More BS Global Warming from MSM

[mamooth]

Actually it was a very brilliant statistician who debunked the MBH hockey stick

Oh, you poor thing. There's not a thought in your empty little head that wasn't put there by your liars' cult. You actually think McIntyre is a 'brilliant statistician", and that his total failure at statistics was a "debunking." Bless your little heart.

For everyone's amusement, here's the Rationwiki entry on him.

Steve McIntyre - RationalWiki

It's you who have been conned. It can happen to anyone. I believed CAGW bullshit at first too.

Free clue: Saying "CAGW" instantly reveals the speaker to be a WUWT imbecile, because nobody except those mewling cultists ever uses the term.

Hence, it's best for you not use it, unless you want everyone to instantly point and laugh. However, if your goal is to advertise what a loyal bootlicking cultist you are, in order to score more cult brownie points with your fellow cultists, then by all means, go ahead and keep using it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Actually it was a very brilliant statistician who debunked the MBH hockey stick

Oh, you poor thing. There's not a thought in your empty little head that wasn't put there by your liars' cult. You actually think McIntyre is a 'brilliant statistician", and that his total failure at statistics was a "debunking." Bless your little heart.

For everyone's amusement, here's the Rationwiki entry on him.

Steve McIntyre - RationalWiki

It's you who have been conned. It can happen to anyone. I believed CAGW bullshit at first too.

Free clue: Saying "CAGW" instantly reveals the speaker to be a WUWT imbecile, because nobody except those mewling cultists ever uses the term.

Hence, it's best for you not use it, unless you want everyone to instantly point and laugh. However, if your goal is to advertise what a loyal bootlicking cultist you are, in order to score more cult brownie points with your fellow cultists, then by all means, go ahead and keep using it.

WE know all about the WIki left wing deception and lies.. Miriam O'Brien propaganda at its finest.. McIntyre laid waste to your lies by showing the math errors and explaining how the deception was done. To bad your to blind to see the lies and deceptions from your masters.

This fits you...

"it's best for you not use it, unless you want everyone to instantly point and laugh. However, if your goal is to advertise what a loyal bootlicking cultist you are, in order to score more cult brownie points with your fellow cultists, then by all means, go ahead and keep using it."

I wish I had said it about you.. But this shoe fits you, snugly!

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL More than a dozen studies by independent scientists worldwide, and the Hockey Stick has been verified in every one of them. Silly Billy, you remain an idiot.

 

[jc456]

Moron, the only bs I see is your denier cult saying that all science is bs. Please go kindly fuck yourself!

cause it is.

 

[Billy_Bob]

LOL More than a dozen studies by independent scientists worldwide, and the Hockey Stick has been verified in every one of them. Silly Billy, you remain an idiot.

in a word.. nope!

Another believer in Al Gores Fantasy..

 

[Crick]

Moron, the only bs I see is your denier cult saying that all science is bs. Please go kindly fuck yourself!

cause it is.

"All science is bs". JC, I guess you've finally come out of the closet.

 

[Crick]

LOL More than a dozen studies by independent scientists worldwide, and the Hockey Stick has been verified in every one of them. Silly Billy, you remain an idiot.

in a word.. nope!

Another believer in Al Gores Fantasy..

Really?

Here is a list of studies critical of MBH 98 and 99. Note the proportion of these by McKittrick and McIntyre. Note the total number. Note that the GRL letter is the only piece in this set that actually received a peer review. All other pieces either received none or received suggestions and comments from friends of M & M.
Hockey Stick Studies



Here are some peer reviewed studies that confirmed MBH 98 and 99
http://www.rap.ucar.edu/projects/rc4a/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/Resources/Seminar/readings/Huang_boreholeTemp_Nature'00.pdf
NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Smith et al. 2006 500-year Northern Hemisphere Speleothem Temperature Reconstruction
Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records | Science
NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Mann et al. 2008 Temperature Reconstructions
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676/surface-temperature-reconstructions-for-the-last-2000-years
Ice‐borne prehistoric finds in the Swiss Alps reflect Holocene glacier fluctuations

 

[Billy_Bob]

LOL More than a dozen studies by independent scientists worldwide, and the Hockey Stick has been verified in every one of them. Silly Billy, you remain an idiot.

in a word.. nope!

Another believer in Al Gores Fantasy..

Really?

Here is a list of studies critical of MBH 98 and 99. Note the proportion of these by McKittrick and McIntyre. Note the total number. Note that the GRL letter is the only piece in this set that actually received a peer review. All other pieces either received none or received suggestions and comments from friends of M & M.
Hockey Stick Studies



Here are some peer reviewed studies that confirmed MBH 98 and 99
http://www.rap.ucar.edu/projects/rc4a/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/Resources/Seminar/readings/Huang_boreholeTemp_Nature'00.pdf
NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Smith et al. 2006 500-year Northern Hemisphere Speleothem Temperature Reconstruction
Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records | Science
NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Mann et al. 2008 Temperature Reconstructions
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676/surface-temperature-reconstructions-for-the-last-2000-years
Ice‐borne prehistoric finds in the Swiss Alps reflect Holocene glacier fluctuations

LOL

And every one is predicated on Michael Mann's failed work.. Talk about circular reasoning.. Taking a failed work as your basis to prove it was true... Now this is left wing pseudo science at its best. using a proven lie as the basis for your own work to prove it isn't... Are you really this stupid?

Once again you prove that you do not read the things you cite as evidence for your point. Its post it and hope no one catches you in the deception..

 

[Crick]

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. None of those is "based" on Mann's work. They are all independent studies of alternate proxies which find the same "hockey stick"; dramatic rise in the 20th century following centuries of slow cooling.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. None of those is "based" on Mann's work. They are all independent studies of alternate proxies which find the same "hockey stick"; dramatic rise in the 20th century following centuries of slow cooling.

You obviously don't know how to read the citations... I am not surprised..

 

[Crick]

The citations?!? How about reading the fucking studies you ignorant dipshit?

Sent from my VS985 4G using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Moron, the only bs I see is your denier cult saying that all science is bs. Please go kindly fuck yourself!

Very scientific...the sum of all left wing science in the most telling of ways.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The citations?!? How about reading the fucking studies you ignorant dipshit?

Sent from my VS985 4G using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

LOL..

I have.. You obviously have NOT...

 

[Crick]

Your use of the term "citations" clearly indicates that you don't even know what they are.

 

[jc456]

Look, little lying cocksucker, you will not read a scientific paper in any case. You are simply to ignorant to understand anything beyond third grade science.

so you admit you post third grade science. I thought so.

 

[jc456]

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. None of those is "based" on Mann's work. They are all independent studies of alternate proxies which find the same "hockey stick"; dramatic rise in the 20th century following centuries of slow cooling.

it was all done following Mann's theory. all of it. And putting white noise in the chart produced the same result. hmmmmmmm, that should tell you something eh?

 

[Billy_Bob]

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. None of those is "based" on Mann's work. They are all independent studies of alternate proxies which find the same "hockey stick"; dramatic rise in the 20th century following centuries of slow cooling.

it was all done following Mann's theory. all of it. And putting white noise in the chart produced the same result. hmmmmmmm, that should tell you something eh?

lol...

 

[Crick]

Again, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. All of those studies covered alternative proxies. None of them made any use of MBH 98 or 99 except to say that their results matched his results which is what you'd expect if they are all accurate measures of paleo temperatures. And you're ignorant bullshit is exactly what I'd expect from a lying dullard such as you've repeatedly demonstrated yourself to be.

 

[skookerasbil]

The msm is fake newsing their way out of existence, but especially places like the NY Times and CNN. Its all good..........

http://www.thewrap.com/new-poll-says-president-trump-is-more-trusted-than-untruthful-news-media/

 

[skookerasbil]

All these AGW smart asses who live in the own reality bubble because a handful of people cling desperately to this "man-made" global warming notion.

How do we k now they live in a bubble?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/pew-most-americans-dont-believe-scientific-consensus-climate-change

oh.....and by "most" it means a huge majority!!

Begs the question.........are you a bubble dweller?

Now.....who's not winning?