Vanishing Glaciers Of The Greater Himalaya - Photographic evidence

[Old Rocks]

Toddler, the hockey stick has been confirmed multiple times. Just because you are an ignoramous to lazy to research does not mean the rest of us are.

What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

Hockey stick is broken
"In 2003 Professor McKitrick teamed with a Canadian engineer, Steve McIntyre, in attempting to replicate the hockey stick and debunked it as statistical nonsense. They revealed how the chart was derived from 'collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects', substantially affecting the temperature index." (John McLaughlin)

What the science says...
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Toddler, what heat island issue. That was resolved by Muler and company.

Global warming: Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on climate change - Los Angeles Times

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated

But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."

The hearing was called by GOP leaders of the House Science & Technology committee, who have expressed doubts about the integrity of climate science. It was one of several inquiries in recent weeks as the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to curb planet-heating emissions from industrial plants and motor vehicles have come under strenuous attack in Congress.

 

[Old Rocks]

The lies are what the denialists are feeding you. And, like a good little sheep, you don't even bother to research what the scientists are really stating. Just another lazy ass 'Conservative'.

 

[IanC]

From what? Yourself?

The subject, in any case, is the warming of the atmosphere and ocean by the introduction of GHGs by humans. It has been clearly shown by the scientists that this is happening, and already creating changes in the weather. Changes that are not good for a world with 7 billion humans on it.

I have linked to scientists and those that keep records on matters such as storm damage losses, both buildings and agriculteral. You fellows simply have replied with bullshit, mostly from non-scientists and known liars like the fake Lord Monkton.

If it has clearly been shown that we're responsible, why the need for the "hockey stick" and "hide the decline"?

What's your point here? We're supposed to show something without data? The "hockey stick" is data. You "hide the decline" from other sources to reveal what the human contribution to warming is. How else do you suggest it be shown?

Mann's hockey stick was a blatant abuse of data and methodology that is still tainting research to this day. it is a black eye for climate science that should never have passed peer review in the first place and should have been disavowed once the errors became known.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddler, the hockey stick has been confirmed multiple times. Just because you are an ignoramous to lazy to research does not mean the rest of us are.

What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

Hockey stick is broken
"In 2003 Professor McKitrick teamed with a Canadian engineer, Steve McIntyre, in attempting to replicate the hockey stick and debunked it as statistical nonsense. They revealed how the chart was derived from 'collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects', substantially affecting the temperature index." (John McLaughlin)

What the science says...
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

Thanks for the link. I like this chart.

Where did the Medieval Warming Period go?

 

[westwall]

Toddler, the hockey stick has been confirmed multiple times. Just because you are an ignoramous to lazy to research does not mean the rest of us are.

What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

Hockey stick is broken
"In 2003 Professor McKitrick teamed with a Canadian engineer, Steve McIntyre, in attempting to replicate the hockey stick and debunked it as statistical nonsense. They revealed how the chart was derived from 'collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects', substantially affecting the temperature index." (John McLaughlin)

What the science says...
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

Really? Dr. Muller doesn't seem to think so....



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk]Climategate 'hide the decline' explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddler, the hockey stick has been confirmed multiple times. Just because you are an ignoramous to lazy to research does not mean the rest of us are.

What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

Hockey stick is broken
"In 2003 Professor McKitrick teamed with a Canadian engineer, Steve McIntyre, in attempting to replicate the hockey stick and debunked it as statistical nonsense. They revealed how the chart was derived from 'collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects', substantially affecting the temperature index." (John McLaughlin)

What the science says...
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

Really? Dr. Muller doesn't seem to think so....



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk]Climategate 'hide the decline' explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller - YouTube[/ame]

Thanks for the link.

 

[RollingThunder]

Toddler, the hockey stick has been confirmed multiple times. Just because you are an ignoramous to lazy to research does not mean the rest of us are.

What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

Hockey stick is broken
"In 2003 Professor McKitrick teamed with a Canadian engineer, Steve McIntyre, in attempting to replicate the hockey stick and debunked it as statistical nonsense. They revealed how the chart was derived from 'collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects', substantially affecting the temperature index." (John McLaughlin)

What the science says...
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

Really? Dr. Muller doesn't seem to think so....

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk]Climategate 'hide the decline' explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller - YouTube

LOLOLOL....you are so predictable....always lame....

Professor Richard Muller - another climate science denier exposed.

Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddler, the hockey stick has been confirmed multiple times. Just because you are an ignoramous to lazy to research does not mean the rest of us are.

What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

Hockey stick is broken
"In 2003 Professor McKitrick teamed with a Canadian engineer, Steve McIntyre, in attempting to replicate the hockey stick and debunked it as statistical nonsense. They revealed how the chart was derived from 'collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects', substantially affecting the temperature index." (John McLaughlin)

What the science says...
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

Really? Dr. Muller doesn't seem to think so....

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk]Climategate 'hide the decline' explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller - YouTube

LOLOLOL....you are so predictable....always lame....

Professor Richard Muller - another climate science denier exposed.

Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"

they make false accusations of fraud and malign the characters of decent, honest climate scientists such as Michael Mann and James Hansen. That's what they do, because that's all they have

OMG! Thanks for the laugh.

 

[RollingThunder]

Really? Dr. Muller doesn't seem to think so....

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk]Climategate 'hide the decline' explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller - YouTube

LOLOLOL....you are so predictable....always lame....

Professor Richard Muller - another climate science denier exposed.

Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"

they make false accusations of fraud and malign the characters of decent, honest climate scientists such as Michael Mann and James Hansen. That's what they do, because that's all they have

OMG! Thanks for the laugh.

Except of course for the fact that smearing scientists and pushing disinformation and lies is actually all that you anti-science denier cult retards have to offer in your deranged 'holy war' against modern climate science as you play the unwitting dupes of the fossil fuel industry.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

LOLOLOL....you are so predictable....always lame....

Professor Richard Muller - another climate science denier exposed.

Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"

they make false accusations of fraud and malign the characters of decent, honest climate scientists such as Michael Mann and James Hansen. That's what they do, because that's all they have

OMG! Thanks for the laugh.

Except of course for the fact that smearing scientists and pushing disinformation and lies is actually all that you anti-science denier cult retards have to offer in your deranged 'holy war' against modern climate science as you play the unwitting dupes of the fossil fuel industry.

"Modern climate science" shouldn't have to lie if the truth is on their side.

So what's your solution to global warming? More nukes? Or should we destroy our economy instead?

 

[Old Rocks]

The economy will be destroyed by the affects on agriculture of the continued warming at some point in the future. That is a certainty. For we are not going to do the neccessary things to reduce our output of GHGs. The grand experiment will be made.

 

[Old Rocks]

The hockey stick graph has been confirmed repeatedly by many differant methods. Live with it.

Why fight it, the data is correct, and you dopes are getting your way, we will find out in my lifetime what doubling of the CO2 in the atmosphere means.

 

[RollingThunder]

they make false accusations of fraud and malign the characters of decent, honest climate scientists such as Michael Mann and James Hansen. That's what they do, because that's all they have

OMG! Thanks for the laugh.

Except of course for the fact that smearing scientists and pushing disinformation and lies is actually all that you anti-science denier cult retards have to offer in your deranged 'holy war' against modern climate science as you play the unwitting dupes of the fossil fuel industry.

"Modern climate science" shouldn't have to lie if the truth is on their side.

So what's your solution to global warming? More nukes? Or should we destroy our economy instead?

Modern climate science doesn't have to lie. The truth is on "their side". The evidence is clear and overwhelming. You've been lied to about these supposed "lies".

It is your puppet-masters in the fossil fuel industry who are lying, to you and to the public, about the reality and dangers of AGW as they seek to keep the public confused and to prevent any effective action to limit carbon emissions and consequently their profits from selling carbon emitting fuels.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The hockey stick graph has been confirmed repeatedly by many differant methods. Live with it.

Why fight it, the data is correct, and you dopes are getting your way, we will find out in my lifetime what doubling of the CO2 in the atmosphere means.

Yes, it's been confirmed that they plugged the data to make it look scary. If it was as scary as they claim, they'd have no need to fake it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Except of course for the fact that smearing scientists and pushing disinformation and lies is actually all that you anti-science denier cult retards have to offer in your deranged 'holy war' against modern climate science as you play the unwitting dupes of the fossil fuel industry.

"Modern climate science" shouldn't have to lie if the truth is on their side.

So what's your solution to global warming? More nukes? Or should we destroy our economy instead?

Modern climate science doesn't have to lie. The truth is on "their side". The evidence is clear and overwhelming. You've been lied to about these supposed "lies".

It is your puppet-masters in the fossil fuel industry who are lying, to you and to the public, about the reality and dangers of AGW as they seek to keep the public confused and to prevent any effective action to limit carbon emissions and consequently their profits from selling carbon emitting fuels.

Hide the decline wasn't to perpetuate a lie? Then why did they want to hide it?
And where did the Medieval Warming Period go in the famous hockey stick chart?
Should we build more nuke plants, to reduce CO2?

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, Toddler, you are certainly one brain dead ass.

Simply put, every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Of course, an ignoramous of a message board poster that presents zero evidence for his statements is supposed to convince us otherwise. LOL

 

[westwall]

The economy will be destroyed by the affects on agriculture of the continued warming at some point in the future. That is a certainty. For we are not going to do the neccessary things to reduce our output of GHGs. The grand experiment will be made.

Complete and utter horseshit. Every study that has done a cost/benefit analysis has stated quite clearly that in a warmer world agriculture goes gangbusters. It's only in the alarmist deluded computer models (by the way have they EVER been able to get one that even came close to approximating the real world? The answer is still NO!) that say otherwise.

They have been wrong on every count and in every prediction so far but you all have "faith", and as we all know when it comes to religion that's all you need.

 

[westwall]

Except of course for the fact that smearing scientists and pushing disinformation and lies is actually all that you anti-science denier cult retards have to offer in your deranged 'holy war' against modern climate science as you play the unwitting dupes of the fossil fuel industry.

"Modern climate science" shouldn't have to lie if the truth is on their side.

So what's your solution to global warming? More nukes? Or should we destroy our economy instead?

Modern climate science doesn't have to lie. The truth is on "their side". The evidence is clear and overwhelming. You've been lied to about these supposed "lies".

It is your puppet-masters in the fossil fuel industry who are lying, to you and to the public, about the reality and dangers of AGW as they seek to keep the public confused and to prevent any effective action to limit carbon emissions and consequently their profits from selling carbon emitting fuels.

Care to list how many "mistakes" they've made then?

 

[Old Rocks]

Once again, you are full of shit, Walleyes.

[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change - HM Treasury