Where is the confession?

[Crick]

So, you believe the University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group is knowingly publishing lies. And that the thousands of scientists who rely on the accuracy of those data for their own work are willing accomplices. And that they have all modified their work so that this falsified temperature and sea level data will still produce the desired results when run through calculations to identify relationships, trends and so forth.

But you can't find a single involved individual to admit they are doing what you claim they are all doing. And you cannot find a single individual scientist who believes what you believe these data tell us.

So, you're a paranoid idiot. I think that's another thread.

 

[SSDD]

So, you believe the University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group is knowingly publishing lies. And that the thousands of scientists who rely on the accuracy of those data for their own work are willing accomplices. And that they have all modified their work so that this falsified temperature and sea level data will still produce the desired results when run through calculations to identify relationships, trends and so forth.

But you can't find a single involved individual to admit they are doing what you claim they are all doing. And you cannot find a single individual scientist who believes what you believe these data tell us.

So, you're a paranoid idiot. I think that's another thread.

You seem to be unaware of what the term error cascade means...not surprising...and think it involves some grand conspiracy. Ignorance on your part. And your critical thinking skills seem to be non existent....the comparisons of the graphs above, especially compared to the first one before the AGW narrative began should raise all manner of red flags in persons who are actually thinking as opposed to those being told what to think.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, you believe the University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group is knowingly publishing lies. And that the thousands of scientists who rely on the accuracy of those data for their own work are willing accomplices. And that they have all modified their work so that this falsified temperature and sea level data will still produce the desired results when run through calculations to identify relationships, trends and so forth.

But you can't find a single involved individual to admit they are doing what you claim they are all doing. And you cannot find a single individual scientist who believes what you believe these data tell us.

So, you're a paranoid idiot. I think that's another thread.

You seem to be unaware of what the term error cascade means...not surprising...and think it involves some grand conspiracy. Ignorance on your part. And your critical thinking skills seem to be non existent....the comparisons of the graphs above, especially compared to the first one before the AGW narrative began should raise all manner of red flags in persons who are actually thinking as opposed to those being told what to think.

You seem to be unaware of what the term error cascade means...

Does it mean you misinterpret the 2nd Law and then build an ever more complex universe to cover your mistake?

 

[SSDD]

Hey crick...here is another admission of making up data that I ran across...this one is from Phil Jones himself.

At 17:45 14/04/2009, you wrote:

Quoting [email protected]:
Phil,
I will do that, but there seem to be two problems:
1) why would it all happen in 1997-98? its hard to believe that many
new drifters were deployed, starting just that year.
2) there are examples of abrupt shifts in other parts of the time
series - why should this be especially suspect?
thanks for any additional help on this, tom

Tom,
The issue Ray alludes to is that in addition to the issue
of many more drifters providing measurements over the last
5-10 years, the measurements are coming in from places where
we didn't have much ship data in the past. For much of the SH
between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is
very little ship data there.
Whatever causes the divergence in your plot it is down to
the ocean.
You could try doing an additional plot. Download from
the CRU web site the series for SH land. It doesn't matter if
is from CRUTEM3 or CRUTEM3v (the former would be better). If that
still has the divergence, then it is the oceans causing the
problem. What you're seeing is too rapid to be real.
Cheers
Phil

So what sort of private joke do you think they were having? Any insight into their private thoughts to suggest that they really aren't talking about just making up data?

 

[Crick]

I think that by the term "made up" they intended interpolation, extrapolation and the use of historical data. It would be helpful to our understanding to know what the "it" was that "all happened in the 1997-98". The comment in the upper portion "why should this be particularly suspect" clearly seems to be a concern they have of something they have seen in the drifter buoy data and the response explains that data from the area now being covered by buoys had been historically covered only sparsely.

What had you thought climate scientists attempting to calculate the Earth's temperature did with areas of the globe for which they had limited data? Do you see something here or in any of the adjoining emails that even imply they are falsifying data with the intent to deceive? You've presented none. If you believe that such opportunities as these poorly observed regions provide or comments about dealing with them in the only way in which they should or could be dealt, represent evidence that the global records are undergoing mass manipulation towards a deceptive end, then we see that you have that conclusion already firmly in mind as a matter of unsubstantiated faith.

Nice try, but no brass ring for you sonny.

 

[SSDD]

I think that by the term "made up" they intended interpolation, extrapolation and the use of historical data.

So you don't think that phil jones has such words as interpolation and extrapolation, and historical data in their vocabulary? My bet would be that they do and know perfectly well what the words mean and he used the words "made up" because that is exactly what he meant to say.

The fact that you would even attempt to defend such a blatant admission of fabricating data says volumes about the content of your character....

 

[Crick]

My character isn't the question here. The question here is how could thousands of people be involved in this claimed criminal conspiracy without a single person confessing? And when I ask for a confession, I mean someone saying "we falsified these data because we wanted global warming to look worse than it is". I don't want to see how many comments you can find that maybe, possibly, somehow, if I squint at it with my head cocked to the right and assume oddball uses for half a dozen terms could possibly be interpreted as suspicious. I want a fucking confession and you ain't got one.

 

[SSDD]

My character isn't the question here. The question here is how could thousands of people be involved in this claimed criminal conspiracy without a single person confessing? And when I ask for a confession, I mean someone saying "we falsified these data because we wanted global warming to look worse than it is". I don't want to see how many comments you can find that maybe, possibly, somehow, if I squint at it with my head cocked to the right and assume oddball uses for half a dozen terms could possibly be interpreted as suspicious. I want a fucking confession and you ain't got one.

Move those goalposts....so admission of fabricating data isn't good enough for you now...now you want them to admit fabricating data and then elaborate on precisely why they did it?

And I suggest that you get your eyes checked if you must squint and turn your head in order to see what's wrong with a statement like For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there.. The statement is pretty clear to anyone who is not so biased that they ignore reality in favor of fantasy.

 

[Crick]

I'm not moving the goalposts one inch. YOU are. The word confession has a clear definition and nothing you've put up comes anywhere close to it. That climate scientists fill in sparse data is a common practice that's everyone with the slightest interest in this topic has been aware of for years.

Keep trying dipwad.

 

[SSDD]

I'm not moving the goalposts one inch. YOU are. The word confession has a clear definition and nothing you've put up comes anywhere close to it. That climate scientists fill in sparse data is a common practice that's everyone with the slightest interest in this topic has been aware of for years.

Keep trying dipwad.

For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there isvery little ship data there.

Mostly made up...pretty straight forward statement..indefensible actually.

 

[Crick]

You don't have a confession. You've got shite.

 

[SSDD]

You don't have a confession. You've got shite.

Sorry you are so f'ing stupid that you can't recognize an admission of fabricating data when you see it...you are genuinely pathetic crick.....a mewling, drooling, little piss pot whining because someone gave you exactly what you asked for...you wanted a confession of fabricating data....I gave you two.....If you would actually take the time to learn something, this sort of shit wouldn't be happening to you all the damned time.......too bad and so sad for crick..

Here they are again for your reading pleasure...and I enjoy pushing your buttons...

For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there..


Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with the early release of information (via Australia), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature, etc., etc.?

I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.

 

[Crick]

You've given me nothing. Not surprising. It's all you've got.

 

[SSDD]

You've given me nothing. Not surprising. It's all you've got.

Funny crick...those statements are without a doubt admissions to fabricating data and yet, you try to defend them....you are a real piece of work crick...willing to tell any lie...willing to wallow in the sewer.....willing to prostitute what little intellect you have in an attempt to defend people who view you, and people like you as nothing more than useful idiots. Some epitaph you are building for yourself if you carry out the rest of your life in the same manner as you act on this board.

 

[Crick]

A paraphrased alternative

Funny SSDD...your interpretations of those statements are without a doubt admissions of your prejudice and yet, you try to push them....you are a real piece of work SSDD...willing to tell any lie...willing to wallow in the sewer.....willing to prostitute what little intellect you have in an attempt to defend people who view you, and people like you as nothing more than useful idiots. Some epitaph you are building for yourself if you carry out the rest of your life in the same manner as you act on this board.

I'm following mainstream science. You're following the fossil fuel industry and political hack blogs. I have an engineering degree. You seem to have nothing.

I demanded a CONFESSION. Normal conversation that, by exercise of extreme bias and dishonesty, you manage to interpret to mean something it very obviously did not, is not a confession. You fail.

 

[skookerasbil]

A paraphrased alternative

Funny SSDD...your interpretations of those statements are without a doubt admissions of your prejudice and yet, you try to push them....you are a real piece of work SSDD...willing to tell any lie...willing to wallow in the sewer.....willing to prostitute what little intellect you have in an attempt to defend people who view you, and people like you as nothing more than useful idiots. Some epitaph you are building for yourself if you carry out the rest of your life in the same manner as you act on this board.

I'm following mainstream science. You're following the fossil fuel industry and political hack blogs. I have an engineering degree. You seem to have nothing.

I demanded a CONFESSION. Normal conversation that, by exercise of extreme bias and dishonesty, you manage to interpret to mean something it very obviously did not, is not a confession. You fail.

Geee, well, seems the mainstream science and the engineering degree are really having a significant impact in the real world >>>


[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/eia-energy-demand-to-2035_1.jpg.html'][/URL]








[URL='http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/laughing%20man%203.jpg.html][IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/laughing%20man%203.jpg[/IMG][/URL]'][URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/laughing%20man%203.jpg.html][/URL][/URL]

 

[Crick]

A mathematical demonstration of the unlikelihood of a successful conspiracy to falsify global warming

Maths study shows conspiracies 'prone to unravelling' - BBC News

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A mathematical demonstration of the unlikelihood of a successful conspiracy to falsify global warming

Maths study shows conspiracies 'prone to unravelling' - BBC News

How long before Obama's shoveling of tax dollars to green cronies comes unraveled?

 

[jc456]

Hey cricket, if you didn't want to hear the evidence you claim the skeptics had, perhaps you could have avoided making this thread! I'm just saying. The evidence was provided and you immediately argue it. Dude, gets some balls

 

[Crick]

A mathematical demonstration of the unlikelihood of a successful conspiracy to falsify global warming

Maths study shows conspiracies 'prone to unravelling' - BBC News

How long before Obama's shoveling of tax dollars to green cronies comes unraveled?

This would suggest, not long. But it also demonstrates (as I suggested with this thread) that the likelihood of a successful, decades-long conspiracy to falsify global warming is very, very close to nil. And it seems to be that (the endless, unevidenced charges of unjustified adjustments) that forms the sole basis of deniers rejection of mainstream science at this point.