you get your information, then it goes a long way towards explaining why you have fallen victim to the hoax.
 
I am afraid that you have your "facts" crossed. McIntyre caught east anglia in a web of lies which prompted the warmists spin machine to run for days on end.

Too bad you can't get anyone outside of your crybaby cult to believe your cult's lies.

And we find it hilarious, how much that bothers you.

Here's a fine rundown on one of McIntyre's lie-a-thons:

McClimategate continues: Yet another false accusation from McIntyre and McKitrick | Deep Climate

No, I don't expect any denialists to read it. No good cultist would risk sullying the purity of his immortal soul by looking at such heresy. The cult told them the scientists lie, so they BELIEVE.


you consider McIntyre's expose on the Briffa bodge to be a 'lie'? hahaha

I suppose McIntrye pointing out many of the weaknesses in Marcott or Gergis is also another grand lie in your eyes.

I can only encourage people to look at the evidence and explanations from both sides before they make up their own minds. the recent climb-down in alarmist conclusions by Marcott and Shakur would not have happened without outside criticism by skeptics. and you would have not had the opportunity to learn more about the actual proxy reconstructions that are released in the media to large fanfare only to be shown as very weak once critics like McIntyre do the work that peer review is supposed to do.
 
England's Met Office finally took down their link to Marcott13 siting changes in the author's claims compared to the press release at the time. Good thing the horse didn't get out of the barn while the door was open.
 
England's Met Office finally took down their link to Marcott13 siting changes in the author's claims compared to the press release at the time. Good thing the horse didn't get out of the barn while the door was open.

I guess mamooth thinks that the MET office is part of the skeptic conspiracy now.
 
all-marcott-proxies.jpg

marcott-proxies-1-to-25.jpg

marcott-proxies-26-to-50.jpg

marcott-proxies-51-to-73.jpg


Willis has done a good job of posting up the proxies and showing how many of them fail to meet the criteria laid out in the Marcott methodology. Marcott?s proxies ? 10% fail their own criteria for inclusion | Watts Up With That?

but the main problem is still pasting high resolution high variance recent data onto low resolution low variance historic data

Bump for those posters telling us that the Marcott proxies are unequivocal.
 
all-marcott-proxies.jpg

marcott-proxies-1-to-25.jpg

marcott-proxies-26-to-50.jpg

marcott-proxies-51-to-73.jpg


Willis has done a good job of posting up the proxies and showing how many of them fail to meet the criteria laid out in the Marcott methodology. Marcott?s proxies ? 10% fail their own criteria for inclusion | Watts Up With That?

but the main problem is still pasting high resolution high variance recent data onto low resolution low variance historic data

Bump for those posters telling us that the Marcott proxies are unequivocal.

That's the humor that keeps me coming back.... There's a signal in there somewhere. A few contenders for the YAD061 trophy in there for sure.. Too many do the hockey stick before their time.

What can ya say?
 
Last edited:
What's really sad is when people cite a crackpot creationist like Anthony Watt, and then expect others to read their posts with a straight face. That truly is sad. Guys, hasn't it dawned on you that the only thing these guys have going for them is for idjuts like you to take what they say as gospel truth? Watt has published one peer reviewed paper, and it was rather easily refuted. He has since not published anything in any professional peer reviewed journal. All he has education-wise is allegedly a B.S. in meteorology. He doesn't generate any reproducible peer-reviewed work. In fact, it seems that his entire career rests on bad mouthing people who do. You might as well hire a goat herder to remove that brain tumor, because that's pretty much what you are doing here. Congratulations.
 
What's really sad is when people cite a crackpot creationist like Anthony Watt, and then expect others to read their posts with a straight face. That truly is sad. Guys, hasn't it dawned on you that the only thing these guys have going for them is for idjuts like you to take what they say as gospel truth? Watt has published one peer reviewed paper, and it was rather easily refuted. He has since not published anything in any professional peer reviewed journal. All he has education-wise is allegedly a B.S. in meteorology. He doesn't generate any reproducible peer-reviewed work. In fact, it seems that his entire career rests on bad mouthing people who do. You might as well hire a goat herder to remove that brain tumor, because that's pretty much what you are doing here. Congratulations.

Watts didn't write the piece, Willis E did. Are you saying that those are not the Marcott proxies?
 
Great, we are supposed to take the word of a message therapist on matters of climate science now. Good god, man, are you daft?
 
Great, we are supposed to take the word of a message therapist on matters of climate science now. Good god, man, are you daft?







McIntyre destroyed Gergis et al in 10 hours. AFTER the paper had gone through peer review. Suck on that for awhile mr. socko.
 

Forum List

Back
Top