Epic Climate Science Fail....

[IanC]

Time to quit making excuses and PROVIDE the paper or exact source for that cruddy piece of shit you try to pass off as the ONLY TRUTH...

You're raving like a crazy person now.

And I shouldn't always have to be the one to stage these interventions.

Post the source idiot...

I think we all know the source will come back to one of the hacks at SkS Tamino or Deltoid.

 

[flacaltenn]

You're raving like a crazy person now.

And I shouldn't always have to be the one to stage these interventions.

Post the source idiot...

I think we all know the source will come back to one of the hacks at SkS Tamino or Deltoid.

It's right there in the link to the image.. From the sweatshop of Tamino.. Guess we know what dumpster Mamooth was pawing thru..

Put on your tin foil hat guy --- I've got a theory.. The dynamically changing GISS data is starting to foul up even the supporters of this 10,000 thermometer "alternative".. So many DRAMATICALLY different looks to this simple set of thermometer readings, that even THEY are having trouble communicating..

But my rational side just says they ran a 2 decade filter over the GISS to make it agree with the simplistic models that ignore Natural 10 and 12 years cycles...

AND take advantage of STARTING the plot at a lower, more dramatically chilly number..

All this fuss over the FICTION that a single number describes climate change..

 

[flacaltenn]

Time to quit making excuses and PROVIDE the paper or exact source for that cruddy piece of shit you try to pass off as the ONLY TRUTH...

You're raving like a crazy person now.

And I shouldn't always have to be the one to stage these interventions.

Yeah ... I'm crazy angry about being lectured by you about WHERE I hang out and what I believe. When you PROVE that you are not studying this stuff critically enough to challenge blatant inconsistencies in the stuff you post as proof.

If you're less than 14 yrs, I apologize for the cussing...

Why don't we persue how that "truth line" in your plot ended up being so phoney???

We might ALL learn something.. Want me to do it? Or you wanna help??

 

[SSDD]

Time to quit making excuses and PROVIDE the paper or exact source for that cruddy piece of shit you try to pass off as the ONLY TRUTH...

You're raving like a crazy person now.

And I shouldn't always have to be the one to stage these interventions.

Spoken like someone with no answer to the challenge

 

[mamooth]

When a bunch of kooks wearing sandwich boards and screaming "The end is near!" dares you to prove them wrong, one wins the "challenge" by smiling and walking away. One loses by debating them as if they had a valid argument.

Y'all would be those kooks. And it's funny how angry you get when I point out how you're brainwashed fringe cultists, brainlessly hanging on the every word of your inbred liars' clique.

You'll all go to your graves riding this crazy train, since you're too emotionally invested in it at this point. Admitting how you were fooled would mean admitting that the dirty liberals were right, and you'd rather slit your wrists than admit such a thing. So you'll continue the raging and pouting, and everyone else will continue laughing at you. Works for me.

 

[westwall]

When a bunch of kooks wearing sandwich boards and screaming "The end is near!" dares you to prove them wrong, one wins the "challenge" by smiling and walking away. One loses by debating them as if they had a valid argument.

Y'all would be those kooks. And it's funny how angry you get when I point out how you're brainwashed fringe cultists, brainlessly hanging on the every word of your inbred liars' clique.

You'll all go to your graves riding this crazy train, since you're too emotionally invested in it at this point. Admitting how you were fooled would mean admitting that the dirty liberals were right, and you'd rather slit your wrists than admit such a thing. So you'll continue the raging and pouting, and everyone else will continue laughing at you. Works for me.

Kooks wearing sandwich boards? Yeah, you guys DO do that don't you!


President 'has four years to save Earth'
President Obama 'has four years to save Earth' | Environment | The Observer


Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe
Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe | Observations, Scientific American Blog Network

And on and on. You people have been warning us about "tipping points" for decades.

When you want to find the guy wearing the sandwich boards you need only look in the mirror.

 

[daveman]

When a bunch of kooks wearing sandwich boards and screaming "The end is near!" dares you to prove them wrong, one wins the "challenge" by smiling and walking away. One loses by debating them as if they had a valid argument.

Y'all would be those kooks. And it's funny how angry you get when I point out how you're brainwashed fringe cultists, brainlessly hanging on the every word of your inbred liars' clique.

You'll all go to your graves riding this crazy train, since you're too emotionally invested in it at this point. Admitting how you were fooled would mean admitting that the dirty liberals were right, and you'd rather slit your wrists than admit such a thing. So you'll continue the raging and pouting, and everyone else will continue laughing at you. Works for me.

Ummmm...it's the global warmercoolering folks who are screeching "The end is near!"...not the rational people.

Your entire post is nothing but projection.

 

[SSDD]

When a bunch of kooks wearing sandwich boards and screaming "The end is near!" dares you to prove them wrong, one wins the "challenge" by smiling and walking away. One loses by debating them as if they had a valid argument.

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that it is you and yours wearing the sandwich boards proclaiming daily that the end is near. How long is it that you have been saying that the end is near?

You'll all go to your graves riding this crazy train, since you're too emotionally invested in it at this point..

I am afraid it is you who is on the crazy train, but thanks for using the phrase. Indicates a deep subconscious respect. Guess you didn't see that coming.

 

[mamooth]

You all need to try some data that doesn't come from your handful of party-approved information sources. Relying so exclusively on Watts/Spencer/McIntyre makes you look like cultists, as does the way you demonize any sources which originate from outside that tiny inbred group.

Here, I'll give you some good science, this just released tree ring paper, which builds on Briffa's 2000 paper. That is, it's an affirmation of recent high arctic temperatures. Link goes to absract, with full paper available at the pdf link in upper left.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2013.04.008

All processed data and programs are available online. Just like the crazy guy kept demanding, but he wanted it before publication. Which resulted in him being rightfully told by everyone, including the courts, to stuff it, since there's no valid FOIA claim to processed data that hasn't been published yet.

Briffa et al. (2013) Quaternary Science Reviews

I'm interested in how the usual cranks interpret it. That is, what amusing justifications will they come up with this time to excuse screaming "Fraud!"? Please, check with your cranks and report back to us.

 

[mamooth]

 

[westwall]

You all need to try some data that doesn't come from your handful of party-approved information sources. Relying so exclusively on Watts/Spencer/McIntyre makes you look like cultists, as does the way you demonize any sources which originate from outside that tiny inbred group.

Here, I'll give you some good science, this just released tree ring paper, which builds on Briffa's 2000 paper. That is, it's an affirmation of recent high arctic temperatures. Link goes to absract, with full paper available at the pdf link in upper left.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2013.04.008

All processed data and programs are available online. Just like the crazy guy kept demanding, but he wanted it before publication. Which resulted in him being rightfully told by everyone, including the courts, to stuff it, since there's no valid FOIA claim to processed data that hasn't been published yet.

Briffa et al. (2013) Quaternary Science Reviews

I'm interested in how the usual cranks interpret it. That is, what amusing justifications will they come up with this time to excuse screaming "Fraud!"? Please, check with your cranks and report back to us.

I think you have us confused with you sweety! You rely on five sources for your drivel, all of them run by the same group of fraudsters. Your head is so far up their collective keesters you can't see anything but brown.

 

[SSDD]

You all need to try some data that doesn't come from your handful of party-approved information sources. Relying so exclusively on Watts/Spencer/McIntyre makes you look like cultists, as does the way you demonize any sources which originate from outside that tiny inbred group.

Says the guy who relies almost entirely on skeptical science And a couple of other sites run by the same people for all of her data

 

[flacaltenn]

You all need to try some data that doesn't come from your handful of party-approved information sources. Relying so exclusively on Watts/Spencer/McIntyre makes you look like cultists, as does the way you demonize any sources which originate from outside that tiny inbred group.

Here, I'll give you some good science, this just released tree ring paper, which builds on Briffa's 2000 paper. That is, it's an affirmation of recent high arctic temperatures. Link goes to absract, with full paper available at the pdf link in upper left.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2013.04.008

All processed data and programs are available online. Just like the crazy guy kept demanding, but he wanted it before publication. Which resulted in him being rightfully told by everyone, including the courts, to stuff it, since there's no valid FOIA claim to processed data that hasn't been published yet.

Briffa et al. (2013) Quaternary Science Reviews

I'm interested in how the usual cranks interpret it. That is, what amusing justifications will they come up with this time to excuse screaming "Fraud!"? Please, check with your cranks and report back to us.

The cat still has his balls to be back here lecturing us about sources... As tho we've already forgotten about the last data analysis hairball it coughed up.. And the topic is TREE RINGS? Are you serious? If it wasn't for all the uncertainties in these weak ass proxies, it would impossible to mangle history wouldn't it?

 

[idb]

Only a total f'ing idiot can look at this graph and continue to claim that the climate models are not inconsistent with observations.

How many of you total f'ing idiots (and you know who you are) want to try and defend the claim that climate models are not inconsistent with observations.

In real science, you make some predictions based on a hypothesis. Then you observe and to see if your predictions are accurate...and more importantly....how accurate they are. If they are not accurate, you scrap your failed hypothesis and go back to the drawing board.

Clearly, climate science is not real science. The hypothesis as depicted in climate models has failed spectacularly. What is the response by climate science? Do they acknowledge that their hypothesis that CO2 is driving the climate has failed and go back to the drawing board to see if they can begin to figure out what actually does drive the climate? Hell no. Not the high priests of the church of pseudoscience. They go about trying to form rational explanations for the abject failure of their hypothesis and attempt to explain where all the unobserved heat went. Maybe the dog ate the warming.

So step on up warmers and defend the abject failure that is the pseudoscience of modelling the climate.

Here is an excellent video discussing the role of CO2 in the global climate. It is rather long and technical.

WARNING: WARMERS WILL WANT TO AVOID THE LAST 10 MINUTES AT ALL COSTS.

Presentation Prof. Murry Salby in Hamburg on 18 April 2013 - YouTube

Why does the NOAA data seem so much at odds with the data in your graph...even if you only believe the satellite measurements?
It's difficult to discuss when the basic data sets aren't even agreed on.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, did a review on what other researchers thought of Salby's claims. Looks like that Professor is going to have to find a lot of evidence to support his claims.

 

[Old Rocks]

It's just Murray Salby's debunked nonsense about how temperature supposedly drives CO2. No one outside crankland takes it seriously, given how it contradicts the facts.

Right. Like the fact that CO2 is SOOOOO powerful, it goes back in time and drives up temperatures!

CO2 increases lag temp increases. That's one of those inconvenient truths.

No, that is not one of those inconveniant truths. That is only the case when the CO2 increases are driven by the Milankovich Cycles. When we have major rapid increases in GHGs, such as in the P-T extinction event, or rapid decrease in CO2, such as the end of Ordivician event, the GHGs, the changes in the GHGs drive the event. And, today, the rapid input of GHGs by humans is driving the present warming.

Spit out all the lies that you want, virtually all the scientists on this planet will tell you that you are full of shit. One has only to look at the peer reviewed scientific journals, or the Scientific Societies to see this.

 

[daveman]

It's just Murray Salby's debunked nonsense about how temperature supposedly drives CO2. No one outside crankland takes it seriously, given how it contradicts the facts.

Right. Like the fact that CO2 is SOOOOO powerful, it goes back in time and drives up temperatures!

CO2 increases lag temp increases. That's one of those inconvenient truths.

No, that is not one of those inconveniant truths. That is only the case when the CO2 increases are driven by the Milankovich Cycles. When we have major rapid increases in GHGs, such as in the P-T extinction event, or rapid decrease in CO2, such as the end of Ordivician event, the GHGs, the changes in the GHGs drive the event. And, today, the rapid input of GHGs by humans is driving the present warming.

Spit out all the lies that you want, virtually all the scientists on this planet will tell you that you are full of shit. One has only to look at the peer reviewed scientific journals, or the Scientific Societies to see this.

Unlike you, I have no lemming-like need to follow a herd mentality.

 

[RKMBrown]

who cares ... plants need co2 to live.. who want's to live in a frozen wasteland anyways?

 

[flacaltenn]

Only a total f'ing idiot can look at this graph and continue to claim that the climate models are not inconsistent with observations.

How many of you total f'ing idiots (and you know who you are) want to try and defend the claim that climate models are not inconsistent with observations.

In real science, you make some predictions based on a hypothesis. Then you observe and to see if your predictions are accurate...and more importantly....how accurate they are. If they are not accurate, you scrap your failed hypothesis and go back to the drawing board.

Clearly, climate science is not real science. The hypothesis as depicted in climate models has failed spectacularly. What is the response by climate science? Do they acknowledge that their hypothesis that CO2 is driving the climate has failed and go back to the drawing board to see if they can begin to figure out what actually does drive the climate? Hell no. Not the high priests of the church of pseudoscience. They go about trying to form rational explanations for the abject failure of their hypothesis and attempt to explain where all the unobserved heat went. Maybe the dog ate the warming.

So step on up warmers and defend the abject failure that is the pseudoscience of modelling the climate.

Here is an excellent video discussing the role of CO2 in the global climate. It is rather long and technical.

WARNING: WARMERS WILL WANT TO AVOID THE LAST 10 MINUTES AT ALL COSTS.

Presentation Prof. Murry Salby in Hamburg on 18 April 2013 - YouTube

Why does the NOAA data seem so much at odds with the data in your graph...even if you only believe the satellite measurements?
It's difficult to discuss when the basic data sets aren't even agreed on.

The satellite vs surface data is NOT that far off each other.. It only appears to be when plotted against the models.. From recollection, the satellites have the current temp anomaly at something like +0.38 and the GISS surface network of 10,000 (mangled and homogenized) thermometers have it at +0.56 or so.. 0.2degC diff over 50 years aint' bad at all when you're talking about averaging every spot on the globe..

Here's a valid pix...

You can see why the "flyboys" at NASA GISS ironically hate the satellite data. The satellite is measuring air temps with less "ground effect". And it much harder to cook the books on the satellite data..