Climate Fraud: The Beginning

[Muhammed]

That is a big fucking lie that your feeble mind has been brainwashed into believing.

I enjoy watching the cognitive dissonance cause so much pain to denier brains.

Their cult told them Mann didn't show his data.

I show them where the data is freely available.

And the meltdowns begin.

They can't just say "oops, I was wrong". If they did, they'd have to admit the cult lied to them. And that's not possible. The cult is their god, their everything, so the cult must be infallible. Thus, they have to come up with all kinds of conspiracy theories about how our lying eyes are all wrong, and the cult is right.

^^^
Typical doomsday cult dupe blather.

 

[abu afak]

there is a lot of BS out there, let's start with hockey stick boy.

Climate fraud justice: Dr Tim Ball defeats Michael Mann's climate lawsuit! -- Sott.net

"In 2003 a Canadian study showed the "hockey stick" curve "is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components." When the data was corrected it showed a warm period in the 15th Century that exceeded the warmth of the 20th Century."

Oh my. And yet Michael (no data) Mann still has a job?

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

"Opposing" (the AGW Consensus)

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[28][30]

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[131] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change.

None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable".
According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."....".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change


`​

 

[SSDD]

Of course I can....unlike you, when I say that evidence exists...I can actually produce it.

No, you can't. That's why you didn't produce any here. You just pasted in a link to a fake map, and fake list of names.

Sorry...once again, I assumed that you had 2 working brain cells to rub together...each of the balloons on the map takes you to an actual study..guess that sort of technology would confuse you...there is nothing fake about it...

Of course it conflicts with your cult beliefs, so naturally you will reject it...that is how zealots are...When your faith is questioned, your first, second and third impulse will be to reject the information being provided...then start with the name calling, and projecting...

 

[ReinyDays]

Medieval Warm Period - Google My Maps

Here is a list of research institutions associated with the data the map represents...

I picked one paper and read it ... it absolutely did not say anything about an MWP ... in fact, it doesn't mention AGW theory either ... you should check your citations before your refer to them ... just something polite to do ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Medieval Warm Period - Google My Maps

Here is a list of research institutions associated with the data the map represents...

I picked one paper and read it ... it absolutely did not say anything about an MWP ... in fact, it doesn't mention AGW theory either ... you should check your citations before your refer to them ... just something polite to do ...

Notice that you didn't post that paper you claimed you read, go post it to prove your claim.

Most of the papers on the paper doesn't address AGW at all, they are simply research papers on the MWP time frame.

You don't appear to be honest on this......

 

[SSDD]

Medieval Warm Period - Google My Maps

Here is a list of research institutions associated with the data the map represents...

I picked one paper and read it ... it absolutely did not say anything about an MWP ... in fact, it doesn't mention AGW theory either ... you should check your citations before your refer to them ... just something polite to do ...

Which paper? Many don't name the MPW specifically but list time frames of study...by all means, post the paper and lets have a look at it..

 

[ReinyDays]

Which paper? Many don't name the MPW specifically but list time frames of study...by all means, post the paper and lets have a look at it..

My apologies ... O'Reilly et al; Pollen-Derived Paleovegetation Reconstruction and Long-Term Carbon Accumulation at a Fen Site in the Attawapiskat River Watershed, Hudson Bay Lowlands, Canada; Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, 46(1):6-18 (2014) ... Pollen-Derived Paleovegetation Reconstruction and Long-Term Carbon Accumulation at a Fen Site in the Attawapiskat River Watershed, Hudson Bay Lowlands, Canada ...

Increased precipitation after ∼2400 yrs BP may have contributed to the higher LORCA reconstructed for the late Holocene, but the increased precipitation did not coincide with any apparent changes in vegetation as inferred from pollen assemblages.

I take it you don't see the humor in randomly picking a paper out of the long list and have it dispute your claims ...

 

[SSDD]

Which paper? Many don't name the MPW specifically but list time frames of study...by all means, post the paper and lets have a look at it..

My apologies ... O'Reilly et al; Pollen-Derived Paleovegetation Reconstruction and Long-Term Carbon Accumulation at a Fen Site in the Attawapiskat River Watershed, Hudson Bay Lowlands, Canada; Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, 46(1):6-18 (2014) ... Pollen-Derived Paleovegetation Reconstruction and Long-Term Carbon Accumulation at a Fen Site in the Attawapiskat River Watershed, Hudson Bay Lowlands, Canada ...

Increased precipitation after ∼2400 yrs BP may have contributed to the higher LORCA reconstructed for the late Holocene, but the increased precipitation did not coincide with any apparent changes in vegetation as inferred from pollen assemblages.

I take it you don't see the humor in randomly picking a paper out of the long list and have it dispute your claims ...

The paper did not dispute my claims...it supported my claim just fine....The authors of the paper found a warm wet phase between 1000-1200 AD..which part of that do you think disputes my claims?

 

[ReinyDays]

You got me ... I'm sorry ... I honestly didn't see the correlation the first time, and I honestly don't see a correlation this time ... 1950 - 900 = 1050 ... I'm looking across from the 900 number on the left and I just don't see anything special ... nada, zippo, blank ... everything looks average ...

[smile] ... why not just admit you didn't read each and every one of those articles? ...

 

[SSDD]

You got me ... I'm sorry ... I honestly didn't see the correlation the first time, and I honestly don't see a correlation this time ... 1950 - 900 = 1050 ... I'm looking across from the 900 number on the left and I just don't see anything special ... nada, zippo, blank ... everything looks average ...

[smile] ... why not just admit you didn't read each and every one of those articles? ...

I never said that I did....although over the years, I have clicked on most of the balloons and at least read the abstracts...the fact is that the MWP was warmer than the present, and global in nature... That fact is indisputable in the fact that ice cores from both the arctic and antarctic show temperature spikes during the MWP, and the RWP, and the MWP and the HO...unless you or climate science can come up with some rational, scientifically valid reason that both poles might experience similar warming at the same time but the globe between missed out on the event...and hasn't climate science been telling us for decades that the poles are the canaries in the coal mine and that whatever happens there will follow every elsewhere?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'd prefer to keep it to one subject for this thread. Michael Mann's hockey stick.

Sure.

It's been confirmed multiple ways.

Everyone saying it's something sinister has been confirmed to be a fraud.

he will not allow anyone to see his "data".

Erratum: corrigendum: Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries

The data is readily available to anyone. It has always been available.

Your cult lied to your face about that, and you fell for it. You should ask your cult why they lied to you like that. That's presuming that you have a spine, and that you think lying is a bad thing.

This is a scientist? Fraud.

Do you feel any regret over your role in pushing your cult's fraud, or do you only regret getting busted for your small role in the fraud?

If it's "Science" where's the data?

Pretty fucking straightforward

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The honest truth is ... we won't ever know what will happen until it happens.

The second this subject went from scientific speculation to a political agenda, any hope of real scientific observation went out the window.

I'm afraid this entire topic will remain a name-calling exercise for the next 50 years or so.

Good advice

So we should do nothing until it is too late

Chain yourself to the Chinese Embassy to protest their carbon footprint

 

[Muhammed]

there is a lot of BS out there, let's start with hockey stick boy.

Climate fraud justice: Dr Tim Ball defeats Michael Mann's climate lawsuit! -- Sott.net

"In 2003 a Canadian study showed the "hockey stick" curve "is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components." When the data was corrected it showed a warm period in the 15th Century that exceeded the warmth of the 20th Century."

Oh my. And yet Michael (no data) Mann still has a job?

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

"Opposing" (the AGW Consensus)

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[28][30]

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[131] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change.

None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable".
According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."....".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change


`​

^^^
Wikidiot

 

[abu afak]

Wikidiot

LinkLess, FactLess, Cumstain.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The honest truth is ... we won't ever know what will happen until it happens.

The second this subject went from scientific speculation to a political agenda, any hope of real scientific observation went out the window.

I'm afraid this entire topic will remain a name-calling exercise for the next 50 years or so.

You absolutely nailed it! Bravo!

The earth’s climate is an incredibly complicated system with multiple factors which all have varying degrees of influence that constantly change. The idea that we can understand it well enough to predict what will happen over the next decade is completely absurd. That is why there has never been a model that has accurately predicted the climate. Nobody can show me a model from the last decade that predicted today’s climate.

 

[Dick Foster]

The honest truth is ... we won't ever know what will happen until it happens.

The second this subject went from scientific speculation to a political agenda, any hope of real scientific observation went out the window.

I'm afraid this entire topic will remain a name-calling exercise for the next 50 years or so.

Good advice

So we should do nothing until it is too late

You're not going to do anything anyway, numbskull. You can't change the weather must less the climate. The lack the means and the mentality. Besides you can't fix what isn't broken. Get a clue and quit living your life shrouded in ignorance and stupidity.

 

[Muhammed]

Wikidiot

LinkLess, FactLess, Cumstain.

Duh, cuz wiki sed so, derp derp.

 

[ReinyDays]

Yeah ... pretty damn amazing that the one I click didn't support your claim, it doesn't refute your claim either ... no, I haven't read any others ... when we bet on a 1 in 100 odds and win, we quit ... I'm absolute sure my next 99 clicks will be papers that confirm your claim ... so why bother? ... I would suggest reading the entire paper, especially how the researchers managed error ... the paper in question states that their time reference was corrupted, so they used a more inaccurate reference ... not my fault, just the way things are ...

If you're familiar with the ice core data, then you can see temperatures go up and back down over a 125,000 year period ... there's a lot of speculation why this is so, but no one knows for sure ... there's far more about the climate we don't know than we do ... research continues ...

 

[baileyn45]

It's been confirmed multiple ways.

How can it be confirmed when he won't release the data it's based on? No one can replicate his work because they have no access to the data. How is this science?

The data is readily available to anyone. It has always been available.

The data is not readily available, Mann recently lost another court case because he will not show the data. You do realize that he was held in contempt of court in British Columbia for that very reason.

 

[baileyn45]

there is a lot of BS out there, let's start with hockey stick boy.

Climate fraud justice: Dr Tim Ball defeats Michael Mann's climate lawsuit! -- Sott.net

"In 2003 a Canadian study showed the "hockey stick" curve "is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components." When the data was corrected it showed a warm period in the 15th Century that exceeded the warmth of the 20th Century."

Oh my. And yet Michael (no data) Mann still has a job?

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

"Opposing" (the AGW Consensus)

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[28][30]

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[131] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change.

None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable".
According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."....".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change


`​

For the love of God, this is not science. Look at your first statement.

"Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change"

No one disputes man made emissions

there is a lot of BS out there, let's start with hockey stick boy.

Climate fraud justice: Dr Tim Ball defeats Michael Mann's climate lawsuit! -- Sott.net

"In 2003 a Canadian study showed the "hockey stick" curve "is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components." When the data was corrected it showed a warm period in the 15th Century that exceeded the warmth of the 20th Century."

Oh my. And yet Michael (no data) Mann still has a job?

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

"Opposing" (the AGW Consensus)

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[28][30]

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[131] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change.

None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable".
According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."....".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change


`​

This is science?

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming.

Various surveys? Consensus opinions? C'mon, do better. How did she find the "928 abstracts"? This smacks of the 97% nonsense. This isn't popularity contest. You either have proof of your position or you don't. Period.