Climate Science Doubts: Not Because of Payment, but Because the Science Is Bad

[jc456]

The best and brightest doctors bypass doing abortions because of the threats, and now climate scientists are on the hit list. And the deniers here are proudly bragging about their success at being Stalinist thugs.

That's yet another reason why we oppose deniers. It's why anyone who cares about liberty is mandated to oppose deniers.

do you wake up with yourself. You shouldn't any longer.

 

[mamooth]

jc, do you reject or embrace the denier cult's thuggery?

Are you willing to renounce your cult's Stalinist tactics? Will you be the first denier here to do so, or are you another proud party apparatchik, ready to arrest those bourgeois scientists for their CrimesAgainstTheState?

 

[jc456]

jc, do you reject or embrace the denier cult's thuggery?

Are you willing to renounce your cult's Stalinist tactics? Will you be the first denier here to do so, or are you another proud party apparatchik, ready to arrest those bourgeois scientists for their CrimesAgainstTheState?

do you wake up with yourself. You shouldn't any longer. twice now!

 

[Crick]

If the fossil fuel industry were to put hundreds of millions of dollars behind people, promising them more if they can only shake our confidence in theoretical physics, we'd see the same thing there.

There's nothing wrong with climate science. There IS something wrong with being the useful idiots of the fossil fuel disinformation campaign. Have you noted how the average intelligence of deniers like you is significantly lower than the that of the general population? There's a very good reason for that.

PS, you're a troll.

You might have an argument if climate science weren't funded at a rate of about 10 to 1 where skeptics are concerned...you talk about a hundred million as if it were a significant amount in the face of tens of billions being doled out to climate science from both government and environmentalist sources.

Tens of billions of dollars might be getting spent on dealing with global warming, and a significant, but lesser amount is likely being spent on climate research, but it is most definitely NOT getting spent attempting to convince the public to believe a lie.

 

[IanC]

If the fossil fuel industry were to put hundreds of millions of dollars behind people, promising them more if they can only shake our confidence in theoretical physics, we'd see the same thing there.

There's nothing wrong with climate science. There IS something wrong with being the useful idiots of the fossil fuel disinformation campaign. Have you noted how the average intelligence of deniers like you is significantly lower than the that of the general population? There's a very good reason for that.

PS, you're a troll.

You might have an argument if climate science weren't funded at a rate of about 10 to 1 where skeptics are concerned...you talk about a hundred million as if it were a significant amount in the face of tens of billions being doled out to climate science from both government and environmentalist sources.

Tens of billions of dollars might be getting spent on dealing with global warming, and a significant, but lesser amount is likely being spent on climate research, but it is most definitely NOT getting spent attempting to convince the public to believe a lie.

There plenty of half truths, misdirections and outright mistakes being being broadcast to the public by climate science.

 

[Crick]

You would have a hard time finding a climate scientist who is putting out information he knows to be false. The same cannot be said for the actors of the fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaign.

 

[IanC]

You would have a hard time finding a climate scientist who is putting out information he knows to be false. The same cannot be said for the actors of the fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaign.

Mann, Tiljander. The worst part is that he passes his tainted work around and contaminates other papers.

 

[Crick]

What data do you believe Mann and Tiljander knew to be false but still used?

I've made several comments about the fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaign recently. No one has made the slightest attempt to reject or refute the contention. Good, We're making progress.

 

[jc456]

If the fossil fuel industry were to put hundreds of millions of dollars behind people, promising them more if they can only shake our confidence in theoretical physics, we'd see the same thing there.

There's nothing wrong with climate science. There IS something wrong with being the useful idiots of the fossil fuel disinformation campaign. Have you noted how the average intelligence of deniers like you is significantly lower than the that of the general population? There's a very good reason for that.

PS, you're a troll.

You might have an argument if climate science weren't funded at a rate of about 10 to 1 where skeptics are concerned...you talk about a hundred million as if it were a significant amount in the face of tens of billions being doled out to climate science from both government and environmentalist sources.

Tens of billions of dollars might be getting spent on dealing with global warming, and a significant, but lesser amount is likely being spent on climate research, but it is most definitely NOT getting spent attempting to convince the public to believe a lie.

who and what are dealing with global warming? explain that comment please.

 

[Crick]

Restrictions on coal, tighter CAFE standards on automobiles, new requirements for power generation facilities, subsidization of alternative/renewable energy, research into fuel cells, fusion, improved PV... you know, all the stuff you hate.

 

[IanC]

I have often mentioned Mann's misuse of Mia Tiljander's Korttajarvi sediments. so I searched for information on how Real Climate and SkepticalScience explained this travesty to their true believers.

most of it is just rehashing Mann's "Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors" nonsense. really, what proxy is worth using if you dont think it makes a difference whether it is upsidedown or not?

but a different Finnish paleo scientist had an interesting take on the whole thing. he said Mann used the same orientation that Tiljander used! and it is! of course Tiljander didnt make her graph values coincide with higher temps but instead with lower temps.

Data is then read from the data-matrix to perform the reconstruction (there are several steps involved in this but it is not important here). There’s nothing special done on TEA data at this point either compared to other proxies, so the data seems to stay the same way throughout the reconstruction. So, the Tiljander data clearly is not flipped upside-down there. That doesn’t mean the Tiljander data is handled correctly there. Tiljander data is actually handled upside-down there. It is because the data is given in TEA so that higher values of relative X-ray density correspond to lower temperature values, so MEA should have turned the data upside-down before using it in their analysis.

so, is Mann off the hook?

Seeing the real situation with this issue, it seems that MEA did an honest mistake, which of course should be corrected.

there you go. an easy face-saving explanation. just admit there was a mistake and fix it. seven years later Mann is still not admitting the mistake, still not fixing it, and so far quite a few other papers have used his tainted results presumably because they didnt know of the flaw. why does climate science let this continue?

others, like Kaufman's arctic portion of the PAGES2K, knew enough about the controversy to discard the 20th century portion because of land use contamination but still used the cold MWP warm LIA orientation. could it be that convenient data which gives a prefered outcome is more valued than correct data? everytime Mann gets away with brazening out his mistakes with no consequences that just encourages others to produce sloppy work that is aimed at a predetermined outcome rather than a scientific discovery.

 

[Crick]

Could it be that you give all of this the worst interpretation you can create and that still, it does nothing to refute AGW.

 

[IanC]

Could it be that you give all of this the worst interpretation you can create and that still, it does nothing to refute AGW.

actually, the fixing of upsidedown proxies, truncated proxies,and misweighted proxies always lead to re-emergence of the MWP and LIA, usually to the point where modern temps are generally equivilent to MWP temps. present warming is no longer 'unprecedented' as claimed by climate science.


I have asked you many times in the past and I will ask you again. Should Mann fix his use of the Tiljander proxies in an inverted fashion?

 

[Crick]

Now why would you be interested in the opinion of someone you believe to be a liar?

 

[IanC]

Now why would you be interested in the opinion of someone you believe to be a liar?

you lied, you got called on it, get over yourself.


and answer the question. should Mann fix his obvious mistake from seven years ago? or is there a time limit by which if you ignore or refuse to admit a mistake then it just doesnt matter anymore?

 

[Crick]

I told no lie.

 

[IanC]

Any other warmer here want to defend Mann's incorrect use of the Tiljander proxies?