Some scientists say it's going to be hot, some say cold

[gslack]

Suckeeee...... you are so damned dumb.

We know the about the Milankovic Cycles. Not only that, we also know that according to the orbitual mechanics, we should be slowly descending toward an ice age. In fact, the temperatures of the Little Ice Age should be the norm now, not the rapidly rising tempreratures we are seeing.

Yeah dumazz just proved my point......

My post stated you guys use Milankovic cycles and short term sunspot activity to make your case. Ignoring all other factors like little idiots... And bingo! the little Warmer army of yours shows up and tries to bury the logical post under mountains of garbage, all trying to pretend my post said something different....

Well dickhead your dishonesty and bullshit will not wash today ..

You're LYING. You're the one that ignores other factors. Any good scientist would consider everything, which is why statistical "tricks" are needed to "hide the decline" from other sources and reveal that part that's the result of human activity. If you've noticed the "Global Cooling Hoaxers" have pointed out those words without putting them into context as "proof" that something fishy is going on. Well something is!!! What's fishy is the way they only tell part of the story in order to make political points, having lost the scientific one.

Than prove it for once you little shit head... ALl you do is come in and isnult me and have never not one time ever brought anything other than your fucking mouth to back you...

SO troll boy bring something showing me a liar or shut the fuck up. So far the only people shown to be lying on this has been your pal oldsocks... I busted him several times flat-out and blatantly lying about what data shows.. its documented here in this forum....

 

[konradv]

Yeah dumazz just proved my point......

My post stated you guys use Milankovic cycles and short term sunspot activity to make your case. Ignoring all other factors like little idiots... And bingo! the little Warmer army of yours shows up and tries to bury the logical post under mountains of garbage, all trying to pretend my post said something different....

Well dickhead your dishonesty and bullshit will not wash today ..

You're LYING. You're the one that ignores other factors. Any good scientist would consider everything, which is why statistical "tricks" are needed to "hide the decline" from other sources and reveal that part that's the result of human activity. If you've noticed the "Global Cooling Hoaxers" have pointed out those words without putting them into context as "proof" that something fishy is going on. Well something is!!! What's fishy is the way they only tell part of the story in order to make political points, having lost the scientific one.

Than prove it for once you little shit head... ALl you do is come in and isnult me and have never not one time ever brought anything other than your fucking mouth to back you...

SO troll boy bring something showing me a liar or shut the fuck up. So far the only people shown to be lying on this has been your pal oldsocks... I busted him several times flat-out and blatantly lying about what data shows.. its documented here in this forum....

You're lying again. If you've been insulted, it's because you set the tone with your own insults. I'm a counter puncher and don't resort to that unless provoked by the same. You on the other hand do it as a matter of course whenever you've lost an argument. Why would I need anything but my mouth. My logic has been presented repeatedly and neither you nor anyone else has been able to debunk it. I KNOW it's frustrating, just don't blame YOUR problems on others.

 

[gslack]

You're LYING. You're the one that ignores other factors. Any good scientist would consider everything, which is why statistical "tricks" are needed to "hide the decline" from other sources and reveal that part that's the result of human activity. If you've noticed the "Global Cooling Hoaxers" have pointed out those words without putting them into context as "proof" that something fishy is going on. Well something is!!! What's fishy is the way they only tell part of the story in order to make political points, having lost the scientific one.

Than prove it for once you little shit head... ALl you do is come in and isnult me and have never not one time ever brought anything other than your fucking mouth to back you...

SO troll boy bring something showing me a liar or shut the fuck up. So far the only people shown to be lying on this has been your pal oldsocks... I busted him several times flat-out and blatantly lying about what data shows.. its documented here in this forum....

You're lying again. If you've been insulted, it's because you set the tone with your own insults. I'm a counter puncher and don't resort to that unless provoked by the same. You on the other hand do it as a matter of course whenever you've lost an argument. Why would I need anything but my mouth. My logic has been presented repeatedly and neither you nor anyone else has been able to debunk it. I KNOW it's frustrating, just don't blame YOUR problems on others.

No little troll, you came in after me soon as I disagree with oldsocks... We all see it.. He posts and when someone disagrees you come in a badger them from the side like a parrot.... Don't even try to deny it... Its been your MO since you started here...

Your logic has been rambling half truths and repetition of either already covered information or pseudo-science nonsense already shown to be false.

So then no evidence of my lying again? yeah just you being a troll once again, no proof, nothing but your mouth.... THX for proving my point...

 

[westwall]

Lol, the hockey stick graph?



Nice try.

So, another simpleton incapable of understanding the most simple of science joins the discussion. Why don't you nuts ever research before yapping?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646

"Array of evidence"
The report states: "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world".

Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can - and has - been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century.

Ahh oldie, you perpetrating that fraudulent nonsense again? Here is what the NAS REALLY had to say about MANN's POS graph. I bolded the relevant part of the story...so please get your damn facts straight you old phony!







With their reputations thus disappearing faster than the snows of Kilimanjaro, the zealots have become hysterical. Mann attacks a prominent sceptic, Lawrence Solomon, for citing the scientists’ criticisms of the Antarctica study, and is in turn answered by Solomon -- an exchange reproduced in Canada’s Financial Post, for which Solomon writes, here and here. Mann repeatedly accuses Solomon of lying. In doing so, he has left himself dramatically exposed. Claiming that Solomon

repeatedly lies about my work

he cites as evidence of this that his ‘hockey stick’ study was

vindicated in a report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences

and seeks to back up this assertion by citing the way the media reported this study as

‘Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate’ (New York Times), ‘Backing for Hockey Stick Graph’ (BBC), and so on.

This is, to put it mildly, disingenuous. While it is certainly true that the media reported it in this sheep-like way -- thanks in part to the manner in which the NAS chose circumspectly to spin its own conclusions -- it is nevertheless the case that in every important particular the NAS actually agreed with the McIntyre/McKitrick criticisms. Far from vindicating the ‘hockey stick’ graph, the NAS said that although it found some of Mann’s work ‘plausible’, there were so many scientific uncertainties attached to it that it did not have great confidence in it. Thus it said that

Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions

and that they had downplayed the

uncertainties of the published reconstructions...Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.’

What Mann also does not say in his diatribe is that a subsequent House Energy and Commerce Committee report chaired by Edward Wegman totally destroyed the credibility of the ‘hockey stick’ study and devastatingly ripped apart Mann’s methodology as ‘bad mathematics’. Furthermore, when Gerald North, the chairman of the NAS panel -- which Mann claims ‘vindicated him’ – and panel member Peter Bloomfield were asked at the House Committee hearings whether or not they agreed with Wegman’s harsh criticisms, they said they did:

CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

DR. BLOOMFIELD. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

WALLACE: ‘the two reports were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.’ (Am Stat Assoc.)

As Mark Twain might have put it, there are three kinds of lies -- lies, damned lies and global warming science.

 

[westwall]

Suckeeee...... you are so damned dumb.

We know the about the Milankovic Cycles. Not only that, we also know that according to the orbitual mechanics, we should be slowly descending toward an ice age. In fact, the temperatures of the Little Ice Age should be the norm now, not the rapidly rising tempreratures we are seeing.

Yeah dumazz just proved my point......

My post stated you guys use Milankovic cycles and short term sunspot activity to make your case. Ignoring all other factors like little idiots... And bingo! the little Warmer army of yours shows up and tries to bury the logical post under mountains of garbage, all trying to pretend my post said something different....

Well dickhead your dishonesty and bullshit will not wash today ..

You're LYING. You're the one that ignores other factors. Any good scientist would consider everything, which is why statistical "tricks" are needed to "hide the decline" from other sources and reveal that part that's the result of human activity. If you've noticed the "Global Cooling Hoaxers" have pointed out those words without putting them into context as "proof" that something fishy is going on. Well something is!!! What's fishy is the way they only tell part of the story in order to make political points, having lost the scientific one.

konrad,

Your side ONLY pays attention to the CO2 side of the equation and ignores all other variables. Get real dood (intentional mispelling as I don't wish to offent The Dude!)
All you harp about is CO2 this and CO2 that. Well get a clue, CO2 has been rising for 100 years and the temp is dropping again....as expected.

This part ain't rocket science.