Qs for Climategate deniers

[Liminal]

Have you ever thought about asking an intelligent question? Try it some time.

He did ask an intelligent and pertinent question. Why did Mann clip and prune the proxies he used to exaggerate the fit? Also, why did he pad the terminal points of the proxies with instrumental data to align the splice?

You guys are quick to present ad hominem but you never seem to address the actual questions.

I guess he's just lucky to have you around to interpret and translate for him. Otherwise he'd sound pretty stupid, wouldn't he.

Like I said- all ad homs no substance.

It is a travesty that climate science did not come down hard on Mann's mistakes and incorrect methodologies. If they had done the right thing 15 years ago we wouldn't have anywhere near as much tainted work published.

As if anyone on this forum could recognize tainted work without media outlets to guide them.

I fail to see your reasoning. Are you saying that mistakes are only real if a person finds them by himself? Everyone has to reinvent the wheel, every day?

Mann made a serious mistake by cherrypicking not only the proxies he used but also the PORTIONS of the proxies he used. If you cannot see the problem with that you fail to understand the concept of science.

THE concept of science? Are you sure there isn't more than one?

 

[Kosh]

The climate has never changed and humans do not have an impact on anything. God will handle everything.

Muhammed, given that the deniers were already revealed several times to be liars and frauds concerning the topic of Climategate, why bring it up again? Do you just want further humiliation?

I'm guessing it's more of a cult initiation thing. If Muhammed shows to his fellow cultists here how he so lovingly kisses the keisters of proven denier frauds and liars, he'll earn major brownie points with his cult. If he never leaves the safe zone of his cult, it won't matter that the rest of the world laughs at him.

The shear ignorance of these posts is stunning.. It really is cult like adherence to the talking points despite mountains of evidence showing the fraud..

No this ignorance is on display all the time in this forum.

AGW is a cult and a religion not based on science, many of these AGW "scientists" also believe in the theory of Gaia. That is also becoming a religion..

Gaia hypothesis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

This is even being taught in science classes in universities..

The Gaia Hypothesis

Kind of interesting cult propaganda being spewen at our universities.. Scary actually, that they would try and replace religion with their own brand..

I guess if James Hansen can openly do it, why not anyone else.

That is why I think tenure is a bad thing!

 

[Muhammed]

Pickins' must be getting mighty thin in Denierstan, if they're trying to resurrect a dead horse at this stage of decomposition.

As one example of denier fraud, the "trick" phrase. "Trick" was used to mean "a clever thing", not "a deception". Yet all the deniers tried to deliberately pass off the fraud that it meant "deception".

And none of the deniers are sorry for attempting such fraud. They're only sorry they got caught.

You're just repeating their ridiculous excuse.

Why do they need to hide anything?

 

[IanC]

Pickins' must be getting mighty thin in Denierstan, if they're trying to resurrect a dead horse at this stage of decomposition.

As one example of denier fraud, the "trick" phrase. "Trick" was used to mean "a clever thing", not "a deception". Yet all the deniers tried to deliberately pass off the fraud that it meant "deception".

And none of the deniers are sorry for attempting such fraud. They're only sorry they got caught.

You're just repeating their ridiculous excuse.

Why do they need to hide anything?

If they didn't hide the tricks and cherry picking then they wouldn't have anything alarmist to show.

 

[Old Rocks]

Again, bringing up this disproven bullshit in order to divert attention from what is going on right now with the El Nino. Ain't gonna work, silly assholes. Nobody cares about those false allegations now.

 

[bripat9643]

Have you ever thought about asking an intelligent question? Try it some time.

He did ask an intelligent and pertinent question. Why did Mann clip and prune the proxies he used to exaggerate the fit? Also, why did he pad the terminal points of the proxies with instrumental data to align the splice?

You guys are quick to present ad hominem but you never seem to address the actual questions.

I guess he's just lucky to have you around to interpret and translate for him. Otherwise he'd sound pretty stupid, wouldn't he.

Like I said- all ad homs no substance.

It is a travesty that climate science did not come down hard on Mann's mistakes and incorrect methodologies. If they had done the right thing 15 years ago we wouldn't have anywhere near as much tainted work published.

As if anyone on this forum could recognize tainted work without media outlets to guide them.

I fail to see your reasoning. Are you saying that mistakes are only real if a person finds them by himself? Everyone has to reinvent the wheel, every day?

Mann made a serious mistake by cherrypicking not only the proxies he used but also the PORTIONS of the proxies he used. If you cannot see the problem with that you fail to understand the concept of science.

Mann's statistical methods were also designed to produce a hockey stick no matter what the input. McIntyre demonstrated that if you input white noise into Mann's program, you still ended up with a hockey stick. The guy is a class A con man.

 

[Billy_Bob]

He did ask an intelligent and pertinent question. Why did Mann clip and prune the proxies he used to exaggerate the fit? Also, why did he pad the terminal points of the proxies with instrumental data to align the splice?

You guys are quick to present ad hominem but you never seem to address the actual questions.

I guess he's just lucky to have you around to interpret and translate for him. Otherwise he'd sound pretty stupid, wouldn't he.

Like I said- all ad homs no substance.

It is a travesty that climate science did not come down hard on Mann's mistakes and incorrect methodologies. If they had done the right thing 15 years ago we wouldn't have anywhere near as much tainted work published.

As if anyone on this forum could recognize tainted work without media outlets to guide them.

I fail to see your reasoning. Are you saying that mistakes are only real if a person finds them by himself? Everyone has to reinvent the wheel, every day?

Mann made a serious mistake by cherrypicking not only the proxies he used but also the PORTIONS of the proxies he used. If you cannot see the problem with that you fail to understand the concept of science.

Mann's statistical methods were also designed to produce a hockey stick no matter what the input. McIntyre demonstrated that if you input white noise into Mann's program, you still ended up with a hockey stick. The guy is a class A con man.

This one line of code will produce a hockey stick out of ANYTHING placed into it. Random numbers, white noise, etc. Mann is quite a piece of work.. To think James Hansen, Phil Jones, among many others were privy to this deception too and they have not been held accountable.

 

[bripat9643]

I guess he's just lucky to have you around to interpret and translate for him. Otherwise he'd sound pretty stupid, wouldn't he.

Like I said- all ad homs no substance.

It is a travesty that climate science did not come down hard on Mann's mistakes and incorrect methodologies. If they had done the right thing 15 years ago we wouldn't have anywhere near as much tainted work published.

As if anyone on this forum could recognize tainted work without media outlets to guide them.

I fail to see your reasoning. Are you saying that mistakes are only real if a person finds them by himself? Everyone has to reinvent the wheel, every day?

Mann made a serious mistake by cherrypicking not only the proxies he used but also the PORTIONS of the proxies he used. If you cannot see the problem with that you fail to understand the concept of science.

Mann's statistical methods were also designed to produce a hockey stick no matter what the input. McIntyre demonstrated that if you input white noise into Mann's program, you still ended up with a hockey stick. The guy is a class A con man.

View attachment 41350

This one line of code will produce a hockey stick out of ANYTHING placed into it. Random numbers, white noise, etc. Mann is quite a piece of work.. To think James Hansen, Phil Jones, among many others were privy to this deception too and they have not been held accountable.

They all belong in prison.

 

[IanC]

I think we should work on repairing the science first. If public humiliation and jail time for Mann was part of that process, so much the better.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Could you explain how using a "trick" to "hide" things constitutes sound science?

There's lots of tricks in science used to hide things.
You could be a bit more specific.

 

[Muhammed]

Could you explain how using a "trick" to "hide" things constitutes sound science?

There's lots of tricks in science used to hide things.
You could be a bit more specific.

Hiding the decline.

I know exactly why they do it. It's to hide the fact that using dendroclimatology to make temperature reconstructions is junk science.

 

[bripat9643]

Could you explain how using a "trick" to "hide" things constitutes sound science?

There's lots of tricks in science used to hide things.
You could be a bit more specific.

Real scientists don't hide things. That's the sure indication of a con artist.

 

[Old Rocks]

Figure 6: Composite Northern Hemisphere land and land plus ocean temperature reconstructions and estimated 95% confidence intervals. Shown for comparison are published Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (Mann 2008).

What evidence is there for the hockey stick

There have been more than a dozen studies that have verified the Mann Graph.

 

[Muhammed]

Figure 6: Composite Northern Hemisphere land and land plus ocean temperature reconstructions and estimated 95% confidence intervals. Shown for comparison are published Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (Mann 2008).

What evidence is there for the hockey stick

There have been more than a dozen studies that have verified the Mann Graph.

Bullshit. It was proven to be bunk a decade ago.

 

[bripat9643]

Figure 6: Composite Northern Hemisphere land and land plus ocean temperature reconstructions and estimated 95% confidence intervals. Shown for comparison are published Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (Mann 2008).

What evidence is there for the hockey stick

There have been more than a dozen studies that have verified the Mann Graph.

They're all frauds just like Michael Mann. They use the same tree ring records and the same bogus statistical "analysis" as Mann. Steve McIntyre has debunked every one of them.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Could you explain how using a "trick" to "hide" things constitutes sound science?

There's lots of tricks in science used to hide things.
You could be a bit more specific.

Hiding the decline.

I know exactly why they do it. It's to hide the fact that using dendroclimatology to make temperature reconstructions is junk science.

If you know eactly why they do it why are you asking?

You do realize you could toss out all the dendroclimatology you like and AGW still stands, right? It is merely one line of evidence.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Could you explain how using a "trick" to "hide" things constitutes sound science?

There's lots of tricks in science used to hide things.
You could be a bit more specific.

Real scientists don't hide things. That's the sure indication of a con artist.

Mmm, OK. Real scientists "hide" things to illuminate other things all the time. You would hide noise to detect a signal, for instance, or hide the body of the sun to get a better look at solar flares.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Figure 6: Composite Northern Hemisphere land and land plus ocean temperature reconstructions and estimated 95% confidence intervals. Shown for comparison are published Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (Mann 2008).

What evidence is there for the hockey stick

There have been more than a dozen studies that have verified the Mann Graph.

Bullshit. It was proven to be bunk a decade ago.

You cant seriously be this mentally challenged. I call BS.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Could you explain how using a "trick" to "hide" things constitutes sound science?

Asking the Decline Hiders to fess up is not time well spent

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Could you explain how using a "trick" to "hide" things constitutes sound science?

Asking the Decline Hiders to fess up is not time well spent

Go drink your Brawndo.