Why do so many people deny climate change

[PMZ]

Why would the Supreme Court go with the popular vote, you silly idiot.

Why would anybody have voted for who turned out to be the worst President in American history?

I don't know why anybody voted for Obama.

Demonstrably one of the best Presidents we've had.

What you are demonstrating is why conservatives need to be, and are being, and will continue to be, persona non grata in Washington.

 

[PMZ]

How can you look at the two periods in question (the MWP and the present), note the different slope each period sports, and suggest in any way, shape or form that the MWP is a precedent for this last century's global warming?

Where did that gem get flushed from??? There are 100s of proxy studies.. you can graph anything you like.. If you IGNORE ENOUGH OF THEM --- you can get results like that..

Problem is --- Reconstructing a GLOBAL AVERAGE from proxy studies that IGNORE 70% of the earth's surface is a FOOLISH ASS thing to do..

Better to look at the 100s of studies and REALIZE that most of them post temp results HIGHER than the common era and distributed world-wide..
Without the theatrical effort to produce a STONE STUPID "Global Average" for the 1200s.

If you wait a month --- the next IPCC will also correct itself and you on this persistent lie.

I believe this graph is called MBH99 on McIntyre's site. The original Hockey Stick graph is called MBH98. This newer version suffers from all the errors that the earlier one suffered. McIntyre tears it to shreds on his site. One piece of chicanery you will note is the black line at the end. That represents global average temperatures supposedly derived from actual recorded temperatures. So what Mann is doing is combing proxy temperatures with actual temperatures. Anyone knowledgeable in statistics would tell you that such a procedure is totally illegitimate.

This maneuver is how Mann performed the "trick" known as "hide the decline." If you examine the proxy graphs you'll not that they all show a downturn towards the end. That doesn't look very menacing when you're trying to scare taxpayers into coughing up $73 trillion dollars. So what Mann does is overlay the graph of averaged recorded temperatures on top of the graphs of the proxies. That's how he "hides the decline."

This graph is proof that Michael Mann is a con artist who is deliberate publishing bogus data. Anyone who falls for this stuff is terminally gullible.

Are you still trying to sell the BS that there is some relationship between AGW and MWP?

Tough sell to scientists. Easy to politicians like McIntyre.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why would anybody have voted for who turned out to be the worst President in American history?

I don't know why anybody voted for Obama.

Demonstrably one of the best Presidents we've had.

What you are demonstrating is why conservatives need to be, and are being, and will continue to be, persona non grata in Washington.

They keep coming out with new meds that could help with those issues you have.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Where did that gem get flushed from??? There are 100s of proxy studies.. you can graph anything you like.. If you IGNORE ENOUGH OF THEM --- you can get results like that..

Problem is --- Reconstructing a GLOBAL AVERAGE from proxy studies that IGNORE 70% of the earth's surface is a FOOLISH ASS thing to do..

Better to look at the 100s of studies and REALIZE that most of them post temp results HIGHER than the common era and distributed world-wide..
Without the theatrical effort to produce a STONE STUPID "Global Average" for the 1200s.

If you wait a month --- the next IPCC will also correct itself and you on this persistent lie.

I believe this graph is called MBH99 on McIntyre's site. The original Hockey Stick graph is called MBH98. This newer version suffers from all the errors that the earlier one suffered. McIntyre tears it to shreds on his site. One piece of chicanery you will note is the black line at the end. That represents global average temperatures supposedly derived from actual recorded temperatures. So what Mann is doing is combing proxy temperatures with actual temperatures. Anyone knowledgeable in statistics would tell you that such a procedure is totally illegitimate.

This maneuver is how Mann performed the "trick" known as "hide the decline." If you examine the proxy graphs you'll not that they all show a downturn towards the end. That doesn't look very menacing when you're trying to scare taxpayers into coughing up $73 trillion dollars. So what Mann does is overlay the graph of averaged recorded temperatures on top of the graphs of the proxies. That's how he "hides the decline."

This graph is proof that Michael Mann is a con artist who is deliberate publishing bogus data. Anyone who falls for this stuff is terminally gullible.

Are you still trying to sell the BS that there is some relationship between AGW and MWP?

Tough sell to scientists. Easy to politicians like McIntyre.

Are you still trying to sell the BS that there is some relationship between AGW and MWP?

If there is no relationship, why did Mann lie about the MWP?

 

[freedombecki]

I don't know why anybody voted for Obama.

Demonstrably one of the best Presidents we've had.

What you are demonstrating is why conservatives need to be, and are being, and will continue to be, persona non grata in Washington.

They keep coming out with new meds that could help with those issues you have.

I knew someday they'd put sodium pentothal into pill form!

 

[PMZ]

I believe this graph is called MBH99 on McIntyre's site. The original Hockey Stick graph is called MBH98. This newer version suffers from all the errors that the earlier one suffered. McIntyre tears it to shreds on his site. One piece of chicanery you will note is the black line at the end. That represents global average temperatures supposedly derived from actual recorded temperatures. So what Mann is doing is combing proxy temperatures with actual temperatures. Anyone knowledgeable in statistics would tell you that such a procedure is totally illegitimate.

This maneuver is how Mann performed the "trick" known as "hide the decline." If you examine the proxy graphs you'll not that they all show a downturn towards the end. That doesn't look very menacing when you're trying to scare taxpayers into coughing up $73 trillion dollars. So what Mann does is overlay the graph of averaged recorded temperatures on top of the graphs of the proxies. That's how he "hides the decline."

This graph is proof that Michael Mann is a con artist who is deliberate publishing bogus data. Anyone who falls for this stuff is terminally gullible.

Are you still trying to sell the BS that there is some relationship between AGW and MWP?

Tough sell to scientists. Easy to politicians like McIntyre.

Are you still trying to sell the BS that there is some relationship between AGW and MWP?

If there is no relationship, why did Mann lie about the MWP?

He didn't. Your belief that he did is demonstrable of your low resistance to being misled.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you still trying to sell the BS that there is some relationship between AGW and MWP?

Tough sell to scientists. Easy to politicians like McIntyre.

Are you still trying to sell the BS that there is some relationship between AGW and MWP?

If there is no relationship, why did Mann lie about the MWP?

He didn't. Your belief that he did is demonstrable of your low resistance to being misled.

He did.

 

[PMZ]

I don't know why anybody voted for Obama.

Demonstrably one of the best Presidents we've had.

What you are demonstrating is why conservatives need to be, and are being, and will continue to be, persona non grata in Washington.

They keep coming out with new meds that could help with those issues you have.

Usually you don't display your toxic personality until the end of the day.

 

[bripat9643]

He wasn't. Simple enough answer.

Simple answers from simpletons. He was. Prior to Mann's hockey stick, the IPPC graph of world temperatures showed a WMP that was considerably warmer than current temperatures. That kind of picture does not inspire terror in the minds of the voters. Only a fool would believe that Mann didn't intend to eliminate the evidence of prior warm climate.

Only a fool would follow an obviously well paid big oil hit man.

Whose paying him, dipstick? You keep trying to avoid answering that question. Of course, we know whose paying Michael Mann.

 

[bripat9643]

Patrick, given that you're an expert on these matters, how would you join a proxy dataset of with an instrumented dataset? What's the proper technique that those knowledgeable in statistics would agree was legitimate?

You don't. If you display them on the same chart, then you damn well better put that information on the chart. Failure to do so is deliberate deception.

In other words, you avoid science. You maintain ignorance so you can avoid solving the problem.

Good for conservatives but a failure for those building a better future.

You're a pathetic brainwashed drone. labeling everything you believe "science" doesn't make it so.

 

[bripat9643]

Where did that gem get flushed from??? There are 100s of proxy studies.. you can graph anything you like.. If you IGNORE ENOUGH OF THEM --- you can get results like that..

Problem is --- Reconstructing a GLOBAL AVERAGE from proxy studies that IGNORE 70% of the earth's surface is a FOOLISH ASS thing to do..

Better to look at the 100s of studies and REALIZE that most of them post temp results HIGHER than the common era and distributed world-wide..
Without the theatrical effort to produce a STONE STUPID "Global Average" for the 1200s.

If you wait a month --- the next IPCC will also correct itself and you on this persistent lie.

I believe this graph is called MBH99 on McIntyre's site. The original Hockey Stick graph is called MBH98. This newer version suffers from all the errors that the earlier one suffered. McIntyre tears it to shreds on his site. One piece of chicanery you will note is the black line at the end. That represents global average temperatures supposedly derived from actual recorded temperatures. So what Mann is doing is combing proxy temperatures with actual temperatures. Anyone knowledgeable in statistics would tell you that such a procedure is totally illegitimate.

This maneuver is how Mann performed the "trick" known as "hide the decline." If you examine the proxy graphs you'll not that they all show a downturn towards the end. That doesn't look very menacing when you're trying to scare taxpayers into coughing up $73 trillion dollars. So what Mann does is overlay the graph of averaged recorded temperatures on top of the graphs of the proxies. That's how he "hides the decline."

This graph is proof that Michael Mann is a con artist who is deliberate publishing bogus data. Anyone who falls for this stuff is terminally gullible.

Are you still trying to sell the BS that there is some relationship between AGW and MWP?

Tough sell to scientists. Easy to politicians like McIntyre.

Your failure to understand the significance of the MWP to the AGW con only demonstrates that you're an ignoramus.

 

[PMZ]

I believe this graph is called MBH99 on McIntyre's site. The original Hockey Stick graph is called MBH98. This newer version suffers from all the errors that the earlier one suffered. McIntyre tears it to shreds on his site. One piece of chicanery you will note is the black line at the end. That represents global average temperatures supposedly derived from actual recorded temperatures. So what Mann is doing is combing proxy temperatures with actual temperatures. Anyone knowledgeable in statistics would tell you that such a procedure is totally illegitimate.

This maneuver is how Mann performed the "trick" known as "hide the decline." If you examine the proxy graphs you'll not that they all show a downturn towards the end. That doesn't look very menacing when you're trying to scare taxpayers into coughing up $73 trillion dollars. So what Mann does is overlay the graph of averaged recorded temperatures on top of the graphs of the proxies. That's how he "hides the decline."

This graph is proof that Michael Mann is a con artist who is deliberate publishing bogus data. Anyone who falls for this stuff is terminally gullible.

Are you still trying to sell the BS that there is some relationship between AGW and MWP?

Tough sell to scientists. Easy to politicians like McIntyre.

Your failure to understand the significance of the MWP to the AGW con only demonstrates that you're an ignoramus.

Show us the science that demonstrates their relationship.

 

[PMZ]

Simple answers from simpletons. He was. Prior to Mann's hockey stick, the IPPC graph of world temperatures showed a WMP that was considerably warmer than current temperatures. That kind of picture does not inspire terror in the minds of the voters. Only a fool would believe that Mann didn't intend to eliminate the evidence of prior warm climate.

Only a fool would follow an obviously well paid big oil hit man.

Whose paying him, dipstick? You keep trying to avoid answering that question. Of course, we know whose paying Michael Mann.

Who?

 

[PMZ]

You don't. If you display them on the same chart, then you damn well better put that information on the chart. Failure to do so is deliberate deception.

In other words, you avoid science. You maintain ignorance so you can avoid solving the problem.

Good for conservatives but a failure for those building a better future.

You're a pathetic brainwashed drone. labeling everything you believe "science" doesn't make it so.

I don't define science, it defines me. I don't call it science unless I know it is. You are unequipped to make that call.

 

[bripat9643]

Are you still trying to sell the BS that there is some relationship between AGW and MWP?

Tough sell to scientists. Easy to politicians like McIntyre.

Your failure to understand the significance of the MWP to the AGW con only demonstrates that you're an ignoramus.

Show us the science that demonstrates their relationship.

A dolt with a 5th grade education could understand it.

 

[bripat9643]

Only a fool would follow an obviously well paid big oil hit man.

Whose paying him, dipstick? You keep trying to avoid answering that question. Of course, we know whose paying Michael Mann.

Who?

The state and federal government. He's also getting money from "Earth in the balance" and from the sale of CurrentTV. In other words, he's making a fortune off the anthropogenic global warming scam.

 

[PMZ]

Your failure to understand the significance of the MWP to the AGW con only demonstrates that you're an ignoramus.

Show us the science that demonstrates their relationship.

A dolt with a 5th grade education could understand it.

You prove otherwise.

 

[PMZ]

Whose paying him, dipstick? You keep trying to avoid answering that question. Of course, we know whose paying Michael Mann.

Who?

The state and federal government. He's also getting money from "Earth in the balance" and from the sale of CurrentTV. In other words, he's making a fortune off the anthropogenic global warming scam.

The evidence is?

 

[PMZ]

Who?

The state and federal government. He's also getting money from "Earth in the balance" and from the sale of CurrentTV. In other words, he's making a fortune off the anthropogenic global warming scam.

The evidence is?

Here's what Wikipedia says about Current.

Current TV was an American television channel from August 1, 2005 to August 20, 2013. Al Gore, Joel Hyatt, and Ronald Burkle each held a sizable stake in Current, and Comcast and DirecTV each held a smaller stake.[1]

On January 2, 2013, it was announced that Current was sold by Gore and Hyatt to Qatar-based broadcaster Al Jazeera Media Network,[2][3][1] which stated that it planned on shutting down the Current TV channel, retaining its off-air staff and launching a new New York-based channel called Al Jazeera America using Current's distribution network.[4] It also planned on scrapping the channel's programming lineup and brand.[5]

No mention of Mann. He gets paid by the state because he works for the state. He gets paid for his book because he wrote it.

No mention anywhere of getting paid by the federal government.

 

[RollingThunder]

Your failure to understand the significance of the MWP to the AGW con only demonstrates that you're an ignoramus.

Show us the science that demonstrates their relationship.

A dolt with a 5th grade education could understand it.

Although you are indeed "a dolt with a 5th grade education, you manage to misunderstand everything. You have no actual 'evidence' to support your specious braindead claims, you have only your retarded denier cult myths. Because of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, you are literally too frigging stupid to be able to recognize just how clueless you actually are.