An overwhelming body of data and still we have climate deniers

[SSDD]

Yikes, and the denial continues

Any of our deniers comprehend the symptoms of Dunning-Kruger syndrome ;--)

Yes...its common among warmer cultists.....belief in claims for which evidence that doesn't exist....and belief that certain data is evidence when in fact it isn't....Sure that you have the science on your side when in fact, most of you wouldn't recognize science if it bit you on your ass.

Just to prove my point...I challenge you to provide one piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis... Now if you are not a victim of Dunning-Kruger syndrome...you will readily admit that no such data exists....if you are a victim, then you will go on about consensus...and settled science, and deniers while not providing a single shred of the sort of evidence I asked for...all the while never realizing that you believe such evidence exists but none can be found....

LOL clearly you don't comprehend the term.

Although this particular instance of ignorance I'd chalk up to cognitive dissonance rather than Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

You simply can't incorporate the concept into your preferred view and so you not only fail to recognize the true symptoms of Dunning-Kruger syndrome but you ignorantly move on attributing a false definition of the term.

WOW

You just proved my point perfectly.

When all you really had to do in order to cure your ignorance was just look it up. Which you didn't, why ? Because you aren't going to learn, what you don't want to know ;--)

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of those of low ability to recognize their ineptitude and evaluate their ability accurately.

Exactly as predicted....talk, talk, talk...while not making me your bitch by providing some piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis...and on and on you will go while never providing the first piece of such evidence and never realizing that you aren't providing it because it simply doesn't exist...were you not a poor victim of the syndrome, you would grasp why you are unable to provide the requested information and re-evaluate your position...but that will never happen because you believe yourself to be superior and far to intelligent to have been fooled so badly.

So now your turn...go on with your insults, and tell us all how smart you are and how stupid I am while still not providing the first shred of the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions that you believe exist in such abundance.

And just for context...I have spent decades looking for such evidence as I ask for...since I always base my position on the evidence....I would not ask for such evidence if I thought there was a chance in hell that you could provide it...for that matter, if such evince existed, I wouldn't be asking as I would be an AGW believer.

 

[Boston1]

LOL

So you prefer to maintain your confusion regarding your misunderstanding of the terminology involved in our conversation and you insist I engage that conversation which you clearly don't comprehend.

Brilliant evasion but

Not going to work.

Should you ever decide to actually learn the meaning of the terms involved, feel free, however, engaging your rhetoric while pandering to your obvious cognitive dissonance is no way to forward a productive conversation.

Cheers and thanks for playing
You proved my point beautifully

Love
B

 

[Uncensored2008]

Um, no, no ones been caught fudging data, actually they have a process called peer review to ensure that the data is accurate.

What your suggesting is basically the worlds biggest conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists over hundreds of years LOL. Its simply impossible.

Why would you think its all just fudged data ? Most scientists are still eating cold pizza and drinking warm bear, trying to figure this stuff out. If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Oh and its not so hard to figure out the temp hundreds and even thousands of years ago. Multiple techniques are used each having been calibrated just like that tape measure or any newer thermometer and compared against existing data. Its really not that tricky of a process.

That is LITERALLY the funniest thing I've ever read on these boards. You cultists are insane of course, but that is out in left field.

Claims Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 were false, says UN scientist

 

[Boston1]

So you're just going to skip the fact that you don't comprehend the terminology and move on to pretend there's problems with climate science.

That'll work

At the least it will help you maintain your preferred belief, rather than face the truth, which in the end is your main goal. Truth requires an open mind and a willingness to learn new concepts, ignorance on the other hand, revels in the Dunning-Kruger Effect

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you're just going to skip the fact that you don't comprehend the terminology and move on to pretend there's problems with climate science.

That'll work

At the least it will help you maintain your preferred belief, rather than face the truth, which in the end is your main goal. Truth requires an open mind and a willingness to learn new concepts, ignorance on the other hand, revels in the Dunning-Kruger Effect

To save the Earth, I'm going to recycle.

Right now I'm generating electricity by burning recycled......tires.

 

[SSDD]

LOL

So you prefer to maintain your confusion regarding your misunderstanding of the terminology involved in our conversation and you insist I engage that conversation which you clearly don't comprehend.

Brilliant evasion but

Not going to work.

Should you ever decide to actually learn the meaning of the terms involved, feel free, however, engaging your rhetoric while pandering to your obvious cognitive dissonance is no way to forward a productive conversation.

Cheers and thanks for playing
You proved my point beautifully

Love
B

And still not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions.....how predictable..since no such evidence exists...and still you remain completely ignorant as to why you haven't provided any such data. I can play this all day every day, you idiot...I am the one who has asked for evidence....you are the one completely unable to provide said evidence...and on and on it will go, becoming more evident with each exchange that you are just talking and will never be able to provide anything like the evidence I have requested....it will be equally evident that you remain unaware that you are being laughed at precisely because you continue to believe you hold the superior position even though you remain completely unable to provide even the first piece of the evidence you so fervently believe exists....

So carry on....reply again...and fail to provide even one shred of the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis that you believe exists....and perhaps ask yourself, how I managed to request the one thing you believe exists in abundance but which you seem not to be able to find.....anywhere.

By the way...in this exchange, it is you who is evading....I asked up front for something which you clearly believe exists....you keep replying, but don't seem to be able to deliver...nor will you ever be able to deliver. The question now is whether you are bright enough to know that you are being played and made a fool of. If so, you will tuck tail and run...and not be seen here again...if not...well....pretend superiority and again....fail to deliver the requested evidence.

 

[Boston1]

So you're just going to skip the fact that you don't comprehend the terminology and move on to pretend there's problems with climate science.

That'll work

At the least it will help you maintain your preferred belief, rather than face the truth, which in the end is your main goal. Truth requires an open mind and a willingness to learn new concepts, ignorance on the other hand, revels in the Dunning-Kruger Effect

To save the Earth, I'm going to recycle.

Right now I'm generating electricity by burning recycled......tires.

Probably not your best option. Even a pyrolysis system converting the tires most efficiently isn't going to negate the fact that your burning a fossil fuel. You'd be better off burning wood and burying the tires ;--(

Another little darling about recycling is that the redistribution back to the point of manufacture can be more energy intensive than the initial production process. Unfortunately this is true for most recyclables in most rural environments. Unless we are talking about plastics accumulation on the sea shore communities, in which case collection and conversion is going to have to be a key part of any recovery process.

My take is we need to conduct a managed divestment and use of fossil fuels to renewables and carbon neutral fuels.

I have ;-)

 

[Boston1]

LOL

So you prefer to maintain your confusion regarding your misunderstanding of the terminology involved in our conversation and you insist I engage that conversation which you clearly don't comprehend.

Brilliant evasion but

Not going to work.

Should you ever decide to actually learn the meaning of the terms involved, feel free, however, engaging your rhetoric while pandering to your obvious cognitive dissonance is no way to forward a productive conversation.

Cheers and thanks for playing
You proved my point beautifully

Love
B

And still not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions.....how predictable..since no such evidence exists...and still you remain completely ignorant as to why you haven't provided any such data. I can play this all day every day, you idiot...I am the one who has asked for evidence....you are the one completely unable to provide said evidence...and on and on it will go, becoming more evident with each exchange that you are just talking and will never be able to provide anything like the evidence I have requested....it will be equally evident that you remain unaware that you are being laughed at precisely because you continue to believe you hold the superior position even though you remain completely unable to provide even the first piece of the evidence you so fervently believe exists....

So carry on....reply again...and fail to provide even one shred of the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis that you believe exists....and perhaps ask yourself, how I managed to request the one thing you believe exists in abundance but which you seem not to be able to find.....anywhere.

By the way...in this exchange, it is you who is evading....I asked up front for something which you clearly believe exists....you keep replying, but don't seem to be able to deliver...nor will you ever be able to deliver. The question now is whether you are bright enough to know that you are being played and made a fool of. If so, you will tuck tail and run...and not be seen here again...if not...well....pretend superiority and again....fail to deliver the requested evidence.

You want to insist on engaging in a conversation, yet you clearly don't comprehend the language of the conversation.

So how is it you expect to comprehend the conversation itself ???

 

[SSDD]

LOL

So you prefer to maintain your confusion regarding your misunderstanding of the terminology involved in our conversation and you insist I engage that conversation which you clearly don't comprehend.

Brilliant evasion but

Not going to work.

Should you ever decide to actually learn the meaning of the terms involved, feel free, however, engaging your rhetoric while pandering to your obvious cognitive dissonance is no way to forward a productive conversation.

Cheers and thanks for playing
You proved my point beautifully

Love
B

And still not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions.....how predictable..since no such evidence exists...and still you remain completely ignorant as to why you haven't provided any such data. I can play this all day every day, you idiot...I am the one who has asked for evidence....you are the one completely unable to provide said evidence...and on and on it will go, becoming more evident with each exchange that you are just talking and will never be able to provide anything like the evidence I have requested....it will be equally evident that you remain unaware that you are being laughed at precisely because you continue to believe you hold the superior position even though you remain completely unable to provide even the first piece of the evidence you so fervently believe exists....

So carry on....reply again...and fail to provide even one shred of the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis that you believe exists....and perhaps ask yourself, how I managed to request the one thing you believe exists in abundance but which you seem not to be able to find.....anywhere.

By the way...in this exchange, it is you who is evading....I asked up front for something which you clearly believe exists....you keep replying, but don't seem to be able to deliver...nor will you ever be able to deliver. The question now is whether you are bright enough to know that you are being played and made a fool of. If so, you will tuck tail and run...and not be seen here again...if not...well....pretend superiority and again....fail to deliver the requested evidence.

You want to insist on engaging in a conversation, yet you clearly don't comprehend the language of the conversation.

So how is it you expect to comprehend the conversation itself ???

Carry on in any manner you like...it will be entertaining.

I responded to a suggestion on your part that AGW skeptics suffer from Dunning-Kruger syndrome..a condition in which low ability individuals suffer from the illusion of superiority. I then decided to demonstrate to everyone but you (since you are incapable of seeing your failure) that it is AGW believers that are more likely to suffer from the syndrome than skeptics by asking for information which you all believe exists, but in fact doesn't. Being a low ability individual, who believes himself to be superior, you were bound to point out to me that you are in fact superior and perhaps throw out some impotent insult while never grasping the fact that you weren't...nor ever would be able to provide the requested observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....the very thing that all of us skeptics want to see....the thing that would convince us that there is merit in the AGW hypothesis...the very thing that doesn't exist. Which then leads to the question....if no observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence exists....why then are you warmers convinced that the AGW hypothesis has merit?...and why do you defend it so vehemently if you don't in fact, suffer from Dunning-Kruger.....or are simply dupes incapable of thinking for yourselves? Either explanation is perfectly acceptable...and in my opinion, it is more likely that you are just dupes.

Perhaps it is cruel of me, but I enjoy pushing the buttons of idiots...I ask for that which I know you can't deliver...and watch the incredible mental gyrations and gymnastics and outrageous mental masturbation that you engage in an effort to avoid simply stating that no real observed, measured, quantified evidence exists which supports the claim that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions....you will go to any length to avoid admitting the very thing you are doing every time you fail to provide the requested evidence.

It is akin to a child whose face is covered in cookie denying that he or she has been eating cookies....You believe you are superior and have all the evidence and us skeptics are idiots but when asked to deliver the goods...you can't deliver...you can only dodge...and I do so enjoy watching the variations on the dodge.

So I have no expectations regarding the conversation other than to be entertained by your dance whose steps are supposed to proclaim your superiority and distract me from the fact that you are completely unable to provide the evidence of AGW which I asked you straight out for.

 

[Boston1]

LOL

perfect example of gas lighting or lamp lighting as I learned it

You responded to your imaginary view of Dunning-Kruger syndrome, which you've now amended

Lets try and keep your BS straight OK ;--)

Perhaps it is cruel of me, but I enjoy watching the deniers worm and squirm in a desperate attempt to maintain their level of ignorance such that they might maintain there preferred view. That ones called cognitive dissonance ;--)

So now that we have established that you will only acknowledge the actually meaning of the terminology involved when embarrassed sufficiently to do so; lets move on to gain a better understanding of exactly what YOU mean when you use the term "observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence" a group of qualifiers that could mean just about anything, particularly when you've already shown a level of willingness to simply invent your own definitions

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you're just going to skip the fact that you don't comprehend the terminology and move on to pretend there's problems with climate science.

That'll work

At the least it will help you maintain your preferred belief, rather than face the truth, which in the end is your main goal. Truth requires an open mind and a willingness to learn new concepts, ignorance on the other hand, revels in the Dunning-Kruger Effect

To save the Earth, I'm going to recycle.

Right now I'm generating electricity by burning recycled......tires.

Probably not your best option. Even a pyrolysis system converting the tires most efficiently isn't going to negate the fact that your burning a fossil fuel. You'd be better off burning wood and burying the tires ;--(

Another little darling about recycling is that the redistribution back to the point of manufacture can be more energy intensive than the initial production process. Unfortunately this is true for most recyclables in most rural environments. Unless we are talking about plastics accumulation on the sea shore communities, in which case collection and conversion is going to have to be a key part of any recovery process.

My take is we need to conduct a managed divestment and use of fossil fuels to renewables and carbon neutral fuels.

I have ;-)

Sorry, can't see your reply, these tires burn a bit smoky.

 

[Boston1]

Yeah, I didn't thing so

LOL

 

[westwall]

LOL

perfect example of gas lighting or lamp lighting as I learned it

You responded to your imaginary view of Dunning-Kruger syndrome, which you've now amended

Lets try and keep your BS straight OK ;--)

Perhaps it is cruel of me, but I enjoy watching the deniers worm and squirm in a desperate attempt to maintain their level of ignorance such that they might maintain there preferred view. That ones called cognitive dissonance ;--)

So now that we have established that you will only acknowledge the actually meaning of the terminology involved when embarrassed sufficiently to do so; lets move on to gain a better understanding of exactly what YOU mean when you use the term "observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence" a group of qualifiers that could mean just about anything, particularly when you've already shown a level of willingness to simply invent your own definitions

Pardon me, but you were provided a link to a very clear example of the IPCC lying about the Himalayan glaciers. That is what is called a fact. A fact that you claimed did not exist. The only person displaying the DK effect in this thread is you. And that in spades.

 

[Boston1]

LOL

perfect example of gas lighting or lamp lighting as I learned it

You responded to your imaginary view of Dunning-Kruger syndrome, which you've now amended

Lets try and keep your BS straight OK ;--)

Perhaps it is cruel of me, but I enjoy watching the deniers worm and squirm in a desperate attempt to maintain their level of ignorance such that they might maintain there preferred view. That ones called cognitive dissonance ;--)

So now that we have established that you will only acknowledge the actually meaning of the terminology involved when embarrassed sufficiently to do so; lets move on to gain a better understanding of exactly what YOU mean when you use the term "observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence" a group of qualifiers that could mean just about anything, particularly when you've already shown a level of willingness to simply invent your own definitions

Pardon me, but you were provided a link to a very clear example of the IPCC lying about the Himalayan glaciers. That is what is called a fact. A fact that you claimed did not exist. The only person displaying the DK effect in this thread is you. And that in spades.

LOL No I was provided a link to a denial website which misrepresented the science. Hardly a fact, more like a sham of both ignorance and idiocy.

How about if you face the science and leave off the false representation of fact. Science deals in the preponderance of data and the overwhelming consensus of many sciences overlapping in their agreement concerning the theory of climate shift

 

[westwall]

LOL

perfect example of gas lighting or lamp lighting as I learned it

You responded to your imaginary view of Dunning-Kruger syndrome, which you've now amended

Lets try and keep your BS straight OK ;--)

Perhaps it is cruel of me, but I enjoy watching the deniers worm and squirm in a desperate attempt to maintain their level of ignorance such that they might maintain there preferred view. That ones called cognitive dissonance ;--)

So now that we have established that you will only acknowledge the actually meaning of the terminology involved when embarrassed sufficiently to do so; lets move on to gain a better understanding of exactly what YOU mean when you use the term "observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence" a group of qualifiers that could mean just about anything, particularly when you've already shown a level of willingness to simply invent your own definitions

Pardon me, but you were provided a link to a very clear example of the IPCC lying about the Himalayan glaciers. That is what is called a fact. A fact that you claimed did not exist. The only person displaying the DK effect in this thread is you. And that in spades.

LOL No I was provided a link to a denial website which misrepresented the science. Hardly a fact, more like a sham of both ignorance and idiocy.

How about if you face the science and leave off the false representation of fact. Science deals in the preponderance of data and the overwhelming consensus of many sciences overlapping in their agreement concerning the theory of climate shift

Fine. Show us some empirical evidence. Do you even know what that means?

 

[The Professor]

Too many times the "overwhelming data" has been found to be fudged. They wouldn't need to do that if GLOBULL warming was indeed the real deal

How do they make a thermometer ?

They calibrate it against a standard ;--)

Thats not fudging, thats calibrating, same goes for tape measures ;--)

What thermometer did they use in...oh say 320 AD? LOL They've been caught fudging data and numbers, save your BS loon

Um, no, no ones been caught fudging data, actually they have a process called peer review to ensure that the data is accurate.

What your suggesting is basically the worlds biggest conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists over hundreds of years LOL. Its simply impossible.

Why would you think its all just fudged data ? Most scientists are still eating cold pizza and drinking warm bear, trying to figure this stuff out. If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Oh and its not so hard to figure out the temp hundreds and even thousands of years ago. Multiple techniques are used each having been calibrated just like that tape measure or any newer thermometer and compared against existing data. Its really not that tricky of a process.

If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Is that what happened to Nobel Prize winning scientist, Michael Mann?

Mann ( who I've spoken to on several occasions ) didn't misreport anything, he simple didn't include his calculations in his original, and took his time releasing them, which as I recall he eventually did.

Mann, actually has done a great job and been a real mover in the field of climate science. He won that Nobel for a reason, he's good.

One of us is th-th-th-that's all folks looney tunes and I sure hope it's you. From what I know, Michael Mann did not receive a Noble Prize. He falsely claimed he did but had to retract his claim when his scam was discovered.

“Disgraced Penn State University (PSU) climatologist, Michael Mann, concedes defeat in his bogus claims to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Mann’s employer this weekend began the shameful task of divesting itself of all inflated claims on university websites and official documentation that Mann was ever a Peace Prize recipient with Al Gore and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

Michael Mann Retracts False Nobel Prize Claims in Humiliating Climbdown

I suggest that anyone who would lie about receiving a Noble Prize to bolster his credibility would lie about other things as well to achieve his agenda.

I will comment on the false science in another post. I just wanted to set the record straight regarding "Noble Prize winner" Michael Mann.

 

[SSDD]

LOL

perfect example of gas lighting or lamp lighting as I learned it

You responded to your imaginary view of Dunning-Kruger syndrome, which you've now amended

Lets try and keep your BS straight OK ;--)

Perhaps it is cruel of me, but I enjoy watching the deniers worm and squirm in a desperate attempt to maintain their level of ignorance such that they might maintain there preferred view. That ones called cognitive dissonance ;--)

So now that we have established that you will only acknowledge the actually meaning of the terminology involved when embarrassed sufficiently to do so; lets move on to gain a better understanding of exactly what YOU mean when you use the term "observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence" a group of qualifiers that could mean just about anything, particularly when you've already shown a level of willingness to simply invent your own definitions

And as predicted...not the first shred of the observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that was requested. As to what such data may look like...were the words to difficult for you to understand? Being such a superior intellect, I wouldn't have guessed that would have been the case, but here...I will provide accepted definitions for you.

observed- to watch, view, or note for a scientific, official, or other special purpose

measured- the act or process of ascertaining the extent, dimensions, or quantity something

quantified- to discover or express the quantity of

empirical- derived from or guided by experience or experiment

The reason I ask for such evidence is because the atmosphere, and the things that happen within it are observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical events...and for one to make rational claims regarding an observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical entity, one needs observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in order to support said claims.

I can't think of any physical science, involved in the study of actual visible events happening in real time out in nature which does not deal almost exclusively in observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence...except climate science which uses precious little and has none supporting the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his so called greenhouse gas emissions.

As far as your claim that I am squirming in a desperate attempt to maintain my level of ignorance...I can only assume that you have reading comprehension problems...I am asking in a very straight forward manner for you to provide the information that would change my position on the issue. I want to be convinced...you all say that the sort of evidence I request exists in abundance...you claim that the overwhelming scientific consensus is built upon it...you claim that the sort of evidence I request is so ubiquitous that it has settled the science...I have looked...and looked...and looked. I can't find it. One would think that if such evidence exists that it would be impossible for a skeptic to avoid ...it would be everywhere. Clearly it isn't.

So I am asking for it as clearly as I possibly can. The only one squirming here is you....trying to maintain your illusion of superiority and being on the correct side while not being able to grant a straight forward request for observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence relating to an observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical event that is happening to an observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical entity. Such evidence either exists or it doesn't...if it does enlighten me...show it to me so that I can be on the right side of the issue....if it doesn't, you really should ask yourself why you are convinced.

 

[SSDD]

LOL

perfect example of gas lighting or lamp lighting as I learned it

You responded to your imaginary view of Dunning-Kruger syndrome, which you've now amended

Lets try and keep your BS straight OK ;--)

Perhaps it is cruel of me, but I enjoy watching the deniers worm and squirm in a desperate attempt to maintain their level of ignorance such that they might maintain there preferred view. That ones called cognitive dissonance ;--)

So now that we have established that you will only acknowledge the actually meaning of the terminology involved when embarrassed sufficiently to do so; lets move on to gain a better understanding of exactly what YOU mean when you use the term "observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence" a group of qualifiers that could mean just about anything, particularly when you've already shown a level of willingness to simply invent your own definitions

Pardon me, but you were provided a link to a very clear example of the IPCC lying about the Himalayan glaciers. That is what is called a fact. A fact that you claimed did not exist. The only person displaying the DK effect in this thread is you. And that in spades.

It is fun to watch isn't it?...and a bit sad. Interesting to note the varying depth of the illusion. Some cut and run as soon as they realize that what we are asking for, they can't deliver....the run off and never show up on that particular thread again...only to begin again with the same lame claims on a different thread...and some will stick it out....literally dragging their intellect (such as it is) through the sewer for post after post and never, ever providing the straight forward information and evidence that us skeptics are sincerely asking for.

 

[SSDD]

LOL

perfect example of gas lighting or lamp lighting as I learned it

You responded to your imaginary view of Dunning-Kruger syndrome, which you've now amended

Lets try and keep your BS straight OK ;--)

Perhaps it is cruel of me, but I enjoy watching the deniers worm and squirm in a desperate attempt to maintain their level of ignorance such that they might maintain there preferred view. That ones called cognitive dissonance ;--)

So now that we have established that you will only acknowledge the actually meaning of the terminology involved when embarrassed sufficiently to do so; lets move on to gain a better understanding of exactly what YOU mean when you use the term "observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence" a group of qualifiers that could mean just about anything, particularly when you've already shown a level of willingness to simply invent your own definitions

Pardon me, but you were provided a link to a very clear example of the IPCC lying about the Himalayan glaciers. That is what is called a fact. A fact that you claimed did not exist. The only person displaying the DK effect in this thread is you. And that in spades.

LOL No I was provided a link to a denial website which misrepresented the science. Hardly a fact, more like a sham of both ignorance and idiocy.

How about if you face the science and leave off the false representation of fact. Science deals in the preponderance of data and the overwhelming consensus of many sciences overlapping in their agreement concerning the theory of climate shift

So now you really are squirming in order to maintain your level of ignorance...you might have went to the site, but you certainly didn't read it....my guess is that you clicked on the link...saw "The Guardian" and simply assumed that no actual information could be there and then came straight back claiming that it was a denier web site....confident in your ability to maintain your level of ignorance.

Had you actually read the information, you would have found a clear link to the IPCC itself admitting precisely what the article stated...that the claims made in the IPCC report were, IN FACT, false. Here, from the IPCC web site:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf

It has, however, recently come to our attention that a paragraph in the 938-page Working Group II contribution to the underlying assessment2 refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly.

Now, in the face of an admission by the IPCC themselves that the claim that they published was false, I am very interested to see what length you will go to in order to maintain your present level of ignorance.

 

[IanC]

How do they make a thermometer ?

They calibrate it against a standard ;--)

Thats not fudging, thats calibrating, same goes for tape measures ;--)

What thermometer did they use in...oh say 320 AD? LOL They've been caught fudging data and numbers, save your BS loon

Um, no, no ones been caught fudging data, actually they have a process called peer review to ensure that the data is accurate.

What your suggesting is basically the worlds biggest conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists over hundreds of years LOL. Its simply impossible.

Why would you think its all just fudged data ? Most scientists are still eating cold pizza and drinking warm bear, trying to figure this stuff out. If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Oh and its not so hard to figure out the temp hundreds and even thousands of years ago. Multiple techniques are used each having been calibrated just like that tape measure or any newer thermometer and compared against existing data. Its really not that tricky of a process.

If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Is that what happened to Nobel Prize winning scientist, Michael Mann?

Mann ( who I've spoken to on several occasions ) didn't misreport anything, he simple didn't include his calculations in his original, and took his time releasing them, which as I recall he eventually did.

Mann, actually has done a great job and been a real mover in the field of climate science. He won that Nobel for a reason, he's good.

One of us is th-th-th-that's all folks looney tunes and I sure hope it's you. From what I know, Michael Mann did not receive a Noble Prize. He falsely claimed he did but had to retract his claim when his scam was discovered.

“Disgraced Penn State University (PSU) climatologist, Michael Mann, concedes defeat in his bogus claims to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Mann’s employer this weekend began the shameful task of divesting itself of all inflated claims on university websites and official documentation that Mann was ever a Peace Prize recipient with Al Gore and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

Michael Mann Retracts False Nobel Prize Claims in Humiliating Climbdown

I suggest that anyone who would lie about receiving a Noble Prize to bolster his credibility would lie about other things as well to achieve his agenda.

I will comment on the false science in another post. I just wanted to set the record straight regarding "Noble Prize winner" Michael Mann.

To be fair...there were a lot of lead IPCC writers who got those letters and put them in their c. vit. Their institutions also went overboard crowing about N P winners, usually not pointing out it was a Peace Prize and not a science prize. It was mostly back slapping all around, until the N P committee put an end to it.

I am much more concerned about the actual fraudulent methods that Mann employed, and refused to correct after they were pointed out. Like the upsidedown Tiljander proxies, or 'Mike's Nature trick', to name a few.