The Global Warmers Have Lost the War

[orogenicman]

The Global Warming Hoax's gold standard has long been the "Hockey stick graph". In Al Gore's Riefenstahlian propaganda film, "an inconvenient truth", the audience audibly gasps!! when the Hockey Stick graph is revealed. It sure looks DRAMATIC!! OMFG!! One can only conclude that (gasp!) Humans are ruining the climate!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!...RUN!!! ........ (but only after we advance our political agenda!)

But it turns out that the entire thing was a hoax. Just a "Michael Mann" made fable. There was no hockey stick. The data was fake. The entire statistical foundation upon which the Global warming hoax was built on was nothing but a miasma of lies, deceit, and malfeasance. They lied for $$$ and to advance a political agenda.

Despicable.

What is despicable is that you are one ignorant liar. The Hockey Stick Graph has been confirmed by over a dozen different studies using many different proxies.

What evidence is there for the hockey stick

Of course, these examples only go back around 500 years - this doesn't even cover theMedieval Warm Period. When you combine all the various proxies, including ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites, it's possible to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures without tree-ring proxies going back 1,300 years (Mann 2008). The result is that temperatures in recent decades exceed the maximumproxy estimate (including uncertainty range) for the past 1,300 years. When you include tree-ring data, the same result holds for the past 1,700 years.

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

Paleoclimatology draws upon a range of proxies and methodologies to calculate past temperatures. This allows independent confirmation of the basic hockey stick result: that the past few decades are the hottest in the past 1,300 years.

The Hockey Stick has been proven to be a fraud, and that includes versions II, III and IV. The so-called "studies" that support the hockey stick are all done by Mann cronies who are in on the con. Their studies are also proven frauds.

Actually, no matter how many times you deniers make that claim, it is still not true. None of it. Nowhere in the peer reviewed literature is there any substantive paper that puts to bed the so-called hockey stick. And it is still being referenced in other works. Moreover, Mann isn't the only one who has generated such a pattern from various climate data. Again, none of your claims are true, but then, they rarely are.

All that shows is that the peer review process is utterly corrupt. That's why they call it PAL review. The "peers" doing the reviewing are the good buddies of the authors of the papers being reviewed. It's all a tight little cli

That is rule #2. Congratulations on proving my point.

 

[bripat9643]

To my knowledge, McInTyred wrote one peer reviewed paper related to climate science. In it, he found a small statistical problem that led to a revision in the original paper. However, that revision amounted to a hill of beans because it made no difference whatsoever in the outcome. Next.

Your knowledge of the subject is remarkably limited then. Here are three of a bunch. Enjoy!

Paper claiming hottest 60-year-span in 1 000 years put on hold after being published online - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

Controversial paper linking conspiracy ideation to climate change skepticism formally retracted - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

Frontiers Retraction Recursive fury Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation Personality and Social Psychology

Now that is Funny... Every single attempt to create a "link" so that they can scream that they have the high ground goes down in flames simply because they make up shit which has no basis in fact or science.. You would have thought that the failure of CAGW would have lent them a clue about who they are trying to belittle and marginalize..

The public has become desensitized to the Alyinsky tactics of marginalization and look beyond the hyperbole at the facts now. Alarmists have no where to hide now... and that simply makes me laugh at their stupid asses..

Oh Billy Bob, we are well aware of who you deniers are, and what your motives are.

Ok sooth-sayer; what are my motives? I'm betting your clairvoyance is impeded by crap..

As with every other denier here, your motives are rather transparent. I'll quote from the Six aspects of Denial,

Six Aspects of Denial Watching the Deniers

"For libertarians and free market advocates, climate change is a direct challenge to their assumption of unlimited growth. Any response to climate change will involve government intervention and global governance structures (such as a binding treaty to limit CO2 emissions). To such ideologues, it is axiomatic that such responses are “bad”. And yet the “market” can’t fix climate. Caught between accepting the science and what it entails and rejecting it in favour of their faith in the market, they reject the science. The same could be said of religious conservatives: like evolution, climate change is a direct challenge to the idea that a god/s has a governance role and is directly responsible for managing the day-to-day affairs of the world. That a god/s would let climate change happen and not intervene is deeply challenging to the idea that a) they would allow such “evil” and b) the god/s is omnipotent."

And so, in order to combat such "evil liberal trappings", you people follow these rules:

1) Doubt the science – This is the standard tactic of all denial movements. Creationists attack evolution and geology as they contradict the belief a god/s created the world just under 10,000 years ago. Alternative health practitioners claim the science that demonstrates the lack of effectiveness of their treatments is at fault. On web sites, in books and on internet forums deniers attack the science by cherry picking data, misrepresenting research or making bogus claims.

2) Question the motives and integrity of scientists – This is the favourite tactic of the climate change denial movement. They claim the scientists are engaged in fraud, or are being pressured by governments to make up the results. They make up vast conspiracy theories in order to cast aspersions on the motives of climate scientists, physicists and biologists whose work confirms the reality of climate change. They use the “follow the money” argument, stating scientists are making up climate change in order to get research funding. All of these are simply ad hominem attacks: playing the man.

3) Magnify disagreements among scientists and cite gadflies – Again, one of the favourite tactics of the denial movement. The tiny percentage of actual scientists who express scepticism (Plimer, Lindzen) are dwarfed by the thousands of scientists who agree with the consensus that climate change is happening. But the denial movement exploits the media’s tendency to present “both sides” of the argument and thus help perpetrate the myth scientists are still debating climate change when in fact there is near unanimous agreement.

4) Exaggerate potential harm – This normally takes the form of “harming” the economy if the government intervenes. This is why opposition to cap-and-trade (or emissions trading schemes) are anathema to some parts of the denial movement. They also claim a climate change is an excuse to usher in a “world government”. The denial movement plays up to these fears, playing on the anxiety that they will lose their freedoms (see below).

5) Appeal to personal freedom – One of the great fears of the denial movements is a loss of freedom. Whether economic or political, they have a paranoid fear that someone (government, scientists, greens, politicians) are going to restrict their right to unlimited consumption or their freedom of speech. But reality is not a democracy. We don’t get to choose the truth about climate change, just as a popular debate about evolution does not decide the scientific facts. The denial movement loves to frame this as a “debate” when none exists, claiming they have a right to doubt the science. Of course they do. But it does not mean they are correct.

There isn't a single denier on this forum who doesn't do these things. Not a one.

You have a well constructed defence mechanism against the truth.

 

[bripat9643]

The Global Warming Hoax's gold standard has long been the "Hockey stick graph". In Al Gore's Riefenstahlian propaganda film, "an inconvenient truth", the audience audibly gasps!! when the Hockey Stick graph is revealed. It sure looks DRAMATIC!! OMFG!! One can only conclude that (gasp!) Humans are ruining the climate!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!...RUN!!! ........ (but only after we advance our political agenda!)

But it turns out that the entire thing was a hoax. Just a "Michael Mann" made fable. There was no hockey stick. The data was fake. The entire statistical foundation upon which the Global warming hoax was built on was nothing but a miasma of lies, deceit, and malfeasance. They lied for $$$ and to advance a political agenda.

Despicable.

What is despicable is that you are one ignorant liar. The Hockey Stick Graph has been confirmed by over a dozen different studies using many different proxies.

What evidence is there for the hockey stick

Of course, these examples only go back around 500 years - this doesn't even cover theMedieval Warm Period. When you combine all the various proxies, including ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites, it's possible to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures without tree-ring proxies going back 1,300 years (Mann 2008). The result is that temperatures in recent decades exceed the maximumproxy estimate (including uncertainty range) for the past 1,300 years. When you include tree-ring data, the same result holds for the past 1,700 years.

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

Paleoclimatology draws upon a range of proxies and methodologies to calculate past temperatures. This allows independent confirmation of the basic hockey stick result: that the past few decades are the hottest in the past 1,300 years.

The Hockey Stick has been proven to be a fraud, and that includes versions II, III and IV. The so-called "studies" that support the hockey stick are all done by Mann cronies who are in on the con. Their studies are also proven frauds.

Actually, no matter how many times you deniers make that claim, it is still not true. None of it. Nowhere in the peer reviewed literature is there any substantive paper that puts to bed the so-called hockey stick. And it is still being referenced in other works. Moreover, Mann isn't the only one who has generated such a pattern from various climate data. Again, none of your claims are true, but then, they rarely are.

All that shows is that the peer review process is utterly corrupt. That's why they call it PAL review. The "peers" doing the reviewing are the good buddies of the authors of the papers being reviewed. It's all a tight little cli

That is rule #2. Congratulations on proving my point.

You mean pointing out obvious frauds and con artists is "denial?" So was the DA who indicted Bernie Madoff also in denial?

Your tactic alleviates the requirement to support anything you claim with facts or logic, doesn't it? You show all the classic symptoms of a conspiracy theorist.

 

[orogenicman]

What is despicable is that you are one ignorant liar. The Hockey Stick Graph has been confirmed by over a dozen different studies using many different proxies.

What evidence is there for the hockey stick

Of course, these examples only go back around 500 years - this doesn't even cover theMedieval Warm Period. When you combine all the various proxies, including ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites, it's possible to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures without tree-ring proxies going back 1,300 years (Mann 2008). The result is that temperatures in recent decades exceed the maximumproxy estimate (including uncertainty range) for the past 1,300 years. When you include tree-ring data, the same result holds for the past 1,700 years.

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

Paleoclimatology draws upon a range of proxies and methodologies to calculate past temperatures. This allows independent confirmation of the basic hockey stick result: that the past few decades are the hottest in the past 1,300 years.

The Hockey Stick has been proven to be a fraud, and that includes versions II, III and IV. The so-called "studies" that support the hockey stick are all done by Mann cronies who are in on the con. Their studies are also proven frauds.

Actually, no matter how many times you deniers make that claim, it is still not true. None of it. Nowhere in the peer reviewed literature is there any substantive paper that puts to bed the so-called hockey stick. And it is still being referenced in other works. Moreover, Mann isn't the only one who has generated such a pattern from various climate data. Again, none of your claims are true, but then, they rarely are.

All that shows is that the peer review process is utterly corrupt. That's why they call it PAL review. The "peers" doing the reviewing are the good buddies of the authors of the papers being reviewed. It's all a tight little cli

That is rule #2. Congratulations on proving my point.

You mean pointing out obvious frauds and con artists is "denial?" So was the DA who indicted Bernie Madoff also in denial?

Your tactic alleviates the requirement to support anything you claim facts or logic, doesn't it? You show all the classic symptoms of a conspiracy theorist.

If pointing out obvious frauds and con artists is your goal, why no mention of Anthony watt, Steve McInTyre, and a host of other con artists like you denying the facts? In fact, if pointing out obvious frauds and con artists is your goal, one has to wonder why you aren't looking in a mirror.

 

[bripat9643]

To my knowledge, McInTyred wrote one peer reviewed paper related to climate science. In it, he found a small statistical problem that led to a revision in the original paper. However, that revision amounted to a hill of beans because it made no difference whatsoever in the outcome. Next.

Your knowledge of the subject is remarkably limited then. Here are three of a bunch. Enjoy!

Paper claiming hottest 60-year-span in 1 000 years put on hold after being published online - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

Controversial paper linking conspiracy ideation to climate change skepticism formally retracted - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

Frontiers Retraction Recursive fury Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation Personality and Social Psychology

Now that is Funny... Every single attempt to create a "link" so that they can scream that they have the high ground goes down in flames simply because they make up shit which has no basis in fact or science.. You would have thought that the failure of CAGW would have lent them a clue about who they are trying to belittle and marginalize..

The public has become desensitized to the Alyinsky tactics of marginalization and look beyond the hyperbole at the facts now. Alarmists have no where to hide now... and that simply makes me laugh at their stupid asses..

Oh Billy Bob, we are well aware of who you deniers are, and what your motives are.

Ok sooth-sayer; what are my motives? I'm betting your clairvoyance is impeded by crap..

As with every other denier here, your motives are rather transparent. I'll quote from the Six aspects of Denial,

Six Aspects of Denial Watching the Deniers

"For libertarians and free market advocates, climate change is a direct challenge to their assumption of unlimited growth. Any response to climate change will involve government intervention and global governance structures (such as a binding treaty to limit CO2 emissions). To such ideologues, it is axiomatic that such responses are “bad”. And yet the “market” can’t fix climate. Caught between accepting the science and what it entails and rejecting it in favour of their faith in the market, they reject the science. The same could be said of religious conservatives: like evolution, climate change is a direct challenge to the idea that a god/s has a governance role and is directly responsible for managing the day-to-day affairs of the world. That a god/s would let climate change happen and not intervene is deeply challenging to the idea that a) they would allow such “evil” and b) the god/s is omnipotent."

And so, in order to combat such "evil liberal trappings", you people follow these rules:

1) Doubt the science – This is the standard tactic of all denial movements. Creationists attack evolution and geology as they contradict the belief a god/s created the world just under 10,000 years ago. Alternative health practitioners claim the science that demonstrates the lack of effectiveness of their treatments is at fault. On web sites, in books and on internet forums deniers attack the science by cherry picking data, misrepresenting research or making bogus claims.

2) Question the motives and integrity of scientists – This is the favourite tactic of the climate change denial movement. They claim the scientists are engaged in fraud, or are being pressured by governments to make up the results. They make up vast conspiracy theories in order to cast aspersions on the motives of climate scientists, physicists and biologists whose work confirms the reality of climate change. They use the “follow the money” argument, stating scientists are making up climate change in order to get research funding. All of these are simply ad hominem attacks: playing the man.

3) Magnify disagreements among scientists and cite gadflies – Again, one of the favourite tactics of the denial movement. The tiny percentage of actual scientists who express scepticism (Plimer, Lindzen) are dwarfed by the thousands of scientists who agree with the consensus that climate change is happening. But the denial movement exploits the media’s tendency to present “both sides” of the argument and thus help perpetrate the myth scientists are still debating climate change when in fact there is near unanimous agreement.

4) Exaggerate potential harm – This normally takes the form of “harming” the economy if the government intervenes. This is why opposition to cap-and-trade (or emissions trading schemes) are anathema to some parts of the denial movement. They also claim a climate change is an excuse to usher in a “world government”. The denial movement plays up to these fears, playing on the anxiety that they will lose their freedoms (see below).

5) Appeal to personal freedom – One of the great fears of the denial movements is a loss of freedom. Whether economic or political, they have a paranoid fear that someone (government, scientists, greens, politicians) are going to restrict their right to unlimited consumption or their freedom of speech. But reality is not a democracy. We don’t get to choose the truth about climate change, just as a popular debate about evolution does not decide the scientific facts. The denial movement loves to frame this as a “debate” when none exists, claiming they have a right to doubt the science. Of course they do. But it does not mean they are correct.

There isn't a single denier on this forum who doesn't do these things. Not a one.

 

[bripat9643]

The Hockey Stick has been proven to be a fraud, and that includes versions II, III and IV. The so-called "studies" that support the hockey stick are all done by Mann cronies who are in on the con. Their studies are also proven frauds.

Actually, no matter how many times you deniers make that claim, it is still not true. None of it. Nowhere in the peer reviewed literature is there any substantive paper that puts to bed the so-called hockey stick. And it is still being referenced in other works. Moreover, Mann isn't the only one who has generated such a pattern from various climate data. Again, none of your claims are true, but then, they rarely are.

All that shows is that the peer review process is utterly corrupt. That's why they call it PAL review. The "peers" doing the reviewing are the good buddies of the authors of the papers being reviewed. It's all a tight little cli

That is rule #2. Congratulations on proving my point.

You mean pointing out obvious frauds and con artists is "denial?" So was the DA who indicted Bernie Madoff also in denial?

Your tactic alleviates the requirement to support anything you claim facts or logic, doesn't it? You show all the classic symptoms of a conspiracy theorist.

If pointing out obvious frauds and con artists is your goal, why no mention of Anthony watt, Steve McInTyre, and a host of other con artists like you denying the facts? In fact, if pointing out obvious frauds and con artists is your goal, one has to wonder why you aren't looking in a mirror.

How is Steve MacIntyre a fraud?

 

[orogenicman]

Your knowledge of the subject is remarkably limited then. Here are three of a bunch. Enjoy!

Paper claiming hottest 60-year-span in 1 000 years put on hold after being published online - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

Controversial paper linking conspiracy ideation to climate change skepticism formally retracted - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

Frontiers Retraction Recursive fury Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation Personality and Social Psychology

Now that is Funny... Every single attempt to create a "link" so that they can scream that they have the high ground goes down in flames simply because they make up shit which has no basis in fact or science.. You would have thought that the failure of CAGW would have lent them a clue about who they are trying to belittle and marginalize..

The public has become desensitized to the Alyinsky tactics of marginalization and look beyond the hyperbole at the facts now. Alarmists have no where to hide now... and that simply makes me laugh at their stupid asses..

Oh Billy Bob, we are well aware of who you deniers are, and what your motives are.

Ok sooth-sayer; what are my motives? I'm betting your clairvoyance is impeded by crap..

As with every other denier here, your motives are rather transparent. I'll quote from the Six aspects of Denial,

Six Aspects of Denial Watching the Deniers

"For libertarians and free market advocates, climate change is a direct challenge to their assumption of unlimited growth. Any response to climate change will involve government intervention and global governance structures (such as a binding treaty to limit CO2 emissions). To such ideologues, it is axiomatic that such responses are “bad”. And yet the “market” can’t fix climate. Caught between accepting the science and what it entails and rejecting it in favour of their faith in the market, they reject the science. The same could be said of religious conservatives: like evolution, climate change is a direct challenge to the idea that a god/s has a governance role and is directly responsible for managing the day-to-day affairs of the world. That a god/s would let climate change happen and not intervene is deeply challenging to the idea that a) they would allow such “evil” and b) the god/s is omnipotent."

And so, in order to combat such "evil liberal trappings", you people follow these rules:

1) Doubt the science – This is the standard tactic of all denial movements. Creationists attack evolution and geology as they contradict the belief a god/s created the world just under 10,000 years ago. Alternative health practitioners claim the science that demonstrates the lack of effectiveness of their treatments is at fault. On web sites, in books and on internet forums deniers attack the science by cherry picking data, misrepresenting research or making bogus claims.

2) Question the motives and integrity of scientists – This is the favourite tactic of the climate change denial movement. They claim the scientists are engaged in fraud, or are being pressured by governments to make up the results. They make up vast conspiracy theories in order to cast aspersions on the motives of climate scientists, physicists and biologists whose work confirms the reality of climate change. They use the “follow the money” argument, stating scientists are making up climate change in order to get research funding. All of these are simply ad hominem attacks: playing the man.

3) Magnify disagreements among scientists and cite gadflies – Again, one of the favourite tactics of the denial movement. The tiny percentage of actual scientists who express scepticism (Plimer, Lindzen) are dwarfed by the thousands of scientists who agree with the consensus that climate change is happening. But the denial movement exploits the media’s tendency to present “both sides” of the argument and thus help perpetrate the myth scientists are still debating climate change when in fact there is near unanimous agreement.

4) Exaggerate potential harm – This normally takes the form of “harming” the economy if the government intervenes. This is why opposition to cap-and-trade (or emissions trading schemes) are anathema to some parts of the denial movement. They also claim a climate change is an excuse to usher in a “world government”. The denial movement plays up to these fears, playing on the anxiety that they will lose their freedoms (see below).

5) Appeal to personal freedom – One of the great fears of the denial movements is a loss of freedom. Whether economic or political, they have a paranoid fear that someone (government, scientists, greens, politicians) are going to restrict their right to unlimited consumption or their freedom of speech. But reality is not a democracy. We don’t get to choose the truth about climate change, just as a popular debate about evolution does not decide the scientific facts. The denial movement loves to frame this as a “debate” when none exists, claiming they have a right to doubt the science. Of course they do. But it does not mean they are correct.

There isn't a single denier on this forum who doesn't do these things. Not a one.

Rule #4. Congratulations.

 

[orogenicman]

Actually, no matter how many times you deniers make that claim, it is still not true. None of it. Nowhere in the peer reviewed literature is there any substantive paper that puts to bed the so-called hockey stick. And it is still being referenced in other works. Moreover, Mann isn't the only one who has generated such a pattern from various climate data. Again, none of your claims are true, but then, they rarely are.

All that shows is that the peer review process is utterly corrupt. That's why they call it PAL review. The "peers" doing the reviewing are the good buddies of the authors of the papers being reviewed. It's all a tight little cli

That is rule #2. Congratulations on proving my point.

You mean pointing out obvious frauds and con artists is "denial?" So was the DA who indicted Bernie Madoff also in denial?

Your tactic alleviates the requirement to support anything you claim facts or logic, doesn't it? You show all the classic symptoms of a conspiracy theorist.

If pointing out obvious frauds and con artists is your goal, why no mention of Anthony watt, Steve McInTyre, and a host of other con artists like you denying the facts? In fact, if pointing out obvious frauds and con artists is your goal, one has to wonder why you aren't looking in a mirror.

How is Steve MacIntyre a fraud?

How is he not?

Six Aspects of Denial Watching the Deniers

 

[bripat9643]

Now that is Funny... Every single attempt to create a "link" so that they can scream that they have the high ground goes down in flames simply because they make up shit which has no basis in fact or science.. You would have thought that the failure of CAGW would have lent them a clue about who they are trying to belittle and marginalize..

The public has become desensitized to the Alyinsky tactics of marginalization and look beyond the hyperbole at the facts now. Alarmists have no where to hide now... and that simply makes me laugh at their stupid asses..

Oh Billy Bob, we are well aware of who you deniers are, and what your motives are.

Ok sooth-sayer; what are my motives? I'm betting your clairvoyance is impeded by crap..

As with every other denier here, your motives are rather transparent. I'll quote from the Six aspects of Denial,

Six Aspects of Denial Watching the Deniers

"For libertarians and free market advocates, climate change is a direct challenge to their assumption of unlimited growth. Any response to climate change will involve government intervention and global governance structures (such as a binding treaty to limit CO2 emissions). To such ideologues, it is axiomatic that such responses are “bad”. And yet the “market” can’t fix climate. Caught between accepting the science and what it entails and rejecting it in favour of their faith in the market, they reject the science. The same could be said of religious conservatives: like evolution, climate change is a direct challenge to the idea that a god/s has a governance role and is directly responsible for managing the day-to-day affairs of the world. That a god/s would let climate change happen and not intervene is deeply challenging to the idea that a) they would allow such “evil” and b) the god/s is omnipotent."

And so, in order to combat such "evil liberal trappings", you people follow these rules:

1) Doubt the science – This is the standard tactic of all denial movements. Creationists attack evolution and geology as they contradict the belief a god/s created the world just under 10,000 years ago. Alternative health practitioners claim the science that demonstrates the lack of effectiveness of their treatments is at fault. On web sites, in books and on internet forums deniers attack the science by cherry picking data, misrepresenting research or making bogus claims.

2) Question the motives and integrity of scientists – This is the favourite tactic of the climate change denial movement. They claim the scientists are engaged in fraud, or are being pressured by governments to make up the results. They make up vast conspiracy theories in order to cast aspersions on the motives of climate scientists, physicists and biologists whose work confirms the reality of climate change. They use the “follow the money” argument, stating scientists are making up climate change in order to get research funding. All of these are simply ad hominem attacks: playing the man.

3) Magnify disagreements among scientists and cite gadflies – Again, one of the favourite tactics of the denial movement. The tiny percentage of actual scientists who express scepticism (Plimer, Lindzen) are dwarfed by the thousands of scientists who agree with the consensus that climate change is happening. But the denial movement exploits the media’s tendency to present “both sides” of the argument and thus help perpetrate the myth scientists are still debating climate change when in fact there is near unanimous agreement.

4) Exaggerate potential harm – This normally takes the form of “harming” the economy if the government intervenes. This is why opposition to cap-and-trade (or emissions trading schemes) are anathema to some parts of the denial movement. They also claim a climate change is an excuse to usher in a “world government”. The denial movement plays up to these fears, playing on the anxiety that they will lose their freedoms (see below).

5) Appeal to personal freedom – One of the great fears of the denial movements is a loss of freedom. Whether economic or political, they have a paranoid fear that someone (government, scientists, greens, politicians) are going to restrict their right to unlimited consumption or their freedom of speech. But reality is not a democracy. We don’t get to choose the truth about climate change, just as a popular debate about evolution does not decide the scientific facts. The denial movement loves to frame this as a “debate” when none exists, claiming they have a right to doubt the science. Of course they do. But it does not mean they are correct.

There isn't a single denier on this forum who doesn't do these things. Not a one.

Rule #4. Congratulations.

Wrong, that doesn't fit the description in #4.

 

[bripat9643]

All that shows is that the peer review process is utterly corrupt. That's why they call it PAL review. The "peers" doing the reviewing are the good buddies of the authors of the papers being reviewed. It's all a tight little cli

That is rule #2. Congratulations on proving my point.

You mean pointing out obvious frauds and con artists is "denial?" So was the DA who indicted Bernie Madoff also in denial?

Your tactic alleviates the requirement to support anything you claim facts or logic, doesn't it? You show all the classic symptoms of a conspiracy theorist.

If pointing out obvious frauds and con artists is your goal, why no mention of Anthony watt, Steve McInTyre, and a host of other con artists like you denying the facts? In fact, if pointing out obvious frauds and con artists is your goal, one has to wonder why you aren't looking in a mirror.

How is Steve MacIntyre a fraud?

How is he not?

Six Aspects of Denial Watching the Deniers

In other words, you have nothing.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Sorry Warmists, you were wrong. Please stop being hysterical ninnies......

------------------------------------------------------

It’s always nice to see a leftist outfit finally fess up to a lost cause. The global warming crowd has clearly lost, and this Mother Jones article makes this clear.

The governments of the world have not implemented the Kyoto treaty of 1992 or its 1997 update. The whole thing lapsed on December 31, 2012. It’s over. Kaput. Think of it as Al Gore’s presidential campaign. Clinton never submitted it to the Senate. Neither did Obama. It was allowed to die of old age.

In the latest article, we see that the far, far radicals of the global warming agenda had a metric of failure. If carbon dioxide reached a level of 350 parts per million, the end of the world would be in sight.

It is now at 400.

This 350 metric has been promoted for years by James Hansen. One of his acolytes is “deep ecologist” Bill McKibben, who has been sounding the alarm on the supposed ecological crisis ever since the 1980’s. He wrote a book on ecology in 1989: The End of Nature. (Note: nature is still here.)

All is lost! The end is near!”

When all is lost, the sensible response is to eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. Anyway, maybe by 2076. After McKibben has gone to his deep ecological reward.

We are beyond the point of no return. Right? I mean, if the metric had any validity in the first place, only one conclusion is sensible: “Head for the hills! It’s cooler there.”

So, will these people just go away now? Will they at least shut up? Not a chance. McKibben has created a cottage industry. He has a website: 350.org. The site does not tell us what 350 stands for: “All is lost! The end is near!”

The global warming movement has had no measurable political results, and also no measurable impact on temperature.


Yes, it’s true that global warming ended 18 years ago. But global warming activists do not take credit for this. In fact, they do their best to explain it away. That is because national governments have done nothing to stop CO2 emissions, yet global warming ended. No one needed the Kyoto Protocols or its 1997 update to stop global warming.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Game over.

We all lose you blubbering moron, we live on the same planet.

 

[bripat9643]

Sorry Warmists, you were wrong. Please stop being hysterical ninnies......

------------------------------------------------------

It’s always nice to see a leftist outfit finally fess up to a lost cause. The global warming crowd has clearly lost, and this Mother Jones article makes this clear.

The governments of the world have not implemented the Kyoto treaty of 1992 or its 1997 update. The whole thing lapsed on December 31, 2012. It’s over. Kaput. Think of it as Al Gore’s presidential campaign. Clinton never submitted it to the Senate. Neither did Obama. It was allowed to die of old age.

In the latest article, we see that the far, far radicals of the global warming agenda had a metric of failure. If carbon dioxide reached a level of 350 parts per million, the end of the world would be in sight.

It is now at 400.

This 350 metric has been promoted for years by James Hansen. One of his acolytes is “deep ecologist” Bill McKibben, who has been sounding the alarm on the supposed ecological crisis ever since the 1980’s. He wrote a book on ecology in 1989: The End of Nature. (Note: nature is still here.)

All is lost! The end is near!”

When all is lost, the sensible response is to eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. Anyway, maybe by 2076. After McKibben has gone to his deep ecological reward.

We are beyond the point of no return. Right? I mean, if the metric had any validity in the first place, only one conclusion is sensible: “Head for the hills! It’s cooler there.”

So, will these people just go away now? Will they at least shut up? Not a chance. McKibben has created a cottage industry. He has a website: 350.org. The site does not tell us what 350 stands for: “All is lost! The end is near!”

The global warming movement has had no measurable political results, and also no measurable impact on temperature.


Yes, it’s true that global warming ended 18 years ago. But global warming activists do not take credit for this. In fact, they do their best to explain it away. That is because national governments have done nothing to stop CO2 emissions, yet global warming ended. No one needed the Kyoto Protocols or its 1997 update to stop global warming.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Game over.

We all lose you blubbering moron, we live on the same planet.

We all lose by not falling for a huge swindle? I think it's the other way around.

 

[Billy_Bob]

To my knowledge, McInTyred wrote one peer reviewed paper related to climate science. In it, he found a small statistical problem that led to a revision in the original paper. However, that revision amounted to a hill of beans because it made no difference whatsoever in the outcome. Next.

Your knowledge of the subject is remarkably limited then. Here are three of a bunch. Enjoy!

Paper claiming hottest 60-year-span in 1 000 years put on hold after being published online - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

Controversial paper linking conspiracy ideation to climate change skepticism formally retracted - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

Frontiers Retraction Recursive fury Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation Personality and Social Psychology

Now that is Funny... Every single attempt to create a "link" so that they can scream that they have the high ground goes down in flames simply because they make up shit which has no basis in fact or science.. You would have thought that the failure of CAGW would have lent them a clue about who they are trying to belittle and marginalize..

The public has become desensitized to the Alyinsky tactics of marginalization and look beyond the hyperbole at the facts now. Alarmists have no where to hide now... and that simply makes me laugh at their stupid asses..

Oh Billy Bob, we are well aware of who you deniers are, and what your motives are.

Ok sooth-sayer; what are my motives? I'm betting your clairvoyance is impeded by crap..

As with every other denier here, your motives are rather transparent. I'll quote from the Six aspects of Denial,

Six Aspects of Denial Watching the Deniers

"For libertarians and free market advocates, climate change is a direct challenge to their assumption of unlimited growth. Any response to climate change will involve government intervention and global governance structures (such as a binding treaty to limit CO2 emissions). To such ideologues, it is axiomatic that such responses are “bad”. And yet the “market” can’t fix climate. Caught between accepting the science and what it entails and rejecting it in favour of their faith in the market, they reject the science. The same could be said of religious conservatives: like evolution, climate change is a direct challenge to the idea that a god/s has a governance role and is directly responsible for managing the day-to-day affairs of the world. That a god/s would let climate change happen and not intervene is deeply challenging to the idea that a) they would allow such “evil” and b) the god/s is omnipotent."

And so, in order to combat such "evil liberal trappings", you people follow these rules:

1) Doubt the science – This is the standard tactic of all denial movements. Creationists attack evolution and geology as they contradict the belief a god/s created the world just under 10,000 years ago. Alternative health practitioners claim the science that demonstrates the lack of effectiveness of their treatments is at fault. On web sites, in books and on internet forums deniers attack the science by cherry picking data, misrepresenting research or making bogus claims.

2) Question the motives and integrity of scientists – This is the favourite tactic of the climate change denial movement. They claim the scientists are engaged in fraud, or are being pressured by governments to make up the results. They make up vast conspiracy theories in order to cast aspersions on the motives of climate scientists, physicists and biologists whose work confirms the reality of climate change. They use the “follow the money” argument, stating scientists are making up climate change in order to get research funding. All of these are simply ad hominem attacks: playing the man.

3) Magnify disagreements among scientists and cite gadflies – Again, one of the favourite tactics of the denial movement. The tiny percentage of actual scientists who express scepticism (Plimer, Lindzen) are dwarfed by the thousands of scientists who agree with the consensus that climate change is happening. But the denial movement exploits the media’s tendency to present “both sides” of the argument and thus help perpetrate the myth scientists are still debating climate change when in fact there is near unanimous agreement.

4) Exaggerate potential harm – This normally takes the form of “harming” the economy if the government intervenes. This is why opposition to cap-and-trade (or emissions trading schemes) are anathema to some parts of the denial movement. They also claim a climate change is an excuse to usher in a “world government”. The denial movement plays up to these fears, playing on the anxiety that they will lose their freedoms (see below).

5) Appeal to personal freedom – One of the great fears of the denial movements is a loss of freedom. Whether economic or political, they have a paranoid fear that someone (government, scientists, greens, politicians) are going to restrict their right to unlimited consumption or their freedom of speech. But reality is not a democracy. We don’t get to choose the truth about climate change, just as a popular debate about evolution does not decide the scientific facts. The denial movement loves to frame this as a “debate” when none exists, claiming they have a right to doubt the science. Of course they do. But it does not mean they are correct.

There isn't a single denier on this forum who doesn't do these things. Not a one.

The FARCE is strong with this one.. Right to Alyinsky and Rules for Radicals... Pathetic.... You left wit morons couldn't find science if it bit you on the ass.

 

[Billy_Bob]

All that shows is that the peer review process is utterly corrupt. That's why they call it PAL review. The "peers" doing the reviewing are the good buddies of the authors of the papers being reviewed. It's all a tight little cli

That is rule #2. Congratulations on proving my point.

You mean pointing out obvious frauds and con artists is "denial?" So was the DA who indicted Bernie Madoff also in denial?

Your tactic alleviates the requirement to support anything you claim facts or logic, doesn't it? You show all the classic symptoms of a conspiracy theorist.

If pointing out obvious frauds and con artists is your goal, why no mention of Anthony watt, Steve McInTyre, and a host of other con artists like you denying the facts? In fact, if pointing out obvious frauds and con artists is your goal, one has to wonder why you aren't looking in a mirror.

How is Steve MacIntyre a fraud?

How is he not?

Six Aspects of Denial Watching the Deniers

Circular logical fallacy... Run yourself ragged running in circles...

Epic Failure..

Funny as hell to watch.....

 

[westwall]

Not according to real scientists.


Global Warming Bombshell
A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.

Global Warming Bombshell MIT Technology Review

The link led to:
Global Warming Bombshell
A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.

• By Richard Muller on October 15, 2004

Here is the same "Real Scientist" shy of seven years later

BYJOE ROMM POSTED ON MARCH 20, 2011 AT 12:05 PM

Exclusive: Berkeley temperature study results “confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU”


BREAKING UPDATE: The head of the Berkeley team, Richard Muller, confirmed at a public talk on Saturday that they have started writing a draft report and based on their preliminary analysis, “We are seeing substantial global warming” and “None of the effects raised by the [skeptics] is going to have anything more than a marginal effect on the amount of global warming.”

Yes, but have you looked at the story of the BEST reports. Muller is a real scientist, however he is also a firm warmist, he is not a reformed sceptic as the media would have you believe. He has been the owner of a sustainability company for decades. He has made some terrible decisions as regards the BEST work which you will discover for yourself should you decide to open that particular Pandora's box.

He was the author you introduced as real...

And he is. He does good work for the most part. However his BEST work is not up to his normal standards.

 

[Zander]

The hockey stick graph was fake. What is so hard to understand about that?

Michael Mann's hockey stick graph (shown in red) appears to show that the Earth's temperature was stable from 1400 to 1900. There is then a dramatic rise (like the end of a hockey stick) that was claimed to be due to (gasp!) carbon dioxide emissions. This graph was heavily promoted by Al Gore and his supporters, and by the IPCC whose 2001 Summary for Policymakers claimed "that the 1990s has been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium".

It is now known that the data had been carefully fudged to remove an inconvenient truth, namely the Medieval Warm Period, when the world was warmer than today. The true variation (shown in blue) includes the tail end of the Medieval Warm Period centuries before carbon dioxide reached its present levels. It is easy to see the problem.....

----------------------
unless you're an enviro-nutter with an agenda.......

 

[Old Rocks]

The hockey stick graph was fake. What is so hard to understand about that?

Michael Mann's hockey stick graph (shown in red) appears to show that the Earth's temperature was stable from 1400 to 1900. There is then a dramatic rise (like the end of a hockey stick) that was claimed to be due to (gasp!) carbon dioxide emissions. This graph was heavily promoted by Al Gore and his supporters, and by the IPCC whose 2001 Summary for Policymakers claimed "that the 1990s has been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium".

It is now known that the data had been carefully fudged to remove an inconvenient truth, namely the Medieval Warm Period, when the world was warmer than today. The true variation (shown in blue) includes the tail end of the Medieval Warm Period centuries before carbon dioxide reached its present levels. It is easy to see the problem.....

----------------------
unless you're an enviro-nutter with an agenda.......

Another dumb little corksmoker has flapped yap. How cute.

What evidence is there for the hockey stick

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).

 

[Old Rocks]

Not according to real scientists.


Global Warming Bombshell
A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.

Global Warming Bombshell MIT Technology Review

The link led to:
Global Warming Bombshell
A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.

• By Richard Muller on October 15, 2004

Here is the same "Real Scientist" shy of seven years later

BYJOE ROMM POSTED ON MARCH 20, 2011 AT 12:05 PM

Exclusive: Berkeley temperature study results “confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU”


BREAKING UPDATE: The head of the Berkeley team, Richard Muller, confirmed at a public talk on Saturday that they have started writing a draft report and based on their preliminary analysis, “We are seeing substantial global warming” and “None of the effects raised by the [skeptics] is going to have anything more than a marginal effect on the amount of global warming.”

Yes, but have you looked at the story of the BEST reports. Muller is a real scientist, however he is also a firm warmist, he is not a reformed sceptic as the media would have you believe. He has been the owner of a sustainability company for decades. He has made some terrible decisions as regards the BEST work which you will discover for yourself should you decide to open that particular Pandora's box.

He was the author you introduced as real...

And he is. He does good work for the most part. However his BEST work is not up to his normal standards.

Guess Dr. Muller did not consider your opinion worth seeking. One just has to wonder about that, now, don't they.

 

[Zander]

Oye.....The alarmist warmist mind is impossible to penetrate. They actually continue to believe the data from a guy (mann) who was already caught lying.

Sorry Old Rocks, the Medieval Warm Period blows your whole "religion" to smithereens..... The 18 year "pause" confirms it. What are you going to do in another 10 years when it's still not warming and there is no climate doomsday? Blame Bush?

 

[jc456]

To my knowledge, McInTyred wrote one peer reviewed paper related to climate science. In it, he found a small statistical problem that led to a revision in the original paper. However, that revision amounted to a hill of beans because it made no difference whatsoever in the outcome. Next.

Your knowledge of the subject is remarkably limited then. Here are three of a bunch. Enjoy!

Paper claiming hottest 60-year-span in 1 000 years put on hold after being published online - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

Controversial paper linking conspiracy ideation to climate change skepticism formally retracted - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

Frontiers Retraction Recursive fury Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation Personality and Social Psychology

Now that is Funny... Every single attempt to create a "link" so that they can scream that they have the high ground goes down in flames simply because they make up shit which has no basis in fact or science.. You would have thought that the failure of CAGW would have lent them a clue about who they are trying to belittle and marginalize..

The public has become desensitized to the Alyinsky tactics of marginalization and look beyond the hyperbole at the facts now. Alarmists have no where to hide now... and that simply makes me laugh at their stupid asses..

Oh Billy Bob, we are well aware of who you deniers are, and what your motives are.

Ok sooth-sayer; what are my motives? I'm betting your clairvoyance is impeded by crap..

As with every other denier here, your motives are rather transparent. I'll quote from the Six aspects of Denial,

Six Aspects of Denial Watching the Deniers

"For libertarians and free market advocates, climate change is a direct challenge to their assumption of unlimited growth. Any response to climate change will involve government intervention and global governance structures (such as a binding treaty to limit CO2 emissions). To such ideologues, it is axiomatic that such responses are “bad”. And yet the “market” can’t fix climate. Caught between accepting the science and what it entails and rejecting it in favour of their faith in the market, they reject the science. The same could be said of religious conservatives: like evolution, climate change is a direct challenge to the idea that a god/s has a governance role and is directly responsible for managing the day-to-day affairs of the world. That a god/s would let climate change happen and not intervene is deeply challenging to the idea that a) they would allow such “evil” and b) the god/s is omnipotent."

And so, in order to combat such "evil liberal trappings", you people follow these rules:

1) Doubt the science – This is the standard tactic of all denial movements. Creationists attack evolution and geology as they contradict the belief a god/s created the world just under 10,000 years ago. Alternative health practitioners claim the science that demonstrates the lack of effectiveness of their treatments is at fault. On web sites, in books and on internet forums deniers attack the science by cherry picking data, misrepresenting research or making bogus claims.

2) Question the motives and integrity of scientists – This is the favourite tactic of the climate change denial movement. They claim the scientists are engaged in fraud, or are being pressured by governments to make up the results. They make up vast conspiracy theories in order to cast aspersions on the motives of climate scientists, physicists and biologists whose work confirms the reality of climate change. They use the “follow the money” argument, stating scientists are making up climate change in order to get research funding. All of these are simply ad hominem attacks: playing the man.

3) Magnify disagreements among scientists and cite gadflies – Again, one of the favourite tactics of the denial movement. The tiny percentage of actual scientists who express scepticism (Plimer, Lindzen) are dwarfed by the thousands of scientists who agree with the consensus that climate change is happening. But the denial movement exploits the media’s tendency to present “both sides” of the argument and thus help perpetrate the myth scientists are still debating climate change when in fact there is near unanimous agreement.

4) Exaggerate potential harm – This normally takes the form of “harming” the economy if the government intervenes. This is why opposition to cap-and-trade (or emissions trading schemes) are anathema to some parts of the denial movement. They also claim a climate change is an excuse to usher in a “world government”. The denial movement plays up to these fears, playing on the anxiety that they will lose their freedoms (see below).

5) Appeal to personal freedom – One of the great fears of the denial movements is a loss of freedom. Whether economic or political, they have a paranoid fear that someone (government, scientists, greens, politicians) are going to restrict their right to unlimited consumption or their freedom of speech. But reality is not a democracy. We don’t get to choose the truth about climate change, just as a popular debate about evolution does not decide the scientific facts. The denial movement loves to frame this as a “debate” when none exists, claiming they have a right to doubt the science. Of course they do. But it does not mean they are correct.

There isn't a single denier on this forum who doesn't do these things. Not a one.

nice post except you didn't answer the question on what the motive is. it is transparent? What the f is that? come now, what is the motive?