Liberals Continue Their Assault On Anything That Casts Doubt on Climate Change

[skookerasbil]

Who cares how many attacks they make........they are damn near 100% ineffective!!

How do we know?

Because after 20 years of doing it, people now cares less than ever about global warming and renewable energy is still a massive joke!!

 

[skookerasbil]

PS..............the level of ineffective of the left is well documented within THIS thread >>>

More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

A MASSIVE amount of links within the above thread btw

 

[skookerasbil]

Gotta say...................its is amazing to come in here and read practically the same exact shit from the AGW contingent as I read almost 8 years ago when I joined this message board. Its fascinating.

These bozo's go on............and on................and on..............and on.....................and on.............with the same exact silly arguments that have gotten them...........


N O W H E R E

in the real world ( nobody cares about global warming and renewable energy is still dwarf sized )


But they continue.........over..................and over............and over..................and over...................


Same results.



You know what they call that folks???

 

[Crick]

http://climateknowledge.org/figures...0_Documents/Nature_News_Hockey_Stick_2006.pdf

In its report, released on 22 June, the NAS committee more-or-less endorses the work behind the graph. But it criticizes the way that the plot was used to publicize climatechange concerns. And it leaves open big questions about whether researchers should be obliged to make their data available (see ‘Plotting a course’).

“We roughly agree with the substance of their findings,” says Gerald North, the committee’s chair and a climate scientist at Texas A&M University in College Station. In particular, he says, the committee has a “high level of confidence” that the second half of the twentieth century was warmer than any other period in the past four centuries. But, he adds, claims for the earlier period covered by the study, from AD 900 to 1600, are less certain. This earlier period is particularly important because global warming sceptics claim that the current warming trend is a rebound from a ‘little ice age’ around 1600. Overall, the committee thought the temperature reconstructions from that era had only a two-to-one chance of being right.

Now you see why lying little bastards like Bripat take things out of context.

What it really said is that the graph is only accurate for the last 400 years. For periods before that it can't be trusted.

No, asshole, what it says is that for periods prior to that it is less accurate. Tell me, do you even have a GED? Because you seem to be totally ignorant of statistics.

And there have been a dozen or more studies that have confirmed the shape of the graph since Dr. Mann did his basic work. That you have not bothered to read any of that work is an indication of your determination to remain ignorant and stupid.

It uses the term "less certain," not less accurate. How much less? It doesn't say. That's another way of saying it could be total bullshit. The periods before 1600 are therefore complete fiction, and those are the only periods of interest.

All those douche bag "studies" use the same discredited methods that Mann used.

The term "less certain" is not equivalent to "complete fiction". Your argument here, however, succeeds in achieving perfect synonymy with it.

 

[bripat9643]

http://climateknowledge.org/figures...0_Documents/Nature_News_Hockey_Stick_2006.pdf

In its report, released on 22 June, the NAS committee more-or-less endorses the work behind the graph. But it criticizes the way that the plot was used to publicize climatechange concerns. And it leaves open big questions about whether researchers should be obliged to make their data available (see ‘Plotting a course’).

“We roughly agree with the substance of their findings,” says Gerald North, the committee’s chair and a climate scientist at Texas A&M University in College Station. In particular, he says, the committee has a “high level of confidence” that the second half of the twentieth century was warmer than any other period in the past four centuries. But, he adds, claims for the earlier period covered by the study, from AD 900 to 1600, are less certain. This earlier period is particularly important because global warming sceptics claim that the current warming trend is a rebound from a ‘little ice age’ around 1600. Overall, the committee thought the temperature reconstructions from that era had only a two-to-one chance of being right.

Now you see why lying little bastards like Bripat take things out of context.

What it really said is that the graph is only accurate for the last 400 years. For periods before that it can't be trusted.

No, asshole, what it says is that for periods prior to that it is less accurate. Tell me, do you even have a GED? Because you seem to be totally ignorant of statistics.

And there have been a dozen or more studies that have confirmed the shape of the graph since Dr. Mann did his basic work. That you have not bothered to read any of that work is an indication of your determination to remain ignorant and stupid.

It uses the term "less certain," not less accurate. How much less? It doesn't say. That's another way of saying it could be total bullshit. The periods before 1600 are therefore complete fiction, and those are the only periods of interest.

All those douche bag "studies" use the same discredited methods that Mann used.

The term "less certain" is not equivalent to "complete fiction". Your argument here, however, succeeds in achieving perfect synonymy with it.

Yes it is. "Less certain" goes from "almost certain" all the way to "ridiculous fantasy." The term is so vague that it has no scientific meaning.

 

[Crick]

Since you brought this up, why don't you give us the full context where the term appeared.

 

[Crick]

Let's see.

“We roughly agree with the substance of their findings,” says Gerald North, the committee’s chair and a climate scientist at Texas A&M University in College Station. In particular, he says, the committee has a “high level of confidence” that the second half of the twentieth century was warmer than any other period in the past four centuries. But, he adds, claims for the earlier period covered by the study, from AD 900 to 1600, are less certain. This earlier period is particularly important because global warming sceptics claim that the current warming trend is a rebound from a ‘little ice age’ around 1600. Overall, the committee thought the temperature reconstructions from that era had only a two-to-one chance of being right.

So it is less certain than the high level of confidence that the second half of the 20th century was warmer than any period of the last four centuries.

Hmm... not in quotes though. I have the full NAS report. Let's go have a look

 

[Crick]

The term "less certain" appears no where in the reports 161 pages. Instead, the material discussed in Paddie's article comes from the text below:

• It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.

• Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.
**************************************************

Not quite a "complete fiction, is it Paddie.

You stupid ass.