The definitive guide to the "Global Warming" scam

[Crick]

Do you have some evidence of that? Because no one else did.

From Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia
these two phrases were taken out of context by global warming sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[1]

1) Pearce, Fred (9 February 2010). "Part two: How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies". The Guardian. UK. Retrieved 20 March 2010.

 

[mamooth]

That’s hilarious coming from the triggered woman who is attempting to claim that temp actually mean “tree rings”.

It was rather amusing that your inability to read formed the basis of your conspiracy theory. Granted, a comma would have made the meaning clearer, but it was just an informal email.

You peddled a falsehood. You got busted. Like I predicted, rather than thanking us for educating you, you're doubling down on the lie. You lied out of stupidity before, but now you've graduated to deliberate dishonesty. Next time, to avoid zeroing out your credibility, just say "You're right, I was wrong, sorry about that, thanks for correcting me."

Oh, I see. You’d rather embrace your partisan views than truth. Let’s pretend he’s not talking about temps for a moment.

He wasn't talking about temps. That's not debatable.

Why does he need tricks

Only a liar would pretend that using "mathematical tricks" or "tricks of the trade" is dishonest.

to hide the decline of tree rings?

In far northern areas in recent times, the thermometers and the tree rings didn't match. It's not debatable that such recent tree ring data in such areas is not reliable, and would give false results if used. That fact was openly discussed in the scientific literature for a decade previous to the email.

Not correcting for data with known errors would be fraud. Being honest, scientists corrected the errors. Being dishonest, you want to use data which would give fraudulent results, as such fraud backs up your cult's sacred scripture.

Science is supposed to be cold, hard data. No “tricks”. No “hiding” anything.

And yet here you are, demanding fraudulent data be used to conceal the good data, entirely for propaganda purposes. Your religion drives you to corrupt actions.

 

[P@triot]

You peddled a falsehood. You got busted.

Um...snowflake? They peddled a falsehood. They got busted. You swallowed that shit like you talk about swallowing fluids from men on this board.

Humiliated by your astounding stupidity for buying into it, you’re now trying to convince people that when they said “temp” they actually meant “tree”.

 

[Pilot1]

When people tell you "the Science is Settled" and the "Debate is Over" to shut down any alternative thought you know it is a HOAX and a SCAM. It is just another big government money and power grab promoted by the Elite who would benefit from it. That's all.

 

[Crick]

I rarely hear "the debate is over" from pseudoscientists. What I usually here is that "the scientists or big corporations don't want you to hear about this".

In mainstream science, "the debate is over" means the vast majority of scientists and other experts in this field are convinced that AGW is an accurate theory. That is what has ended debate. It is a common strategy among pseudo scientists, as the deniers here and the tobacco industry and the intelligent design folks to insist that there is still some debate going on among the experts.

Among the professional, published researchers, there is no longer any debate over the validity of AGW. THAT debate is over.

 

[mamooth]

Um...snowflake? They peddled a falsehood.

That's not what the rest of the planet says, and that's because the hard evidence says you're lying. Sucks to be you, reduced to screaming conspiracy theories into the wilderness.

Humiliated by your astounding stupidity for buying into it, you’re now trying to convince people that when they said “temp” they actually meant “tree”.

As we can read, we know with 100% certainty that you're lying.

At this stage, you're only interesting as study in morally deviant psychology, an illustration of how cult devotion can cause of person to abandon good morality.

 

[Crick]

You peddled a falsehood. You got busted.

Um...snowflake? They peddled a falsehood. They got busted. You swallowed that shit like you talk about swallowing fluids from men on this board.

Humiliated by your astounding stupidity for buying into it, you’re now trying to convince people that when they said “temp” they actually meant “tree”.

Are you still unaware of the field of dendrochronology? Let me assist.

Dendrochronology - Wikipedia

 

[Crick]

And while you're there, you could also check out Divergence problem - Wikipedia to see what Phil Jones was actually talking about when he said "hide the decline"

 

[P@triot]

Are you still unaware of the field of dendrochronology? Let me assist.

Dendrochronology - Wikipedia

Did they even mention the word “dendrochronology”? Nope!

 

[P@triot]

As we can read, we know with 100% certainty that you're lying.

As all conservatives can read (the illiterates are all on the left), everyone can see you’re being a desperate partisan buffoon.
you....

"I've just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." - Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

That’s an actual climate scientist, admitting in an email, that he fabricated data. Since you can’t read, I’ve incldued video. Watch it. You’ll learn something. You’ll deny learning it. But you’ll still learn something for once.

 

[Crick]

So, you can't read. Makes you wrong on a whole bunch of counts.

 

[P@triot]

So, you can't read. Makes you wrong on a whole bunch of counts.

The whole board has been saying that about mammaries. It’s good to see that you’re also recognizing her illiteracy.

 

[Crick]

No, they haven't. You're the one making blatant mistake after blatant mistake. Have you sorted out dendrochronology yet?

 

[P@triot]

No, they haven't. You're the one making blatant mistake after blatant mistake. Have you sorted out dendrochronology yet?

Can you show me where the fake scientists mentioned “dendrochronology” yet? Can you show me where the fake scientists even used the word “tree” yet?

Can you tell me why you refuse to read what was written and accept what was written?

 

[Crick]

Michael Mann was the author of that line. Michael Mann is a dendrochronologist.

Sheesh...

 

[P@triot]

Michael Mann was the author of that line. Michael Mann is a dendrochronologist. Sheesh...

And Al Gore was a politician. But he still discusses his business venture known as “Global Warming” 24x7. Just like your “dendrochronologist” there.

 

[Crick]

Your response was non-sequitur. The comment "hide the decline" referred to the Divergence Problem. "Mike's Nature trick" referred to a method to blend datasets. No one was falsifying data. No one was hiding anything.

EVERY group that reviewed these emails came to that EXACT same conclusion.

 

[P@triot]

Your response was non-sequitur. The comment "hide the decline" referred to the Divergence Problem. "Mike's Nature trick" referred to a method to blend datasets. No one was falsifying data. No one was hiding anything.

“Divergence” was never mentioned, you nitwit. And real science does not “hide” or “trick”. Real science would, at the very minimum, recognize that what the they thought was true about dendrochronolgy was not.

EVERY group that reviewed these emails came to that EXACT same conclusion.

That’s because every group that reviewed them were fellow “Global Warming” conspiracy theorists who make a good living from convincing nitwits like you that it exists.

 

[P@triot]

No, they haven't. You're the one making blatant mistake after blatant mistake. Have you sorted out dendrochronology yet?

Can you show me where the fake scientists mentioned “dendrochronology” yet? Can you show me where the fake scientists even used the word “tree” yet?

Can you tell me why you refuse to read what was written and accept what was written?

Still waiting Crick. Where was “dendrochronology” discussed?!? No where in the emails. How sad that you cannot accept what was proven in black and white.

 

[Crick]

Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'
Skeptics like to portray "the decline" as a phenomena that climate scientists have tried to keep secret. In reality the divergence problem has been publicly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature since 1995 (Jacoby 1995). The IPCC discuss the decline in tree-ring growth openly both in the 2001 Third Assessment Report and in even more detail in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report.

Divergence problem
...


Twenty-year smoothed plots of averaged ring-width (dashed) and tree-ring density (thick line), averaged across all sites, and shown as standardized anomalies from a common base (1881–1940), and compared with equivalent-area averages of mean April–September temperature anomalies (thin solid line). From Briffa et al. 1998.[1]
The divergence problem is an anomaly from the field of dendroclimatology, the study of past climate through observations of old trees, primarily the properties of their annual growth rings. It is the disagreement between the temperatures measured by the thermometers (instrumental temperatures) and the temperatures reconstructed from the latewood densities or, in some cases, widths of tree rings in the far northern forests.


While the thermometer records indicate a substantial late 20th century warming trend, many tree rings from such sites do not display a corresponding change in their maximum latewood density. In some studies this issue has also been found with tree ring width.[2] A temperature trend extracted from tree rings alone would not show any substantial warming since the 1950s. The temperature graphs calculated in these two ways thus "diverge" from one another, which is the origin of the term.

Discovery
The problem of changing response of some tree ring proxies to recent climate changes was identified in Alaska by Taubes 1995 and Jacoby & d'Arrigo 1995. Tree ring specialist Keith Briffa's February 1998 study showed that this problem was more widespread at high northern latitudes, and warned that it had to be taken into account to avoid overestimating past temperatures.[3]

*************************************************************************

Keith Briffa is the Keith named in "hide the decline"

Your rejection of the numerous bodies that reviewed the stolen emails is unjustifiable. Your characterisation is just another facet of that globe-girdling perfectly executed conspiracy among 60,000+ scientists, not one of whom has ever confessed, been caught nor made a mistake.