The definitive guide to the "Global Warming" scam

[Crick]

But they have NOT been caught lying to us.

 

[P@triot]

But they have NOT been caught lying to us.

How embarrassing for you....

"I've just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." - Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

That’s an actual climate scientist, admitting in an email, that he fabricated data.



(***Warning*** these indisputable facts will cause left-wing lunatics to become triggered)

 

[P@triot]

But they have NOT been caught lying to us.

How embarrassing for you....

"The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming, and it's a travesty that we can't." - Dr Kevin Trenberth, Climate scientist at National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado

That’s an actual climate scientist, admitting in an email, that it is a “fact” that they “cannot account for the lack of warming”. He then follows that up with his frustration that he can’t account for the lack of warming.



(***Warning*** these indisputable facts will cause left-wings lunatics to become triggered)

 

[P@triot]

But they have NOT been caught lying to us.

How embarrassing for you...

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" - Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

That’s an actual climate scientist, admitting in an email, that he was committed to hiding data that didn’t support his biased, political position.



(***Warning*** these indisputable facts will cause left-wing lunatics to become triggered)

 

[P@triot]

More facts that the left-wing lunatics are not going to like...

The occurrence of both record highs and record lows is declining. It is clear that the occurrence of both record high and record lows has declined since 1895

That is from Climatologist John Christy. It’s a damn shame that the left rejects science and scientists.

Media Touts ‘Clear Sign of Human-Caused Climate Change.’ Here Are the Facts.

 

[Crick]

The content of the emails stolen from the East Anglia mail server were reviewed by:

• The University of East Anglia
• The American Meteorological Association
• The American Geophysical Union
• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• The UK's Met Office
• The IPCC
• The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
• The Royal Society of Chemistry
• The Institute of Physics
• The specially formed independent Science Assessment Panel
• The US National Academy of Science
• Pennsylvania State University
• UEA's Climate Change Email Review Committee
• Inspector General of the US Department of Commerce
• US National Science Foundation

NONE OF WHOM CONCLUDED THE STOLEN EMAILS INDICATED DATA HAD BEEN FALSIFIED. NONE.

 

[P@triot]

The content of the emails stolen from the East Anglia mail server were reviewed by:

• The University of East Anglia
• The American Meteorological Association
• The American Geophysical Union
• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• The UK's Met Office
• The IPCC
• The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
• The Royal Society of Chemistry
• The Institute of Physics
• The specially formed independent Science Assessment Panel
• The US National Academy of Science
• Pennsylvania State University
• UEA's Climate Change Email Review Committee
• Inspector General of the US Department of Commerce
• US National Science Foundation

NONE OF WHOM CONCLUDED THE STOLEN EMAILS INDICATED DATA HAD BEEN FALSIFIED. NONE.

Bwahahaha!!! They are discussing falsified data in black and white!

 

[P@triot]

The content of the emails stolen from the East Anglia mail server were reviewed by:

• The University of East Anglia
• The American Meteorological Association
• The American Geophysical Union
• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• The UK's Met Office
• The IPCC
• The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
• The Royal Society of Chemistry
• The Institute of Physics
• The specially formed independent Science Assessment Panel
• The US National Academy of Science
• Pennsylvania State University
• UEA's Climate Change Email Review Committee
• Inspector General of the US Department of Commerce
• US National Science Foundation

NONE OF WHOM CONCLUDED THE STOLEN EMAILS INDICATED DATA HAD BEEN FALSIFIED. NONE.

All your dumb ass just did was PROVE that those organizations are lying to you as well. Here they are admitting that they falsified data.

"I've just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." - Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

I don’t need an organization to review and then confirm or deny for me. My own eyes see it, dumb shit.

 

[Crick]

I am quite certain you have heard the explanation for this line. We can start by putting down the ACTUAL statement. What you have in quotes is NOT what was actually stated in the subject email. It actually read

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

The decline was a decrease in the tree-growth rates at specific northern locations after 1960. The issue is known as "the divergence problem".

Here is a display of "Mike's 'Nature' trick:

The overlapped region of red and blue data is Mike's 'Nature' trick.

 

[P@triot]

What you have in quotes is NOT what was actually stated in the subject email. It actually read

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

What I quoted is exactly what you just quoted. Yet you claim I did “not” quote what was actually said.

I have to ask....what the fuck is wrong with you? I’m being serious. Is your IQ like in the low 40’s or something. Who reads a quote, claims it was “not” what was said, and then types the exact same thing word-for-word claiming that it is the “actual” quote?

 

[P@triot]

I am quite certain you have heard the explanation for this line.

I am quite certain your IQ is in the 40’s. Which explains why you are so easily duped by the left. For starters, I have never heard that lame excuse before.

The decline was a decrease in the tree-growth rates at specific northern locations after 1960. The issue is known as "the divergence problem".

Your absurd response here is known as the “LIE problem”. He clearly says temps and not trees. In fact, the word tree is never used. You lose.

 

[Crick]

My apologies. The internet is filled with modified versions and in jumping back and forth I fucked up and thought I was looking at your quote when I was not.

Any comment about the reality of Mike's Nature trick and hiding the decline?

 

[P@triot]

My apologies. The internet is filled with modified versions and in jumping back and forth I fucked up and thought I was looking at your quote when I was not.

In other words, I provided fact, and you jumped to the internet desperately searching for an excuse to deny the fact. You weren’t familiar with that situation at all. But you like to pretend that you were and that you can explain it away.

You just proved you’re not interested in the truth. Whenever you receive new information, you’re only goal is to find an ally on the internet who can provide you with an excuse to deny the information.

 

[P@triot]

Any comment about the reality of Mike's Nature trick and hiding the decline?

Already did. Post #471 above.

 

[Crick]

I am quite certain you have heard the explanation for this line.

I am quite certain your IQ is in the 40’s. Which explains why you are so easily duped by the left. For starters, I have never heard that lame excuse before.

The decline was a decrease in the tree-growth rates at specific northern locations after 1960. The issue is known as "the divergence problem".

Your absurd response here is known as the “LIE problem”. He clearly says temps and not trees. In fact, the word tree is never used. You lose.

Dendrochronology, Michael Mann's specialty, has long used tree ring widths as a proxy for temperature. If you are unfamiliar with the use of tree rings as temperature proxies you need to catch up. From Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia

Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said that he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree-ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This "decline" referred to the well-discussed tree-ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by global warming sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[1] John Tierney, writing in The New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[2] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context "trick" was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[3][4] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[5]

REFERENCES

1. Pearce, Fred (9 February 2010). "Part two: How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies". The Guardian. UK. Retrieved 20 March 2010.
2. ^ Jump up to:a b Tierney, John. "E-Mail Fracas Shows Peril of Trying to Spin Science". The New York Times. 1 December 2009.
3. ^ Jump up to:a b c Randerson, James (31 March 2010). "Climate researchers 'secrecy' criticised – but MPs say science remains intact". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 26 July 2010.
4. ^ Jump up to:a b Foley, Henry C.; Scaroni, Alan W.; Yekel, Candice A. (3 February 2010). "RA-10 Inquiry Report: Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Department of Meteorology, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University" (PDF). The Pennsylvania State University. Archived from the original(PDF) on 15 February 2010. Retrieved 7 February 2010.
5. ^ "Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act | Regulatory Initiatives | Climate Change". United States Environmental Protection Agency. 29 September 2010. p. 1.1.4. Retrieved 26 October2010.

 

[mamooth]

He clearly says temps and not trees.

Oh, I see. The problem is that you can't read.

"I've just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

That's talking about two different mathematical tricks.

Mike's trick:
I've just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards)

Keith's Trick:
and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Two separate topics. The second topic is talking about tree rings.

I'm glad we settled that. You're not deliberately lying. You just failed at parsing English.

At this stage, you should thank us for educating you, and then apologize for making baseless accusations of fraud that were motivated entirely by your wild-eyed political fanaticism. You wanted to believe your cult's crazy stories, so you threw common sense out the window and just believed. Alas, your political cult forbids you from admitting that the cult was wrong, so you're now going to double down on the dishonesty.

 

[P@triot]

He clearly says temps and not trees.

Oh, I see. The problem is that you can't read.

"I've just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

That’s hilarious coming from the triggered woman who is attempting to claim that temp actually mean “tree rings”.

 

[P@triot]

He clearly says temps and not trees.

Oh, I see. The problem is that you can't read.

"I've just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Oh, I see. You’d rather embrace your partisan views than truth. Let’s pretend he’s not talking about temps for a moment. Why does he need tricks to hide the decline of tree rings? Science is supposed to be cold, hard data. No “tricks”. No “hiding” anything.

He’s on record talking about how he’s making a fool out of you and you want to drop to your knees and fellate him.

 

[Crick]

Carefully re-read the line. The trick is not to hide the decline. For one thing, there was no decline in temperatures.

 

[P@triot]

Carefully re-read the line. The trick is not to hide the decline. For one thing, there was no decline in temperatures.

Uh...yes...there were. And that’s exactly what the “Global Warming” scam needed to hide.