Judith Curry slams the AGW cult in the ground

[mamooth]

Why did the bozo gentleman in the video look so confused 5 or 6 times?

It's like what happens with your postings. Often, when people read them, they're momentarily stunned by the sheer magnitude of the stupid.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Again Judith is part of the 97% but you all consider her a denier..

Again why is that?.

Because she's a denier, dumbass. She predicted no more warming. She's denying that warming will occur. She's accusing other scientists of fraud, with zero evidence to back it up.

When did she predict no more warming will occur?


When did she ever acuse other scientist as frauds?

And that doesn't even answer my question, She is part of the 97% consensus...


Yet you continue to trash her.. interesting..


.

So is Richard lidzen he is also part of the 97%


But you label him a denier also...



So what do they deny?


Be specific...



Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia



.

 

[skookerasbil]

For those too stoopid to understand, lets try an analogy.

A guy spends a day at the beach and ends up with a bad burn on his hand. Ask a bozo like Booker ( the idiot in the video ) and he'd tell you it is definitely sunburn.

But maybe the guy went home and tried to change a steam pipe after the beach and burned his ******* hand off.

Or maybe he went home and drank a few cold ones and burned the shit out of his hand on the barbque.

duh

Booker is a fraud.........but knows he can sell his line of thinking to the dim witted.

 

[skookerasbil]

Clearly some posting in this thread have a lot of trouble with abstract reasoning.

Skeptics need to remember who they are sometimes dealing with in here.......there is a huge difference between intelligence and thought processing. Its my field. Frequently, and easily proven in the research, some folks are really intelligent as it relates to hard sciences but are lost when trying to square abstracts........which explains exactly why some have a keen inability to understand when they are getting duped. Its a brain **** up.......a pathology if you will. Generally associated with serotonin levels btw. This is why some easily accept loose associations like the Booker guy in the video makes with CO2 and climate events. People who are strong in understanding abstracts are not nearly as vulnerable to being swayed by loose associations. Anybody who picks up a DSM V and spends a few hours reading it will have far greater insight into how easily a "religion" such as we see with the alarmist community can exist. The thinking amongst all of them is eerily similar.

I suck at science........but any one of these alarmist goofballs would be fired in a week if they had my job. I specialize in conflict resolution amongst other things including behavioral science......I live in the world of dealing with complicated abstracts every day of my life. Its the way the dots connect. I could get any alarmist in here to walk straight into a shit hole if I had an hour with them and they'd be shaking my hand as they waded into the deep doo doo.


And btw........you will also notice..........every alarmist in this forum has the political awareness of a small soap dish. Just laughable if you pay attention......for example, had a couple of members in here who are alarmists saying last summer that the election would be decided on the issue of climate change. ******* yiKeS..........that's called an abstract reasoning **** up my friends...........

 

[Muhammed]

LOL Dr. Curry has lost almost all credibility among other scientists. She has routinely been wrong on her opinions, and has said many stupid things about the people who are presently doing real research, which she seems to have abandoned.

All of you members of the CAGW doomsday cult and other climategate deniers think she is a heretic.

Real scientists such as myself know she is correct.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Again Judith is part of the 97% but you all consider her a denier..

Again why is that?.

Because she's a denier, dumbass. She predicted no more warming. She's denying that warming will occur. She's accusing other scientists of fraud, with zero evidence to back it up.

 

[mamooth]

A good summary of Curry antics:

Curry’ed Tripe and other recipes

 

[Wyatt earp]

Again Judith is part of the 97% but you all consider her a denier..

Again why is that?.

Because she's a denier, dumbass. She predicted no more warming. She's denying that warming will occur. She's accusing other scientists of fraud, with zero evidence to back it up.

Wow watching the entire tesitmony, I didn't Know Nasa lied about 2014



Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest but we're only 38% sure | Daily Mail Online

The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.

 

[mamooth]

The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.

So, you don't understand statistics.

And you're leaving out 2015 and 2016.

Bear, you're so ignorant of the topic, you have no business being in the discussion.

 

[Wyatt earp]

A good summary of Curry antics:

Curry’ed Tripe and other recipes

LMFAO watch all of this if you dare..

 

[Wyatt earp]

The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.

So, you don't understand statistics.

And you're leaving out 2015 and 2016.

Bear, you're so ignorant of the topic, you have no business being in the discussion.

Can you read only 38% certain..

.

.

 

[mamooth]

LMFAO watch all of this if you dare..

Screw that cowardly bullshit, little snowflake. Summarize the high points of the two-hour-plus video yourself, and we'll discuss it. If you couldn't be bothered to look at it yourself, expect everyone to point and laugh at what a chickenshit you are, like I'm doing now.

 

[mamooth]

Can you read only 38% certain..

Can you read? You're a cult retard who doesn't understand statistics, and a cherrypicking coward for leaving out the even warmer years following.

 

[Wyatt earp]

A good summary of Curry antics:

Curry’ed Tripe and other recipes

LMFAO watch all of this if you dare..

Damn, I always thought Mann was a liar, but now it turns out he is like Barnum and Bailey....UN ******* believable..


We had some good congressmen asking some great questions in that hearing

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yes, Micheal Mann, whose initial study has been supported by over a dozen independent studies from all over the world by scientists using different proxies.

Figure 2. Comparison of northern hemisphere and global temperature reconstructions. Northern hemisphere instrumental temperature records shown for comparison (CRUTEM land only, and HADCRUT land/ocean).

It's worth noting that all the reconstructions show the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and 20th-century warming (though Loehle 2008 only runs through 1935).

Loehle's Medieval Warm Period is both warmer and earlier than the rest (and, as noted above, Loehle recognizes that his early peak circa AD 850 is probably incorrect). Loehle also shows a much colder Little Ice Age. All of the reconstructions diverge more in the period before AD 800, with Moberg being the coolest, Loehle the warmest, and Mann and Ljungqvist being in the middle of the pack.

When comparing Ljungqvist 2010 to Loehle 2008, it's important to remember that Ljungqvist's reconstruction is for the mid- and high-latitude Northern Hemisphere only, while Loehle's was supposed to be global. In this light, the presence of relatively extreme temperatures in Loehle's reconstruction during both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age ought to be viewed somewhat skeptically. Whether or not these episodes were truly "global", they were certainly strongest in the Northern Hemisphere, particularly in the North Atlantic region. Ljungqvist 2010 suggests that his own reconstruction may have underestimated the magnitude of Northern Hemisphere cooling during the Little Ice Age, but Loehle's still appears to be an outlier if it is considered as a global reconstruction.

Finally, it's worth noting that comparison to the instrumental record suggests that modern temperatures are significantly warmer than those during the height of the Medieval Warm Period. Additional projected 21st Century warming will produce a climate unlike anything experienced in the history of human civilization.

New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...

RECONSTRUCTION!!! dude too special. RECONSTRUCTION. not actual temperature records, all made up manipulation. Yeppers.

Michael Mann:

RECONSTRUCTION!!! dude too special. RECONSTRUCTION. not actual temperature records, all made up manipulation. Yeppers.

I don't think you fully understand what "temperature reconstructions" are and how they are arrived at.

• Assessing global temperature reconstructions
• More errors identified in contrarian climate scientists' temperature estimates

I suppose it's not surprising that you and others disbelieve the 97% consensus among climate scientists if it's true that you view the matter as political rather than scientific. (Click the link and read the content to discover ways in which you've been duped.) It is, however disconcerting that you haven't challenged your political stance by determining objectively whether it "holds water" rather than focusing on finding information that supports it.

Judith Curry is part of the 97% consensus but she is labeled a denier



Why is that?


I will wait.


.

Rodger Pielke is also part of the 97% consensus..

Yet you label him also a denier again why is that?


Roger A. Pielke - Wikipedia


2007 Pielke said that he was not a "sceptical scientist" about climate change, having stated that carbon dioxide, while important, is not the predominant forcing of global warming:[3][4]

As I have summarized on the Climate Science weblog, humans activities do significantly alter the heat content of the climate system, although, based on the latest understanding, the radiative effect of CO2 has contributed, at most, only about 28% to the human-caused warming up to the present. The other 72% is still a result of human activities!
Pielke has criticized the IPCC for its conclusions regarding CO2 and global warming and accused it of selectively choosing data to support a selective view of the science.[5]

In 2010 Pielke revisited a question provided by Andrew Revkin[5] "Is most of the observed warming over the last 50 years likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gasconcentrations", Pielke stated that "the 2010 answer ... remains NO", and that "The added greenhouse gases from human activity clearly have a role in increasing the heat content of the climate system from what it otherwise would be", but "there are other equally or even more important significant humanclimate forcings"

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yes, Micheal Mann, whose initial study has been supported by over a dozen independent studies from all over the world by scientists using different proxies.

Figure 2. Comparison of northern hemisphere and global temperature reconstructions. Northern hemisphere instrumental temperature records shown for comparison (CRUTEM land only, and HADCRUT land/ocean).

It's worth noting that all the reconstructions show the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and 20th-century warming (though Loehle 2008 only runs through 1935).

Loehle's Medieval Warm Period is both warmer and earlier than the rest (and, as noted above, Loehle recognizes that his early peak circa AD 850 is probably incorrect). Loehle also shows a much colder Little Ice Age. All of the reconstructions diverge more in the period before AD 800, with Moberg being the coolest, Loehle the warmest, and Mann and Ljungqvist being in the middle of the pack.

When comparing Ljungqvist 2010 to Loehle 2008, it's important to remember that Ljungqvist's reconstruction is for the mid- and high-latitude Northern Hemisphere only, while Loehle's was supposed to be global. In this light, the presence of relatively extreme temperatures in Loehle's reconstruction during both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age ought to be viewed somewhat skeptically. Whether or not these episodes were truly "global", they were certainly strongest in the Northern Hemisphere, particularly in the North Atlantic region. Ljungqvist 2010 suggests that his own reconstruction may have underestimated the magnitude of Northern Hemisphere cooling during the Little Ice Age, but Loehle's still appears to be an outlier if it is considered as a global reconstruction.

Finally, it's worth noting that comparison to the instrumental record suggests that modern temperatures are significantly warmer than those during the height of the Medieval Warm Period. Additional projected 21st Century warming will produce a climate unlike anything experienced in the history of human civilization.

New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...

RECONSTRUCTION!!! dude too special. RECONSTRUCTION. not actual temperature records, all made up manipulation. Yeppers.

Michael Mann:

RECONSTRUCTION!!! dude too special. RECONSTRUCTION. not actual temperature records, all made up manipulation. Yeppers.

I don't think you fully understand what "temperature reconstructions" are and how they are arrived at.

• Assessing global temperature reconstructions
• More errors identified in contrarian climate scientists' temperature estimates

I suppose it's not surprising that you and others disbelieve the 97% consensus among climate scientists if it's true that you view the matter as political rather than scientific. (Click the link and read the content to discover ways in which you've been duped.) It is, however disconcerting that you haven't challenged your political stance by determining objectively whether it "holds water" rather than focusing on finding information that supports it.

Judith Curry is part of the 97% consensus but she is labeled a denier



Why is that?


I will wait.


.

Rodger Pielke is also part of the 97% consensus..

Yet you label him also a denier again why is that?


Roger A. Pielke - Wikipedia


2007 Pielke said that he was not a "sceptical scientist" about climate change, having stated that carbon dioxide, while important, is not the predominant forcing of global warming:[3][4]

As I have summarized on the Climate Science weblog, humans activities do significantly alter the heat content of the climate system, although, based on the latest understanding, the radiative effect of CO2 has contributed, at most, only about 28% to the human-caused warming up to the present. The other 72% is still a result of human activities!
Pielke has criticized the IPCC for its conclusions regarding CO2 and global warming and accused it of selectively choosing data to support a selective view of the science.[5]

In 2010 Pielke revisited a question provided by Andrew Revkin[5] "Is most of the observed warming over the last 50 years likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gasconcentrations", Pielke stated that "the 2010 answer ... remains NO", and that "The added greenhouse gases from human activity clearly have a role in increasing the heat content of the climate system from what it otherwise would be", but "there are other equally or even more important significant humanclimate forcings"

John Christy is also part of the 97% consensus andanother one your cult labels a denier....


Why is that?

What are all these scientist trying to do? Upset the apple cart?



The Atmospheric Science Department :: Dr. John R. Christy


John Raymond Christy is a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville whose chief interests are satellite remote sensing of global climate and global climate change. Wikipedia

Born: Fresno, CA
Spouse: Babs Christy
Known for: Satellite temperature measurements
Education: University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, California State University, Fresno


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Can you read only 38% certain..

Can you read? You're a cult retard who doesn't understand statistics, and a cherrypicking coward for leaving out the even warmer years following.

That hearing splains a lot about your cult...you guys are not after science (which I already knew)


It just confirms it.,.thank God for you tube.


.

 

[mamooth]

Rodger Pielke is also part of the 97% consensus.

He's not a scientist, so he's not part of anything.

Obviously, taking denier money to say "Warming is wonderful!" makes someone a denier, as "Warming is wonderful!" is a denier position. Only the most desperate shills pretend otherwise.

I posted the link's to Pielke's dumbassery here.

ALL extreme weather at record lows or declining!!! So much for wilder and wider swings!! :-)

 

[mamooth]

John Christy is also part of the 97% consensus and another one your cult labels a denier....

The 97% is made up of those who say the warming is human-caused. Christy says it's probably natural. Hence, denier.

You're just flailing.

So, I assume Lindzen is next? There are precious few scientists on your side, and he's about the only one left.

 

[mamooth]

I suck at science........

The first time Skook has uttered the truth! Let the feasting and celebration commence!

Now if only the other deniers were so honest.