An interesting article on sea levels rising..

[LaDexter]

Deniers still calling out "Hide the decline" mark themselves as fools. The meaning of the phrase (referring to the decline in proportionality factors for tree ring proxies in the 20th century) is well known (but not to you)). If you actually believe your wee quip serves to disregard all climate science, you're an even greater fool.

LMFAO!!!


Crick's "Science" = hide the TRUTH (that there was a decline) because we're in the business of LYING and FUDGING

 

[LaDexter]

For the 1,674,352nd time.... folks, Crick makes me repeat it over and over.... because Crick is not in the business of ascertaining truth, rather, he is in the completely opposite business = Crick is a taxpayer funded truth obfuscation person...

You keep talking about highly correlated satellite and balloon data. What satellite data? What balloon data?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1462036/posts

"For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening.

Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses.

The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously showed."


and that data was highly correlated from both sources. The "warmer" "corrections" were uncorrelated, and totally fabricated FUDGE.

 

[Crick]

"The atmosphere is indeed warming"? Is that what you wanted to say?

 

[SSDD]

Warming....cooling...it is always doing one or the other except when it isn't....natural variation on display. Why are you so afraid of natural variation? Why do you demand that the climate remain static when there is nothing you can possibly do about it?

 

[Crick]

For the 1,674,352nd time.... folks, Crick makes me repeat it over and over.... because Crick is not in the business of ascertaining truth, rather, he is in the completely opposite business = Crick is a taxpayer funded truth obfuscation person...

You keep talking about highly correlated satellite and balloon data. What satellite data? What balloon data?

Key claim against global warming evaporates; Satellite, balloon data based on faulty analyses

"For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening.

Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses.

The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously showed."


and that data was highly correlated from both sources. The "warmer" "corrections" were uncorrelated, and totally fabricated FUDGE.

So, do you consider THIS to be a link to the specific data you've been touting?

PS: if you say "highly correlated" one more time, I've going to spew a great spew in your face

 

[jc456]

I don't believe innocent till proven guilty is part of the scientific method. I rather think it goes the other way.

no it's test measure and observe. thanks.

 

[SSDD]

For the 1,674,352nd time.... folks, Crick makes me repeat it over and over.... because Crick is not in the business of ascertaining truth, rather, he is in the completely opposite business = Crick is a taxpayer funded truth obfuscation person...

You keep talking about highly correlated satellite and balloon data. What satellite data? What balloon data?

Key claim against global warming evaporates; Satellite, balloon data based on faulty analyses

"For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening.

Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses.

The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously showed."


and that data was highly correlated from both sources. The "warmer" "corrections" were uncorrelated, and totally fabricated FUDGE.

So, do you consider THIS to be a link to the specific data you've been touting?

PS: if you say "highly correlated" one more time, I've going to spew a great spew in your face

It must suck when you rely entirely on correlatory data and someone else shows correlation that doesn't agree with your correlation....that's the problem with believing a branch of science that doesn't have any observed, measured, quantified, empirical data in support of their hypothesis....his correlation is just as valid as yours...more valid in fact, because your correlation only holds true for a very short period of time...a mere wink...and then it falls apart...his holds back as long as tectonic plates have been moving.

 

[Crick]

Deniers still calling out "Hide the decline" mark themselves as fools. The meaning of the phrase (referring to the decline in proportionality factors for tree ring proxies in the 20th century) is well known (but not to you)). If you actually believe your wee quip serves to disregard all climate science, you're an even greater fool.

Crick's "Science" = hide the TRUTH (that there was a decline) because we're in the business of LYING and FUDGING

Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said 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. Tierney, John. "E-Mail Fracas Shows Peril of Trying to Spin Science." The New York Times. 1 December 2009.
3. Randerson, James (31 March 2010). "Climate researchers 'secrecy' criticised – but MPs say science remains intact". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 26 July 2010.
4. 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. Retrieved7 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. pp. 1.1.4. Retrieved 26 October 2010.

You are an absolute, *******, shit-for-brains, idiot

 

[LaDexter]

"Hide the decline" is "normal" only when tens of billions of taxdollars are at stake...

 

[Crick]

Did you even read the text I posted? Do you have any comments about it? Do you have any evidence that actually supports your claim as to the meaning of the phrase in that context? Eh?

 

[SSDD]

Did you even read the text I posted? Do you have any comments about it? Do you have any evidence that actually supports your claim as to the meaning of the phrase in that context? Eh?

Explanations by the people who cooked up the plan to hide the decline?....tell me crick...did you believe the tobacco industry's explanations and excuses re cigarette smoking?

 

[Crick]

Did you even read the text I posted? Do you have any comments about it? Do you have any evidence that actually supports your claim as to the meaning of the phrase in that context? Eh?

I guess you did not read the text I posted or you have no comments about it and you lack any evidence whatsoever to support your claim as to the meaning of the phrase.

Got it.

 

[SSDD]

Did you even read the text I posted? Do you have any comments about it? Do you have any evidence that actually supports your claim as to the meaning of the phrase in that context? Eh?

I guess you did not read the text I posted or you have no comments about it and you lack any evidence whatsoever to support your claim as to the meaning of the phrase.

Got it.

You clearly accept any explanation...and when no explanation is given...as in the examples I gave you of a clear admission of falsifying data...you make up excuses for them.

 

[Crick]

And for Dex, who doesn't seem to understand seasonal effects

 

[SSDD]

Both of those graphs purportedly show a yearly rate of increase....and have nothing whatsoever to do with seasonal effects...not only can you not read graphs...but apparently don't even understand what they are trying to show...although in the case of those...they are obviously flawed...

This is what the Jason and TOPEX data show prior to the fraudulent isostatic adjustments made to them...

2.8m per year....business as usual and not scary at all


Here are the actual data and the fraudulent adjustments overlaid at the same time scale.

Your graph is pure bullshit....much like all of your argument.

 

[Crick]

Check your dates. Can we say C H E R R Y - P I C K I N G

 

[jc456]

Check your dates. Can we say C H E R R Y - P I C K I N G

they're the same dates that you had on yours. Are you on drugs?

 

[Crick]

1992 - 2004 is not the same date range as 1992 - 2016. Are YOU on drugs?

 

[jc456]

1992 - 2004 is not the same date range as 1992 - 2016. Are YOU on drugs?

what does that have to do with the data reference line between 1992 and 2004?

 

[SSDD]

1992 - 2004 is not the same date range as 1992 - 2016. Are YOU on drugs?

what does that have to do with the data reference line between 1992 and 2004?

Crick doesn't do graphs you know...he can't read them...he has no idea what they are showing...in short...crick doesn't understand graphs...he is the only ocean engineer on the planet that can't read a simple graph and understand what it means...he can't look at the uniform change created by the fraudulent isostatic adjustment across the period between 1992 and 2004 and see that the diversion from the earlier sea level only continues to diverge further and further as time goes on...