Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[Bigfoot]

Yeah Tarjan...I was jsut reading Prof Judith Curry's findings at another website and she shows that the original post to this thread is (again) another attempt at falsifying data to support an agenda. What a shocker! And from the honest folks at Berkley no less

 

[SAT]

Yeah Tarjan...I was jsut reading Prof Judith Curry's findings at another website and she shows that the original post to this thread is (again) another attempt at falsifying data to support an agenda. What a shocker! And from the honest folks at Berkley no less

She seemed to be backing off that accusation, last I read.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah Tarjan...I was jsut reading Prof Judith Curry's findings at another website and she shows that the original post to this thread is (again) another attempt at falsifying data to support an agenda. What a shocker! And from the honest folks at Berkley no less

She seemed to be backing off that accusation, last I read.

I want to know when Richard Muller was a skeptic of global warming.

 

[westwall]

Several investigations into "Climategate" have been conducted, every one of them exonerated the scientists involved.

"Hide the decline" is math talk for math that's well over my head, and even further over the denier's heads.

It's easy to be exonerated when you are the prosecutor and judge in your own case. But you knew that allready didn't you.

 

[westwall]

That makes the claim that the increased CO2 levels are attrributable to man, but makes no real effort to prove it.

So what is the reason for the increased levels of CO2?

OMFG!!

15 year...not significant, but 16 years = significant

That was a Warmer attempt at humor, right?

Are you one of the alleged scientists on the board?



Good job.

Priceless.

Why?

Because it's like something out of children's movie-where the bratty kid claims that they can fly, but they just don't want to right now.

Man certainly contributes some. However as shown in the Vostock ice core data, the warming occurs first then 800 years or so later the CO2 levels increase. 800 years ago was the height of the MWP. Now correlation is certainly not causation, but there is more evidence to support that correlation then anything the warmists are putting out.

 

[SAT]

Yeah Tarjan...I was jsut reading Prof Judith Curry's findings at another website and she shows that the original post to this thread is (again) another attempt at falsifying data to support an agenda. What a shocker! And from the honest folks at Berkley no less

She seemed to be backing off that accusation, last I read.

I want to know when Richard Muller was a skeptic of global warming.

Right, he wasn't a real skeptic like you. He was a fake skeptic. He's probably getting millions in his personal checking account right now from some university grant.

 

[SAT]

It's easy to be exonerated when you are the prosecutor and judge in your own case. But you knew that allready didn't you.

So you're saying that in every one of these investigations, the people investigating are the same as the people being investigated.

I don't think you can back that up.

Man certainly contributes some. However as shown in the Vostock ice core data, the warming occurs first then 800 years or so later the CO2 levels increase. 800 years ago was the height of the MWP. Now correlation is certainly not causation, but there is more evidence to support that correlation then anything the warmists are putting out.

So where's all the CO2 coming from now?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

She seemed to be backing off that accusation, last I read.

I want to know when Richard Muller was a skeptic of global warming.

Right, he wasn't a real skeptic like you. He was a fake skeptic. He's probably getting millions in his personal checking account right now from some university grant.

I've never heard him being skeptical. Have you? When?

 

[Si modo]

So what is the reason for the increased levels of CO2?



Are you one of the alleged scientists on the board?



Good job.





Because it's like something out of children's movie-where the bratty kid claims that they can fly, but they just don't want to right now.

Wharrrrrrgggggbbbbblllle.

Obviously, you cannot even talk about science. Your input is useless.

I've got your lame self beat.

"I win, I win!"?

That's your idea of contribution to a scientific discussion?

 

[SAT]

Wharrrrrrgggggbbbbblllle.

Obviously, you cannot even talk about science. Your input is useless.

I've got your lame self beat.

"I win, I win!"?

That's your idea of contribution to a scientific discussion?

No. It's yours. I'm just mocking you about it.

 

[Si modo]

I've got your lame self beat.

"I win, I win!"?

That's your idea of contribution to a scientific discussion?

No. It's yours. I'm just mocking you about it.

That simply isn't true.

But, when you are able to participate in discussing actual science, I will be happy to do so with you.

In this subforum, I have no desire to discuss at your level.

I take the soiling of science seriously.

 

[SAT]

"I win, I win!"?

That's your idea of contribution to a scientific discussion?

No. It's yours. I'm just mocking you about it.

That simply isn't true.

But, when you are able to participate in discussing actual science, I will be happy to do so with you.

In this subforum, I have no desire to discuss at your level.

I take the soiling of science seriously.

Oh, it's true. Just like your last sentence. You're very serious about soiling science.

 

[Si modo]

She seemed to be backing off that accusation, last I read.

I want to know when Richard Muller was a skeptic of global warming.

Right, he wasn't a real skeptic like you. He was a fake skeptic. He's probably getting millions in his personal checking account right now from some university grant.

How does someone get millions in their pocket from a "university grant"?

Surely you'll let us know how "university grants" work, right?

 

[SAT]

I want to know when Richard Muller was a skeptic of global warming.

Right, he wasn't a real skeptic like you. He was a fake skeptic. He's probably getting millions in his personal checking account right now from some university grant.

How does someone get millions in their pocket from a "university grant"?

Surely you'll let us know how "university grants" work, right?

Literate posters will recognize sarcasm when they see it.

 

[Si modo]

Right, he wasn't a real skeptic like you. He was a fake skeptic. He's probably getting millions in his personal checking account right now from some university grant.

How does someone get millions in their pocket from a "university grant"?

Surely you'll let us know how "university grants" work, right?

Literate posters will recognize sarcasm when they see it.

Irrespective your desperate attempts to soil discussion, answer the question: How do you think someone gets millions "in their pocket" from "university grants"?

How do you think that works?

 

[Trajan]

It's easy to be exonerated when you are the prosecutor and judge in your own case. But you knew that allready didn't you.

So you're saying that in every one of these investigations, the people investigating are the same as the people being investigated.

I don't think you can back that up.

Man certainly contributes some. However as shown in the Vostock ice core data, the warming occurs first then 800 years or so later the CO2 levels increase. 800 years ago was the height of the MWP. Now correlation is certainly not causation, but there is more evidence to support that correlation then anything the warmists are putting out.

So where's all the CO2 coming from now?

you apparently....

 

[Old Rocks]

"I win, I win!"?

That's your idea of contribution to a scientific discussion?

No. It's yours. I'm just mocking you about it.

That simply isn't true.

But, when you are able to participate in discussing actual science, I will be happy to do so with you.

In this subforum, I have no desire to discuss at your level.

I take the soiling of science seriously.

LOL. As you shit all over the subject.

You have no desire to discuss science at any level. You merely wish to push your political idiocy without regard to scientific reality.

 

[Si modo]

No. It's yours. I'm just mocking you about it.

That simply isn't true.

But, when you are able to participate in discussing actual science, I will be happy to do so with you.

In this subforum, I have no desire to discuss at your level.

I take the soiling of science seriously.

LOL. As you shit all over the subject.

You have no desire to discuss science at any level. You merely wish to push your political idiocy without regard to scientific reality.

The only thing I push for is scientific integrity. The fact that you call that a political agenda is on its face, soiling science.

 

[Old Rocks]

Global warming skeptics suspected climate change scientists were hiding data. So the skeptics paid for a new study to find the real truth. The results are in! And they're identical to previous results: Humans are heating up the earth.

University of California physics professor Richard Muller, one of the most vocal skeptics, gathered a team of 10 scientists, mostly physicists, including 2011 Nobel Physics Prize winner Saul Perlmutter, to create the Berkeley Earth Project.

Muller et. al. thought that data from weather stations used for previous studies may have been off because those located close to cities would record artificially warm temperatures. So the Berkeley Earth Project used new methods to re-analyze data from 40,000 weather stations. And guess what? The resulting graph looks almost exactly the same as the graphs from previous studies.

Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

not so fast, contain your misplaced glee.



Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague

By David Rose

Last updated at 6:11 PM on 30th October 2011


snip-



Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.

Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.

Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious ‘Climategate’ scandal two years ago. …

In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

more at-
Scientists who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague | Mail Online

Bullshit lies. The graph drawn from BEST's data is a fraud. Judith Currey did not say that Dr. Muller study was another 'Climategate' fraud.

Mail on BEST | Climate Etc.

In David Rose’s article, the direct quotes attributed to me are correct.

To set the record straight, some of the other sentiments attributed to me are not quite right, I will discuss these here.

“Hiding the truth” in the title is definitely misleading, I made it pretty clear that there was uncertainty in the data itself, but the bigger issues are to analyze the data and interpret it. I made it clear that this was not a straightforward and simple thing to do.

I told Rose that I was puzzled my Muller’s statements, particularly about “end of skepticism” and also “We see no evidence of global warming slowing down.”

I did not say that “the affair had to be compared to the notorious Climategate scandal two years ago,” this is indirectly attributed to me. When asked specifically about the graph that apparently uses a 10 year running mean and ends in 2006, we discussed “hide the decline,” but I honestly can’t recall if Rose or I said it first. I agreed that the way the data is presented in the graph “hides the decline.” There is NO comparison of this situation to Climategate. Muller et al. have been very transparent in their methods and in making their data publicly available, which is highly commendable.

 

[Old Rocks]

That simply isn't true.

But, when you are able to participate in discussing actual science, I will be happy to do so with you.

In this subforum, I have no desire to discuss at your level.

I take the soiling of science seriously.

LOL. As you shit all over the subject.

You have no desire to discuss science at any level. You merely wish to push your political idiocy without regard to scientific reality.

The only thing I push for is scientific integrity. The fact that you call that a political agenda is on its face, soiling science.

Ah yes, Sis has the whole of scientific integrity corraled. The American Institute of Physics, the American Geophyisical Union, the American Geological Society has none at all, nor do any of their members that disagree with the all knowing Sis. LOL