Qs for Climategate deniers

[CrusaderFrank]

Mann and his one fucking tree ring.

What a joke

The Global warming is right here under my pinkie

 

[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.

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.

Another common false analogy spewed by another global warming cult nutjob.

 

[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.

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.

Of course, we all know that what warmists hide is the data.

 

[Old Rocks]

Come on, dumb fucks, link to some credible sources. And, no, Breibart and Watts are not credible. You know what a real scientific source is, correct?

 

[Muhammed]

Come on, dumb fucks, link to some credible sources. And, no, Breibart and Watts are not credible. You know what a real scientific source is, correct?

You are getting way off topic. The topic = questions for climategate deniers. Not your personal feelings about Anthony.

Why can't you answer these following 2 questions?

Why do the global warming alarmists need to hide the decline?

Why do they need to use falsified data in a paper regarding the UHI effect?

 

[Muhammed]

And another question for climategate deniers...

What is the difference between a scientist and an acedemic?

 

[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.

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.

I used to sort of buy that before I did a lot of reasearch and became an expert on the subject. ( AKA, a climatologist.)

 

[Old Rocks]

Fellow, one has to demonstrate their expertise, thus far I see nothing in your post to demonstrate anything that would approach any kind of expertise on the subject.

 

[bripat9643]

Fellow, one has to demonstrate their expertise, thus far I see nothing in your post to demonstrate anything that would approach any kind of expertise on the subject.

Hmmm, no, you don't have to demonstrate your "expertise" for your argument to be true. Arguments are either true or false. It doesn't matter what your credentials are.

Of course, the appeal to authority is your favorite logical fallacy.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah yes, appeal to authority, as in one takes one's car to the auto mechanic, not the local brain surgeon. And, if one has the least bit of common sense, one trusts what people with academic degrees representing decades of study state, over what obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weatherman state.

 

[bripat9643]

Ah yes, appeal to authority, as in one takes one's car to the auto mechanic, not the local brain surgeon. And, if one has the least bit of common sense, one trusts what people with academic degrees representing decades of study state, over what obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weatherman state.

The rule you use to find someone to fix your car is not the same rule you use to determine whether scientific theories are correct. The fact that you believe it is shows what a blithering imbecile you are.

Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics. According to your theory of knowledge, solid state computers shouldn't work.

 

[Old Rocks]

Silly boy, I don't deal in quantum mechanics, and neither do you. I do deal in geology and earth related sciences. And the people in those disciplines state that AGW is real and a clear and present danger.

 

[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.

I used to sort of buy that before I did a lot of reasearch and became an expert on the subject. ( AKA, a climatologist.)

Who did you study under?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Ah yes, appeal to authority, as in one takes one's car to the auto mechanic, not the local brain surgeon. And, if one has the least bit of common sense, one trusts what people with academic degrees representing decades of study state, over what obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weatherman state.

The rule you use to find someone to fix your car is not the same rule you use to determine whether scientific theories are correct. The fact that you believe it is shows what a blithering imbecile you are.

Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics. According to your theory of knowledge, solid state computers shouldn't work.

Not exactly a fair comparison considering the issues that gave Einstein reservations still have yet to be fully resolved.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ah yes, appeal to authority, as in one takes one's car to the auto mechanic, not the local brain surgeon. And, if one has the least bit of common sense, one trusts what people with academic degrees representing decades of study state, over what obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weatherman state.

As Old Crock uses his second fallacy of choice, ad hominem attack without showing any basis in facts.

Appeal to authority and appeal to degreed authority... He forgets that most major accomplishments in the last 200 years were not done by "degreed" people but simple men who understood the facts. Ill go with those who have observed the facts for 45 years and present them with impunity like Watts does over your deceptive little liars of the IPCC, EPA, NASA, and NOAA.

Keep running in circles Old Crock, it's fun to watch.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

I used to sort of buy that before I did a lot of reasearch and became an expert on the subject. ( AKA, a climatologist.)

Who did you study under?

Why dont you and old fraud go first... Why dont you reveal who you are and where it is you obtained your degrees.. And once your done exposing yourself, we will verify your credentials to even discuss the subject, or if showing our credentials is warranted, further with you.

 

[orogenicman]

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

Could you explain how willful misrepresentation of one sentence in an illegally obtained government e-mail constitutes anything other than willful misrepresentation of one sentence in an illegally obtained government e-mail?

 

[orogenicman]

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.

They've run out of options.

 

[IanC]

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.

Good reference. Climate science IS an idiocracy.

The point of MBH 98,98 was to convince people that the 90's was the warmest decade evah. It turned out that the proxies were cherrypicked and the methodology was flawed.

Since then the proxies have been updated and they show a warm MWP (equivalent to now) and a cooler LIA. I would like to say that the methodologies have also improved but they haven't. Mann still gets away with using upsidedown Tiljander, Steig smears West Peninsula warmth over all of Antarctica, Dessler's gang throws out actual temperature readings for wind proxies to find the hotspot, etc,etc.

In the real world of temperature measurements some adjustments are 'more equal' than others. Time of observation bias gets a full pull at over a tenth of a degree but the Urban Heat Island effect gets zero (it even goes the wrong way in BEST). Homogenization schemes have distorted individual station data to the point that there is only a global temperature left, and it is adjusted higher every year by warming the recent and cooling the past.

Rant off/

 

[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.

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.

I used to sort of buy that before I did a lot of reasearch and became an expert on the subject. ( AKA, a climatologist.)

Who did you study under?

I researched independently. When you are as smart as I am (IQ = 158) you don't need a tutor.