My Three Global Warming Fraud Websites

[Cardinal Carminative]

No "hockey stick" of ANYTHING -- CO2 or Temperature was ever "labeled" as such once it got sent to the media/public.

Incorrect. It was labeled as such on the graph.

SOME papers might acknowledge what Mann called "the trick" -- but most never did.

Since it is explicitly in the paper it was acknowledged.

 

[Sunsettommy]

No "hockey stick" of ANYTHING -- CO2 or Temperature was ever "labeled" as such once it got sent to the media/public. SOME papers might acknowledge what Mann called "the trick" -- but most never did.

And in FACT - the more activist authors would make DIRECT COMPARISONS and inferences as THO those 2 data sources had equal validity and accuracy when talking to media/public.

I have told this many times to these warmists/alarmists that attaching modern temperature data onto much lower resolution proxy based temperature data to generate a temperature chart is dishonest misleading and mark of science illiteracy yet they never learn to stop making these stupid errors anyway.

They love the Hockey Stick paper the Marcott paper and more BECAUSE it has this very fraudulent attachment onto the centuries long proxy data.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Incorrect. It was labeled as such on the graph.



Since it is explicitly in the paper it was acknowledged.

It doesn't matter if it was labelled it is still junk science because they are so different from the much lower resolution proxy set up that misleads many who see the bogus chart with conflicting data on it.

It is clear that you have no desire to stop misleading people with this bullshit.

 

[flacaltenn]

Incorrect. It was labeled as such on the graph.

WHERE? On which versions?

 

[flacaltenn]

Incorrect. It was labeled as such on the graph.



Since it is explicitly in the paper it was acknowledged.

The paper doesn't matter once public propaganda sites like Climate.Gov get into the action. In terms of "layers of hell" for liars -- THAT site and SkepShitScience would be in the bottom rings of hell.

Also doesn't matter when the paper author is ARROGANT enough to take media interviews making INFERENCES about crap that were NEVER PROVEN in their papers.

 

[flacaltenn]

Incorrect. It was labeled as such on the graph.



Since it is explicitly in the paper it was acknowledged.

Where is the "warning label" on THIS Version of the CO2 hockey stick at Climate.gov ??? Hmmm????

Maps & Data

The Maps & Data section featuring interactive tools, maps, and additional tools for accessing climate data.

www.climate.gov

Caption reads ----

Global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations (CO2) in parts per million (ppm) for the past 800,000 years. The peaks and valleys track ice ages (low CO2) and warmer interglacials (higher CO2). During these cycles, CO2 was never higher than 300 ppm. On the geologic time scale, the increase (orange dashed line) looks virtually instantaneous. Graph by NOAA Climate.gov based on data from Lüthi, et al., 2008, via NOAA NCEI Paleoclimatology Program. [Correction: August 20, 2020. An earlier version of this image had an error in the time scaling on the X axis. This affected the apparent duration and timing of the most recent ice ages, but did not affect the modern or paleoclimate carbon dioxide values.]

There's THE LIE.. That NASA KNOWS the peaks never exceeded 300 ppm and "the increase" (never stated it came FROM MODERN instrumention - --- LOOKS VIRTUALLY INSTANTANEOUS on a geological time scale.

So where is this "truth in science" labeling you speak of?

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW -- they DID credit the source of proxy data. JUST AS I STATED to both you and VegasGuy., It's Antarctic Ice core data. Single proxy -- very bad time resolution.

Not even guaranteed to be a GLOBAL representation since there is difference in Atmos CO2 by lattitude.

 

[flacaltenn]

I have told this many times to these warmists/alarmists that attaching modern temperature data onto much lower resolution proxy based temperature data to generate a temperature chart is dishonest misleading and mark of science illiteracy yet they never learn to stop making these stupid errors anyway.

They love the Hockey Stick paper the Marcott paper and more BECAUSE it has this very fraudulent attachment onto the centuries long proxy data.

Marcott is a hero. He never misrepresented the work. In fact, in many interviews he CLEARLY made out the LIMITATIONS to COMPARING ABSOLUTE values or "rates of rise" to modern instrumentation.

UNFORTUNATELY -- those interviews and academic discussions NEVER MADE IT to the public/politicos/media.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Where is the "warning label" on THIS Version of the CO2 hockey stick at Climate.gov ??? Hmmm????

Maps & Data

The Maps & Data section featuring interactive tools, maps, and additional tools for accessing climate data.

www.climate.gov

Caption reads ----



There's THE LIE.. That NASA KNOWS the peaks never exceeded 300 ppm and "the increase" (never stated it came FROM MODERN instrumention - --- LOOKS VIRTUALLY INSTANTANEOUS on a geological time scale.

So where is this "truth in science" labeling you speak of?

Why do you call people you don't know "liars"? I'm genuinely curious. YOU took offense when you thought I called you a liar (I didn't, for the record...I merely noted that if you think everyone in MY field is a liar then I have to wonder about everyone in YOUR field).

Why don't you dial it back a bit and talk like a grown up?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Where is the "warning label" on THIS Version of the CO2 hockey stick at Climate.gov ??? Hmmm????

Maps & Data

The Maps & Data section featuring interactive tools, maps, and additional tools for accessing climate data.

www.climate.gov

Where's the "hockey stick" in that link you provided?

 

[ReinyDays]

Also doesn't matter when the paper author is ARROGANT enough to take media interviews making INFERENCES about crap that were NEVER PROVEN in their papers.

These cable news networks come cash-in-hand ... "say this for $10,000?" ... James Hansen is a good example ... makes all manner of claims to the media, but then backtracks all of it in this scientific writings ...

 

[flacaltenn]

These cable news networks come cash-in-hand ... "say this for $10,000?" ... James Hansen is a good example ... makes all manner of claims to the media, but then backtracks all of it in this scientific writings ...

He'll do it for free. Hansen specialty is the atmos on Venus. Loves to compare that to the future of the Earth. Gave CBS the cover to air --- that our oceans were gonna boil -- leading to this harrowing moment during a special they did on Global Warming about 15 years ago.

 

[flacaltenn]

Where's the "hockey stick" in that link you provided?

Sorry -- it was on a "pop-up" . Site navigation is complex.

GO here.

Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

In the past 60 years, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased 100 times faster than it did during the end of the last ice age.

www.climate.gov

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Sorry -- it was on a "pop-up" . Site navigation is complex.

GO here.

Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

In the past 60 years, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased 100 times faster than it did during the end of the last ice age.

www.climate.gov

I ASSUME you are talking about the "Carbon Dioxide Over 80,000 Years" graph? Well, that's not the "hockey stick" graph. In fact if you actually read what it says it says the data for that come from: " based on data from Lüthi, et al., 2008, via NOAA NCEI Paleoclimatology Program."

The fact that it LOOKS hockey stick like doesn't make it the hockey stick graph of Mann et al.

Other than that there's nothing of the hockey stick on this page that I can see.

In fact Mann or "hockey stick" is no where on that page.

If you want to debate against the hockey stick...just try finding it and then talking about it.

 

[ReinyDays]

I ASSUME you are talking about the "Carbon Dioxide Over 80,000 Years" graph? Well, that's not the "hockey stick" graph. In fact if you actually read what it says it says the data for that come from: " based on data from Lüthi, et al., 2008, via NOAA NCEI Paleoclimatology Program."

The fact that it LOOKS hockey stick like doesn't make it the hockey stick graph of Mann et al.

Other than that there's nothing of the hockey stick on this page that I can see.

In fact Mann or "hockey stick" is no where on that page.

If you want to debate against the hockey stick...just try finding it and then talking about it.

Here's an article about Micheal Mann losing his defamation suit against Tim Ball's criticism ... the "hockey stick" graph is included ... also this cute quote from the American Thinker ... "Real science, not the phony “consensus” version, requires open access to data, so that skeptics (who play a key role in science) can see if results are reproducible." ...

The Alarmist community wants temperatures to follow an exponential trace, when in fact it follows a logarithmic curve, the inverse ... or more correctly, a fourth root curve ... meaning to get a "linear" curve, we would have to add carbon dioxide by the fourth power with respect to time, or to the sixth power to even begin to see an acceleration of temperature rise ...

Such foolishness ...

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Here's an article about Micheal Mann losing his defamation suit against Tim Ball's criticism ... the "hockey stick" graph is included ... also this cute quote from the American Thinker ... "Real science, not the phony “consensus” version, requires open access to data, so that skeptics (who play a key role in science) can see if results are reproducible." ...

The Alarmist community wants temperatures to follow an exponential trace, when in fact it follows a logarithmic curve, the inverse ... or more correctly, a fourth root curve ... meaning to get a "linear" curve, we would have to add carbon dioxide by the fourth power with respect to time, or to the sixth power to even begin to see an acceleration of temperature rise ...

Such foolishness ...

You need to be familiar with what I and the other poster were discussing. Let me fill you in so you can make informed comments:

flacaltenn suggests that Mann's Hockey Stick is "fraudulent" because it mixes both proxies and modern temperature measurements. I noted for them that Mann actually CLEARLY LABELS the various components so, by definition, it is NOT fraud. But flacaltenn then tried (unsuccessfully) to find examples of the Hockeystick which didn't have this label. Flacaltenn apparently didn't know what the actual hockey stick was and decided that ANY climate graph of ANYTHING that has a vaguely hockey-stick shape must be the hockey stick at which point when they failed to find any labeling on an unrelated graph they thought they had made a valid point.

But it wasn't the hockey stick.

Numerous investigations of Mann have failed to find any evidence of fraudulent manipulation of the data.

 

[ReinyDays]

You need to be familiar with what I and the other poster were discussing. Let me fill you in so you can make informed comments:

flacaltenn suggests that Mann's Hockey Stick is "fraudulent" because it mixes both proxies and modern temperature measurements. I noted for them that Mann actually CLEARLY LABELS the various components so, by definition, it is NOT fraud. But flacaltenn then tried (unsuccessfully) to find examples of the Hockeystick which didn't have this label. Flacaltenn apparently didn't know what the actual hockey stick was and decided that ANY climate graph of ANYTHING that has a vaguely hockey-stick shape must be the hockey stick at which point when they failed to find any labeling on an unrelated graph they thought they had made a valid point.

But it wasn't the hockey stick.

Numerous investigations of Mann have failed to find any evidence of fraudulent manipulation of the data.

The knock on Mann's work is he isn't providing the raw data ... keeping it secret ... and no one else has been able to duplicate Mann's work ...

Perhaps you could speak to the science involved instead of repeating clap-trap from your Hysteria sites ... numerous investigations of Mann have failed to find any evidence of any data of any kind ... for Mann to claim there is, and yet not reveal this data is scientific fraud ... that's not how we proceed in science ...

The 2ºC temperature increase over the next 100 years won't cause any catastrophic weather that wouldn't happen otherwise ... it's just too small a temperature change to matter ... and what little damage this temperature rise might cause is easily paid back with the extra drinking water ... warmer means wetter ... and all living things do better with a little extra water ...

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

The knock on Mann's work is he isn't providing the raw data ... keeping it secret ... and no one else has been able to duplicate Mann's work ...

That's wrong. It's been reproduced. The hockey stick has been found in other proxies as well!

Wahl in 2007 (HERE) analyzed the hockey stick.

Huang et al (2000) found a hockeystick in borehole proxy data (HERE)

Smith et al (2006) found a hockeystick in speleothem proxy data (HERE)

That's how science is done.

(How many times have YOU had to hand over your raw data for your peer reviewed publications? Just curious. Oh wait, I know. The answer is "zero" for a number of reasons. )

 

[ReinyDays]

That's wrong. It's been reproduced. The hockey stick has been found in other proxies as well!

Wahl in 2007 (HERE) analyzed the hockey stick.

Huang et al (2000) found a hockeystick in borehole proxy data (HERE)

Smith et al (2006) found a hockeystick in speleothem proxy data (HERE)

That's how science is done.

(How many times have YOU had to hand over your raw data for your peer reviewed publications? Just curious. Oh wait, I know. The answer is "zero" for a number of reasons. )

Abstract hunting ... it's in the conclusions that authors make conclusions ... did you read any of these papers, or did some robot website spit these out? ...

Explaining the physics is how science is done ... and I've only claimed to have taken a class, something you haven't done ...

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Abstract hunting ... it's in the conclusions that authors make conclusions ... did you read any of these papers, or did some robot website spit these out? ...

So you didn't read them?

Explaining the physics is how science is done ... and I've only claimed to have taken a class, something you haven't done ...

LOL.