tree ring bs exposed by AGW computer programmers

[SSDD]

Yes, yes it is all a huge conspiracy! All the scientist are paid off! They gonna steal all your money!

No actual rational, scientifically valid reason for all of the data alteration? Nothing more than a weak logical fallacy in response?...How does that not surprise me?

That's the nature of the warmist argument...never observed, measured, quantified data to prove the point...just logical fallacy after logical fallacy.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Yes, yes it is all a huge conspiracy! All the scientist are paid off! They gonna steal all your money!

No actual rational

Thanks for the admission

 

[SSDD]

Yes, yes it is all a huge conspiracy! All the scientist are paid off! They gonna steal all your money!

No actual rational

Thanks for the admission

So you alter the arguments put forward to you in an effort to make a point as well?...not unusual for warmers...they can rarely actually hold their own in an actual discussion of the facts and the nature of the evidence that is available to them so they often resort to altering the arguments put to them...or taking parts of sentences out of context and attempting to argue against the ad hoc argument they created.

Crick is attempting such a ruse right now across the board....I ask for observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...he then claims that I am saying that climate science is devoid of empirical data....it is about the only tool you warmers have so you use it all the time. Sad really.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Yes, yes it is all a huge conspiracy! All the scientist are paid off! They gonna steal all your money!

No actual rational

Thanks for the admission

So you alter the arguments put forward to you in an effort to make a point as well?...not unusual for warmers...they can rarely actually hold their own in an actual discussion of the facts and the nature of the evidence that is available to them so they often resort to altering the arguments put to them...or taking parts of sentences out of context and attempting to argue against the ad hoc argument they created.

Crick is attempting such a ruse right now across the board....I ask for observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...he then claims that I am saying that climate science is devoid of empirical data....it is about the only tool you warmers have so you use it all the time. Sad really.

Actually you altered my post with your previous reply. I responded in kind. Looks like you started the sad.

 

[SSDD]

Yes, yes it is all a huge conspiracy! All the scientist are paid off! They gonna steal all your money!

No actual rational

Thanks for the admission

So you alter the arguments put forward to you in an effort to make a point as well?...not unusual for warmers...they can rarely actually hold their own in an actual discussion of the facts and the nature of the evidence that is available to them so they often resort to altering the arguments put to them...or taking parts of sentences out of context and attempting to argue against the ad hoc argument they created.

Crick is attempting such a ruse right now across the board....I ask for observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...he then claims that I am saying that climate science is devoid of empirical data....it is about the only tool you warmers have so you use it all the time. Sad really.

Actually you altered my post with your previous reply. I responded in kind. Looks like you started the sad.

Wrong again...I used your entire sentence...and didn't alter the meaning of your argument (such as it was) in the least. But hey...you have already proven that you aren't able to actually discuss the topic...like so many warmers, drive by logical fallacy is really all you are capable of.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Yes, yes it is all a huge conspiracy! All the scientist are paid off! They gonna steal all your money!

No actual rational

Thanks for the admission

So you alter the arguments put forward to you in an effort to make a point as well?...not unusual for warmers...they can rarely actually hold their own in an actual discussion of the facts and the nature of the evidence that is available to them so they often resort to altering the arguments put to them...or taking parts of sentences out of context and attempting to argue against the ad hoc argument they created.

Crick is attempting such a ruse right now across the board....I ask for observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...he then claims that I am saying that climate science is devoid of empirical data....it is about the only tool you warmers have so you use it all the time. Sad really.

Actually you altered my post with your previous reply. I responded in kind. Looks like you started the sad.

Wrong again...I used your entire sentence...and didn't alter the meaning of your argument (such as it was) in the least. But hey...you have already proven that you aren't able to actually discuss the topic...like so many warmers, drive by logical fallacy is really all you are capable of.

Quoting one sentence of a post is absolutely altering someones argument. Thanks for the admission you are a hack.

 

[SSDD]

No actual rational

Thanks for the admission

So you alter the arguments put forward to you in an effort to make a point as well?...not unusual for warmers...they can rarely actually hold their own in an actual discussion of the facts and the nature of the evidence that is available to them so they often resort to altering the arguments put to them...or taking parts of sentences out of context and attempting to argue against the ad hoc argument they created.

Crick is attempting such a ruse right now across the board....I ask for observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...he then claims that I am saying that climate science is devoid of empirical data....it is about the only tool you warmers have so you use it all the time. Sad really.

Actually you altered my post with your previous reply. I responded in kind. Looks like you started the sad.

Wrong again...I used your entire sentence...and didn't alter the meaning of your argument (such as it was) in the least. But hey...you have already proven that you aren't able to actually discuss the topic...like so many warmers, drive by logical fallacy is really all you are capable of.

Quoting one sentence of a post is absolutely altering someones argument. Thanks for the admission you are a hack.

After that first sentence...did you then add information that changed the meaning of that first sentence? Did you add some idea that would alter the original argument put forward in that first sentence? Of course you didn't...and I pointed out that it was a logical fallacy and since you added nothing that would change the initial fallacious argument...I answered your argument in its entirety...

Guess you never actually engaged in a debate where a couple of people actually discuss a topic with a give and take of arguments, ideas, and information. The actual you answered was that the global temperature data set has been significantly altered with no rational, scientifically valid reason...do you deny that the data set has been altered...or do you believe that there is a rational, scientifically valid reason for altering it?

 

[WheelieAddict]

Thanks for the admission

So you alter the arguments put forward to you in an effort to make a point as well?...not unusual for warmers...they can rarely actually hold their own in an actual discussion of the facts and the nature of the evidence that is available to them so they often resort to altering the arguments put to them...or taking parts of sentences out of context and attempting to argue against the ad hoc argument they created.

Crick is attempting such a ruse right now across the board....I ask for observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...he then claims that I am saying that climate science is devoid of empirical data....it is about the only tool you warmers have so you use it all the time. Sad really.

Actually you altered my post with your previous reply. I responded in kind. Looks like you started the sad.

Wrong again...I used your entire sentence...and didn't alter the meaning of your argument (such as it was) in the least. But hey...you have already proven that you aren't able to actually discuss the topic...like so many warmers, drive by logical fallacy is really all you are capable of.

Quoting one sentence of a post is absolutely altering someones argument. Thanks for the admission you are a hack.

After that first sentence...did you then add information that changed the meaning of that first sentence? Did you add some idea that would alter the original argument put forward in that first sentence?

Did you only take part of my post and leave out the rest? Yes you did. Your opinion that it is the whole argument is you making it the whole argument. That's why you are a hack and disingenuous. Arguing with someone dishonest like that is a waste of time, and why I have responded in kind.

 

[SSDD]

Did you only take part of my post and leave out the rest? Yes you did. Your opinion that it is the whole argument is you making it the whole argument. That's why you are a hack and disingenuous. Arguing with someone dishonest like that is a waste of time, and why I have responded in kind.

Was or was not your statement
[/quote] Yes, yes it is all a huge conspiracy! All the scientist are paid off! They gonna steal all your money[/quote]

The central idea in your argument? Did your following statements:

The power backing this conspiracy is immense! They have paid off:
-NASA
-The pentagon
-Most scientists
-Most world governments

I mean it is just unbelievable, a global conspiracy, including our own govt! You guys keep up the fight against this tyranny of lies! Message boards and emails will tell you the real truth!"

Alter the premise of the central idea of your argument in any way?

And if I were you...I would be embarrassed to be arguing over the content of an argument that was nothing more than a logical fallacy in the first place. It shows that you aren't really able to discuss the actual topic.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Did you only take part of my post and leave out the rest? Yes you did. Your opinion that it is the whole argument is you making it the whole argument. That's why you are a hack and disingenuous. Arguing with someone dishonest like that is a waste of time, and why I have responded in kind.

Was or was not your statement

Yes, yes it is all a huge conspiracy! All the scientist are paid off! They gonna steal all your money[/quote]

The central idea in your argument? Did your following statements:

The power backing this conspiracy is immense! They have paid off:
-NASA
-The pentagon
-Most scientists
-Most world governments

I mean it is just unbelievable, a global conspiracy, including our own govt! You guys keep up the fight against this tyranny of lies! Message boards and emails will tell you the real truth!"

Alter the premise of the central idea of your argument in any way?

And if I were you...I would be embarrassed to be arguing over the content of an argument that was nothing more than a logical fallacy in the first place. It shows that you aren't really able to discuss the actual topic.[/QUOTE]

Yes leaving out the rest of my post is disingenuous. That you think you can take a sentence of a post and proclaim that it represents the rest is your opinion, not fact. It shows your dishonesty.

 

[SSDD]

Yes leaving out the rest of my post is disingenuous. That you think you can take a sentence of a post and proclaim that it represents the rest is your opinion, not fact. It shows your dishonesty.

Of course it isn't....you fallaciously and sarcastically claimed a great conspiracy...I used your entire central premise,, that being your sarcastic and fallacious claim of some conspiracy..... whereas you used only the first 3 words of my statement "No actual rational, scientifically valid reason for all of the data alteration? Nothing more than a weak logical fallacy in response?...How does that not surprise me?" and made some claim based on those first 3 words that I had made some admission.

But to be fair, how do you suppose that I somehow altered the central premise of your statement and then argued against an argument that you didn't make? This should be interesting. I am always interested in seeing how people think...and the sorts of mental gymnastics that go into their thought process...and more importantly, how far they are willing to drag their intellect and integrity through the gutter in an effort to make some meaningless point. So lets hear it...how did I alter the central premise of your statement...that being the sarcastic claim that it is all some great conspiracy....and then argue against my modified version of your claim.

 

[cnm]

Climate science is the liar...not my eyes.

Invincible ignorance is called invincible for a reason.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

 

[SSDD]

Climate science is the liar...not my eyes.

Invincible ignorance is called invincible for a reason.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

Why yes it is, but hope springs eternal...here have another look a the blatant data manipulation...especially the alteration of the record from 50 to more than 100 years ago done explicitly to make the modern warming appear greater than it is...perhaps enough exposure to the truth will break through the blinders you have so tightly affixed to your eyes.


In 1999, NASA showed 0.6C warming from 1880 to 1997.

Now they show more than 1.C warming during the same period.

Here is an overlay of the two graphs on the same time scale.

Here is a close up pf the period from about 1905 to 1965....they have massaged the data even beyond their own error bars...the data has been altered nearly 200% of the size of the 1930 error bars. In what field but climate science could someone get away with such a blatant fraud?

But one need not go back half a century to see evidence of fraud...hell, the data today doesn't even agree with the data from 16 years ago...

They have altered their own data by .5C since 2000 and are still claiming that the record is accurate to 0.05 degrees. What sort of person is able to ignore such blatant fraud and still believe?

In 1989, Tom Karl, of NOAA said that most global warming occurred between 1881 and 1919, and that the global climate cooled from 1921 to 1979.

Today, as a result of heavy data alteration, they are showing the exact opposite...cooling from 1881 to 1919 and warming from 1921 to 1979...and you might note that this graph from NOAA doesn't really jibe well with any of the graphs above...the record has become so corrupted that it is useless.

The record shows sharp warming after 1970 after they took about 70% of their stations offline...primarily cooler rural stations and began to rely on mysterious adjustments.

Here is the global data coverage at present...

And they use that data to create graphs like this. Do you find it unusual that some of the hottest places on earth are the very places which require the most infilling...in other words...the places where they simply make up the temperatures to suit the narrative?

The fraud and malfeasance are evident and out in the open...again, who else but climate science could get away with data manipulation to that degree?[/QUOTE]

 

[Crick]

ALL your graphs show warming not seen in a million years.

And that ocean data is not created by infilling. It is SST data from YOUR beloved ARGO network.

 

[SSDD]

ALL your graphs show warming not seen in a million years.

Which proxy are you using that would allow you to make such claims about a period of less than 100 years? The answer to that question is that there is no proxy record which would support such a claim...talking out your ass again...just making it up as you go hoping that someone will believe you.

 

[Crick]

Yeah, tree rings are accurate to a tenth of a degree

Tree rings (plural) are easily accurate to a tenth of a degree.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yeah, tree rings are accurate to a tenth of a degree

Tree rings (plural) are easily accurate to a tenth of a degree.

No. Lol.

That's funny.

 

[Crick]

Yes. Not funny. You're stupid

Tree-ring proxies and the divergence problem

Dendroclimatology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Picture Climate: How Can We Learn from Tree Rings? | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Climate Change - Studying Climate Change - Tree Rings

Tree Rings & Climate - Windows to the Universe

Debate tests accuracy of tree ring data.