Climate change: 2015 will be the hottest year on record 'by a mile', experts say

[jc456]

Well it certainly was a fiasco. Mann reminds me of the Month Python Black Knight that refuses to admit failure even after all his limbs have been hacked off.

The fiasco is that Manns original findings have been confirmed, expanded upon, and verified a half dozen times, and MBH 98 rightly stands as pioneering work in the field of paleoclimatology.

But guys like you pretend his proxy methods and findings were 'failure', even though almost no one in the paleoclimatology community would remotely agree.

I have fought this battle a hundred times over the last five years. It's boring now. You guys simply ignore the moral and scientific lapses of Mann. He is as fake as the Nobel Prize certificate he hangs in his office.

Well, it's a losing battle.


But Mann is irrelevant. Multiple studies have confirmed those findings with better and more comprehensive data, going back much farther.

But logic and reason don't seem to make a difference to some.

Wrong! Mann's crap is garbage and those who have tried to "verify" have been laughed out the door because they make the same mistakes he did.. Improper methods and all.. Repeating epic failure is not verifying the outcome...

I'm pretty sure getting your paper pubsihed as the lead paper in PNAS isnt being 'laughed out the door'.

But then again, you are probably someone who doesnt understand what that means, or what PNAS is.

getting someone who is your friend does not validate any document. The good old boy club, come on in and have a drink and we'll publish your paper. here's all you need to say.........global warming is man made and hottest eva......funny stuff, has zip on INTEGRITY. Zero.......

 

[threegoofs]

Peer review is like democracy - (ANALOGY ALERT!) : it's the worst system ever invented, except for all others.

I'm sure your retracted paper was probably covered by all your denier blogs, but again, a single paper is just a piece of the mountain of evidence that is literally growing monthly.

Peer review is like democracy - (ANALOGY ALERT!) : it's the worst system ever invented, except for all others.

I'm sure your retracted paper was probably covered by all your denier blogs, but again, a single paper is just a piece of the mountain of evidence that is literally growing monthly.

I find it odd and somewhat disconcerting that mistakes found in climate science papers are handwaved away as unimportant rather than seen as an opportunity to improve the science and future publications.

They certainly are used as opportunities for improvement.

But I find it odd that the deniers seize on this minority of papers often with minor errors and pretend it is generalizable to all of science.

The M&M fiasco with Manns original Nature paper illustrates this in spades.

Mann's Nature paper is a pile of crap. Its been show fraudulent and the data made up.. Gawd you ass clowns are so predictable..

Amazing how a guy can make up data and then have his findings verified independently multiple times by people using totally different methods. I guess thats why he's a Distinguished Professor of Earth Sciences at the #1 ranked school of earth science and you are...some guy who knows how to use emojis.

funny, it's been explained to everyone on this forum hundred's of times. Go read, search on Mann and the upside down tree ring.

I guess the scientists don't read this site to get any scientific knowledge.

That's because, unlike you, they're smart.

 

[jc456]

I find it odd and somewhat disconcerting that mistakes found in climate science papers are handwaved away as unimportant rather than seen as an opportunity to improve the science and future publications.

They certainly are used as opportunities for improvement.

But I find it odd that the deniers seize on this minority of papers often with minor errors and pretend it is generalizable to all of science.

The M&M fiasco with Manns original Nature paper illustrates this in spades.

Mann's Nature paper is a pile of crap. Its been show fraudulent and the data made up.. Gawd you ass clowns are so predictable..

Amazing how a guy can make up data and then have his findings verified independently multiple times by people using totally different methods. I guess thats why he's a Distinguished Professor of Earth Sciences at the #1 ranked school of earth science and you are...some guy who knows how to use emojis.

funny, it's been explained to everyone on this forum hundred's of times. Go read, search on Mann and the upside down tree ring.

I guess the scientists don't read this site to get any scientific knowledge.

That's because, unlike you, they're smart.

I'll call you ricochet rabbit, you bounce off of everything to avoid a discussion. You wouldn't know science if it hit you in the face.

 

[threegoofs]

Discussion? I didn't realize telling me the point 'has been proven' in some other thread populated by scientific illiterates counts as a rational discussion.

 

[imawhosure]

This is all you need to know about the enviros. Wake up! Matt Damon's Anti-Fracking Movie Financed by Oil-Rich Arab Nation

And this read! http://www.marklevinshow.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/301/2015/08/Plunder-Deceit-Chapter7.pdf

And this is their manifesto, which many of the supporters of this thread are fully aware of. Degrowth Manifesto - P2P Foundation

If you believe ANY of these people who are telling you we are all in trouble because the earth is getting warm and it is all your fault, then you are GULLIBLE! Read, just read-)

 

[threegoofs]

This is all you need to know about the enviros. Wake up! Matt Damon's Anti-Fracking Movie Financed by Oil-Rich Arab Nation

And this read! http://www.marklevinshow.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/301/2015/08/Plunder-Deceit-Chapter7.pdf

And this is their manifesto, which many of the supporters of this thread are fully aware of. Degrowth Manifesto - P2P Foundation

If you believe ANY of these people who are telling you we are all in trouble because the earth is getting warm and it is all your fault, then you are GULLIBLE! Read, just read-)

Read blogs to understand the science?

What IS the deal around here, anyway?

 

[westwall]

This is all you need to know about the enviros. Wake up! Matt Damon's Anti-Fracking Movie Financed by Oil-Rich Arab Nation

And this read! http://www.marklevinshow.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/301/2015/08/Plunder-Deceit-Chapter7.pdf

And this is their manifesto, which many of the supporters of this thread are fully aware of. Degrowth Manifesto - P2P Foundation

If you believe ANY of these people who are telling you we are all in trouble because the earth is getting warm and it is all your fault, then you are GULLIBLE! Read, just read-)

Read blogs to understand the science?

What IS the deal around here, anyway?

Well......it is a blog that has caused two major AGW papers to be pulled. And that within hours. So, I guess that blog knows more about the science than the "scientists" who produced the crap.

 

[Crick]

Which blog and which papers?

 

[westwall]

Which blog and which papers?

Here are five of them. And you know who's blog it is. I believe you refer to him as "he who must not be named"


climate change Archives - Retraction Watch

 

[Crick]

I have reviewed that link. I find no blog identified as being responsible for those retractions. I also find those retractions to vary from irrelevant to supportive of AGW.

What do YOU see when you go to that link?

 

[Billy_Bob]

threegoofs image is from a RealClimate post trying to support Marcott13 from withering criticism. It is an amalgam of Shakun, Marcott, HADCrut, and a temperature projection out to 2100.

threegoofs considers anyone who cannot see the change from red to dark orange as colorblind. Hahahahaha. What say you smart phone users? Are you colorblind? Perhaps the better question would be why RealClimate chose to use nearly identical shades to represent both real(ish) and hypothetical temperatures.

The word DECEPTIVE comes to mind... And then we have the statistical parlor trick in there as well with 10 year plots on the end of 300-500 year plots for the majority of the graph.. Considering the source this doesn't surprise me.

 

[threegoofs]

This is all you need to know about the enviros. Wake up! Matt Damon's Anti-Fracking Movie Financed by Oil-Rich Arab Nation

And this read! http://www.marklevinshow.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/301/2015/08/Plunder-Deceit-Chapter7.pdf

And this is their manifesto, which many of the supporters of this thread are fully aware of. Degrowth Manifesto - P2P Foundation

If you believe ANY of these people who are telling you we are all in trouble because the earth is getting warm and it is all your fault, then you are GULLIBLE! Read, just read-)

Read blogs to understand the science?

What IS the deal around here, anyway?

Well......it is a blog that has caused two major AGW papers to be pulled. And that within hours. So, I guess that blog knows more about the science than the "scientists" who produced the crap.

I guess they don't want to see papers in publication. I can understand why.

The mark of an actual productive scientist isn't to nitpick unpublished papers, it's to produce new knowledge. That's not done on blogs.

 

[threegoofs]

threegoofs image is from a RealClimate post trying to support Marcott13 from withering criticism. It is an amalgam of Shakun, Marcott, HADCrut, and a temperature projection out to 2100.

threegoofs considers anyone who cannot see the change from red to dark orange as colorblind. Hahahahaha. What say you smart phone users? Are you colorblind? Perhaps the better question would be why RealClimate chose to use nearly identical shades to represent both real(ish) and hypothetical temperatures.

The word DECEPTIVE comes to mind... And then we have the statistical parlor trick in there as well with 10 year plots on the end of 300-500 year plots for the majority of the graph.. Considering the source this doesn't surprise me.

The parlor trick is good enough for PNAS. It's good enough for most learned scientists.

I'm sure they aren't concerned it's not good enough for some idiot named billy Bob on the Internet.

 

[Billy_Bob]

threegoofs image is from a RealClimate post trying to support Marcott13 from withering criticism. It is an amalgam of Shakun, Marcott, HADCrut, and a temperature projection out to 2100.

threegoofs considers anyone who cannot see the change from red to dark orange as colorblind. Hahahahaha. What say you smart phone users? Are you colorblind? Perhaps the better question would be why RealClimate chose to use nearly identical shades to represent both real(ish) and hypothetical temperatures.

The word DECEPTIVE comes to mind... And then we have the statistical parlor trick in there as well with 10 year plots on the end of 300-500 year plots for the majority of the graph.. Considering the source this doesn't surprise me.

The parlor trick is good enough for PNAS. It's good enough for most learned scientists.

I'm sure they aren't concerned it's not good enough for some idiot named billy Bob on the Internet.

I knew you would be OK with deception... Real scientists are not!

 

[threegoofs]

threegoofs image is from a RealClimate post trying to support Marcott13 from withering criticism. It is an amalgam of Shakun, Marcott, HADCrut, and a temperature projection out to 2100.

threegoofs considers anyone who cannot see the change from red to dark orange as colorblind. Hahahahaha. What say you smart phone users? Are you colorblind? Perhaps the better question would be why RealClimate chose to use nearly identical shades to represent both real(ish) and hypothetical temperatures.

The word DECEPTIVE comes to mind... And then we have the statistical parlor trick in there as well with 10 year plots on the end of 300-500 year plots for the majority of the graph.. Considering the source this doesn't surprise me.

The parlor trick is good enough for PNAS. It's good enough for most learned scientists.

I'm sure they aren't concerned it's not good enough for some idiot named billy Bob on the Internet.

I knew you would be OK with deception... Real scientists are not!

Great. Maybe you'll show us some of their work. Instead of blogs and newspaper stories.

 

[westwall]

This is all you need to know about the enviros. Wake up! Matt Damon's Anti-Fracking Movie Financed by Oil-Rich Arab Nation

And this read! http://www.marklevinshow.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/301/2015/08/Plunder-Deceit-Chapter7.pdf

And this is their manifesto, which many of the supporters of this thread are fully aware of. Degrowth Manifesto - P2P Foundation

If you believe ANY of these people who are telling you we are all in trouble because the earth is getting warm and it is all your fault, then you are GULLIBLE! Read, just read-)

Read blogs to understand the science?

What IS the deal around here, anyway?

Well......it is a blog that has caused two major AGW papers to be pulled. And that within hours. So, I guess that blog knows more about the science than the "scientists" who produced the crap.

I guess they don't want to see papers in publication. I can understand why.

The mark of an actual productive scientist isn't to nitpick unpublished papers, it's to produce new knowledge. That's not done on blogs.

Bullshit. The mark of an accomplished scientist is to produce GOOD work. The only people who try and prevent discourse are those who have something to hide. No legitimate scientist is ever afraid to defend his work.


Period.

 

[threegoofs]

This is all you need to know about the enviros. Wake up! Matt Damon's Anti-Fracking Movie Financed by Oil-Rich Arab Nation

And this read! http://www.marklevinshow.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/301/2015/08/Plunder-Deceit-Chapter7.pdf

And this is their manifesto, which many of the supporters of this thread are fully aware of. Degrowth Manifesto - P2P Foundation

If you believe ANY of these people who are telling you we are all in trouble because the earth is getting warm and it is all your fault, then you are GULLIBLE! Read, just read-)

Read blogs to understand the science?

What IS the deal around here, anyway?

Well......it is a blog that has caused two major AGW papers to be pulled. And that within hours. So, I guess that blog knows more about the science than the "scientists" who produced the crap.

I guess they don't want to see papers in publication. I can understand why.

The mark of an actual productive scientist isn't to nitpick unpublished papers, it's to produce new knowledge. That's not done on blogs.

Bullshit. The mark of an accomplished scientist is to produce GOOD work. The only people who try and prevent discourse are those who have something to hide. No legitimate scientist is ever afraid to defend his work.


Period.

And this is fine in the published literature.

Otherwise, it's like a creationist site. Or a homeopathic site. Blogs. Blargh.

 

[IanC]

very few of us have subscriptions that allow us to peruse many scientific journals, although some have access via work or even the library. the more general journals like Science or Nature only have a few articles per issue on climate related subjects.

so where do most of us get our information from? internet news aggregators, like WUWT or SkS. even if we try to check the original sources, someone else was giving us the idea where to look.

and of course there is Google or any other search engine. I find that googling images of charts and graphs sends you in many directions because the same image is often used by people with very different viewpoints.

eg. 'global temp graph' lead me to a Lomborg article from this image-

which lead me to Nature article which inspired it. paywalled but a search of the title lead to an Arizona.edu course with a free copy ( http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/182h/Climate/Overestimated Warming.pdf ) but because my browser doesnt like pulling out pdf images, I googled the first part of the caption.

pretty strong evidence that global models are overestimating warming. from a respected journal.

the google image search from the caption only brought this image up once. to an article at Whats Up With That.

 

[threegoofs]

very few of us have subscriptions that allow us to peruse many scientific journals, although some have access via work or even the library. the more general journals like Science or Nature only have a few articles per issue on climate related subjects.

so where do most of us get our information from? internet news aggregators, like WUWT or SkS. even if we try to check the original sources, someone else was giving us the idea where to look.

and of course there is Google or any other search engine. I find that googling images of charts and graphs sends you in many directions because the same image is often used by people with very different viewpoints.

eg. 'global temp graph' lead me to a Lomborg article from this image-

which lead me to Nature article which inspired it. paywalled but a search of the title lead to an Arizona.edu course with a free copy ( http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/182h/Climate/Overestimated Warming.pdf ) but because my browser doesnt like pulling out pdf images, I googled the first part of the caption.

pretty strong evidence that global models are overestimating warming. from a respected journal.

the google image search from the caption only brought this image up once. to an article at Whats Up With That.

So what you are saying is that not only do you not have the expertise and ability to interpret these articles correctly, but you don't even have the simple access to the journals that allow you to obtain some of that expertise and ability.

But then you say that the people who are doing this research are wrong!

Do you see why that's absurd?

 

[jc456]

very few of us have subscriptions that allow us to peruse many scientific journals, although some have access via work or even the library. the more general journals like Science or Nature only have a few articles per issue on climate related subjects.

so where do most of us get our information from? internet news aggregators, like WUWT or SkS. even if we try to check the original sources, someone else was giving us the idea where to look.

and of course there is Google or any other search engine. I find that googling images of charts and graphs sends you in many directions because the same image is often used by people with very different viewpoints.

eg. 'global temp graph' lead me to a Lomborg article from this image-

which lead me to Nature article which inspired it. paywalled but a search of the title lead to an Arizona.edu course with a free copy ( http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/182h/Climate/Overestimated Warming.pdf ) but because my browser doesnt like pulling out pdf images, I googled the first part of the caption.

pretty strong evidence that global models are overestimating warming. from a respected journal.

the google image search from the caption only brought this image up once. to an article at Whats Up With That.

So what you are saying is that not only do you not have the expertise and ability to interpret these articles correctly, but you don't even have the simple access to the journals that allow you to obtain some of that expertise and ability.

But then you say that the people who are doing this research are wrong!

Do you see why that's absurd?

no, that isn't what he said. It's what you said. You should actually stick to what was actually written. You'd have more credibility. Makes all other posts disingenuous since now we are left with your interpretation or perception and that sucks.

So a question from me, do you have access to journals?